《中國(guó)人的性格》第六章 疏于精確

《中國(guó)人的性格》是美國(guó)傳教士阿瑟·史密斯（明恩溥）基于1872年赴華傳教期間的社會(huì)觀察撰寫(xiě)的著作，首版英文名《Chinese Characteristics》于19世紀(jì)末問(wèn)世，。作者在華生活逾五十年，書(shū)中融合人類(lèi)學(xué)視角與傳教士立場(chǎng)，記錄了晚清民眾的性格特征與文化形態(tài)。

全書(shū)以27個(gè)主題章節(jié)剖析中國(guó)人行為模式，包含“保全面子”“省吃儉用”等生活哲學(xué)，以及“漠視精確”“因循守舊”等社會(huì)現(xiàn)象。通過(guò)對(duì)比西方工業(yè)文明，著重探討東方特有的生存韌性，如環(huán)境適應(yīng)力與疼痛耐受性。書(shū)中案例多源自山東鄉(xiāng)村生活經(jīng)歷，涉及衣食住行、孝悌觀念等主題，部分結(jié)論因宗教立場(chǎng)存在視角爭(zhēng)議。該著作開(kāi)創(chuàng)西方研究中國(guó)國(guó)民性先河，被譯成多國(guó)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(guó)人初到中國(guó)，對(duì)中國(guó)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(gè)模子做出來(lái)的，所有人身上總是穿著藍(lán)布衣服，每一雙眼里的“焦點(diǎn)”都好似一成不變，好像發(fā)直了一樣。兩個(gè)拖著辮子的中國(guó)人，就像是同一個(gè)豆莢中的兩粒豆仁，一模一樣。但是，無(wú)論別人怎么看待中國(guó)人，只要略加體驗(yàn)，即使是一個(gè)最不善于觀察的旅行者，也會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，所謂中國(guó)人是千人一面的說(shuō)法是不能成立的。任意兩個(gè)地區(qū)，無(wú)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(qū)間隔越遠(yuǎn)，差異就越大，日積月累，以至于形成不同的“方言”。

常常會(huì)有人鄭重地提醒我們，中國(guó)人的語(yǔ)言寫(xiě)起來(lái)都一樣，說(shuō)起來(lái)卻大不相同。我們常常被告之，中國(guó)各地的風(fēng)俗習(xí)慣也有同樣的差異，用中國(guó)人的一句俗話來(lái)講，那就是“十里不同俗”。諸如此類(lèi)的例子，比比皆是。最普遍的是，計(jì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上的不一致。而在西方國(guó)家，統(tǒng)一、恒定的度量衡是保證生活舒適的一個(gè)重要前提。

那些無(wú)處不在的雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，對(duì)西方人來(lái)說(shuō)，常常是令人苦惱不已的，而對(duì)中國(guó)人，卻能從中獲得樂(lè)趣。兩種貨幣單位、兩種重量單位、兩種度量單位，這些對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)似乎很自然、很平常，不值得去抱怨什么。向一位賣(mài)豬肉水餃的人詢問(wèn)每天做多少這樣的水餃，他回答說(shuō)，大概“一百斤面粉”。至于這么多面粉能做成多少水餃，這個(gè)問(wèn)題只能留待詢問(wèn)者自己去猜想。

同樣，有人向一位農(nóng)民打聽(tīng)他的一頭牛有多重，他給出的重量似乎太輕了，與實(shí)值相差太大。最后，他解釋說(shuō)，這個(gè)數(shù)不包括骨頭！一位仆人被問(wèn)及身高是多少，如果他給出的數(shù)與他的實(shí)際身高相差得太離奇，經(jīng)過(guò)查問(wèn)，他會(huì)承認(rèn)他給的數(shù)沒(méi)有把肩膀以上的部位算在內(nèi)！原來(lái)，他曾當(dāng)過(guò)兵，在部隊(duì)里人的鎖骨的高度比較重要，因?yàn)樗獡?dān)運(yùn)物資。既然一個(gè)中國(guó)士兵的腦袋沒(méi)有任何實(shí)際用途，所以他說(shuō)自己的身高時(shí)一直就沒(méi)有把頭部算在內(nèi)，這次他是疏忽了。與這種算法相反，一位鄉(xiāng)下人硬說(shuō)他的家“離城九十里”，但經(jīng)過(guò)盤(pán)問(wèn)，他才承認(rèn)消減一點(diǎn)。他承認(rèn)那是往返的路程，實(shí)際距離只有單程“四十五里”！

