《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，書中融合人類學(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。

第二十七章 中國(guó)的現(xiàn)實(shí)與時(shí)務(wù)

中國(guó)像一艘龐大的航船，儒家經(jīng)典就是中國(guó)統(tǒng)治者駕駛這艘航船的航海圖。它是人類設(shè)計(jì)的最完美的藍(lán)圖，或者如已故的威廉姆斯博士，萊格博士及其他一些學(xué)者所說(shuō)的，在某種意義上，說(shuō)它出于天啟，也許并不過(guò)分。中國(guó)人利用這份航海圖創(chuàng)造了多少業(yè)績(jī)，航行過(guò)哪些海域，目前正朝哪個(gè)方向前進(jìn)——這些都是非常重要的問(wèn)題，因?yàn)橹袊?guó)和西方許多國(guó)家的交往越來(lái)越密切，將來(lái)也可能對(duì)它們產(chǎn)生越來(lái)越大的影響。

據(jù)說(shuō)，社會(huì)道德生活有六項(xiàng)指標(biāo)，每一項(xiàng)都十分重要；它們共同構(gòu)成檢驗(yàn)社會(huì)性格的可靠證據(jù)。具體如下：1.工業(yè)水平；2.社會(huì)風(fēng)俗習(xí)慣；3.婦女的地位和家庭的特征，4.政府的組織形式和統(tǒng)治者的品質(zhì)；5.公共教育狀況；6.宗教信仰與現(xiàn)實(shí)生活的關(guān)系。

上述各項(xiàng)指標(biāo)，我們?cè)谟懻撝袊?guó)人的各種性格特征時(shí)，都附帶作了闡述，雖然還不夠充分，也沒(méi)有對(duì)各自所占比重作必要的安排。在考察中國(guó)人的性格時(shí)，有太多方面需要注意，有時(shí)不得不忍痛割愛(ài)，被迫放棄。我們只想通過(guò)自己的選擇勾勒出中國(guó)人性格的大致框架。如果真要完全展現(xiàn)，還有許多其他特征應(yīng)考慮在內(nèi)。

我們?cè)陉U明中國(guó)人的性格特征時(shí)，列舉的例證大部分都具有說(shuō)服力，因?yàn)榻?jīng)過(guò)權(quán)衡，它們似乎更為典型。它們就像組成一副骨架的骨頭，每一塊都應(yīng)事先放在各自的位置。除非是冒牌貨，否則完全不能忽視。確實(shí)可能有人反對(duì)，每塊骨頭都放錯(cuò)了位置，而且另外一些可以改變整體結(jié)構(gòu)形態(tài)的骨頭也沒(méi)放在恰當(dāng)?shù)奈恢谩＿@種批評(píng)極為公正。對(duì)此我們不僅承認(rèn)，而且還要特別說(shuō)明，這些選擇的“性格”不可能使人全面認(rèn)識(shí)中國(guó)人，就像描繪某人的眼睛、耳朵和下巴，不能讓人形成對(duì)他的準(zhǔn)確印象一樣。但同時(shí)，我們必須提醒讀者，那些結(jié)論并非倉(cāng)促之間形成的，實(shí)際上，我們觀察的事實(shí)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)多于本書所提到的，即使稍微難以肯定的觀點(diǎn)，也都得到充分地論證。這些事實(shí)比比皆是，就像北方起大風(fēng)時(shí)的塵沙，灌滿了人的眼、耳、鼻、頭發(fā)，衣服經(jīng)常遮天蔽日，有時(shí)中午也需要點(diǎn)燈。這種現(xiàn)象，人們也許會(huì)搞錯(cuò)起因，但對(duì)它的描述是完全正確的。不過(guò)，觀察物理現(xiàn)象和道德現(xiàn)象有重大的差異：前者每一個(gè)人都可以觀察到，而后者只有幸運(yùn)者才能遇到，而且還要善于觀察。

