“Formerly, when the Dutch were permitted to trade with China, the officer in command of the coast defences would not allow them, on account of their great numbers, to come ashore.  The Dutch begged very hard for the grant of a piece of land such as a carpet would cover; and the officer above mentioned, thinking that this could not be very large, acceded to their request.  A carpet was accordingly laid down, big enough for about two people to stand on; but by dint of stretching, it was soon able to accommodate four or five; and so the foreigners went on, stretching and stretching, until at last it covered about an acre, and by and by, with the help of their knives, they had filched a piece of ground several miles in extent.”

* * * * *

These two stories must have sprung from one and the same source.  It is not, however, always so simple a matter to see how other Western incidents found their way into Chinese literature.  For instance, there is a popular anecdote to be found in a Chinese jest-book, which is almost word for word with another anecdote in Greek literature:—­

A soldier, who was escorting a Buddhist priest, charged with some crime, to a prison at a distance, being very anxious not to forget anything, kept saying over and over the four things he had to think about, viz.:  himself, his bundle, his umbrella, and the priest.  At night he got drunk, and the Buddhist priest, after first shaving the soldier’s head, ran away.  When the soldier awaked, he began his formula, “Myself, bundle, umbrella—­O dear!” cried he, putting his hands to his head, “the priest has gone.  Stop a moment,” he added, finding his hands in contact with a bald head, “here’s the priest; it is I who have run away.”

* * * * *

As found in Greek literature, the story, attributed to Hierocles, but probably much later, says that the prisoner was a bald-headed man, a condition which is suggested to the Chinese reader by the introduction of a Buddhist priest.

Whether the Chinese got this story from the Greeks, or the Greeks got it from the Chinese, I do not pretend to know.  The fact is that we students of Chinese at the present day know very little beyond the vague outlines of what there is to be known.  Students of Greek have long since divided up their subject under such heads as pure scholarship, history, philosophy, archaeology, and then again have made subdivisions of these.  In the Chinese field nothing of the kind has yet been done.  The consequence is that the labourers in that field, compelled to work over a large superficies, are only able to turn out more or less superficial work.  The cry is for more students, practical students of the written and colloquial languages, for the purposes of diplomatic intercourse and the development of commerce; and also students of the history, philosophy, archaeology, and religions of China, men whose contributions to our present stock of knowledge may throw light upon many important points, which, for lack of workmen, have hitherto remained neglected and unexplored.