《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(tài)。

全書以27個主題章節(jié)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(xiàn)象。通過對比西方工業(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)論因宗教立場存在視角爭議。該著作開創(chuàng)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。

原書序：我所見之中國人

在法庭上，人們總是要求見證人所說的都是真話，沒有半點含糊，只是真話。許多略知中國人的見證人，雖然能說出一些真實的東西，但他們當中，大概并沒有多少人能如實地敘述，更不用說讓他們講出全面的真情。任何個人，無論他的知識面多寬，都不可能真正了解中國人的全部真實情況。因而，本書必須面對來自三種不同觀點的異議。

首先，或許有人會說，要把所知道的有關(guān)中國人的特性如實地轉(zhuǎn)述給他人，那只是白費力氣。喬治·溫格羅夫·庫克先生，是1857至1858年期間倫敦《泰晤士報》的一位專門采訪中國的記者；他像所有到中國去的作家一樣，有機會親眼目睹在各種環(huán)境下的中國人，并可以借助于那些很具資歷的人物的看法去了解中國人。然而，庫克先生在他所出版的書信集的前言中卻承認他對中國人特性的描述是失敗的，并為此表示歉意。他說：“在這些書信里，有關(guān)中國人特性的作品，我寫得并不夠精彩，這是很大的疏忽。這本是一個最具誘惑力且最能施展才華的題目：機智的假定，深刻的概括，自信的斷言，都可以在其中得到展示。那些吹毛求疵的批評家們肯定會由于我沒有從這種機會中有所收獲而鄙視我。事實上，關(guān)于中華民族，我曾寫過中國人不少優(yōu)秀的品質(zhì)，但不幸的是，在我把眼前的那些具體的人物置于筆下時，他們曾有過的粗俗的言行卻與我的初衷相違背。為了追求真實，我連續(xù)燒掉了好幾封長信。此外，我還經(jīng)常就這些事，與最著名的漢學家坦誠地進行交流。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們與我一樣，都認為要形成有關(guān)中國人特性的整體概念是不可能的。當然，這些困難只有那些真正了解中國人的漢學家們才會遇到。一位足夠精明的作家，可以在完全撇開主題的情況下，輕易地作出兩個客觀真實、冠冕堂皇但相互對立的分析。有朝一日，我們或許可以獲取某些必要知識，能夠全面準確地分析和評價中國佬的特性中明顯的自相矛盾。目前，我至少必須排除嚴格的界定，用中國人所具有的特殊品性去描述中國佬。”

在過去的三十年中，中國人已經(jīng)使自己成為國際事務中的一個重要角色。他們被看做是壓服不了的、神秘的民族。的確，除了在中國，任何其他國家的人都不可能真正了解中國人。在很多人的印象中，中國人似乎是一個根本無法理解的矛盾體。但是，既然我們已經(jīng)與中國打了幾百年的交道，那么，我們就沒有理由不對中國大地上的人民以及其他復雜的現(xiàn)象作同等看待。

“其次，對本書更為嚴重的反對意見是筆者并不完全具備寫此書的資格。一個在中國生活了二十二年的人，并不能完全保證他有能力寫出有關(guān)中國人特性的書，正如一個在銀礦里埋頭苦干了二十二年的人，并不足以證明他有資格撰寫出有關(guān)冶金學或復本位制的論文。中國是一個巨大的整體；一個還未考察過它的一半以上省份且只是在其中兩個省居住過的人，當然沒有資格對這整個國家作出概括。本書的這些文章最初只是為上海的《北華捷報》（《字林西報》）所準備的，并沒有考慮更廣泛的傳播。然而，其中的一些論題不僅在中國，而且在英國、美國和加拿大都引起了極大的興趣，筆者這才應讀者的要求將文章匯編成冊。”

