156
home, we cannot afford to forget that the Chinese statesman, who lins got beyond the childish superstitions of his childhood, is quite, so far as intelligence is concerned, on a par with his ordinary European colleague.
CHINESE SQUEEZE, WITH SOME DIGRESSIONS.
(Daily Press, 12th September.) An esteenied contemporary has succeeded in deeply interesting us with its "philosophy of squeeze," approaching the subject from an entirely different point of view to that we recently adoptel. It holds up in one hand the conspicuous civility and diguity of the Chinese, and in the other their alleged cupidity and mendacity. Having invited us to look on this picture, and then on that, our contemporary puts the poser, "Is Chinese dignity a shaic ?," and "If it is not, how can it square with Chinese avarice ? " It is a quaint situation to conjure up, and to guard as far as we can against misrepresenting our contemporary's presentation of the problem, we may give some of its own words. Now we must either admit," it says, "that Chinese dignity is, as a matter of fact, nothing more than a sham, or we must show that it is independent of his attitude towards money.' In conclusion, it decides that Chinese dishonesty is irrelevant to Chinese dignity, with these words, · There is real antagonism between Chinese diguity and Chinese 'squeeze' because, however much we may regret it, there is no connection whatever between the two." There is no
f
no
{ז
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
mathematical device for which we have such unfeigned «ffection ILS the process of discovering the least or lowest commoa multiple. It is the only principle of arithmetic for which we could ever suminon up any admiration, the only branch of the science of numbers whose reason and justice ever pierced our dislike of figures aud figuring. We love it because it is one way of making sumis easier. The proce:s appeals to us in other things. Where po sible we like to reduce everything to its simplest terms. When our contemporary talks about the irrelevance of honesty, remarking that "since the expediency of honesty is only to be estimated by the strengthening influences it exercises upon
similar conceptious, it is not included in the morality of Chinese life, and we are present. ed with yet another paradox, that the Chinese can be dishonest without being undignified, simply because his dignity cannot be held to be in any way connected with a conception of which his practical life knows nothing," we confess to being in some mental haze; we yearn for a simpl fication of multiples. Can a dignified Chinnan equeeze? If that is the question, we could answer it straight off. Can a Chinese squeeze with dignity? That also assumes no formidability. We at once recall the imperturbable dignity of the " "boy who, on its being conclusively demonstrated that the amah could not have had access to the decanter from which the sherry had wander- ed, shook his head and expressed his regretful fear that mahs as a class were not to be trusted. Also that other who accounted for some missing crême de me the by suggesting that the cook had put it in the soup, and on being warned against false hood, declared earnestly that sposumn Chinaman talkee lie, he fall down' dead chop-chop." What, again, can surpass the dignity of the tradesman who, in ignorance of the fact that you can read the price-mark, overcharges you twenty or thirty per cent, and smilelessly and unwinkingly hands you the balance of your change when you point
t<
face.
11
and the
ir
out his perfidy? Certainly, if that be the question, dignity and squeeze present no entanglement. Who said they did? Let us hark back a little. Our contemporary enlarges on the Chinese dread of losing "Personal dignity must never be compromised,
stage of life must always be trodden with a proud front, a diguified bearing and a perpetual calm," Yet this does not interfere with their "passion for money." Why should it ? Why should it interfere with any of their predilections not germane? The dignity of Mr. WHACKFORD SQUEERS Was not impaired by the rest of his behaviour. Mr. DOMBEY, senior, main- tained his while guilty of numerous little- nesses; and the indubitable dignity of that architect and laudsurveyor of Salisbury, Mr. PECKSNIFF, has passed into a proverb. When we read that the practice of squeeze,' with all the dishonesty it entails, reveals the Chinese in anything but a dignified attitude," we begin to realize that there may be more than one conception of dignity. We begin to suspect that the curious problem suggested itself to our contemporary through a momentary con- fusion of dignity (as we define it) with honour. Honour way intrinsically belong to a man, or it may be conferred upon him, but essentially, and strictly speaking, it should be the intrinsic quality of a man of honour. Dignity, in its derivation, would be alunost synonymous, but in practice and in fact it is something altogether different. It is extrinsic, assumed. A dishonourable person may be eminently digniɓel, and a very dignified person may be exceedingly dishonourable. Hence the perplexity of our contemporary. If a plebiscite were to be taken as to what is generally understood by dignity, we feel sure it would come out as à mere appearance, a seeming, an aspect. A mau may seem or appear that which he is, or that which he is not. Honour, however, is something that is, something inside. man of honour may not always seem such; he