中國(guó)人的生活充滿了矛盾的現(xiàn)象，只看一面，而忽視另一面，肯定會(huì)作出錯(cuò)誤判斷，同時(shí)還永遠(yuǎn)認(rèn)識(shí)不到自己是錯(cuò)誤的。將兩個(gè)明顯不和諧的觀點(diǎn)融合起來(lái)，不是件容易事。然而時(shí)常又必須完成這一任務(wù)，世界上也沒(méi)有任何地方能比在中國(guó)更需要這樣做的了。在中國(guó)，完全了解事物的一個(gè)方面已是相當(dāng)困難，更何況兩個(gè)方面。

我們已經(jīng)談了，儒教具有極高的道德品性，而且相信，它能造就許多品德高尚的人。這也正是人們對(duì)它奇妙的道德體系的企盼。可是它如何使大部分人的品德都變得高尚呢？有三個(gè)方面的問(wèn)題，可以揭示人的真實(shí)性格：他與自己的關(guān)系如何？他與別人關(guān)系如何？他與自己的信仰關(guān)系如何？通過(guò)這三個(gè)互相聯(lián)系的方面，就可以對(duì)一個(gè)人的性格準(zhǔn)確定位。讀過(guò)前面各章的讀者，已經(jīng)知道了現(xiàn)代中國(guó)人在這三個(gè)問(wèn)題上的答案：他們對(duì)自己和別人缺少真誠(chéng)和信義；對(duì)別人缺少利他主義；他們的信仰是多神論。泛神論和不可知論。

中國(guó)人并不缺乏智慧，也不缺乏耐心、現(xiàn)實(shí)性、快樂(lè)，這些方面他們都是杰出的。他們?nèi)狈Φ氖侨烁窈土夹摹ＴS多中國(guó)官員受不了賄賂的誘惑，就做了錯(cuò)事，還以為永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)被發(fā)現(xiàn)，因?yàn)椤疤熘刂阒抑！庇卸嗌僦袊?guó)人能抵制得了壓力，不推薦公認(rèn)的不稱職的親戚呢？想像一下抵制在家庭中帶來(lái)的后果吧，中國(guó)人害怕面對(duì)這一后果，難道還有什么奇怪的嗎？把道德律令引入這樣的領(lǐng)域，中國(guó)人是怎樣想的呢？看到中國(guó)的民政機(jī)構(gòu)，軍隊(duì)機(jī)構(gòu)、商業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)中充滿了寄生現(xiàn)象和裙帶關(guān)系。難道還會(huì)對(duì)中國(guó)門衛(wèi)和警察的失職感到奇怪嗎？

想了解中國(guó)人道德的真實(shí)情況，會(huì)得到中國(guó)人的幫助。盡管他們竭力掩蓋自己及朋友的缺點(diǎn)，卻經(jīng)常對(duì)民族性格的弱點(diǎn)直言不諱。他們對(duì)其他中國(guó)人的描述，時(shí)常讓我們想起卡萊爾在《弗雷德里克大帝的一生》一書中以快樂(lè)的筆調(diào)描寫的一段對(duì)話。這位君王很喜歡一位學(xué)校監(jiān)督員，總愛(ài)跟他談點(diǎn)什么。一天，君王問(wèn)道：“蘇澤先生，你的那些學(xué)校近來(lái)怎樣？我們的教育事業(yè)發(fā)展得如何？”“當(dāng)然啦，不錯(cuò)，陛下，最近幾年好多了。”蘇澤答道。“最近幾年？為什么？”“啊，陛下，從前，人們相信人天生邪惡，學(xué)校實(shí)行嚴(yán)格的管理制度；可現(xiàn)在，我們認(rèn)識(shí)到人天生向善，校長(zhǎng)采用了更為寬容的管理方法。”“天生向善！”弗雷德里克搖著他那蒼老的頭，悲哀地笑了笑：“哎，親愛(ài)的蘇澤，我看你一點(diǎn)兒也不了解這該死的人類。”

中國(guó)社會(huì)就像中國(guó)的許多風(fēng)景勝地。遠(yuǎn)看，具有誘人的魅力。可是，再近點(diǎn)，總會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)很多破爛不堪、令人討厭之處，空氣中彌漫著難聞的氣味。照片絕不能客觀地反映中國(guó)的風(fēng)景勝地，雖然照相機(jī)被認(rèn)為具有“無(wú)情的公正”，但有關(guān)中國(guó)的照片卻不如此，骯臟和難聞的東西都被遺漏了。