還有一些人提出了第三種反對意見，即本書所闡發(fā)的某些看法，特別是涉及中國人道德特征的觀點，對中國人產(chǎn)生了誤解和不公正，可能誤導人們的看法。

然而，大家必須要記住，印象隨筆并不可能像統(tǒng)計數(shù)字那樣絲毫不差。它們更像是照片的底片，它沖出的照片，沒有哪兩張是完全相同的。但每一張底片，都真實地再現(xiàn)其他底片所沒有表現(xiàn)出的某些方面。拍照用的膠片不同，鏡頭不同，顯影劑又不同，其結(jié)果，當然也就各有差異。

許多久居中國的人，對這個國家的了解完全要比筆者多得多。然而，他們所表達的觀點，與筆者是完全一致的。在另外一些人看來，在某些部位潤色一下、加一些亮麗的色彩，會給這幅過于單調(diào)的畫面增添真實性。這些人的看法，同樣值得尊重。正是考慮到這些十分正確的意見，筆者對原文作了全面的修訂。由于出版的時間十分倉促，原來所討論的中國人特性的文字有三分之一被刪減了。當然，最重要的部分仍然保留，并新增寫了“知足常樂”一章。

中國人具備并且表現(xiàn)出來的一切美好德操，我們理所當然要大加由衷的贊美。同時，我們又不能陷于某種先定的思維束縛，過于抬高他們實際上所不具有的道德品行——這種行為的危害性，并不亞于那種不分青紅皂白的指責。這使我們聯(lián)想起了小說家薩克雷。曾經(jīng)有人詢問他，在他的小說作品中，怎么會有好人總是笨蛋，壞人卻是機智過人。對此，這位偉大的諷刺作家回答說，他是無心的，并沒有做出深入的思考。有一幅表現(xiàn)橡樹姿態(tài)的木刻畫，要求觀察者從橡樹的輪廓中分辨出拿破侖來。他正抱著臂，低下頭，站在圣赫勒拿島。起先，長時間地盯著畫面看，往往一無所獲。如此這般，欣賞者未免要指責作者牽強附會。可是，一旦經(jīng)由他人稍稍指點，看畫者在看畫時就不可避免地能看到拿破侖的樣子。同樣的道理，在中國，許多事起初常常會看到，但卻并沒有被深深地注意到，而一旦被指出來引起注意，就會令人難以忘卻。

正如限制性的從句不能取代概括性的主句，本書中的文章，并不是立意于對整個中華帝國的概括，也不是諸多外國人所見所聞的大雜燴。這點，必須提請讀者們注意。這些文章，僅僅是一位觀察者本人對自己的印象所作的描述，只是許多“中國人性格”中的一部分。它們并不構(gòu)成一幅中國民眾的肖像圖，而更像是觀察者根據(jù)自己的所見所聞，用炭筆對中國民眾的某些特性所作的簡略素描。它們僅僅只能組成一條光線，而無數(shù)條這樣的光線交織在一些，才能形成一道白光光柱。它們也可能被視作歸納研究，這里所涉及的諸多細節(jié)不僅僅是筆者的體驗，也是其他各種人在許多場合下的親歷。只不過，在這里，它們得到匯集。正是為了做到這一點，圍繞著各個主題，我列舉了大量的具體事例。

密迪樂先生是眾多研究中國及中國人的作家中最富哲理性的一位。他曾經(jīng)表達過這樣一種觀點：一個人對外國民族的性格有了許多正確的看法，并希望把這種看法轉(zhuǎn)達給他人時，其最佳方式莫過于把所有相關(guān)的筆記都交給他細讀。在這些筆記中，要詳盡記錄著大量引人注目的事件，特別是那些對外國人來說非同尋常的事件，并附有該國人士對該事件的說明。

正是通過大量的此類事件，才能推出一個一般性結(jié)論。推出的結(jié)論可以遭到質(zhì)疑或者完全被否定，但所列舉的那些個別事例，只要是真實的，就不能僅僅由于某種原因而被丟在一邊。未來任何有關(guān)中國人性格的理論，最終都必須仰仗這些事例作出分析。