is not concerned to show it. A man's honour is something for his own conscience to approve; his dignity is ostensible, some- thing for the approval of beholders, of out- siders. That is why we do not apotheosise dignity. We do not value it. We have no use for it. It is too cheap. A man of honour may at times be undignified If he has any sense of humour, he won't mind that. The man whose only usset is this kind of dignity, however, is exceedingly discomforted by any lapse. Imagine a caller cat.bing a mandarin playing bear in his nursery! How the maudarin would lose face. Yet what sort of a man is he who would feel ashamed of such innocent con- duct intended to give pleasure to the young? The foreigner who pances about his bedroom of a morning, suarl ng at his wife over a missing shirt button, is not ashamed of his undignitied bebaviour. outside, in public, be will wink at almost any offence or insult rather than "inake a scene. That is dignity,
as popularly understood. In a previous article on Chi- nese etiquette, and foreign too, we tried to show how similarly hol ow it was, and is The compensating beauty of the arrange ment is that the dignity of such persons is their Samson's hair, their tendon Achilles, their vulnerable point. It is at once their armour and the most easily penetrated joint of it. The man who fears to lose face' is at the mercy of any one who does not care about this pretentious and shoddy attribute. Our contemporary evidently does not re- cognise the popular conception of it, how ever. It is thinking of honour. "Most of us," it says, meaning foreigners, ́have
|
A
But
[September 14, 1907..
conceptious which we would besitate to sacrifice for any monetary reward, however large. Honesty, in fact, is the main basis upon which the personal dignity of the European rests, and when a European loses his sense of honesty, the rest of his fellows say that he has lost all sense of personal dignity," That comment is certainly new to us. We never dreamed of making it, and we never neard it made. In all seriousness, does it not depend upon the extent of the dishonesty? Let us consider what people think, not what they may pretend to think. Does the public regard JOHN WILLIAM STAGG, who gets a month for coal stealing and Jabez BALFOUR, who misappropriate, toany thousands of pounds, through the same eyes? Suggest the iden of " dignity" to them: would they not, while denying is to the petty thief, hesitate in the case of the bigger rascal? Why, recently, when an officer of the British army was charged with misappropriating trust money, and his lawyer said it would all be returned, did not the magistrate, in dismissing him, say he had only himself to blame for his undignified position? What would the same magistrate have said of a mere clerk embezzling the petty cash of his employer? Surely nothing about dignity. As we read further, we find that our contemporary does admit that certain dignity-Chinese dignity-is meaningless, an "elaborate and grotesque attempt to keep up appearances. Quite right; but there is absolutely no warrant for suggesting that foreign dignity is anything better. Our code of honour in commercial ethics is higher, let us say, but it follows that our lapses from it are correspondingly more unworthy. Much Chinese squeeze, as we have previously argued, while dishonesty to us, appears to them merely sharp practice. If it fails, they do not lose face. The failure does not touch their dignity. Their attitude toward it is better luck next time.' But the dignity of foreign wrong-doers is no hetter. If their lapses can be hushed up, kept out of the papers," their dignity remains unimpaired. Our contemporary
1
[
$1
goes on:
54
1
Professor Giles has made the paradoxical but
are a nation of liare, they are not a nation of
penetrating assertion that, whilst the Chinese thieves, and this statement furnishes a key to the difficulty with which we are dealing. For if we examine the character of Chinese morality wo shall see how it is that while in Europe the one propensity is generally held to be inseparable from the othe, in China there is no necessary connexion between them; and we shall arrive, 00, at an explanation of the Ch nese att tude
towards life. To venture to sum up a some- what big question in few words, we may say that Chinese morality is retrospective, basing itself for practical purposes upon the worship of ancestors, whereas Europeau morality is pro spective, and its touchstone is the welfare of descendants. Where Confucius would judge a man's actions by the test of conservatism, Kant would judge them by that of universality: and thus, whilst European morality reaches out towards the ideal, Chinese morality is oon. cerned only with the perpetuation of custom. From this point of view Europan morality gradually becomes dominated by absolute con ceptions, but Chinese morality always remains dominated by those which are relative, until life of a Chiness. He cannot thieve, because expediency becomes the lode-star theft implies a dangerous disregard for property and therein a pernicions contempt for antiquity; bat he can lie because truth is one of those absolute conceptions with which he is not called upon to deal.
to the
With all proper respect, and perhaps with some loss of dignity, se feel compelled t› retort "fudge." European morality dce reach out to the ideal, but only to frame it and hang it on the wall. Why, for hundreds of years we have been teaching
!
>