《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。
第二十七章 中国的现实与时务
中国像一艘庞大的航船，儒家经典就是中国统治者驾驶这艘航船的航海图。它是人类设计的最完美的蓝图，或者如已故的威廉姆斯博士，莱格博士及其他一些学者所说的，在某种意义上，说它出于天启，也许并不过分。中国人利用这份航海图创造了多少业绩，航行过哪些海域，目前正朝哪个方向前进——这些都是非常重要的问题，因为中国和西方许多国家的交往越来越密切，将来也可能对它们产生越来越大的影响。
据说，社会道德生活有六项指标，每一项都十分重要；它们共同构成检验社会性格的可靠证据。具体如下：1.工业水平；2.社会风俗习惯；3.妇女的地位和家庭的特征，4.政府的组织形式和统治者的品质；5.公共教育状况；6.宗教信仰与现实生活的关系。
上述各项指标，我们在讨论中国人的各种性格特征时，都附带作了阐述，虽然还不够充分，也没有对各自所占比重作必要的安排。在考察中国人的性格时，有太多方面需要注意，有时不得不忍痛割爱，被迫放弃。我们只想通过自己的选择勾勒出中国人性格的大致框架。如果真要完全展现，还有许多其他特征应考虑在内。
我们在阐明中国人的性格特征时，列举的例证大部分都具有说服力，因为经过权衡，它们似乎更为典型。它们就像组成一副骨架的骨头，每一块都应事先放在各自的位置。除非是冒牌货，否则完全不能忽视。确实可能有人反对，每块骨头都放错了位置，而且另外一些可以改变整体结构形态的骨头也没放在恰当的位置。这种批评极为公正。对此我们不仅承认，而且还要特别说明，这些选择的“性格”不可能使人全面认识中国人，就像描绘某人的眼睛、耳朵和下巴，不能让人形成对他的准确印象一样。但同时，我们必须提醒读者，那些结论并非仓促之间形成的，实际上，我们观察的事实远远多于本书所提到的，即使稍微难以肯定的观点，也都得到充分地论证。这些事实比比皆是，就像北方起大风时的尘沙，灌满了人的眼、耳、鼻、头发，衣服经常遮天蔽日，有时中午也需要点灯。这种现象，人们也许会搞错起因，但对它的描述是完全正确的。不过，观察物理现象和道德现象有重大的差异：前者每一个人都可以观察到，而后者只有幸运者才能遇到，而且还要善于观察。
中国人的生活充满了矛盾的现象，只看一面，而忽视另一面，肯定会作出错误判断，同时还永远认识不到自己是错误的。将两个明显不和谐的观点融合起来，不是件容易事。然而时常又必须完成这一任务，世界上也没有任何地方能比在中国更需要这样做的了。在中国，完全了解事物的一个方面已是相当困难，更何况两个方面。
我们已经谈了，儒教具有极高的道德品性，而且相信，它能造就许多品德高尚的人。这也正是人们对它奇妙的道德体系的企盼。可是它如何使大部分人的品德都变得高尚呢？有三个方面的问题，可以揭示人的真实性格：他与自己的关系如何？他与别人关系如何？他与自己的信仰关系如何？通过这三个互相联系的方面，就可以对一个人的性格准确定位。读过前面各章的读者，已经知道了现代中国人在这三个问题上的答案：他们对自己和别人缺少真诚和信义；对别人缺少利他主义；他们的信仰是多神论。泛神论和不可知论。
中国人并不缺乏智慧，也不缺乏耐心、现实性、快乐，这些方面他们都是杰出的。他们缺乏的是人格和良心。许多中国官员受不了贿赂的诱惑，就做了错事，还以为永远不会被发现，因为“天知，地知，你知，我知。”有多少中国人能抵制得了压力，不推荐公认的不称职的亲戚呢？想像一下抵制在家庭中带来的后果吧，中国人害怕面对这一后果，难道还有什么奇怪的吗？把道德律令引入这样的领域，中国人是怎样想的呢？看到中国的民政机构，军队机构、商业机构中充满了寄生现象和裙带关系。难道还会对中国门卫和警察的失职感到奇怪吗？
想了解中国人道德的真实情况，会得到中国人的帮助。尽管他们竭力掩盖自己及朋友的缺点，却经常对民族性格的弱点直言不讳。他们对其他中国人的描述，时常让我们想起卡莱尔在《弗雷德里克大帝的一生》一书中以快乐的笔调描写的一段对话。这位君王很喜欢一位学校监督员，总爱跟他谈点什么。一天，君王问道：“苏泽先生，你的那些学校近来怎样？我们的教育事业发展得如何？”“当然啦，不错，陛下，最近几年好多了。”苏泽答道。“最近几年？为什么？”“啊，陛下，从前，人们相信人天生邪恶，学校实行严格的管理制度；可现在，我们认识到人天生向善，校长采用了更为宽容的管理方法。”“天生向善！”弗雷德里克摇着他那苍老的头，悲哀地笑了笑：“哎，亲爱的苏泽，我看你一点儿也不了解这该死的人类。”
中国社会就像中国的许多风景胜地。远看，具有诱人的魅力。可是，再近点，总会发现很多破烂不堪、令人讨厌之处，空气中弥漫着难闻的气味。照片绝不能客观地反映中国的风景胜地，虽然照相机被认为具有“无情的公正”，但有关中国的照片却不如此，肮脏和难闻的东西都被遗漏了。
在中国，象征幸福的东西如此之多，可谓举世无双。可是，不用过太久，我们就会发现，中国人的幸福只是徒具其表，我们相信这是个真实的评价，就像说亚洲不存在家庭生活一样。