將中國人與盎格魯—撒克遜人進行比較，是十分困難的。試圖從事這一研究的人，最能強烈地感受到這一點。顯然，許多被視為屬于中國人“性格”的東西，實際上只是東方人的特性。通過閱讀本書，你將會看到這一點。至于到底準確與否，每位讀者都可以根據(jù)自己的切身經(jīng)驗加以判斷。

據(jù)說，在與中國人打交道的現(xiàn)如今，有三條途徑可以去了解他們的社會生活：研究他們的小說、研究他們的民謠和研讀他們的戲劇。這些研究途徑無疑有其自身價值的，但似乎這其中還會有第四條途徑。這一途徑比前三者相加起來還有價值，但是這一途徑并不能向所有研究中國和中國人的作家開放。那就是研究那些居住在自己家鄉(xiāng)的中國人，深入其家庭生活中去。正如身在農(nóng)村比在城市里更能明白一個區(qū)域的地形風貌，在農(nóng)村里，也更易掌握一種人的特性。一個外國人在中國的城市里住上十年，他所能獲取的有關(guān)中國人家庭生活的知識，或許并不如他在中國農(nóng)村住上十二個月所獲得的知識多。

除了研究中國人的家庭，我們還必須把村莊看做是構(gòu)成中國社會生活的基本單元。因此，本書的這些文章，正是以中國農(nóng)村為立足點而寫成的。這些文章的目的，并不是為了表達一個基督教傳教士的觀點，它們是一個沒有任何主觀偏見的觀察者對自己所見所聞的如實報告。正是由于這個緣故，本書沒有太多涉及所謂用基督教改善中國人性格的問題，也不貿(mào)然作出中國人需要基督教的假定。但是，假如他們的性格中的確表現(xiàn)出了諸多嚴重的缺陷，那么，在此基礎(chǔ)上，這些缺陷如何去糾正，才是一個很值得研究的問題。

人們所談論的“中國問題”，如今已遠不是一個國家的問題，而是國際性的問題。完全有理由相信，在二十世紀，這一問題將是更為緊迫的問題。中國人是人類中相當大的一個組成部分。如何去改善他們，都將是每一個希望人類美好的人不能不感興趣的一個專題。如果我們堅信自己的這些結(jié)論是正確的話，那么，即使以往它們都被忽略，這些結(jié)論依然將會得到一系列論據(jù)的支持；如果這些結(jié)論錯了，無論獲得怎樣支持，都不攻自破。

多年以前，額爾金勛爵士與上海的商界有過一次問答。時至今日，他的話依然是非常正確的和中允的。他說：“當那些阻止人們自由進入這個國家的障礙被搬開時，西方基督教文明將發(fā)現(xiàn)自己所面對的不是一片荒漠，而是一個古老的文明。它在許多方面都表現(xiàn)出巨大的衰退與殘缺，但在另一些方面，又不能不令我們抱以同情和尊敬。在行將到來的競爭中，基督教文明要想走上戰(zhàn)勝這個猜疑重重且又足智多謀的民族的道路，必須要使人們明白，抵達天堂的信仰比不離塵世的生活原則，更能保證公眾和個人具有良好的道德品行。”

英文原版：

AWITNESS when put upon the stand is expected to tellthe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.Many witnesses concerning the Chinese have told the truth,but perhaps few of them have succeeded in telling nothingbut the truth, and no one of them has ever told the wholeNo single individual, whatever the extent of his knowledge, could by any possibility know the whole truth aboutthe Chinese. The present volume of essays is therefore opento objection from three different points of view.

