What do you think?
Rate this book
The Question of Hu
This lively and elegant book by the acclaimed historian Jonathan D. Spence reconstructs an extraordinary episode in the early intercourse between Europe and China. It is the story of John Hu, a lowly but devout Chinese Catholic, who in 1722 accompanied a Jesuit missionary on a journey to France--a journey that ended with Hu's confinement in a lunatic asylum. At once a triumph of historical detective work and a gripping narrative, The Question of Hu deftly probes the collision of tw ocultures, with their different definitions of faith, madness, and moral obligation.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
61 people are currently reading
592 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan D. Spence
64 books318 followersJonathan D. Spence is a historian specializing in Chinese history. His self-selected Chinese name is Shǐ Jǐngqiān (simplified Chinese: 史景迁; traditional Chinese: 史景遷), which roughly translates to "A historian who admires Sima Qian."
He has been Sterling Professor of History at Yale University since 1993. His most famous book is The Search for Modern China, which has become one of the standard texts on the last several hundred years of Chinese history.
He has been Sterling Professor of History at Yale University since 1993. His most famous book is The Search for Modern China, which has become one of the standard texts on the last several hundred years of Chinese history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
September 27, 2021
The Worship of Words
On the face of it, this is an interesting if inconsequential history of a certain John Hu, a Christian Chinese gentleman brought to Europe as a sort of research assistant by a French Jesuit scholar, Père Jean-Francois Foucquet, in the early 18th century. The priest abandoned his protégé shortly after arrival and the stranded man spent the next two years in an asylum for the insane, a sort of Catholic Bedlam. His situation was made ever more intense because his carers/persecutors were fellow-Christians who treated him as somewhat less than fully human much less one of their own. One can only feel pity for this strange but guileless and innocent victim of a sort of naive xenophobia and cultural ignorance.
But there is also an historically significant substrate to this story that perhaps provides at least a partial explanation for the treatment afforded Mr. Hu and the further career of Pére Foucquet: language and its role in European religion, especially in Catholicism. Hu was brought to Europe by Foucquet in the midst of a crisis created in part by Foucquet and his Jesuit colleagues during decades of involvement in China. It is about how a rigidly textual religion translates, if at all, to an entirely alien language. This crisis was less public or dramatic than the Protestant Reformation 200 years earlier but no less significant for the Catholic Church. This crisis is generally known as Inculturation and would continue for at least the next two centuries. It is still not been entirely resolved.
Inculturation is a complex, often esoteric theological topic. It involves not just the definition and designation of terms but also the subtle connotations and traditions associated with these terms. At the time of Mr. Hu’s journey, inculturation was triggered by the unclear status of the so-called Chinese Rites involving the veneration of ancestors. Were established rituals religious, and therefore unacceptable in Christianity, or merely civil, in which case they could be practised by those accepted into the Christian Church? But this issue was the exposed tip of a very large theological iceberg. The same issue persists today regarding the status of economic injustice in the so-called Liberation Theology of South America. Should such injustice be considered as a civil matter or a religious scandal? To make the problem of inculturation simpler without making it trivial, I think a personal example may be useful.
I first heard the now famous Missa Luba, a musical setting of the formal or High Latin Mass, in the early 1960’s. The Missa Luba is an enduring masterpiece, a magnificent interpretation by a Congolese ensemble of all the key elements of the Catholic ceremony. It was also totally unlike any traditional liturgical music in the Catholic Church at the time (and substantially predates the sort of guitar-accompanied Kumbaya drivel composed by aspiring clerics - mostly nuns apparently - after the reforms of Vatican II). Neither the staid Gregorian chants nor the Baroque polyphonies had nearly the rousing appeal nor the emotional connection with the Catholic audience of teenagers of which I was a part.
The Kyrie alone, that very primitive, repetitive prayer for mercy, became in the Missa Luba a theme that could have come straight from a pagan festival (It was even cited as such in the cult 60’s film “if”). It was neither staid nor soaring but in some way as primitive as the prayer itself. It had a force, a direction, a meaning that none of us had previously experienced with liturgical music. And whenever I hear the Sanctus from the Missa Luba, I am reminded of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring by its percussive ostinato. We played the vinyl recording over and over in our little group until it became almost unusable.
None of us realised at the time that we had entered right into the middle of the problem of inculturation. The piece was made by and for Africans. It was sectarian by definition; it derived from a tradition that had no connection at all to the European styles of music that had dominated Catholicism. The fact that it had popular appeal around the world made the situation worse. Its interpretation of divine truths inherently gave it the potential to undermine settled issues, theological as well as liturgical.*
In short, the music gave the words new meaning. This outraged traditionalists. Inculturation was a linguistic not a musical issue. The words and their established meanings, their connections to other words in the form of defined doctrines, are central to Catholicism, as they are to all Christian sects. Change the meaning of the words, that is, how the words are responded to by congregants, specifically European and other white congregants, and the great edifice of religious doctrine is threatened. The Missa Luba was perceived as the start of a very steep, very slippery slope by the church officials we were involved with. So, they confiscated the recording and warned us of its threat to the true faith.