在对中国进行理论分析，并探讨如何使这种理论与现实相适应时，我们总是想起那些石碑，它们立在大路与河流交叉的地方，以“纪念”修桥的人。有时，这块碑旁边会有半打同样的石碑，它们已经缺头少角，残破不堪。对逝去的岁月和历代的纪念物，我们一直很感兴趣，当我们问起过去修的那些桥时，人们回答说：“啊，它们嘛，好几代以前就不存在了一一一谁知道什么时候。”
几年前，笔者在大运河上游玩时，遇到了逆风，被迫停下。我们在岸上闲逛，看到农民们正在田野里劳作。时值5月，田野里一片翠绿清明的景象。此时，任何游客都会对精细，不知疲倦、辛勤劳作的农民表示赞叹，因为他们把大片田野变得像花园一样美丽。然而，和他们稍稍交谈，才发现，他们刚刚度过一个艰苦的冬季。去年的洪水和干旱使他们颗粒未收，附近村庄的人都快饿死了一一也就是说，目前他们正在忍饥挨饿。政府发的一点点救济，只能是杯水车薪，零星的一点点，还要受到无耻的侵吞。这些可怜的农民毫无办法，一点儿也不能保护自己。可是从表面上，这一切完全看不出来。而其他地方是丰收年景，人们安居乐业。北京的《邸报》和中国的西方杂志都没有报道过任何有关消息。忽视现实，并不能改变现实。无论其他人是否知道这件事，当地人仍在忍受饥饿。即使断然否认这些事实，也不能证明采取了有效的救济措施。经验地认为中国人应是什么样子，是一回事；而仔细观察他们实际上是什么样子，完全是另外一回事。
我们很清楚，中国社会存在的许多弊病，在西方“有名无实的基督教国家”也同样存在。或许读者会感到失望，因为我们没有对这一事实作出更明确的结论，也没有进行系统的比较。我们确曾这样想过，但最后不得不放弃。笔者熟悉的西方国家十分有限，难以完成这项任务。请读者自己比较吧，不过要尽量摆脱“爱国主义的偏见”。在证据不足的情况下，还要暂认为中国人是无辜的。经过比较，我们至少可以看出，西方国家面对的是充满黎明曙光的未来，中国面对的却是充满黑暗的漫漫过去。我们想请读者好好深思一个意味深长的事实：这到底是怎么造成的呢？
再重复一遍，中国需要的很少，只有人格和良心。也可以说，二者是一个东西，良心本来就是人格。有人称赞一位著名的钢琴制造家，说他“像他的钢琴一样——宽厚、正直、高贵”。在中国，谁遇到过这样的人？
有一本关于一位英国作家的传记，在结尾处，他的妻子对刚去世几年的丈夫这样写道：“外界把他当成作家。传教士，一名社会成员；但只有每天和他亲密生活在一个家庭的人，才知道他是一个怎样的人。在他人眼里，他那浪漫的一生，温柔细腻、缠绵悱恻的私人信件，必定为一层面纱所笼罩。但只要稍微揭开这层面纱，我可以说，假如在人世间最高尚、最甜蜜的感情中，有一份永不褪色的爱情一——六十三年，纯洁、热烈依旧——无论生病的时候，还是健康的时候，无论是阳光明媚的日子，还是凄风苦雨的日子，无论是白天，还是黑夜，从未出现过一个仓促草率的字眼，一个不耐烦的手势，或一个自私的举止。如果这份高尚的爱情可以证明骑士时代永不会过去，那么，对于一位有福永远享受这份爱情的女人来说，查尔斯·金斯利是一位真正完美的骑士。”
基督教文明最美好的果子，就是它创造的完美的人生。如此人生，并不少见，当代就有数百个记录，更有千千万万不为公众所知的。每位读者至少知道一个把全部生命献给他人的例子，有些读者可能有幸在自己的经历中遇到更多这类例子。我们怎样解释这些人生呢？他们的动力来自何处？我们不希望过分怀疑，但经过反复考虑之后，我们确信，如果使中国变成现有这个样子的那种力量，能塑造一个像金斯利一样的人，这在道德方面，将是一个伟大的奇迹，比道家典籍中所有寓言里的奇迹都要大。任何人类制度，都不能逃脱无情的规律，《圣经》上说：“看他们的果子，便知道他们。”儒教有足够的时间获得其最终结果。我们相信，可做的，它已全做了，以后再也不会有更大的果子。它已使人的能力发挥到了极致，而且超过了其他地方、其他条件下人类所能做的一切。耐心地考察了中国的这些现象之后，即使是最友善的批评家也不得不悲哀地承认：“是儒教造就了中国。”
在中国改革问题上，存在三种不同的态度。第一，没必要改革。虽然不是所有的中国人都这样想，但无疑有不少中国人抱着这一态度。某些不了解中国的西方人也这样认为，第二，改革不可能成功。真正的、长期的改革尚未开始，就必定会遇到巨大的障碍，许多有机会了解到这一点的人，都持有这种悲观的论调。他们认为，对庞大的中国进行彻底的改革，就像给木乃伊注入活力使其复活一样，毫无希望。不过，如果没有我们前面的论述，这一观点就显得论据不足。
还有人认为，中国不仅需要改革，而且也可能成功。他们认为，问题的关键在于以何种方式进行改革。这方面，也有几种观点。
我们首先面对的问题是，中国是否能够自我革新？认识到改革之必要的中国政治家认为，中国当然应该自我革新。最近，北京《邸报》的一份奏折中，就有一个自我革新的例子。写奏折的官员抱怨内地某省的百姓骚动不安，并说他己派出一批得力人员奔赴各地，向百姓宣讲康熙皇帝的《神训广谕》。他显然是希望以这种强有力的方式教化百姓，移民易俗。尽管一无所获，但宣讲道德箴言（对基督教传道的原始模仿）在改良人的道德品行方面，仍不失为一种最有希望获得成功的方法。教化失败后，没有别的办法，只能像过去一样，再次进行同样的努力。长期的经验表明，这一做法必然会失败，事件变化，但结果依旧，全部努力都会化为泡影。那个石腿，雄辩的老人的寓言已充分表明这一点。