在中國(guó)，象征幸福的東西如此之多，可謂舉世無(wú)雙。可是，不用過(guò)太久，我們就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，中國(guó)人的幸福只是徒具其表，我們相信這是個(gè)真實(shí)的評(píng)價(jià)，就像說(shuō)亞洲不存在家庭生活一樣。

在對(duì)中國(guó)進(jìn)行理論分析，并探討如何使這種理論與現(xiàn)實(shí)相適應(yīng)時(shí)，我們總是想起那些石碑，它們立在大路與河流交叉的地方，以“紀(jì)念”修橋的人。有時(shí)，這塊碑旁邊會(huì)有半打同樣的石碑，它們已經(jīng)缺頭少角，殘破不堪。對(duì)逝去的歲月和歷代的紀(jì)念物，我們一直很感興趣，當(dāng)我們問(wèn)起過(guò)去修的那些橋時(shí)，人們回答說(shuō)：“啊，它們嘛，好幾代以前就不存在了一一一誰(shuí)知道什么時(shí)候。”

幾年前，筆者在大運(yùn)河上游玩時(shí)，遇到了逆風(fēng)，被迫停下。我們?cè)诎渡祥e逛，看到農(nóng)民們正在田野里勞作。時(shí)值5月，田野里一片翠綠清明的景象。此時(shí)，任何游客都會(huì)對(duì)精細(xì)，不知疲倦、辛勤勞作的農(nóng)民表示贊嘆，因?yàn)樗麄儼汛笃镆白兊孟窕▓@一樣美麗。然而，和他們稍稍交談，才發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們剛剛度過(guò)一個(gè)艱苦的冬季。去年的洪水和干旱使他們顆粒未收，附近村莊的人都快餓死了一一也就是說(shuō)，目前他們正在忍饑挨餓。政府發(fā)的一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)救濟(jì)，只能是杯水車薪，零星的一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)，還要受到無(wú)恥的侵吞。這些可憐的農(nóng)民毫無(wú)辦法，一點(diǎn)兒也不能保護(hù)自己。可是從表面上，這一切完全看不出來(lái)。而其他地方是豐收年景，人們安居樂(lè)業(yè)。北京的《邸報(bào)》和中國(guó)的西方雜志都沒(méi)有報(bào)道過(guò)任何有關(guān)消息。忽視現(xiàn)實(shí)，并不能改變現(xiàn)實(shí)。無(wú)論其他人是否知道這件事，當(dāng)?shù)厝巳栽谌淌莛囸I。即使斷然否認(rèn)這些事實(shí)，也不能證明采取了有效的救濟(jì)措施。經(jīng)驗(yàn)地認(rèn)為中國(guó)人應(yīng)是什么樣子，是一回事；而仔細(xì)觀察他們實(shí)際上是什么樣子，完全是另外一回事。

我們很清楚，中國(guó)社會(huì)存在的許多弊病，在西方“有名無(wú)實(shí)的基督教國(guó)家”也同樣存在。或許讀者會(huì)感到失望，因?yàn)槲覀儧](méi)有對(duì)這一事實(shí)作出更明確的結(jié)論，也沒(méi)有進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)的比較。我們確曾這樣想過(guò)，但最后不得不放棄。筆者熟悉的西方國(guó)家十分有限，難以完成這項(xiàng)任務(wù)。請(qǐng)讀者自己比較吧，不過(guò)要盡量擺脫“愛(ài)國(guó)主義的偏見”。在證據(jù)不足的情況下，還要暫認(rèn)為中國(guó)人是無(wú)辜的。經(jīng)過(guò)比較，我們至少可以看出，西方國(guó)家面對(duì)的是充滿黎明曙光的未來(lái)，中國(guó)面對(duì)的卻是充滿黑暗的漫漫過(guò)去。我們想請(qǐng)讀者好好深思一個(gè)意味深長(zhǎng)的事實(shí)：這到底是怎么造成的呢？

