《中國人的性格》第六章 疏于精確

《中國人的性格》是美國傳教士阿瑟·史密斯（明恩溥）基于1872年赴華傳教期間的社會觀察撰寫的著作，首版英文名《Chinese Characteristics》于19世紀末問世，。作者在華生活逾五十年，書中融合人類學視角與傳教士立場，記錄了晚清民眾的性格特征與文化形態。

全書以27個主題章節剖析中國人行為模式，包含“保全面子”“省吃儉用”等生活哲學，以及“漠視精確”“因循守舊”等社會現象。通過對比西方工業文明，著重探討東方特有的生存韌性，如環境適應力與疼痛耐受性。書中案例多源自山東鄉村生活經歷，涉及衣食住行、孝悌觀念等主題，部分結論因宗教立場存在視角爭議。該著作開創西方研究中國國民性先河，被譯成多國文字，成為近代中西文化互鑒的重要文本。

第六章 疏于精確

外國人初到中國，對中國人的第一眼印象就是千人一面。他們的面孔似乎都是同一個模子做出來的，所有人身上總是穿著藍布衣服，每一雙眼里的“焦點”都好似一成不變，好像發直了一樣。兩個拖著辮子的中國人，就像是同一個豆莢中的兩粒豆仁，一模一樣。但是，無論別人怎么看待中國人，只要略加體驗，即使是一個最不善于觀察的旅行者，也會發現，所謂中國人是千人一面的說法是不能成立的。任意兩個地區，無論多么靠近，口音上都存在著有趣的、莫名其妙的差異。而且地區間隔越遠，差異就越大，日積月累，以至于形成不同的“方言”。

常常會有人鄭重地提醒我們，中國人的語言寫起來都一樣，說起來卻大不相同。我們常常被告之，中國各地的風俗習慣也有同樣的差異，用中國人的一句俗話來講，那就是“十里不同俗”。諸如此類的例子，比比皆是。最普遍的是，計量標準上的不一致。而在西方國家，統一、恒定的度量衡是保證生活舒適的一個重要前提。

那些無處不在的雙重標準，對西方人來說，常常是令人苦惱不已的，而對中國人，卻能從中獲得樂趣。兩種貨幣單位、兩種重量單位、兩種度量單位，這些對他們來說似乎很自然、很平常，不值得去抱怨什么。向一位賣豬肉水餃的人詢問每天做多少這樣的水餃，他回答說，大概“一百斤面粉”。至于這么多面粉能做成多少水餃，這個問題只能留待詢問者自己去猜想。

同樣，有人向一位農民打聽他的一頭牛有多重，他給出的重量似乎太輕了，與實值相差太大。最后，他解釋說，這個數不包括骨頭！一位仆人被問及身高是多少，如果他給出的數與他的實際身高相差得太離奇，經過查問，他會承認他給的數沒有把肩膀以上的部位算在內！原來，他曾當過兵，在部隊里人的鎖骨的高度比較重要，因為他要擔運物資。既然一個中國士兵的腦袋沒有任何實際用途，所以他說自己的身高時一直就沒有把頭部算在內，這次他是疏忽了。與這種算法相反，一位鄉下人硬說他的家“離城九十里”，但經過盤問，他才承認消減一點。他承認那是往返的路程，實際距離只有單程“四十五里”！

在中國，有關計量最不一致的突出事例，就是計量銅錢——這個國家唯一的貨幣——的辦法。這個國家所有地方都采用十進制，這的確也是最簡易的計量方式。但是，在中國沒有人敢打包票說“一貫錢”理所當然就是一百個銅錢，除非他親自數好串好。走遍了十八個省份的絕大多數地區，我們就會發現一貫錢的銅錢數目各不相同，而且無法解釋。按道理，“一貫”就是“一百個”銅錢，但事實上從一百個至九十九個、九十八個、九十六個、八十三個（如山西太原），直到直隸省東部的三十三個，各種數目都有，或許有些地方可能更低。