既然箴言无效，人们便寄希望于楷模。这一点，前面已作过讨论，这里重提，是想指出为什么最好的楷模没有产生预期的结果。其原因在于他们无力使更多的人接受他们生命中的最初动力。比如，山西省前任巡抚张之洞，据报告说，他曾采取强有力的措施制止官吏吸食鸦片，禁止百姓种植鸦片。但他的下属中有多少人能与他通力配合呢？没有这种配合，其结果可想而知。任何一个外国人，如果他必须依赖的中国人不支持他的改革，他不能不承认，在中国问题上，他无能为力。对于一个中国人，无论他位居何职，难道不同样会感到束手无策？最多是在目标确定之后，便着手处理面前的问题（只是表面上的），仿佛一只猫待在阁楼上，就要清除上面的老鼠。这位官员一旦调任，甚至还未开始走，老鼠就已经开始活动了，一切照旧。
中国政治家应该怀有亲自改革祖国的希望，这不仅可信，也极为自然，因为除此之外，他也别无选择。如果一位精明的不列颠官员，了解了“东方人特有的可怕的冷淡和宿命观——对这种极端的愚蠢，席勒说，即使上帝，也无计可施”——并且知道长期“改革”的方方面面，他可能早就把结果准确地预测到了。巴伯先生在谈及中国西南开采铜矿暴露出来的弊病时说：“铜矿还没有完全开采之前，云南必须补充人口，必须平等对待劳力，必须修公路，必须改善扬子江上游的航运设施——一句话，中国必须开化。除非有外来的动力支援，否则，想完成这一过程，一千年的时间都不够。”＊企图改革中国而不“借助外力”，就像在大海上造船，难以驾驭的海水和海风会使这一切化为黄粱一梦。始于并终于机器内部的力是不能使机器前进的。
北运河在北京和天津之间，有一个转弯，在那儿，游客会看到岸边有一个倾圮了一半的庙，那一半被大水冲走了。靠水的一边有一道精心修筑的栅栏，由拴在桩上的一捆捆芦苇组成，用来挡水。神像立在外头，任凭风吹日晒，河床中积满了淤泥，周围的田野没有任何阻拦洪水的设施，这是一幅荒凉破败的帝国残景。中国有一句经典格言：“朽木不可雕。”只有将朽木全部砍掉，老树才能发新芽。中国想从内部改革是不能成功的。
不久前，西方国家广泛认为，中国可以通过加入“联盟”而获得新生。不过，这种希望没有多少切实的根据。世界主要国家在北京派驻代表已有三十多年了，它们到底为苦难的中国带来了多少有益的影响？而且，令人悲哀的是，大国间的关系并不对中国格外有利。中国人敏于事，西方人有什么证据可以使中国人相信，它们发展自己国家的动机能比中国人改革的动机更高尚？既然中国自己正在成为一股“力量”，她就忙于挑拨其他国家之间的关系，从中取利、却没想到其他国家是在“掠夺”她，而不是在进行道德教化。因此，即使中国要改革，也不能通过外交途径。
＊已故的巴伯先生这段意味深长的话，最近为1890年8月北京《邸报》的一篇奏折证实了，云南矿务执事唐奘报告了工作与运输的条件，他说：“人们大量进行非法开采，官员们害怕独揽开采权会带来不良后果，就想了一个办法，他们低价购进非法开采的铜矿石，较有效地利用了人们的额外劳动，这一方法也颇受当地人的欢迎。我认为，这种方法既可以使采矿正常进行，也不会给外来侵入者提供借口。”不过，皇帝只命令税务署将这份奏章“记录备案。”
奏折附文中，巡抚报告说，每月可以从非法采矿者手中买进一万斤铜矿石，但“不付钱，只供给他们油和大米。”最后，他还说：“矿区的整体情况非常令人满意。”
皇帝并不是每天都能收到巡抚一级官员的汇报。许多人故意违反法令，而地方官又不敢动他们，不过，油和大米可以使他们满足，一点点钱就足以使他们交出偷采的矿。正是由于藐视皇帝及其他官员，帝国的采矿业才“非常令人满意。”无怪乎要让税务署“记录在案！”
也有人坚信，中国不仅需要加入国际大家庭，而且需要自由交流、自由贸易，需要人们彼此相爱、情同手足。只有商业主义才是中国问题的灵丹妙药。她需要更多的进出口，更低的关税，需要取消通行税。二、三十年前，我们也许不能听到这些观点，那时中国人已充分地渗透到澳大利亚和美国，可他们并没有学会“自由交流”和“彼此相爱、亲如兄弟”。不是早就听说中国的茶和草绠质量不合格吗？它们在某种程度上还不如从西方进口的货物。
商业作为文明的辅助手段，其价值是无法估量的。但它本身并不能作为改革的手段。现代经济学的伟大倡导者亚当·斯密把人定义为“商业动物”。他说，任何两条狗都不知道交换骨头。即使假设它们知道，而且在一个大城市里，群狗建立了一个骨头交易市场，这又会对狗的性格带来什么必然的影响呢？古代那些伟大的商业国家，并不是最好的国家，相反，总是最差的。它们的现代继承者，情形完全不同，并不能归因于贸易，完全是由其他原因造成的。有句话说得好，商业如同基督教，目标广大无边；但商业又像雨后彩虹，总弯向金色的一边。
只要看一看非洲大陆就行了。猖獗的酒类走私和奴隶贸易，哪一种不是由基督教国家引入的？这些无法形容的灾难，难道不说明，商业并没有给非洲带来革新吗？