再重復(fù)一遍，中國(guó)需要的很少，只有人格和良心。也可以說(shuō)，二者是一個(gè)東西，良心本來(lái)就是人格。有人稱贊一位著名的鋼琴制造家，說(shuō)他“像他的鋼琴一樣——寬厚、正直、高貴”。在中國(guó)，誰(shuí)遇到過(guò)這樣的人？

有一本關(guān)于一位英國(guó)作家的傳記，在結(jié)尾處，他的妻子對(duì)剛?cè)ナ缼啄甑恼煞蜻@樣寫道：“外界把他當(dāng)成作家。傳教士，一名社會(huì)成員；但只有每天和他親密生活在一個(gè)家庭的人，才知道他是一個(gè)怎樣的人。在他人眼里，他那浪漫的一生，溫柔細(xì)膩、纏綿悱惻的私人信件，必定為一層面紗所籠罩。但只要稍微揭開這層面紗，我可以說(shuō)，假如在人世間最高尚、最甜蜜的感情中，有一份永不褪色的愛(ài)情一——六十三年，純潔、熱烈依舊——無(wú)論生病的時(shí)候，還是健康的時(shí)候，無(wú)論是陽(yáng)光明媚的日子，還是凄風(fēng)苦雨的日子，無(wú)論是白天，還是黑夜，從未出現(xiàn)過(guò)一個(gè)倉(cāng)促草率的字眼，一個(gè)不耐煩的手勢(shì)，或一個(gè)自私的舉止。如果這份高尚的愛(ài)情可以證明騎士時(shí)代永不會(huì)過(guò)去，那么，對(duì)于一位有福永遠(yuǎn)享受這份愛(ài)情的女人來(lái)說(shuō)，查爾斯·金斯利是一位真正完美的騎士。”

基督教文明最美好的果子，就是它創(chuàng)造的完美的人生。如此人生，并不少見，當(dāng)代就有數(shù)百個(gè)記錄，更有千千萬(wàn)萬(wàn)不為公眾所知的。每位讀者至少知道一個(gè)把全部生命獻(xiàn)給他人的例子，有些讀者可能有幸在自己的經(jīng)歷中遇到更多這類例子。我們?cè)鯓咏忉屵@些人生呢？他們的動(dòng)力來(lái)自何處？我們不希望過(guò)分懷疑，但經(jīng)過(guò)反復(fù)考慮之后，我們確信，如果使中國(guó)變成現(xiàn)有這個(gè)樣子的那種力量，能塑造一個(gè)像金斯利一樣的人，這在道德方面，將是一個(gè)偉大的奇跡，比道家典籍中所有寓言里的奇跡都要大。任何人類制度，都不能逃脫無(wú)情的規(guī)律，《圣經(jīng)》上說(shuō)：“看他們的果子，便知道他們。”儒教有足夠的時(shí)間獲得其最終結(jié)果。我們相信，可做的，它已全做了，以后再也不會(huì)有更大的果子。它已使人的能力發(fā)揮到了極致，而且超過(guò)了其他地方、其他條件下人類所能做的一切。耐心地考察了中國(guó)的這些現(xiàn)象之后，即使是最友善的批評(píng)家也不得不悲哀地承認(rèn)：“是儒教造就了中國(guó)。”

在中國(guó)改革問(wèn)題上，存在三種不同的態(tài)度。第一，沒(méi)必要改革。雖然不是所有的中國(guó)人都這樣想，但無(wú)疑有不少中國(guó)人抱著這一態(tài)度。某些不了解中國(guó)的西方人也這樣認(rèn)為，第二，改革不可能成功。真正的、長(zhǎng)期的改革尚未開始，就必定會(huì)遇到巨大的障礙，許多有機(jī)會(huì)了解到這一點(diǎn)的人，都持有這種悲觀的論調(diào)。他們認(rèn)為，對(duì)龐大的中國(guó)進(jìn)行徹底的改革，就像給木乃伊注入活力使其復(fù)活一樣，毫無(wú)希望。不過(guò)，如果沒(méi)有我們前面的論述，這一觀點(diǎn)就顯得論據(jù)不足。