白銀交易中的稱重情況也是這樣，甚至更為嚴重。除非是巧合，任意兩個地區的“兩”都不一樣，甚至同一地區的不同區域也各不相同。這種情況把外國人搞得稀里糊涂，除了那些與白銀有關的商人，其他人都會遭受一定的損失，特別是會給那些誠信守實的人帶來無盡的煩惱。這種貨幣混亂的現象是顯而易見的，其得以長期存在的動機也是顯而易見的。但我們眼下關心的只是這一現象存在的事實。

所有各種度量標準都有同樣的混亂。一個地方的“斗”不同于其他任何地方的“斗”。在征糧中總是采用這種混亂的“斗”，如果在那些不像中國人那樣會忍氣吞聲的民族，就很容易引發政治動亂。至今為止，“一品脫就是一品脫，一磅就是一磅，全世界都一樣。”這句話在中國卻是不適用的，一“斗”不是一“斗”，一磅也不是一磅。每一種隨意所造成的混亂，在中國居然還有道理可言。而且，這種武斷的標準隨處還加以應用（例如在鹽業專賣中），比如把十二兩叫一斤。買家付的是十六兩一斤的錢，得到的卻只有十二兩。但這樣的交易居然是公開進行的，同行的商人也都這樣做。據說，這不算做事欺詐，人們知道了這一點，只不過是鹽業買賣中的“陋規”而已。

在土地面積的丈量方面，也普遍存在類似的不確定性。有些地方，一“畝”土地只相當于另一個地方的半畝，如果有人碰巧住在邊界線上，那么他們就不得不準備兩套丈量土地的工具，以分別應對不同的田畝制度。

想要知道一斤糧食或者一斤棉花的價格，僅憑現有的報告（正像到中國的旅行者經常做的那樣）是非常不可靠的，還必須首先弄清楚這里的“斤”是指哪一種斤。同樣的情況，也出現在每畝的糧食產量計算上，不能僅憑現有的統計數字，還必須弄清楚這里的“畝”是哪一種畝。在計量的距離測算方面，也普遍存在著類似的問題，每位到中國的旅行者都可以證明這一點。在中國大地旅行時，如果路程是以“里”計量，那么就有必要弄清楚這個“里”是指“大里”還是“小里”！

我們并不否認這樣計量路程有某種根據，但我們要指出的是這種計量既不精確也不統一。據我們所知，人們普遍感覺到，一走下寬闊的官道，“里”就變得更“長”了。如果在官道上每天能走一百二十里路，那么在鄉村的小道上，滿打滿算也只能是每天走一百里，若到了山區，就只能每天走八十里了。

此外，測算路程的長短往往不是根據實際的絕對距離，甚至不以中國人意識中距離長短為基礎，而是根據行走的難易程度。如此一說，若是說到山頂有“九十里”，實際的里數還不到一半。但中國人還咬定不放松，理由是要走完這段路程，困難程度相當于在平地上走“九十里”。還有一件與測算直線距離有關的頗為奇特的事實，即從A到B的距離不一定等于從B到A！在中國，歐氏幾何所設定的“等量之間彼此相等”基本原則已不起作用了。這個定理要想實現，則需要插入一個否定詞加以修改。我們可以舉一個例子加以說明：在中國最重要的一條官道，有一段路根據里程碑所示從北到南長一百八十三里，而從南到北卻是一百九十里。這也真是太奇怪了，無論你來回走幾趟，也無論多么仔細地看里程碑，事實就是這樣。

與此類現象異曲同工的是，“整體等于部分相加之和”這一公理在中國也不能成立。在河道航行尤其如此。經過詢問，你得知前方的某一地點有“四十里”，然后，通過更細致的分析，你才知道這個“四十里”原來是兩個“十八里”相加得來的。你還會被這種振振有詞的說法弄得啞口無言：“四個九相加是四十，不對嗎？”根據這種說法，“三個十八相加”就是“六十”。我們還曾聽說過這樣一件事，一個信使在規定的時間內沒有跑完規定的路程，他為自己辯解說，這個“六十里”是“大里”。由于他的申辯理由很充分，地方官員便下令重新測量這段路程，結果發現實際上是“八十三里”，從那以后，那個新里程就被沿用了下來。