许多了解中国现状的朋友，为中国开的药方要比上面复杂多了。他们认为，中国需要西方的文化，西方的科学，和梅杜斯先生说的“物质文明”。中国文明已有数千年的历史，我们的祖先还在森林中寻找食物时，她己进入文明社会数百年了。只要是地球上能吃的东西，她都试着烹好过，这种文明如何能改革呢？文化是自私的，它总是有意无意地强调“我，而不是你”。正如在中国，我们引以为自豪的文化，却经常遭到嘲弄和非理性的讥笑。如果中国文化对此不适当加以控制，难道外国引入中国的事物不会遭到同样的命运？
科学，无疑也是中国最迫切需要的。他们需要各种科学来开发帝国潜在的资源。他们已清楚地看到了这一点，不久的将来，将会看得更清楚。但掌握科学就一定有利于改善帝国的道德状况吗？这要通过何种方式来实现呢？化学是与现代社会发展联系最紧密的学科，然而，化学知识在中国的广泛传播就是中国人获得新生的道德手段吗？难道在生活的各个领域就不会传人新的、意想不到的欺诈与暴力行为吗？按照中国人的现有性格，如果他们掌握了制造现代炸药的配方，而且对化学药品不加控制，难道人们还能过着安全的日子吗？
发展“物质文明”就意味着将具备西方高度发展的物质成果。包括以蒸汽机和电力所创造的各种奇迹。人们以为，这才是中国真正需要的，也是她的全部需要。连接各个城市的铁路、内陆河上的汽船航运、完备的邮电系统、国家银行，银市作为通讯中枢的电话与电报一一一这些都是美好的新中国的明显标志。
这也许就是张之洞的未成型的想法。他在主张修铁路的奏折中，断言铁路将会消除河运中很多可能的危险，“比如水手偷盗”等等。那么，物质文明的发展就能消除道德上的邪恶吗？铁路能保证雇员，甚至是老板的诚实吗？我们不是读过《伊利城的一章》吗？那里整段的国际铁路被盗走，股东们束手无策，找不到“该负责的人”。物质文明是自己发展起来的，还是由一系列复杂的条件，经过长期协调，缓慢地发展起来的？引人投票箱，就能使中国成为民主国家，建立共和制度吗？如果中国不想创造西方那样的条件，她就不能获得同样的结果，也不能发展更多的物质文明。这些条件不是物质的，而是道德的。
中国人为什么不能学习香港、上海及其他通商口岸的经验，在内地城市设立“租界”呢？因为他们不希望这样的变革，如果设立，他们会难以忍受。在近三分之一的世纪中，他们亲眼看到帝国海关实行正规管理的成效，可为什么不在其他地方实行同样的管理方法呢？因为在中国目前的情况下，中国人对中国人采用这种抽税方法，在道德上是难以接受的。英国人的人格与良心经历了一千多年才发展到目前的水平，中国人不可能立即接受，并实行这一切，不可能像克虏伯大炮一样，架起来就可以发射。
盎格鲁—撒克逊民族培养人格和良心的动力就像裘力斯.凯撒在不列颠登陆或威廉大帝入侵的历史一样确凿无疑，它诞生于基督教，又随着基督教的发展而发展。随着基督教在人们心中扎下根，它们也变得枝叶繁茂了。
让我们听一下伟大的文化倡导者马歇尔·阿诺德是如何说的吧：“每一个有教养的人都热爱希腊，感激希腊。希腊是艺术与科学的旗手，如同以色列是正义的旗手一样。现在，世界上离不开艺术与科学。伟大的希腊人是那样热衷于艺术与科学，反倒使品行成了普通的家常事。辉煌的希腊因不注重品行而在地球上消失了，因为人类需要品行、沉静、人格……不仅如此，它也成功地向世人启示，即使在知识受到高度尊重，世界需要越来越多的美和知识的今天，支配世界的不是希腊，而是犹太；不是希腊人卓越的艺术和科学，而是犹太人非凡的正义。”
为了改革中国，就必须探明中国人性格的来龙去脉；使之净化，就必须在实际上了推崇人的良心，而不能像历代的日本天皇，整日被关在宫中。现代哲学的一位领袖说得好：“铅的本能炼不出金的品行。”中国需要的是正义，为了获得正义，中国人必须了解上帝，必须更新人的概念，并确立人与上帝之间的关系。他们需要全新的灵魂，全新的家庭，全新的社会。总之，中国人的各种需要化为一种迫切的需要，即她应该永久地。彻底地接受基督教文明。
英文原版：
XXVII. THE REAL CONDITION OF CHINA AND HER PRESENT NEEDS
It has been said that“there are six indications of the moral life of a community, any one of which is significant; when they all agree in their testimony they afford an infallible test of its true character. These are: (1) the condition of industry; (2) the social habits; (3) the position of woman and the character of the family; (4) the organisation of government and the character of the rulers; (5) the state of public education; (6) the practical bearing of religious worship on actual life.”