還有人認(rèn)為，中國(guó)不僅需要改革，而且也可能成功。他們認(rèn)為，問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵在于以何種方式進(jìn)行改革。這方面，也有幾種觀點(diǎn)。

我們首先面對(duì)的問(wèn)題是，中國(guó)是否能夠自我革新？認(rèn)識(shí)到改革之必要的中國(guó)政治家認(rèn)為，中國(guó)當(dāng)然應(yīng)該自我革新。最近，北京《邸報(bào)》的一份奏折中，就有一個(gè)自我革新的例子。寫奏折的官員抱怨內(nèi)地某省的百姓騷動(dòng)不安，并說(shuō)他己派出一批得力人員奔赴各地，向百姓宣講康熙皇帝的《神訓(xùn)廣諭》。他顯然是希望以這種強(qiáng)有力的方式教化百姓，移民易俗。盡管一無(wú)所獲，但宣講道德箴言（對(duì)基督教傳道的原始模仿）在改良人的道德品行方面，仍不失為一種最有希望獲得成功的方法。教化失敗后，沒(méi)有別的辦法，只能像過(guò)去一樣，再次進(jìn)行同樣的努力。長(zhǎng)期的經(jīng)驗(yàn)表明，這一做法必然會(huì)失敗，事件變化，但結(jié)果依舊，全部努力都會(huì)化為泡影。那個(gè)石腿，雄辯的老人的寓言已充分表明這一點(diǎn)。

既然箴言無(wú)效，人們便寄希望于楷模。這一點(diǎn)，前面已作過(guò)討論，這里重提，是想指出為什么最好的楷模沒(méi)有產(chǎn)生預(yù)期的結(jié)果。其原因在于他們無(wú)力使更多的人接受他們生命中的最初動(dòng)力。比如，山西省前任巡撫張之洞，據(jù)報(bào)告說(shuō)，他曾采取強(qiáng)有力的措施制止官吏吸食鴉片，禁止百姓種植鴉片。但他的下屬中有多少人能與他通力配合呢？沒(méi)有這種配合，其結(jié)果可想而知。任何一個(gè)外國(guó)人，如果他必須依賴的中國(guó)人不支持他的改革，他不能不承認(rèn)，在中國(guó)問(wèn)題上，他無(wú)能為力。對(duì)于一個(gè)中國(guó)人，無(wú)論他位居何職，難道不同樣會(huì)感到束手無(wú)策？最多是在目標(biāo)確定之后，便著手處理面前的問(wèn)題（只是表面上的），仿佛一只貓待在閣樓上，就要清除上面的老鼠。這位官員一旦調(diào)任，甚至還未開始走，老鼠就已經(jīng)開始活動(dòng)了，一切照舊。

中國(guó)政治家應(yīng)該懷有親自改革祖國(guó)的希望，這不僅可信，也極為自然，因?yàn)槌酥猓矂e無(wú)選擇。如果一位精明的不列顛官員，了解了“東方人特有的可怕的冷淡和宿命觀——對(duì)這種極端的愚蠢，席勒說(shuō)，即使上帝，也無(wú)計(jì)可施”——并且知道長(zhǎng)期“改革”的方方面面，他可能早就把結(jié)果準(zhǔn)確地預(yù)測(cè)到了。巴伯先生在談及中國(guó)西南開采銅礦暴露出來(lái)的弊病時(shí)說(shuō)：“銅礦還沒(méi)有完全開采之前，云南必須補(bǔ)充人口，必須平等對(duì)待勞力，必須修公路，必須改善揚(yáng)子江上游的航運(yùn)設(shè)施——一句話，中國(guó)必須開化。除非有外來(lái)的動(dòng)力支援，否則，想完成這一過(guò)程，一千年的時(shí)間都不夠。”＊企圖改革中國(guó)而不“借助外力”，就像在大海上造船，難以駕馭的海水和海風(fēng)會(huì)使這一切化為黃粱一夢(mèng)。始于并終于機(jī)器內(nèi)部的力是不能使機(jī)器前進(jìn)的。