在中國(guó)，有關(guān)計(jì)量最不一致的突出事例，就是計(jì)量銅錢(qián)——這個(gè)國(guó)家唯一的貨幣——的辦法。這個(gè)國(guó)家所有地方都采用十進(jìn)制，這的確也是最簡(jiǎn)易的計(jì)量方式。但是，在中國(guó)沒(méi)有人敢打包票說(shuō)“一貫錢(qián)”理所當(dāng)然就是一百個(gè)銅錢(qián)，除非他親自數(shù)好串好。走遍了十八個(gè)省份的絕大多數(shù)地區(qū)，我們就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)一貫錢(qián)的銅錢(qián)數(shù)目各不相同，而且無(wú)法解釋。按道理，“一貫”就是“一百個(gè)”銅錢(qián)，但事實(shí)上從一百個(gè)至九十九個(gè)、九十八個(gè)、九十六個(gè)、八十三個(gè)（如山西太原），直到直隸省東部的三十三個(gè)，各種數(shù)目都有，或許有些地方可能更低。

白銀交易中的稱(chēng)重情況也是這樣，甚至更為嚴(yán)重。除非是巧合，任意兩個(gè)地區(qū)的“兩”都不一樣，甚至同一地區(qū)的不同區(qū)域也各不相同。這種情況把外國(guó)人搞得稀里糊涂，除了那些與白銀有關(guān)的商人，其他人都會(huì)遭受一定的損失，特別是會(huì)給那些誠(chéng)信守實(shí)的人帶來(lái)無(wú)盡的煩惱。這種貨幣混亂的現(xiàn)象是顯而易見(jiàn)的，其得以長(zhǎng)期存在的動(dòng)機(jī)也是顯而易見(jiàn)的。但我們眼下關(guān)心的只是這一現(xiàn)象存在的事實(shí)。

所有各種度量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)都有同樣的混亂。一個(gè)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(guó)人那樣會(huì)忍氣吞聲的民族，就很容易引發(fā)政治動(dòng)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(guó)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(guó)居然還有道理可言。而且，這種武斷的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)隨處還加以應(yīng)用（例如在鹽業(yè)專(zhuān)賣(mài)中），比如把十二兩叫一斤。買(mǎi)家付的是十六兩一斤的錢(qián)，得到的卻只有十二兩。但這樣的交易居然是公開(kāi)進(jìn)行的，同行的商人也都這樣做。據(jù)說(shuō)，這不算做事欺詐，人們知道了這一點(diǎn)，只不過(guò)是鹽業(yè)買(mǎi)賣(mài)中的“陋規(guī)”而已。

在土地面積的丈量方面，也普遍存在類(lèi)似的不確定性。有些地方，一“畝”土地只相當(dāng)于另一個(gè)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(zhǔn)備兩套丈量土地的工具，以分別應(yīng)對(duì)不同的田畝制度。

想要知道一斤糧食或者一斤棉花的價(jià)格，僅憑現(xiàn)有的報(bào)告（正像到中國(guó)的旅行者經(jīng)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(xiàn)在每畝的糧食產(chǎn)量計(jì)算上，不能僅憑現(xiàn)有的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字，還必須弄清楚這里的“畝”是哪一種畝。在計(jì)量的距離測(cè)算方面，也普遍存在著類(lèi)似的問(wèn)題，每位到中國(guó)的旅行者都可以證明這一點(diǎn)。在中國(guó)大地旅行時(shí)，如果路程是以“里”計(jì)量，那么就有必要弄清楚這個(gè)“里”是指“大里”還是“小里”！

我們并不否認(rèn)這樣計(jì)量路程有某種根據(jù)，但我們要指出的是這種計(jì)量既不精確也不統(tǒng)一。據(jù)我們所知，人們普遍感覺(jué)到，一走下寬闊的官道，“里”就變得更“長(zhǎng)”了。如果在官道上每天能走一百二十里路，那么在鄉(xiāng)村的小道上，滿打滿算也只能是每天走一百里，若到了山區(qū)，就只能每天走八十里了。

