“I am old, not a ledger”: Proverb and Number in Songs of Dust and Water
- Written as
- An imagined student aged 17, an international school in Pudong, Shanghai
- Format
- Cambridge International A Level Literature in English (9695), extended critical essay (coursework-style, school-assessed)
- Task
- “‘I am old, not a ledger’: how does the novel set proverbial wisdom against numerical evidence?”
- Length
- 2,996 words, not counting headings and references
My grandfather kept the accounts of a textile factory in Wuxi for thirty-one years, and he could hardly finish a sentence without either a number or a chengyu. When I complained about maths homework he said shu neng sheng qiao (熟能生巧), practice makes skill. When I asked what our flat had cost, he told me to the last yuan. For a long time I thought these were two separate parts of him, an old-fashioned part and a practical part. I thought of him often while reading M.J. Hydara’s Songs of Dust and Water, because the novel is full of people who speak mainly in one of these two languages and who seem, at first, to stand on opposite sides. In Part Two the young technician Hassan brings a quarrel about money to Kadiatou, the Water-Keeper of Nafawol, and she answers him with a saying about a baobab. He protests: “That is a proverb, Grandma. I need a number” (p. 178). Her reply gives this essay its title: “I am old, not a ledger. Go and ask Fatou” (p. 178).
It would be easy to read the novel as a contest in which the old, local proverb defeats the cold, foreign number, since Part One ends with the engineer’s figures in ashes. I will argue that the novel is more careful than that. Proverbs and numbers are both forms of authority, and either can be captured by whoever holds it. What the novel really tests is whether a saying or a figure can be checked and challenged in public by the people it concerns. In Madina the numbers cannot be challenged and the proverbs cannot change anything. In Nafawol the two languages learn to correct each other, and Kadiatou’s “not a ledger” turns out to be a modest and accurate statement of what a proverb can do, and what it cannot.
Adam Sterling’s first words of authority are figures. Presenting his plant to the Ministry in Bakoro he tells the officials that “The metrics are on page four” (p. 7), and when Minister Khresay asks what his plan is for the people of Madina, he answers, “The numbers speak for themselves” (p. 8). The phrase gives him away, because in this novel numbers never speak for themselves; someone always speaks for them. Khresay replies in the other language. He warns that “glass breaks” (p. 6) and that “a man who does not help build the granary will never fight to defend it” (p. 8). Both sayings come true. Yet it is worth noticing how little they achieve. Khresay signs the letter of intent anyway, and four chapters later, when Aisha telephones him for help, he can only say, “I have no hand on it now” (p. 44). His wisdom is correct and powerless. Minister Dunia sees this and uses it. “Minister Khresay is a man of tradition. He likes proverbs,” she tells Adam, and then, “I deal in outcomes” (p. 39). Dunia claims the language of results while her brother’s bank drains the plant’s money. From Part One, then, the reader cannot line up the proverb with honesty and the number with deceit, or the other way round.
The clearest example is the pre-filter trial. When Aisha proves with a dish of grey paste that the dust will choke his filters, Adam proposes a fair test: her box of sisal and charcoal on one intake, nothing on another, a week side by side. “Let the numbers settle it” (p. 26). And the numbers do settle it: the protected intake runs cooler and its pressure line is “as flat as a ruler” (p. 31). Adam nevertheless tells Talib that the result was “inconclusive” (p. 31), and the box goes into the scrap store. The pattern repeats when Talib brings him the portal records that link the fake parts to Yusuf Dunia’s bank. Talib has learned Adam’s own creed and turns it back on him: “This is the data.” Adam answers, “This is noise” (p. 51). What the novel distrusts is a man who owns the screen on which the data appears.
It is Khresay who names this most precisely, after the fire, when Adam arrives at his house with a flash drive of proof: “Evidence is a goat. It goes where the man holding the rope leads it” (p. 66). When I read this I thought immediately of zhi lu wei ma (指鹿为马), “pointing at a deer and calling it a horse”. In the story recorded by Sima Qian, the minister Zhao Gao presents a deer to the young Qin emperor and calls it a horse, then watches which officials agree with him and which dare to say “deer”. Everyone in the room knew what the animal was. What mattered was who could punish them. The Madina inquiry is a quieter version of the same scene. Adam realises that “none of the facts they read out were false. They had simply started the story where it suited them” (p. 63). A fact, like a goat, has no will of its own. What interests me is that the best analysis of numbers in Part One is a proverb. Khresay’s goat explains the inquiry better than any of Adam’s charts. Proverbs in Part One are good at describing power and bad at resisting it.
The griot Balla offers a way between the two languages. Of the fall of Wagadu he says that the histories blame drought and the grandmothers blame a broken promise, and that “Both are the same sentence, told by different people” (p. 66). Drought is something a scientist could measure; a broken promise is something a grandmother remembers. Balla does not choose between them, and his sentence prepares the reader for Part Two, where the two languages begin to work together.