北運(yùn)河在北京和天津之間，有一個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)彎，在那兒，游客會(huì)看到岸邊有一個(gè)傾圮了一半的廟，那一半被大水沖走了。靠水的一邊有一道精心修筑的柵欄，由拴在樁上的一捆捆蘆葦組成，用來(lái)?yè)跛Ｉ裣窳⒃谕忸^，任憑風(fēng)吹日曬，河床中積滿了淤泥，周圍的田野沒(méi)有任何阻攔洪水的設(shè)施，這是一幅荒涼破敗的帝國(guó)殘景。中國(guó)有一句經(jīng)典格言：“朽木不可雕。”只有將朽木全部砍掉，老樹才能發(fā)新芽。中國(guó)想從內(nèi)部改革是不能成功的。

不久前，西方國(guó)家廣泛認(rèn)為，中國(guó)可以通過(guò)加入“聯(lián)盟”而獲得新生。不過(guò)，這種希望沒(méi)有多少切實(shí)的根據(jù)。世界主要國(guó)家在北京派駐代表已有三十多年了，它們到底為苦難的中國(guó)帶來(lái)了多少有益的影響？而且，令人悲哀的是，大國(guó)間的關(guān)系并不對(duì)中國(guó)格外有利。中國(guó)人敏于事，西方人有什么證據(jù)可以使中國(guó)人相信，它們發(fā)展自己國(guó)家的動(dòng)機(jī)能比中國(guó)人改革的動(dòng)機(jī)更高尚？既然中國(guó)自己正在成為一股“力量”，她就忙于挑撥其他國(guó)家之間的關(guān)系，從中取利、卻沒(méi)想到其他國(guó)家是在“掠奪”她，而不是在進(jìn)行道德教化。因此，即使中國(guó)要改革，也不能通過(guò)外交途徑。

＊已故的巴伯先生這段意味深長(zhǎng)的話，最近為1890年8月北京《邸報(bào)》的一篇奏折證實(shí)了，云南礦務(wù)執(zhí)事唐奘報(bào)告了工作與運(yùn)輸?shù)臈l件，他說(shuō)：“人們大量進(jìn)行非法開采，官員們害怕獨(dú)攬開采權(quán)會(huì)帶來(lái)不良后果，就想了一個(gè)辦法，他們低價(jià)購(gòu)進(jìn)非法開采的銅礦石，較有效地利用了人們的額外勞動(dòng)，這一方法也頗受當(dāng)?shù)厝说臍g迎。我認(rèn)為，這種方法既可以使采礦正常進(jìn)行，也不會(huì)給外來(lái)侵入者提供借口。”不過(guò)，皇帝只命令稅務(wù)署將這份奏章“記錄備案。”

奏折附文中，巡撫報(bào)告說(shuō)，每月可以從非法采礦者手中買進(jìn)一萬(wàn)斤銅礦石，但“不付錢，只供給他們油和大米。”最后，他還說(shuō)：“礦區(qū)的整體情況非常令人滿意。”

皇帝并不是每天都能收到巡撫一級(jí)官員的匯報(bào)。許多人故意違反法令，而地方官又不敢動(dòng)他們，不過(guò)，油和大米可以使他們滿足，一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)錢就足以使他們交出偷采的礦。正是由于藐視皇帝及其他官員，帝國(guó)的采礦業(yè)才“非常令人滿意。”無(wú)怪乎要讓稅務(wù)署“記錄在案！”

也有人堅(jiān)信，中國(guó)不僅需要加入國(guó)際大家庭，而且需要自由交流、自由貿(mào)易，需要人們彼此相愛(ài)、情同手足。只有商業(yè)主義才是中國(guó)問(wèn)題的靈丹妙藥。她需要更多的進(jìn)出口，更低的關(guān)稅，需要取消通行稅。二、三十年前，我們也許不能聽到這些觀點(diǎn)，那時(shí)中國(guó)人已充分地滲透到澳大利亞和美國(guó)，可他們并沒(méi)有學(xué)會(huì)“自由交流”和“彼此相愛(ài)、親如兄弟”。不是早就聽說(shuō)中國(guó)的茶和草綆質(zhì)量不合格嗎？它們?cè)谀撤N程度上還不如從西方進(jìn)口的貨物。