In the discussion of the various characteristics of the Chinese which have attracted our notice, each of the foregoing points has been incidentally illustrated, albeit incompletely and without that observance of proportion necessary in a full treatment of these topics. In a survey of the Chinese character the field of view is so extensive that many subjects must be passed by altogether. The characteristics which have been selected are intended merely as points through which lines may be drawn to aid in outlining the whole. There are many additional“characteristics”which ought to be included in a full presentation of the Chinese as they are.
The greater part of the illustrative incidents which have been already cited in exemplification of various“characteristics”of the Chinese have been mentioned because they appeared upon examination to be typical. They are like bones of a skeleton, which must be fitted into their place before the whole structure can be seen. It will not do to ignore them, unless perhaps it can be shown that they are not bones at all, but merely plaster-of-Paris imitations. It may indeed be objected that the true place of each separate bone has been mistaken, and that others which are important modifiers of the total result have not been adjusted to their proper places. This criticism, which is a perfectly just one, we not only admit but expressly affirm, declaring that it is not possible to gain a complete idea of the Chinese from selected“characteristics,”any more than it is possible to gain a correct idea of a human countenance from descriptive essays on its eyes, its nose, or its chin. But at the same time we must remind the reader that the judgments expressed have not been hastily formed, that they are based upon a mass of observations far in excess of what has been referred to, and that in many cases the opinions might have been made indefinitely stronger, and still have been fully warranted by the facts. These facts are as patent to one who comes within their range as a North China dust-storm, which fills the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, the hair, and the clothing with an almost impalpable powder, often surcharging the atmosphere with electricity, and sometimes rendering lamps necessary at noonday. One may be very wrong in his theory of the causes of this phenomenon, but altogether right in his description of it. But there is this important difference between the observation of physical and of moral phenomena: the former force themselves on the attention of every human being, while the latter are perceived only by those whose opportunities are favourable, and whose faculties are directed towards the things that are to be seen.
The truth is that the phenomena of Chinese life are of a contradictory character, and whoever looks upon one face of the shield, ignoring the other, will infallibly judge erroneously, and yet will never come to a perception of the fact that he is wrong. The union of two apparently irreconcilable views in one concept is not an easy task, but it is often a very necessary one, and nowhere is it more necessary than in China, where it is so difficult to see even one side completely, not to speak of both.
Of the lofty moral quality of Confucianism we have already spoken. That it produces many individuals possessing a high moral character we are prepared to believe. That is what ought to be expected from so excellent a system of morals. But does it produce such characters on any considerable scale, and with any approach to uniformity? The real character of any human being can be discovered by answering three questions: What is his relation to himself? What is his relation to his fellow-men? What is his relation to the object of his worship? Through these three fixed points the circle defining his true position may be drawn. Those who may have followed us thus far know already what replies we find in the Chinese of to-day to these test questions. His relations both to himself and to others are marked by an absence of sincerity, and his relations to others by an absence of altruism; his relations to the objects of his worship are those of a polytheist, a pantheist, and an agnostic.
What the Chinese lack is not intellectual ability. It is not patience, practicality, nor cheerfulness, for in all these qualities they greatly excel. What they do lack is Character and Conscience. Some Chinese officials cannot be tempted by any bribe, and refuse to commit a wrong that will never be found out, because“Heaven knows, earth knows, you know, and I know.”But how many Chinese could be found who would resist the pressure brought upon them to recommend for employment a relative who was known to be incompetent? Imagine for a moment the domestic consequences of such resistance, and is it strange that any Chinese should dread to face them? But what Chinese would ever think of carrying theoretical morals into such a region as that? When it is seen what a part parasitism and nepotism play in the administration of China, civil, military, and commercial, is it any wonder that Chinese gate-keepers and constables are not to be depended upon for the honest performance of their duties?
He who wishes to learn the truth about the moral condition of the Chinese can do so by the aid of the Chinese themselves, who, however ready to cover their own shortcomings and those of their friends, are often singularly frank in confessing the weak points in the national character. Some of these descriptions of the Chinese by other Chinese have often served to us as reminders of a conversation upon which Carlyle dwells with evident enjoyment, in one of the volumes of his "Life of Frederick the Great." That monarch had a school-inspector, of whom he was rather fond, and with whom he liked to talk a little. “Well, M. Sulzer, how do your schools get on?” asked the King one day. "How goes our education business?” “Surely, not ill, your Majesty, and much better in late years,” answered Sulzer. “In late years, why?” “Well, your Majesty, in former times, the notion being that mankind were naturally inclined to evil, a system of severity prevailed in schools; but now, when we recognise that the inborn inclination of men is rather to good than to evil, schoolmasters have adopted a more generous procedure.” “Inclination rather to good!” said Frederick, shaking his old head, with a sad smile. “Alas, dear Sulzer, I see you don't know that damned race of creatures.” (Er kennt nicht diese verdammte Race.)
Chinese society resembles some of the scenery in China. At a little distance it appears fair and attractive. Upon a nearer approach, however, there is invariably much that is shabby and repulsive, and the air is full of odours which are not fragrant. No photograph does justice to Chinese scenery, for though photography has been described as "justice without mercy," this is not true of Chinese photography, in which the dirt and the smells are omitted.