The first surprise of Part Two is that the keeper of proverbs demands evidence. When Adam and Dr Arramata describe their water harvester under the baobab and the alkalo asks for her counsel, Kadiatou answers, “Words are wind, Tubab,” and then, “Show us what it does now” (p. 91). Her proverb is an argument for testing. It reminded me of the line in the Analects that we copied out in junior school, qiao yan ling se, xian yi ren (巧言令色,鲜矣仁): clever words and a pleasing face are seldom found with true goodness. Confucius and Kadiatou share a suspicion of fine speech, and Kadiatou goes further, because she asks for a demonstration, which Dr Arramata agrees to run in the heat of the day, when the air gives least. The test ends with two kinds of proof together. Dr Arramata’s testing pen gives a reading, “No salt” (p. 98), and Kadiatou raises the glass, says Bismillah and tastes it. Neither proof replaces the other. After the ñan-kale over the salt ground, the farmer Ousman uses a sentence shaped like a proverb to fix a boundary no measurement could: “The water is yours. The soil is ours. Do not confuse them” (p. 107).
Mamadou, the senior elder, is the character in whom the two languages are hardest to separate. His sayings almost all concern cattle, and when I listed them I found that every one was a calculation. When Fatou reads out the clause that keeps a second key in Proxima’s hands for a decade, he says, “In ten years a heifer is a grandmother” (p. 101). This is a measurement of time in generations of cows, and it makes exactly the point Adam himself had made at his review desk: “Ten years is also long enough for a village to forget it was ever meant to own the thing” (p. 83). The engineer and the herder reach the same conclusion in different languages. When Dr Arramata explains that carbon buyers will pay only for new growth, Mamadou replies, “So the cow in my yard is worth nothing to them,” and then, “Only the calf she has not dropped” (p. 127). My economics teacher spent a whole lesson on additionality and did not explain it so well. Of a commercial loan he says, “And while the mill pays, the debt has calves” (p. 141), which is interest, and of his father, “My father kept his wealth on four legs, where he could see it” (p. 144), which is a principle about visibility that the whole Coffer Fund is built on. He checks his grandson’s motorbike sums on his fingers, “as he had once counted cattle past a gatepost” (p. 130). Mamadou’s proverbs are numbers counted in cattle, which is why they are easy to remember.
This makes his most important decision more moving. When the lawyer drafts the rule that no large sum may leave the fund without three signatures from three households, Mamadou insists that it must bind him “Especially” (p. 129), and explains why: “I want the rule to say no to him, so that I do not have to” (p. 129). The man who speaks most in proverbs asks for the strictest number. He knows that sayings can be bent by love and a sad face, and that a fixed figure cannot. The test comes when his grandson Lamin splits stolen payments into nine sums, each just under the limit, and it is a schoolgirl, Mariam, chalking the figures on a foundation stone, who sees the pattern. Mamadou argues for the boy at first, and then gives way: “Write it. His name, and the sum, and what it bought. Then write mine under it, as the one who asked for the rule” (p. 169). The proverb gives the reason for the rule; the number holds the rule when the old man himself cannot.
What makes numbers trustworthy in Nafawol when they were not in Madina? The answer is the ledger on the wall. The portal in Madina was a closed system that belonged to the Ministry, and its records reached Adam only because Talib went looking in its back rooms. Fatou’s ledger is posted in the square every Friday, and anyone may read it, argue with it or add to it. The women’s leader Isatou uses it to make unpaid labour visible. She reads out the millet, oil and hours the women have spent feeding the road crews and says, “Write it in your ledger” (p. 113), and when Fatou does the sum, “the sum was not small” (p. 113). The bank inspector who examines the Fund finds two errors and gives a rule that could be a proverb in its own right: “If you let it be two when it is convenient, it will be two when it is not” (p. 138). Here a number is spoken in the shape of a saying. And when Hassan’s honest entry of two disagreeing invoices forces Fatou to confront a supplier who had been at her daughter’s wedding, she tells Kadiatou afterwards, “The ledger doesn’t care who your friends are,” and then, more quietly, “I didn’t think it would be me who needed it” (p. 143). The ledger is the opposite of Khresay’s goat. Whoever holds the rope, the figure is already on the wall.
The chapter “Six and Four” is where the novel stages the question most directly. The Union has a surplus, and two villages want it for opposite purposes: Kumbawol for water channels and a seed store, Talawol for training its own mechanics. Hassan, the academy’s best student, produces “phased splits and allocation formulas,” and “Nobody took up any of them” (p. 176). Fatou settles it at her scales before dawn: six parts to the fields, four to the workshops. When Hassan asks why six, she says, “At five, Yaya walks out. At seven, Aminatu does. At six they both shout and they both stay.” He objects, “That isn’t a formula,” and she answers, “What did you think a council was?” (p. 178).