Imagine, therefore, the official reaction in an even more conservative era to the research into Chinese religious texts by Père Foucquet when, as Spence summarises:
If one were dealing with typical linguistic or sociological inquiry, Foucquet’s hypothesis, although highly suspect, might be an interesting and culturally reconciling subject of investigation. That the Chinese purportedly discovered many of the same spiritual insights as Europeans is an important proposition. Among other things, if verified, it would give Christian missionaries conceptual and cultural entree for discussion and proselytisation in what had hitherto been a very tough, resistant, and unprofitable religious market.
But this apparently pragmatic hypothesis hides a sinister implication. If Christian ideas can be mapped to Buddhist, Confucian and Daoist ideas, these latter can in fact dilute Christian truth. Each of the Chinese concepts are part of an enormous tradition (Foucquet had several thousand Chinese volumes from which he selected his ‘target’ similarities). Therefore they are defined and derive their meaning through these alien texts and the traditions that have developed around them. If Foucquet’s conclusions are allowed to go unchallenged, Catholic doctrine will be potentially submerged by and compromised under the interpretive weight of these Chinese texts. If the words of doctrine aren’t kept from such contamination, the true faith might be lost.
Such concerns had been expressed for at least a century before the voyage of Hu and Foucquet to Europe. The Church’s initial expansion in Europe had largely been facilitated by the existence of the Roman Empire which exercised a sort of cultural magnetism that accepted the Church’s very Roman linguistic realism and dogmatic precision. But the systematic dispersion of missionaries into large populations with established cultures in South and Central America, but particularly in Japan, India and China produced this central issue unexpectedly. Policy vacillated continuously. On the one hand, Christian truth was thought to be a-cultural. Wasn’t this implied in the epithet Catholic? On the other hand non-European cultures, especially languages seemed incapable of conveying that truth reliably.
The Church was unable either to absorb or overcome the Eastern cultures of Buddhism, Dao, and Confucianism (in others they had partial success producing syncretistic voodoo-like religious sects in parallel with more orthodox establishments). The Church’s implicit strategy seems to have been to replace these cultures entirely by insisting that Christianity must be received as an entire linguistic whole; or not at all and allow activities to be closed down completely.
So, for example suggestions by missionaries throughout the 17th century that Chinese ancestor worship was a parallel practice to Catholic participation in the Community of Saints was rejected as quasi-heretical. Shortly after Foucquet’s departure, the Chinese emperor banned further missionary work in the country for precisely this reason, rejection being perceived as a profound lack of respect for Chinese tradtion. Not until 1939 was there a papal pronouncement that perhaps that particular similarity might have merit in catechesis.
In other words, the cultures of the East were implicitly considered a real threat to the very core of the Church, its treasury of doctrine. These doctrines, as well as various other texts like the Bible and papal instructions, were (and still are) formulated in carefully crafted Latin and essentially imposed on the various European languages (along with alphabets, vocabularies, and official translations as necessary). No such possibility existed in the East. The missionaries who did try to ‘connect’ cultural ideas were consistently blocked by central authority and their missions consistently failed except in those places which became European colonies, and not always even there.
So the Eastern religious ideas were not only alien, they were constitutionally wrong. They did not describe spiritual or supernatural reality. Those who practised these alien religions did not understand reality. Their languages weren’t even capable of describing reality accurately. In short, the people who spoke these languages were irrational, functionally insane from a Christian perspective. And their resolute unresponsiveness to proselytisation proved the point. They were incapable of understanding. Even those who appeared to accept Christian truths, couldn’t be considered Christians unless they could express those truths in an acceptable language.
Hence Mr. Hu’s (and also Pėre Foucquet’s) tragic situation. Hu was one of the few Chinese whom Europeans knew in the flesh, and the only one of an even fewer number who spoke no European language whatsoever. He was not just alien; he would likely be instinctively classed as pagan despite his putative baptism. In addition Hu was what might be called a religious enthusiast, very much attuned to visions and the visible acts of God, somewhat of an 18th century hippie child of God perhaps. His behaviour was simply odd during the voyage, moving toward the eccentric and even bizarre as he was exposed to European life.
Foucquet himself suffered less physically upon arrival but possibly experienced an equal degree of mental torture. His summons to Rome was in order to debrief the Vatican authorities on his remarkable findings before starting a sort of sabbatical in order the complete his writing. He reports an affable meeting with the Pope, which apparently didn’t touch upon the issue of the Chinese Rites or his controversial research about how “the Chinese had, in the long distant past worshipped the Christian God.”
I think there’s a very strong possibility that senior officials had decided to bury the issue. What to do with a problematic figure like Foucquet then? He was a dedicated, well-connected scholar from a good family and with a number of friends sympathetic to his views. It was not clear that he was heretical by contravening any particular doctrine, but he had already said that his only goal in life was the completion of the exposition of his monumental thesis. But his views on the translation and meaning of Chinese texts were certainly divisive within the Jesuit community and with the other clerical orders, particularly the Dominicans. In addition his contention that Christianity could be preached through classic Chinese texts had already proved moot. The Catholic mission had already failed with the missionaries expulsion.