There is no country in the world where the symbol denoting happiness is so constantly before the eye as in China. But it requires no long experience to discover that it is a true observation that Chinese happiness is all on the outside. We believe it to be a criticism substantially just that there are no homes in Asia.
In contemplating the theory of Chinese society, and the way in which that theory is reduced to fact, we are often reminded of those stone tablets to be seen at the spot where the principal highways cross streams. The object of these tablets is to preserve in“everlasting remembrance”the names of those by whom the bridges were erected and repaired. Sometimes there are half a dozen such stones in immediate proximity, in various stages of decay. We are much interested in these memorials of former dynasties and of ages long gone by, and inquire for the bridge the building of which they commemorate. “Oh, that,” we are told, “disappeared generations ago—no one knows when!”
A few years ago the writer was travelling on the Grand Canal, when a head-wind prevented further progress. Strolling along the bank, we found the peasants busily engaged in planting their fields. It was May, and the appearance of the country was one of great beauty. Any traveller might have admired the minute and untiring industry which cultivated such wide areas as if they were gardens. But a short conversation with these same peasants brought to light the fact that the winter had been to them a time of bitter severity. Floods and drought having in the previous year destroyed the crops, in every village around people had starved to death—nay, were at that moment starving. The magistrates had given a little relief, but it was inadequate, sporadic, and subject to shameful peculations, against which the poor people had no protection and for which there was no redress. Yet nothing of all this appeared upon the surface. Elsewhere the year had been a prosperous one, the harvests abundant and the people content. No memorial in the Peking Gazette, no news item in the foreign journals published in China, had taken account of the facts. But ignorance of these facts on the part of others certainly had no tendency to alter the facts themselves. The people of the district continued to starve, whether other people knew it or not. Even the fiat denial of the facts would not prove an adequate measure of relief. A priori reasoning as to what the Chinese ought to be is one thing; careful observation of what they actually are is quite another.
That many of the evils in Chinese society the existence of which we have pointed out are also to be found in Western "nominally Christian lands," we are perfectly aware. Perhaps the reader may have been disappointed not to find a more definite recognition of this fact, and some systematic attempt at comparison and contrast. Such a procedure was in contemplation, but it had to be given up. The writer's acquaintance with any Western country except his own is of an altogether too limited and inadequate character to justify the undertaking, which must for other reasons have failed. Let each reader make his own running comparisons as he proceeds, freeing himself as far as he may be able from "the bias of patriotism," and always giving the Chinese the benefit of the doubt. After such a comparison shall have been made, the very lowest result which we should expect would be the ascertained fact that the face of every Western land is towards the dawning morning of the future, while the face of China is always and everywhere towards the darkness of the remote past. A most pregnant fact, if it is a fact, and one which we beg the reader to ponder well; for how came it about?
The needs of China, let us repeat, are few. They are only Character and Conscience. Nay, they are but one, for Conscience is Character. It was said of a famous maker of pianos that he was "like his own instruments—square, upright, and grand." Does one ever meet any such characters in China?
At the close of the biography of one of the literary men of England, who died but a few years ago, occurs the following passage, written by his wife: "The outside world must judge him as an author, a preacher, a member of society; but they only who lived with him in the intimacy of everyday life at home can tell what he was as a man. Over the real romance of his life, and over the tenderest, loveliest passages in his private letters, a veil must be thrown; but it will not be lifting it too far to say, that if in the highest, closest of earthly relationships, a love that never failed—pure, passionate, for six-and-thirty years—a love which never stooped from its own lofty level to a hasty word, an impatient gesture, or a selfish act, in sickness or in health, in sunshine or in storm, by day or by night, could prove that the age of chivalry has not passed away forever, Charles Kingsley fulfilled the ideal of a 'most true and perfect knight to the one woman blest with that love in time and to eternity.”
The fairest fruit of Christian civilisation is in the beautiful records of such lives as Christianity produces. They are not confined to any generation, and there are thousands upon thousands of such lives of which no public record ever appears. Every reader must have known of at least one such life of single-hearted devotion to the good of others, and some have been privileged to know many such, within the range of their own experience. How are these lives to be accounted for, and whence do they draw their inspiration? We have no wish to be unduly sceptical, but after repeated and prolonged consideration of the subject, it is our deliberate conviction that if the forces which make the lives of the Chinese what they are were to produce one such character as Mrs. Kingsley represents her husband to have been, that would be a moral miracle greater than any or all that are recorded in the books of Taoist fables. No human institution can escape from the law, inexorable because divine: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The forces of Confucianism have had an abundant time in which to work out their ultimate results. We believe that they have long since done all that they are capable of doing, and that from them there is no further fruit to be expected. They have achieved all that man alone can do, and more than he has done in any other land, under any other conditions. And after a patient survey of all that China has to offer, the most friendly critic is compelled, reluctantly and sadly, to coincide in the verdict, "The answer to Confucianism is China."
Three mutually inconsistent theories are held in regard to reform in China. First, that it is unnecessary. This is no doubt the view of some of the Chinese themselves, though by no means of all Chinese. It is also the opinion adopted by certain foreigners, who look at China and the Chinese through the mirage of distance. Second, that reform is impossible. This pessimistic conclusion is arrived at by many who have had too much occasion to know the tremendous obstacles which any permanent and real reform must encounter, before it can even be tried. To such persons, the thorough reformation of so vast a body as the Chinese people appears to be a task as hopeless as the galvanising into life of an Egyptian mummy. To us, the second of these views appears only less unreasonable than the first; but if what has been already said fails to make this evident, nothing that could here be added would be sufficient to do so.