This exchange reminded me of the chengyu zhao san mu si (朝三暮四), “three in the morning, four in the evening”, from the Zhuangzi. A keeper of monkeys tells them they will have three nuts in the morning and four in the evening, and they are furious; he offers four in the morning and three in the evening, and they are delighted. The total is seven either way. Today the phrase means fickleness, but it began as a story about a number used to manage those who cannot see the whole sum. Fatou’s six and four looks at first like the same trick, a number chosen for its effect on feelings. The difference is that she says so openly. She does not pretend her number is science. Hassan, lying awake after the first day of argument, had seen the real danger of the expert’s number: “And when I am wrong, I am wrong in the same voice as when I am right” (p. 177). That was Adam’s voice in Madina. Fatou’s number admits that it is a bargain, and so it can be argued with. She is equally honest about what it does not solve. When Hassan points out that a mill fitter still earns three times what a farmer earns, she says only, “That’s another price” (p. 179).
The novel does not let the number become a hero, however. Before the council rises, Isatou asks “where, in six and four, the cooking fires fell” (p. 179), and her question is put off twice until the women stop cooking and the delegates of twelve villages sit hungry. A figure can leave people out as easily as a proverb. The Analects has a phrase I think fits this chapter well: junzi he er bu tong (君子和而不同), which I would translate roughly as “the gentleman seeks harmony, not sameness”. Six and four is a harmony in which Yaya and Aminatu still disagree. As the narrator says, “No one got everything they had asked for. Yaya said so, loudly, and voted for it anyway” (p. 179). The number gives the argument a place to continue.
Now Kadiatou’s answer to Hassan can be read properly. Her proverb, “A baobab does not ask whether roots matter more than branches” (p. 178), states a principle, that the fields and the workshops feed each other, but it cannot say how much each should have. She knows this, and says so. “I am old, not a ledger” is a statement of the limits of her own language, and it sends Hassan to the person whose language can finish the job. Kadiatou also changes her proverbs when they prove wrong. When Alkalo Musa of Sirawol asks for a written charter between the villages, she refuses: “Neighbours do not need paper” (p. 156). After the inspector seals Sirawol’s mill, she admits her mistake with a new saying, “A rope of four strands is not four ropes” (p. 165), and the narrator adds, “Fatou was already writing” (p. 165). Here the proverb argues for paper. In the last chapter, when the Union has thirty-one villages and its council sits in a lecture theatre, we are told, “She had not yet found the proverb for thirty-one” (p. 226). Proverbs, it seems, have a natural size. They belong to a circle where people know each other’s faces.
The last pair I want to consider is the tape and the rope. During the years when the harvester gives only seventy per cent of its design yield, “every Friday Dr Arramata lowered a tape into the borehole and wrote the depth beside the curve” (p. 125), and in the bad year after the vote, “Every Friday the figure was lower” (p. 205). Kadiatou has her own instrument. On the first day of the demonstration she thinks, “The rope knows me” (p. 96), and after the channel fills in Year 10 she notices that “the rope was a little heavier in her hands” (p. 211). She tastes the water, finds it “still bitter” (p. 211), and keeps the knowledge to herself. The two measurements belong to different worlds: the tape’s figure goes on the public wall and decides how long the taps run, while the rope’s knowledge stays private: for five years she has “told nobody” (p. 232). Yet they measure the same water and arrive at the same answer. When the bucket finally comes up “heavy, cold and clear”, the novel gives a judgement in one short sentence: “It was right” (p. 232). A scientist or a grandmother could say it. It matters, too, that Dr Arramata, before the vote, writes her figures out twice and keeps the second copy for the Water-Keeper; that page is “Kadiatou’s” (p. 192). Fatou, reading her own copy, “did not like the number, and she could find nothing wrong with it” (p. 192). That is what a public number is for: people who dislike it still have to accept it, because they can check it.
The coda returns to Wagadu and ends: “One pair of hands can always be made to let go” (p. 233). This sentence is a proverb, but it is also a piece of arithmetic. One pair of hands is a single signature like Mustapha’s in Madina, a single screen like Adam’s, a single key. Against it the novel sets the rule of three names, the twenty-four stones counted in front of everyone, and the ledger that anyone may read. In the end, then, the line the novel draws runs between the private and the public, and a proverb or a number can fall on either side of it. Khresay’s goat and Adam’s dashboard both fail because only one man holds the rope, and Mamadou’s cattle and Fatou’s six succeed because everyone can see the herd.
When I told my grandfather about this essay he said yin shui si yuan (饮水思源), “when you drink water, think of its source”, and then, without stopping, asked how many words it had to be. I now think his chengyu and his columns of figures were one habit of mind, two ways of remembering what is owed and to whom. Kadiatou says she is not a ledger, but she spends the whole of Part Two making sure there is one, and making sure it is on the wall.
Bibliography
Confucius. The Analects (Lunyu). Passages quoted from the Chinese text (1.3 and 13.23); translations are my own.
Hydara, M.J. Songs of Dust and Water. 2026. Paperback, ISBN 9798162251088.
Sima Qian. Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji), “Basic Annals of the First Emperor of Qin” (source of the story of Zhao Gao and the deer).
Zhuangzi. Zhuangzi, chapter 2, “Qiwulun” (source of the story of the monkey keeper, zhao san mu si).