此外，測(cè)算路程的長(zhǎng)短往往不是根據(jù)實(shí)際的絕對(duì)距離，甚至不以中國(guó)人意識(shí)中距離長(zhǎng)短為基礎(chǔ)，而是根據(jù)行走的難易程度。如此一說(shuō)，若是說(shuō)到山頂有“九十里”，實(shí)際的里數(shù)還不到一半。但中國(guó)人還咬定不放松，理由是要走完這段路程，困難程度相當(dāng)于在平地上走“九十里”。還有一件與測(cè)算直線距離有關(guān)的頗為奇特的事實(shí)，即從A到B的距離不一定等于從B到A！在中國(guó)，歐氏幾何所設(shè)定的“等量之間彼此相等”基本原則已不起作用了。這個(gè)定理要想實(shí)現(xiàn)，則需要插入一個(gè)否定詞加以修改。我們可以舉一個(gè)例子加以說(shuō)明：在中國(guó)最重要的一條官道，有一段路根據(jù)里程碑所示從北到南長(zhǎng)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(wú)論你來(lái)回走幾趟，也無(wú)論多么仔細(xì)地看里程碑，事實(shí)就是這樣。

與此類(lèi)現(xiàn)象異曲同工的是，“整體等于部分相加之和”這一公理在中國(guó)也不能成立。在河道航行尤其如此。經(jīng)過(guò)詢問(wèn)，你得知前方的某一地點(diǎn)有“四十里”，然后，通過(guò)更細(xì)致的分析，你才知道這個(gè)“四十里”原來(lái)是兩個(gè)“十八里”相加得來(lái)的。你還會(huì)被這種振振有詞的說(shuō)法弄得啞口無(wú)言：“四個(gè)九相加是四十，不對(duì)嗎？”根據(jù)這種說(shuō)法，“三個(gè)十八相加”就是“六十”。我們還曾聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)這樣一件事，一個(gè)信使在規(guī)定的時(shí)間內(nèi)沒(méi)有跑完規(guī)定的路程，他為自己辯解說(shuō)，這個(gè)“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(cè)量這段路程，結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)實(shí)際上是“八十三里”，從那以后，那個(gè)新里程就被沿用了下來(lái)。

分布在一座城市周?chē)膸讉€(gè)鄉(xiāng)村，離城里從一里到六里各不相等，但每個(gè)村子都可以叫“三里屯”。人們經(jīng)常還可以看到這種情形，一段據(jù)估算只有一里的路程，如果道路兩邊都蓋滿了房子，就會(huì)被說(shuō)成是五里長(zhǎng)。而且每個(gè)村民都會(huì)信誓旦旦向我們保證，這條街確實(shí)是那么長(zhǎng)。

在這些情況下，當(dāng)每個(gè)人都可以根據(jù)各自的需要制定度量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時(shí)，你也大可不必為此大驚小怪。造秤的人徘徊于街上，根據(jù)每個(gè)雇主的要求，在秤桿上鑲上小點(diǎn)點(diǎn)（這些點(diǎn)點(diǎn)被稱(chēng)為“星”）。每個(gè)買(mǎi)賣(mài)人至少備有兩桿秤，一桿是用于買(mǎi)東西，另一桿是用于賣(mài)東西。一個(gè)現(xiàn)成的秤是沒(méi)有人愿意要的，除非它是一桿舊秤，因?yàn)樗械目潭榷伎梢愿淖儯拥臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)只能根據(jù)每個(gè)買(mǎi)賣(mài)人的需要而定。

計(jì)算人的年齡大小也是如此，其中特別能反映出中國(guó)人的民族特性。得知一個(gè)人確切的年齡并不難，可中國(guó)人卻普遍憑著一個(gè)人出生年的動(dòng)物屬相，來(lái)輕易地推測(cè)出這個(gè)人的年齡。說(shuō)一位老人已經(jīng)有“七八十歲”了，其實(shí)你確切地知道，他是去年才滿七十歲。事實(shí)上，在中國(guó)，一個(gè)人剛過(guò)七十歲，也就是“八十”的人了。如果想得出準(zhǔn)確年歲，就必須減去這個(gè)“常數(shù)”。