商業(yè)作為文明的輔助手段，其價(jià)值是無(wú)法估量的。但它本身并不能作為改革的手段。現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的偉大倡導(dǎo)者亞當(dāng)·斯密把人定義為“商業(yè)動(dòng)物”。他說(shuō)，任何兩條狗都不知道交換骨頭。即使假設(shè)它們知道，而且在一個(gè)大城市里，群狗建立了一個(gè)骨頭交易市場(chǎng)，這又會(huì)對(duì)狗的性格帶來(lái)什么必然的影響呢？古代那些偉大的商業(yè)國(guó)家，并不是最好的國(guó)家，相反，總是最差的。它們的現(xiàn)代繼承者，情形完全不同，并不能歸因于貿(mào)易，完全是由其他原因造成的。有句話說(shuō)得好，商業(yè)如同基督教，目標(biāo)廣大無(wú)邊；但商業(yè)又像雨后彩虹，總彎向金色的一邊。

只要看一看非洲大陸就行了。猖獗的酒類走私和奴隸貿(mào)易，哪一種不是由基督教國(guó)家引入的？這些無(wú)法形容的災(zāi)難，難道不說(shuō)明，商業(yè)并沒(méi)有給非洲帶來(lái)革新嗎？

許多了解中國(guó)現(xiàn)狀的朋友，為中國(guó)開的藥方要比上面復(fù)雜多了。他們認(rèn)為，中國(guó)需要西方的文化，西方的科學(xué)，和梅杜斯先生說(shuō)的“物質(zhì)文明”。中國(guó)文明已有數(shù)千年的歷史，我們的祖先還在森林中尋找食物時(shí)，她己進(jìn)入文明社會(huì)數(shù)百年了。只要是地球上能吃的東西，她都試著烹好過(guò)，這種文明如何能改革呢？文化是自私的，它總是有意無(wú)意地強(qiáng)調(diào)“我，而不是你”。正如在中國(guó)，我們引以為自豪的文化，卻經(jīng)常遭到嘲弄和非理性的譏笑。如果中國(guó)文化對(duì)此不適當(dāng)加以控制，難道外國(guó)引入中國(guó)的事物不會(huì)遭到同樣的命運(yùn)？

科學(xué)，無(wú)疑也是中國(guó)最迫切需要的。他們需要各種科學(xué)來(lái)開發(fā)帝國(guó)潛在的資源。他們已清楚地看到了這一點(diǎn)，不久的將來(lái)，將會(huì)看得更清楚。但掌握科學(xué)就一定有利于改善帝國(guó)的道德狀況嗎？這要通過(guò)何種方式來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)呢？化學(xué)是與現(xiàn)代社會(huì)發(fā)展聯(lián)系最緊密的學(xué)科，然而，化學(xué)知識(shí)在中國(guó)的廣泛傳播就是中國(guó)人獲得新生的道德手段嗎？難道在生活的各個(gè)領(lǐng)域就不會(huì)傳人新的、意想不到的欺詐與暴力行為嗎？按照中國(guó)人的現(xiàn)有性格，如果他們掌握了制造現(xiàn)代炸藥的配方，而且對(duì)化學(xué)藥品不加控制，難道人們還能過(guò)著安全的日子嗎？

發(fā)展“物質(zhì)文明”就意味著將具備西方高度發(fā)展的物質(zhì)成果。包括以蒸汽機(jī)和電力所創(chuàng)造的各種奇跡。人們以為，這才是中國(guó)真正需要的，也是她的全部需要。連接各個(gè)城市的鐵路、內(nèi)陸河上的汽船航運(yùn)、完備的郵電系統(tǒng)、國(guó)家銀行，銀市作為通訊中樞的電話與電報(bào)一一一這些都是美好的新中國(guó)的明顯標(biāo)志。