分布在一座城市周圍的幾個鄉村，離城里從一里到六里各不相等，但每個村子都可以叫“三里屯”。人們經常還可以看到這種情形，一段據估算只有一里的路程，如果道路兩邊都蓋滿了房子，就會被說成是五里長。而且每個村民都會信誓旦旦向我們保證，這條街確實是那么長。

在這些情況下，當每個人都可以根據各自的需要制定度量標準時，你也大可不必為此大驚小怪。造秤的人徘徊于街上，根據每個雇主的要求，在秤桿上鑲上小點點（這些點點被稱為“星”）。每個買賣人至少備有兩桿秤，一桿是用于買東西，另一桿是用于賣東西。一個現成的秤是沒有人愿意要的，除非它是一桿舊秤，因為所有的刻度都可以改變，秤的標準只能根據每個買賣人的需要而定。

計算人的年齡大小也是如此，其中特別能反映出中國人的民族特性。得知一個人確切的年齡并不難，可中國人卻普遍憑著一個人出生年的動物屬相，來輕易地推測出這個人的年齡。說一位老人已經有“七八十歲”了，其實你確切地知道，他是去年才滿七十歲。事實上，在中國，一個人剛過七十歲，也就是“八十”的人了。如果想得出準確年歲，就必須減去這個“常數”。

即使一位中國人想說出他的準確年齡，他所給出的也只是下一個春節后的年齡。以“十”為單位計算歲數的習慣根深蒂固，這使得他們的年齡總是含混不清。一些人是“一二十歲”，“沒幾十歲”，或許“好幾十歲”，在中國，嚴格準確地說出年齡是非常罕見的事。這種模糊，甚至還延伸至“好幾百”，“好幾千”和“好幾萬”。這樣的表述中，“數以萬計”是中國人數方面的極限。對于比這些籠統說法更加準確的計數法，中國人并不怎么感興趣。

筆者的一位朋友告訴筆者，有兩個人花了“兩百貫錢”看一場戲，過一會又改口說道：“是一百七十三貫，不過，這與二百貫也差不離，不是嗎？”

一位紳士及其夫人在中國生活了好幾年后要回國。他們的中國朋友送來兩幅卷軸，是要分別轉贈給他們夫婦倆各自的老母親——父親都已去世，他們夫婦倆各自的老母親恰好同歲。兩個條幅上的題字分別是“福如東海”和“壽比南山”，每個條幅旁邊還有一行寫著祝福的小字。其中一個條幅上的小字恭賀受贈者“享福七十載”，而另一個條幅則贊美貴夫人享有“六十華誕”。夫婦倆在對這兩幅卷軸大加贊賞之余，其中一位小心翼翼詢問，為什么明明知道兩位母親是同歲，卻還要說一個是七十，另一個只有六十呢？對方給予一個典型的回答：如果每幅卷軸上都寫“七十歲”，那會顯得題寫者太沒有想象力了！

在我們要求精準的地方，中國人根深蒂固地講究社會連帶關系。這是一個致命的干擾。一位希望獲得法律咨詢的人告訴筆者，他“住在某一個村子里”，但從他的口述中可以明顯得知，他的住所是在城郊。經過一番追根查問，他承認他如今不是住在那個村里；而經過進一步的調查才發現，他的家族十九代之前就已搬出該村了。我就問他：“你難道不認為你自己現在是城市居民嗎？”他坦然地回答道：“沒有，我們現在的確住在城里，但我的老家是在那個村子里！”

另外有一個人曾經要求筆者去看看他村里的一座古廟，他驕傲地指給我看，說：“那座廟是我建的！”對于他語氣中那個“我”進一步調查，我才發現，那座廟建于明朝的某個時期，至今已有三百多年的歷史。