To those who are agreed that reform in China is both necessary and possible, the question by what agency that reform is to be brought about is an important one, and it is not surprising that there are several different and inharmonious replies.
At the very outset, we have to face the inquiry, Can China be reformed from within herself? That she can be thus reformed is taken for granted by those of her statesmen who are able to perceive the vital need of reformation. An instance of this assumption occurred in a recent memorial in the Peking Gazette, in which the writer complained of the inhabitants of one of the central provinces as turbulent, and stated that a certain number of competent persons had been appointed to go through the province, to explain to the people the maxims of the Sacred Edicts of K'ang Hsi, by which vigorous measure it was apparently expected that the character of the population would in time be ameliorated. This explanation of moral maxims to the people (originally an imitation of Christian preaching) is a favourite prescription for the amendment of the morals of the time, in spite of the barrenness of results. When it fails, as it always does, there is nothing to be done but to try it over again. That it must fail, is shown by the longest experience, with every modification of circumstances except in the results, which are as nearly as possible uniformly nil. This has been sufficiently shown already in the instructive allegory of the eloquent old man whose limbs were stone.
But if mere precept is inert, it might be expected that example would be more efficient. This topic has also been previously discussed, and we need recur to it only to point out the reason why in the end the best examples always fail to produce the intended results. It is because they have no power to propagate the impulse which gave them life. Take, for instance, the case of Chang Chih-tung, formerly Governor of Shansi, where he is reported to have made the most vigorous efforts to put a stop to the practice of opium-smoking among the officials, and opium-raising among the people. How many of his subordinates would honestly co-operate in this effort, and what could possibly be effected without such co-operation? Every foreigner is compelled to recognise his own comparative helplessness in Chinese matters when the intermediaries through whom alone he can act are not in sympathy with his plans for reform. But if a foreigner is comparatively helpless, a Chinese, no matter what his rank, is not less so. The utmost that can be expected is that when his purpose is seen to be inflexibly fixed, the incorruptible official will carry everything before him (so far as external appearances go), as a cat clears an attic of rats, while the cat is there. But the moment the official is removed, almost before he has fairly gone, the rats are back at their work, and everything goes on as before.
That a Chinese statesman should cherish hopes of personally reforming his country is not only creditable to him, but perfectly natural, for he is cognisant of no other way than the one which we have described. An intelligent British official, who knows "the terrible vis inertic of Oriental apathy and fatalism—that dumb stupidity against which Schiller says even the gods are powerless"—and who knows what is involved in permanent "reform," would have been able to predict the result with infallible precision. In referring to certain abuses in southwest China, connected with the production of copper, Mr. Baber remarks: "Before the mines can be adequately worked, Yunnan must be peopled, the Lolos must be fairly treated, roads must be constructed, the facilities offered for navigation by the upper Yang-tse must be improved—in short, China must be civilised. A thousand years would be too short a period to allow of such a consummation, unless some force from without should accelerate the impulse."* To attempt to reform China without “some force from without,” is like trying to build a ship in the sea; all the laws of air and water conspire to make it impossible. It is a principle of mechanics that a force that begins and ends in a machine has no power to move it.
Between Tientsin and Peking there is a bend in the Peiho, where the traveller sees half of a ruined temple standing on the brink of the bank. The other half has been washed away. Just below is an elaborate barrier against the water, composed of bundles of reeds tied to stakes. Half of this has been carried away by the floods. The gods stand exposed to the storms, the land lies exposed to inundation, the river is half silted up, a melancholy type of the condition of the Empire. There is classical authority for the dictum that “rotten wood cannot be carved.” It must be wholly cut away, and reformed from within.
It is not long since the idea was widely entertained in the lands of the West that China was to be regenerated by being brought into “the sisterhood of nations.” The process by which she was introduced into that“sisterhood”was not indeed such as to give rise to any well-founded hopes of national regeneration as a consequence. And now that the leading nations have had their several representatives at Peking for more than thirty years, what beneficial effect has their presence had upon the evils from which China suffers? The melancholy truth is that the international relations of the great powers are precisely those in which they appear to the least advantage. The Chinese are keen observers; what have they perceived in the conduct of any one of the states of the West to lead to the conviction that those states are actuated by motives more elevated than those which actuate the Empire which they wish to "reform"? And now that China is herself becoming a “power,” she has her hands fully occupied in playing off one set of foreign interests against another, without taking lessons of those who are much more concerned in “exploiting” China than in teaching her morals. If China is to be reformed, it will not be done by diplomacy.
There is another theory, the gospel of commerce. It is held by many that the panacea for China's needs is not the family of nations, but unrestricted intercourse, free trade, and the brotherhood of man. The gospel of commerce is the panacea for China's needs; more ports, more imports, a lower tariff, and no transit taxes. Perhaps we do not hear so much of this now as two or three decades ago, during which time the Chinese have penetrated more fully than before into Australia and the United States, with results not always most favourable to “unrestricted intercourse” and the “brotherhood of man.” Have there not also been loud whispers that Chinese tea and Chinese straw-braid have been defective in some desirable qualities, and has not this lack been partly matched by defects in certain articles imported into China from the lands of the West?