First, it may be said that the attempt to convey to othersan idea of the real characteristics of the Chinese is vain.Mr. George Wingrove Cooke, the China correspondent of theLondon Times in 1857-58, enjoyed as good an opportunityof seeing the Chinese under varied circumstances, and throughthe eyes of those well qualified to help him to a just understanding of the people, as any writer on China up to thattime. In the preface to his published letters, Mr. Cooke apologises as follows for his failure to describe the Chinesecharacter: "I have, in these letters, introduced no elaborateessay upon Chinese character. It is a great omission. Notheme could be more tempting, no subject could afford wider scope for ingenious hypothesis, profound generalisation, andtriumphant dogmatism. Every small critic will probablyutterly despise me for not having made something out ofsuch opportunities. The truth is, that I have written severalvery fine characters for the whole Chinese race, but havingthe misfortune to have the people under my eye at the sametime with my essay, they were always saying something ordoing something which rubbed so rudely against my hypothesis, that in the interest of truth I burnt several successive letters.I may add that I have often talked over this matterwith the most eminent and candid sinologues, and havealways found them ready to agree with me as to the im^ssibility of a conception of Chinese character as a whole.These difficulties, however, occur only to those who know theChinese practically ; a smart writer, entirely ignorant of thesubject, might readily strike off a brilliant and antitheticalanalysis, which should leave nothing to be desired but truth.Some day, perhaps, we may acquire the necessary knowledgeto give to each of the glaring .inconsistencies of a Chinaman'smind its proper weight and influence in the general mass. Atpresent, I, at least, must be content to avoid strict definitions,and to describe a Chinaman* by his most prominent qualities."

Within the past thirty years, the Chinese has made himselfa factor in the affairs of many lands. He is seen to be irrepressible ;11is felt to be incomprehensible.He cannot, indeed,be rightly understood in any country but China, yet the impression still prevails that he is a bundle of contradictions whocannot be understood at all. But after all there is no apparent reason, now that several hundred years of our ac- ' /vquaintance with China have elapsed, why what is actually iknown of its people should not be co-ordinated, as well as'any other combination of complex phenomena.

A more serious objection to this particular volume is thatthe author has no adequate qualifications for writing, it. Thecircumstance that a person has lived for twenty-two years inChina is no more a guarantee that he is competent to writeof the characteristics of the Chinese, than the fact that anotherman has for twenty-two years been biuied in a silver mine isa proof that he is a fit person to compose a treatise on metallurgy, or on bi-metallism. China is a vast whole, and onewho has never even visited more than half its provinces, andwho has lived in but two of them, is certainly not entitled togeneralise for the whole Empire. These papers were originally prepared for the North-China Daily News of Shanghai,with no reference to any wider circulation. Some of thetopics treated excited, however, so much interest, not only inChina, but also in Great Britain, in the United States, and inCanada, that the author was asked to reproduce the articlesin a permanent form.

A third objection, which will be offered by some, is thatparts of the views here presented, especially those which dealwith the moral ch^acter of the Chinese, are misleading andunjust.

It should be remembered, however, that impressions arenot like statistics which may be corrected to a fraction. They rather resemble photographic negatives, no two of which maybe ahke, yet each of them may present truthfully somethingnot observable in any of the rest. The plates on which thephotographs are taken differ ; so do the lenses, and the developers, and the resulting views differ too.

Many old residents of China, whose knowledge of thecountry is very much greater than that of the writer, have expressed themselves as in substantial agreement with his opinions, while others, whose judgment is entitled to equal respect,think that a somewhat lighter coloiuing in certain parts wouldincrease the fidelity of the too "monochromatic" picture.With this undoubtedly just criticism in mind, the work hasbeen revised and amended throughout. While the exigenciesof republication at this time have rendered convenient theomission of one-third of the characteristics originally discussed, those that remain contain nevertheless the most important portions of the whole, and the chapter on Content andCheerfulness is altogether new.

There can be no vahd excuse for withholding commendationfrom the Chinese for any one of the many good qualities whichthey possess and exhibit. At the same time, there is a dangerof yielding to h j>riori considerations, and giving the Chinesecredit for a higher practical morality than they can justly claim—an evil not less serious than indiscriminate condemnation.It is related of Thackeray, that he was once asked how it happened that the good people in his novels were always stupid,and the bad people clever. To this the great satirist repliedthat he had no brains above his eyes. There is a wood-cutrepresenting an oak tree, in the outlines of which the observeris invited to detect a profile of Napoleon on the island ofSt. Helena, standing with bowed head and folded arms. Protracted contemplation frequently fails to discover any suchprofile, and it would seem that there must be some mistake,but when once it is clearly pointed out, it is impossible to look at the picture and not see the Napoleon too. In like manner,many things are to be seen in China which do not at firstappear, and many of them once seen are never forgotten.