即使一位中國(guó)人想說(shuō)出他的準(zhǔn)確年齡，他所給出的也只是下一個(gè)春節(jié)后的年齡。以“十”為單位計(jì)算歲數(shù)的習(xí)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(méi)幾十歲”，或許“好幾十歲”，在中國(guó)，嚴(yán)格準(zhǔn)確地說(shuō)出年齡是非常罕見(jiàn)的事。這種模糊，甚至還延伸至“好幾百”，“好幾千”和“好幾萬(wàn)”。這樣的表述中，“數(shù)以萬(wàn)計(jì)”是中國(guó)人數(shù)方面的極限。對(duì)于比這些籠統(tǒng)說(shuō)法更加準(zhǔn)確的計(jì)數(shù)法，中國(guó)人并不怎么感興趣。

筆者的一位朋友告訴筆者，有兩個(gè)人花了“兩百貫錢(qián)”看一場(chǎng)戲，過(guò)一會(huì)又改口說(shuō)道：“是一百七十三貫，不過(guò)，這與二百貫也差不離，不是嗎？”

一位紳士及其夫人在中國(guó)生活了好幾年后要回國(guó)。他們的中國(guó)朋友送來(lái)兩幅卷軸，是要分別轉(zhuǎn)贈(zèng)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(gè)條幅上的題字分別是“福如東海”和“壽比南山”，每個(gè)條幅旁邊還有一行寫(xiě)著祝福的小字。其中一個(gè)條幅上的小字恭賀受贈(zèng)者“享福七十載”，而另一個(gè)條幅則贊美貴夫人享有“六十華誕”。夫婦倆在對(duì)這兩幅卷軸大加贊賞之余，其中一位小心翼翼詢問(wèn)，為什么明明知道兩位母親是同歲，卻還要說(shuō)一個(gè)是七十，另一個(gè)只有六十呢？對(duì)方給予一個(gè)典型的回答：如果每幅卷軸上都寫(xiě)“七十歲”，那會(huì)顯得題寫(xiě)者太沒(méi)有想象力了！

在我們要求精準(zhǔn)的地方，中國(guó)人根深蒂固地講究社會(huì)連帶關(guān)系。這是一個(gè)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(gè)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(jīng)過(guò)一番追根查問(wèn)，他承認(rèn)他如今不是住在那個(gè)村里；而經(jīng)過(guò)進(jìn)一步的調(diào)查才發(fā)現(xiàn)，他的家族十九代之前就已搬出該村了。我就問(wèn)他：“你難道不認(rèn)為你自己現(xiàn)在是城市居民嗎？”他坦然地回答道：“沒(méi)有，我們現(xiàn)在的確住在城里，但我的老家是在那個(gè)村子里！”

另外有一個(gè)人曾經(jīng)要求筆者去看看他村里的一座古廟，他驕傲地指給我看，說(shuō)：“那座廟是我建的！”對(duì)于他語(yǔ)氣中那個(gè)“我”進(jìn)一步調(diào)查，我才發(fā)現(xiàn)，那座廟建于明朝的某個(gè)時(shí)期，至今已有三百多年的歷史。

學(xué)習(xí)中文的學(xué)生，最初遇到的一個(gè)障礙是如何找一個(gè)滿意的詞語(yǔ)表示自己的身份，以區(qū)別于他人。中國(guó)人的整個(gè)思維，建立在我們不習(xí)慣的某種假設(shè)之上，他們完全不能理解西方人為什么會(huì)有把一切都弄得準(zhǔn)確無(wú)誤的癖好，甚至認(rèn)為是病態(tài)的。一個(gè)中國(guó)人并不確切地知道他的村子里有多少人，而且他也確實(shí)不想知道。人類(lèi)的任何一員都有弄清楚這一數(shù)字的意愿，但對(duì)他來(lái)說(shuō)，則始終不能明白那些想知道這個(gè)數(shù)字的人到底為了什么。他們只有“幾百家”、“好幾百家”或者“沒(méi)多少人家”，而沒(méi)有準(zhǔn)確的數(shù)字，過(guò)去沒(méi)有，將來(lái)也不可能有。