這也許就是張之洞的未成型的想法。他在主張修鐵路的奏折中，斷言鐵路將會(huì)消除河運(yùn)中很多可能的危險(xiǎn)，“比如水手偷盜”等等。那么，物質(zhì)文明的發(fā)展就能消除道德上的邪惡?jiǎn)幔胯F路能保證雇員，甚至是老板的誠(chéng)實(shí)嗎？我們不是讀過(guò)《伊利城的一章》嗎？那里整段的國(guó)際鐵路被盜走，股東們束手無(wú)策，找不到“該負(fù)責(zé)的人”。物質(zhì)文明是自己發(fā)展起來(lái)的，還是由一系列復(fù)雜的條件，經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)期協(xié)調(diào)，緩慢地發(fā)展起來(lái)的？引人投票箱，就能使中國(guó)成為民主國(guó)家，建立共和制度嗎？如果中國(guó)不想創(chuàng)造西方那樣的條件，她就不能獲得同樣的結(jié)果，也不能發(fā)展更多的物質(zhì)文明。這些條件不是物質(zhì)的，而是道德的。

中國(guó)人為什么不能學(xué)習(xí)香港、上海及其他通商口岸的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，在內(nèi)地城市設(shè)立“租界”呢？因?yàn)樗麄儾幌Ｍ@樣的變革，如果設(shè)立，他們會(huì)難以忍受。在近三分之一的世紀(jì)中，他們親眼看到帝國(guó)海關(guān)實(shí)行正規(guī)管理的成效，可為什么不在其他地方實(shí)行同樣的管理方法呢？因?yàn)樵谥袊?guó)目前的情況下，中國(guó)人對(duì)中國(guó)人采用這種抽稅方法，在道德上是難以接受的。英國(guó)人的人格與良心經(jīng)歷了一千多年才發(fā)展到目前的水平，中國(guó)人不可能立即接受，并實(shí)行這一切，不可能像克虜伯大炮一樣，架起來(lái)就可以發(fā)射。

盎格魯—撒克遜民族培養(yǎng)人格和良心的動(dòng)力就像裘力斯.凱撒在不列顛登陸或威廉大帝入侵的歷史一樣確鑿無(wú)疑，它誕生于基督教，又隨著基督教的發(fā)展而發(fā)展。隨著基督教在人們心中扎下根，它們也變得枝葉繁茂了。

讓我們聽一下偉大的文化倡導(dǎo)者馬歇爾·阿諾德是如何說(shuō)的吧：“每一個(gè)有教養(yǎng)的人都熱愛(ài)希臘，感激希臘。希臘是藝術(shù)與科學(xué)的旗手，如同以色列是正義的旗手一樣。現(xiàn)在，世界上離不開藝術(shù)與科學(xué)。偉大的希臘人是那樣熱衷于藝術(shù)與科學(xué)，反倒使品行成了普通的家常事。輝煌的希臘因不注重品行而在地球上消失了，因?yàn)槿祟愋枰沸小⒊领o、人格……不僅如此，它也成功地向世人啟示，即使在知識(shí)受到高度尊重，世界需要越來(lái)越多的美和知識(shí)的今天，支配世界的不是希臘，而是猶太；不是希臘人卓越的藝術(shù)和科學(xué)，而是猶太人非凡的正義。”

為了改革中國(guó)，就必須探明中國(guó)人性格的來(lái)龍去脈；使之凈化，就必須在實(shí)際上了推崇人的良心，而不能像歷代的日本天皇，整日被關(guān)在宮中。現(xiàn)代哲學(xué)的一位領(lǐng)袖說(shuō)得好：“鉛的本能煉不出金的品行。”中國(guó)需要的是正義，為了獲得正義，中國(guó)人必須了解上帝，必須更新人的概念，并確立人與上帝之間的關(guān)系。他們需要全新的靈魂，全新的家庭，全新的社會(huì)。總之，中國(guó)人的各種需要化為一種迫切的需要，即她應(yīng)該永久地。徹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 Juda?a'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.