While it has been impossible to introduce a quaUf)dng clauseinto every sentence which is general in its form, the reader isexpressly warned that these papers are not intended to begeneralisations for a whole Empire, nor yet comprehensiveabstracts of what foreigners have observed and experienced.What they are intended to be is merely a notation of the impression which has been made upon one observer, by a fewout of many " Chinese Characteristics." They are not meantas a portrait of the Chinese people, but rather as mere outlinesketches in charcoal of some features of the Chinese people, asthey have been seen by that one observer. Taken together,they constitute only a single ray, of which an indefinite numberare required to form a complete beam of white light. They may also be considered as studies in induction, in which manyparticulars taken from the experience not of the writer only,but of various other individuals at various times, are grouped.It is for this reason that the subject has been so largely treatedby exemplification.

Mr. Meadows, the most philosophical of the many writerson China and the Chinese, expressed the opinion that thebest way to convey to the mind of another person a correctidea of the genius of a foreign people would be to hand him for perusal a collection of notes, formed by carefully recordinggreat numbers of incidents which had attracted one's attention,particularly those that seemed at all extraordinary, togetherwith the explanation of the extraordinary parts as given by^natives of the country.

From a sufficient number of such incidents a general principle is inferred. The inferences may be doubted or denied,but such particulars as are cited cannot, for that reason alone,be set aside, being so far as they go truthful, and they must ultimately be reckoned with in any theory of the Chinese character.

The difficulty of comparing Chinese with Anglo-Saxons willbe most strongly felt by those who have attempted it. Tosuch it will soon become evident that many things whichseem "characteristic " of the Chinese are merely Oriental traits ;but to what extent this is true, each reader in the lightof his own experience must judge for himself.

It has been said that in the present stage of our intercoursewith Chinese there are three ways in which we can come tosome knowledge of their social life—by the study of theirnovels, their ballads, and their plays. Each of these sources of information doubtless has its worth, but there is likewisea fourth, more valuable than all of them combined, a source/ not open to every one who writes on China and the Chinese.

It is the study of the family life of the Chinese in their own\\ homes. As the topography of a district can be much better /understood in the country than in the city, so it is with thecharacteristics of the people. A foreigner may live in a Chinese city for a decade, and not gain as much knowledge of the interior life of the people as he can acquire by living twelvemonths in a Chinese village. Next to the Family we mustregard the Village as the unit of Chinese social life, and it istherefore from the standpoint of a Chinese village that thesepapers have been written. They are of purpose not intendedto represent the point of view of a missionary, but that of anobserver not consciously prejudiced, who simply reports whathe sees. For this reason no reference is made to any characteristics of the Chinese as they may be modified by Christianity.It is not assumed that the Chinese need Christianity atall, but if it appears that there are grave defects in their char'vacter, it is a fair question how those defects may be remedied.

The " Chinese question," as already remarked, is now farmore than a national one. It is international. There is reason to think that in the twentieth century it will be an evenmore pressing question than at present. The problem of the'means by which so vast a part of the human race may be improved cannot be without interest to any one who wisheswell to mankind. If the conclusions to which we may findourselves led are correct, they will be supported by a line ofargument heretofore too much neglected. If these conclusionsare wrong, they will, however supported, fall of themselves.

It is many years since Lord Elgin's reply to an addressfrom the merchants of Shanghai, but his words are true andpertinent to-day. " When the barriers which prevent freeaccess to the interior of the country shall have been removed.Christian civihsation of the West will find itself face to facenot with barbarism, but with an ancient civilisation in manyrespects effete and imperfect, but in others not without claimsto our sympathy and respect. In the rivalry which will thenensue. Christian civihsation will have to win its way among asceptical and ingenious people, by making it manifest that afaith which reaches to heaven furnishes better guarantees forpubhc and private morality than one which does not riseabove the earth.