中國(guó)人疏于精確，不僅表現(xiàn)在對(duì)數(shù)字的運(yùn)用上，同樣也反映在文字書(shū)寫(xiě)，甚至表現(xiàn)在他們的印刷上。在中國(guó)的廉價(jià)出版物中，想要弄到一本沒(méi)有大量錯(cuò)別字的書(shū)并非易事。有的時(shí)候，那些錯(cuò)別字頻繁出現(xiàn)，嚴(yán)重地干擾了讀者對(duì)意思的理解。如此看來(lái)，之所以出現(xiàn)錯(cuò)別字，顯然不是為了圖省事，而是由于人們?cè)谌粘Ｉ钪胁恢匾暰_性。在一般的書(shū)信往來(lái)中，這種含糊其辭的做派更加突出了。文字的書(shū)寫(xiě)不準(zhǔn)確，大量的是表現(xiàn)在常用字中，有些字經(jīng)常用同音字代替，出現(xiàn)這種錯(cuò)誤，或者是由于教育的缺乏，但同樣也因?yàn)轳R馬虎虎的態(tài)度。

疏于精確這種態(tài)度，在書(shū)信的稱(chēng)呼上更是表現(xiàn)得一清二楚。中國(guó)人寫(xiě)信的稱(chēng)呼一般是用醒目的字體寫(xiě)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(xiě)出“大人”的姓名。

中國(guó)人是非常講究實(shí)際的民族，但正如我們所看到的那樣，他們對(duì)自己的名字卻滿不在乎，這令人非常驚訝。像這樣的民族實(shí)在是獨(dú)一無(wú)二的，我們常常發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們的名字一會(huì)兒寫(xiě)成這樣，一會(huì)兒又寫(xiě)成那樣，我們看到名字，但并不知是誰(shuí)，還要詢問(wèn)一下，這種情況經(jīng)常可以見(jiàn)到。但，最使人感到困惑的是，同一人常常有好幾個(gè)不同的名字，他的原名，他的“字”、“號(hào)”，說(shuō)來(lái)奇怪，甚至還有科舉考試注冊(cè)時(shí)專(zhuān)用的學(xué)名。正因?yàn)槿绱耍鈬?guó)人往往會(huì)把一個(gè)中國(guó)人誤認(rèn)為其他的兩個(gè)或三個(gè)人。他們村子的名字更不確定，有時(shí)會(huì)有兩三個(gè)全然不同的名字，并且這些名字也都同樣的“正確”。如果一個(gè)名字是另一個(gè)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(shí)交談中可用另一個(gè)名字。更有甚者，也可以把那個(gè)誤用的名字當(dāng)做形容詞，與原名一起共同構(gòu)成一個(gè)復(fù)合地名。

中國(guó)人很不幸地缺乏類(lèi)似于研習(xí)化學(xué)分子式那樣，需要絕對(duì)精確意識(shí)的教育。中國(guó)的第一代化學(xué)家也許會(huì)因?yàn)榘选皫资畟€(gè)格令”的什么東西與“好幾十個(gè)格令”的另一種東西混合在一起，其結(jié)果會(huì)少了許多數(shù)字，造成預(yù)想不到的嚴(yán)重后果。中國(guó)人完全有能力像其他民族一樣，學(xué)會(huì)對(duì)一切事物都把握得非常精確——甚至更加精確。因?yàn)樗麄兲焐陀袩o(wú)限的耐心——但我們不得不說(shuō)，就現(xiàn)在的社會(huì)狀況而言，他們目前還不重視精確的素養(yǎng)，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?cè)诓榭贾袊?guó)歷史檔案記錄時(shí)，必須考慮到中國(guó)人疏于精確這一特性。如果我們輕易采用中國(guó)人所提供的數(shù)字和數(shù)量，則肯定會(huì)使我們自己受騙，因?yàn)樗麄儚膩?lái)就想不到精確。其二，對(duì)于中國(guó)人所提供的，冠以“人口調(diào)查”以抬高其權(quán)威性的各種結(jié)果，必須持有保留態(tài)度。整體并不大于部分之和，可中國(guó)人的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字卻與之相反。我們?cè)趯彶橹袊?guó)人的一份“統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字”后，就非常有可能說(shuō)：“這是案子的最后一個(gè)謎！”這句話，是一位聰明的蘇格蘭人在美利堅(jiān)合眾國(guó)最高法院說(shuō)的，他堅(jiān)信“美國(guó)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! "