As an auxiliary of civilisation, commerce is invaluable, but it is not by itself an instrument of reform. Adam Smith, the great apostle of modern political economy, defined man as “a trading animal”; no two dogs, he says, exchange bones. But supposing they did so, and supposing that in every great city the canine population were to establish a bone exchange, what would be the inevitable effect upon the character of the dogs? The great trading nations of antiquity were not the best nations, but the worst. That the same is not true of their modern successors is certainly not due to their trade, but to wholly different causes. It has been well said that commerce, like Christianity, is cosmical in its aim; but commerce, like the rainbow, always bends towards the pot of gold.
It is sufficient to point to the continent of Africa, with its rum and its slave traffic, each introduced by trading and by Christian nations, and each an unspeakable curse, to show that, taken by itself, there is no reformatory influence in commerce.
There are many friends of China well acquainted with her condition, whose prescription is more comprehensive than any of those which we have named. In their view, China needs Western culture, Western science, and what Mr. Meadows called "funded civilisation." The Chinese have been a cultured nation for millenniums. They had already been civilised for ages when our ancestors were rooting in the primeval forests. In China, if anywhere on the globe, that recipe has been faithfully tried. There is in culture as such nothing of a reformatory nature. Culture is selfish. Its conscious or unconscious motto is, “I, rather than you.” As we daily perceive in China, where our boasted culture is scouted, there is no scorn like intellectual scorn. If Chinese culture has been unable to exert a due restraining influence upon those who have been so thoroughly steeped in it, is it probable that this result will be attained by a foreign exotic?
Of science the Chinese are unquestionably in the greatest need. They need every modern science for the development of the still latent resources of their mighty Empire. This they are themselves beginning clearly to perceive, and will perceive still more clearly in the immediate future. But is it certain that an acquaintance with science will exert an advantageous moral influence over the Empire? What is the process by which this is to take place? No science lies nearer to our modern advancement than chemistry. Would the spread of a general knowledge of chemistry in China, therefore, be a moral agency for regenerating the people? Would it not rather introduce new and unthought-of possibilities of fraud and violence throughout every department of life? Would it be quite safe, Chinese character being what it is, to diffuse through the Empire, together with an unlimited supply of chemicals, an exact formula for the preparation of every variety of modern explosives?
By "funded civilisation" are meant the material results of the vast development of Western progress. It includes the manifold marvels resulting from steam and electricity. This, we are told, is what China really needs, and it is all that she needs. Railways from every city to every other city, steam navigation on her inland waters, a complete postal system, national banks, coined silver, telegraphs and telephones as nerves of connection—these are to be the visible signs of the new and happy day for China.
Perhaps this was the half-formed idea of Chang Chih-tung, when in his memorial on the subject of railways he affirmed that they will do away with many risks incidental to river transport, "such as stealing by the crew." Will the accumulation, then, of funded civilization diminish moral evils? Do railways ensure honesty in their employés, or even in their managers? Have we not read "A Chapter of Erie," showing how that great highway between states was stolen bodily, the stockholders helpless, and “nobody to blame”? And will they do these things better in China than it has as yet been possible to be sure of having them done in England or in America? Is funded civilisation an original cause by itself, or is it the effect of a long train of complex causes, working in slow harmony for great periods of time? Would the introduction of the ballot-box into China make the Chinese a democratic people, and fit them for republican rule? No more will funded civilisation produce in the Chinese Empire those conditions which accompany it in the West, unless the causes which have produced the conditions in the West are set in motion to produce the like results in China. Those causes are not material, they are moral.
How is it that with the object-lessons of Hongkong, of Shanghai and other treaty ports before them, the Chinese do not introduce “model settlements” into the native cities of China? Because they do not wish for such changes, and would not tolerate them if they were introduced. How is it that with the object-lesson of an honest administration of the Imperial Maritime Customs before their eyes for nearly a third of a century, the government does not adopt such methods elsewhere? Because, in the present condition of China, the adoption of such methods of taxation of Chinese by Chinese is an absolute moral impossibility. British character and conscience have been more than a thousand years in attaining their present development, and they cannot be suddenly taken up by the Chinese for their own, and set in operation, like a Krupp gun from Essen, mounted and ready to be discharged.
The forces which have developed character and conscience in the Anglo-Saxon race are as definite and as certain facts of history as any that can be named. They are inseparably connected with Christianity, and they grew with Christianity. In proportion as Christianity roots itself in the popular heart these products flourish, and not otherwise.
Listen for a moment to the great advocate of culture, Matthew Arnold: “Every educated man loves Greece, owes gratitude to Greece. Greece was the lifter-up to the nations of the banner of art and science, as Israel was the lifter-up of the banner of righteousness. Now the world cannot do without art and science. And the lifter-up of the banner of art and science was naturally much occupied with them, and conduct was a plain, homely matter. And this brilliant Greece perished for lack of attention to conduct; for want of conduct, steadiness, character.... Nay, and the victorious revelation now, even now, in this age, when more of beauty and more of knowledge are so much needed, and knowledge at any rate is so highly esteemed—the revelation which rules the world even now is not Greece's revelation, but Judaæa's; not the pre-eminence of art and science, but the pre-eminence of righteousness.”
In order to reform China the springs of character must be reached and purified, conscience must be practically enthroned, and no longer imprisoned in its own palace like the long line of Japanese Mikados. It is a truth well stated by one of the leading exponents of modern philosophy, that "there is no alchemy by which to get golden conduct from leaden instincts." What China needs is righteousness, and in order to attain it, it is absolutely necessary that she have a knowledge of God and a new conception of man, as well as of the relation of man to God. She needs a new life in every individual soul, in the family, and in society. The manifold needs of China we find, then, to be a single imperative need. It will be met permanently, completely, only by Christian civilisation.
热门跟贴