學習中文的學生，最初遇到的一個障礙是如何找一個滿意的詞語表示自己的身份，以區別于他人。中國人的整個思維，建立在我們不習慣的某種假設之上，他們完全不能理解西方人為什么會有把一切都弄得準確無誤的癖好，甚至認為是病態的。一個中國人并不確切地知道他的村子里有多少人，而且他也確實不想知道。人類的任何一員都有弄清楚這一數字的意愿，但對他來說，則始終不能明白那些想知道這個數字的人到底為了什么。他們只有“幾百家”、“好幾百家”或者“沒多少人家”，而沒有準確的數字，過去沒有，將來也不可能有。

中國人疏于精確，不僅表現在對數字的運用上，同樣也反映在文字書寫，甚至表現在他們的印刷上。在中國的廉價出版物中，想要弄到一本沒有大量錯別字的書并非易事。有的時候，那些錯別字頻繁出現，嚴重地干擾了讀者對意思的理解。如此看來，之所以出現錯別字，顯然不是為了圖省事，而是由于人們在日常生活中不重視精確性。在一般的書信往來中，這種含糊其辭的做派更加突出了。文字的書寫不準確，大量的是表現在常用字中，有些字經常用同音字代替，出現這種錯誤，或者是由于教育的缺乏，但同樣也因為馬馬虎虎的態度。

疏于精確這種態度，在書信的稱呼上更是表現得一清二楚。中國人寫信的稱呼一般是用醒目的字體寫的，“父親大人啟”，“慈母大人啟”，“叔祖大人啟”，“賢弟大人啟”，等等，卻一般不寫出“大人”的姓名。

中國人是非常講究實際的民族，但正如我們所看到的那樣，他們對自己的名字卻滿不在乎，這令人非常驚訝。像這樣的民族實在是獨一無二的，我們常常發現，他們的名字一會兒寫成這樣，一會兒又寫成那樣，我們看到名字，但并不知是誰，還要詢問一下，這種情況經常可以見到。但，最使人感到困惑的是，同一人常常有好幾個不同的名字，他的原名，他的“字”、“號”，說來奇怪，甚至還有科舉考試注冊時專用的學名。正因為如此，外國人往往會把一個中國人誤認為其他的兩個或三個人。他們村子的名字更不確定，有時會有兩三個全然不同的名字，并且這些名字也都同樣的“正確”。如果一個名字是另一個名字的誤用，他們可以互相交替使用，在官樣公文上用正確的名字，在平時交談中可用另一個名字。更有甚者，也可以把那個誤用的名字當做形容詞，與原名一起共同構成一個復合地名。

中國人很不幸地缺乏類似于研習化學分子式那樣，需要絕對精確意識的教育。中國的第一代化學家也許會因為把“幾十個格令”的什么東西與“好幾十個格令”的另一種東西混合在一起，其結果會少了許多數字，造成預想不到的嚴重后果。中國人完全有能力像其他民族一樣，學會對一切事物都把握得非常精確——甚至更加精確。因為他們天生就有無限的耐心——但我們不得不說，就現在的社會狀況而言，他們目前還不重視精確的素養，他們還不知道精確是什么。

如果這一判斷是成立的，那么就可以有兩條推論：其一，我們在查考中國歷史檔案記錄時，必須考慮到中國人疏于精確這一特性。如果我們輕易采用中國人所提供的數字和數量，則肯定會使我們自己受騙，因為他們從來就想不到精確。其二，對于中國人所提供的，冠以“人口調查”以抬高其權威性的各種結果，必須持有保留態度。整體并不大于部分之和，可中國人的統計數字卻與之相反。我們在審查中國人的一份“統計數字”后，就非常有可能說：“這是案子的最后一個謎！”這句話，是一位聰明的蘇格蘭人在美利堅合眾國最高法院說的，他堅信“美國的法律有高貴的不確定性”。

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! "