Better to avoid fuss and possible scandal then, and kick the man upstairs. The solution is typical of any large corporate organisation. They let Foucquet publish the first of his intended volumes about the origins of Chinese religions in biblical events. It was a dead letter in any case. Then they promoted him to an honorary bishopric with duties that absorb any free time for further writing. And then they just wait until things out until his retirement or death, whatever comes first. This was an institution with a rather long planning horizon after all.
Foucquet’s intended life’s work was clearly in those unwritten volumes. Almost half his life had been spent in his endeavour. It was now merely crates full of notes and Chinese reference works that eventually found their way to the King’s library. Foucquet, like Hu, was caught in the intense linguistic imperialism of the European Church and subtly but decisively put out to pasture.
* An old theological joke comes to mind. Question: How can you tell a liturgist from a terrorist? Answer: The terrorist is willing to compromise.
On the face of it, this is an interesting if inconsequential history of a certain John Hu, a Christian Chinese gentleman brought to Europe as a sort of research assistant by a French Jesuit scholar, Père Jean-Francois Foucquet, in the early 18th century. The priest abandoned his protégé shortly after arrival and the stranded man spent the next two years in an asylum for the insane, a sort of Catholic Bedlam. His situation was made ever more intense because his carers/persecutors were fellow-Christians who treated him as somewhat less than fully human much less one of their own. One can only feel pity for this strange but guileless and innocent victim of a sort of naive xenophobia and cultural ignorance.
But there is also an historically significant substrate to this story that perhaps provides at least a partial explanation for the treatment afforded Mr. Hu and the further career of Pére Foucquet: language and its role in European religion, especially in Catholicism. Hu was brought to Europe by Foucquet in the midst of a crisis created in part by Foucquet and his Jesuit colleagues during decades of involvement in China. It is about how a rigidly textual religion translates, if at all, to an entirely alien language. This crisis was less public or dramatic than the Protestant Reformation 200 years earlier but no less significant for the Catholic Church. This crisis is generally known as Inculturation and would continue for at least the next two centuries. It is still not been entirely resolved.
Inculturation is a complex, often esoteric theological topic. It involves not just the definition and designation of terms but also the subtle connotations and traditions associated with these terms. At the time of Mr. Hu’s journey, inculturation was triggered by the unclear status of the so-called Chinese Rites involving the veneration of ancestors. Were established rituals religious, and therefore unacceptable in Christianity, or merely civil, in which case they could be practised by those accepted into the Christian Church? But this issue was the exposed tip of a very large theological iceberg. The same issue persists today regarding the status of economic injustice in the so-called Liberation Theology of South America. Should such injustice be considered as a civil matter or a religious scandal? To make the problem of inculturation simpler without making it trivial, I think a personal example may be useful.
I first heard the now famous Missa Luba, a musical setting of the formal or High Latin Mass, in the early 1960’s. The Missa Luba is an enduring masterpiece, a magnificent interpretation by a Congolese ensemble of all the key elements of the Catholic ceremony. It was also totally unlike any traditional liturgical music in the Catholic Church at the time (and substantially predates the sort of guitar-accompanied Kumbaya drivel composed by aspiring clerics - mostly nuns apparently - after the reforms of Vatican II). Neither the staid Gregorian chants nor the Baroque polyphonies had nearly the rousing appeal nor the emotional connection with the Catholic audience of teenagers of which I was a part.
The Kyrie alone, that very primitive, repetitive prayer for mercy, became in the Missa Luba a theme that could have come straight from a pagan festival (It was even cited as such in the cult 60’s film “if”). It was neither staid nor soaring but in some way as primitive as the prayer itself. It had a force, a direction, a meaning that none of us had previously experienced with liturgical music. And whenever I hear the Sanctus from the Missa Luba, I am reminded of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring by its percussive ostinato. We played the vinyl recording over and over in our little group until it became almost unusable.
None of us realised at the time that we had entered right into the middle of the problem of inculturation. The piece was made by and for Africans. It was sectarian by definition; it derived from a tradition that had no connection at all to the European styles of music that had dominated Catholicism. The fact that it had popular appeal around the world made the situation worse. Its interpretation of divine truths inherently gave it the potential to undermine settled issues, theological as well as liturgical.*
In short, the music gave the words new meaning. This outraged traditionalists. Inculturation was a linguistic not a musical issue. The words and their established meanings, their connections to other words in the form of defined doctrines, are central to Catholicism, as they are to all Christian sects. Change the meaning of the words, that is, how the words are responded to by congregants, specifically European and other white congregants, and the great edifice of religious doctrine is threatened. The Missa Luba was perceived as the start of a very steep, very slippery slope by the church officials we were involved with. So, they confiscated the recording and warned us of its threat to the true faith.
Imagine, therefore, the official reaction in an even more conservative era to the research into Chinese religious texts by Père Foucquet when, as Spence summarises:
“In the twenty-two years that Foucquet has been in China, he has given much of his life to proving the truth of three fundamental insights that have been granted to him: first, that the origins of the ancient Chinese religious texts, such as The Book of Changes, are divine, that they were handed to the Chinese by the true God; second, that in China’s sacred books the word for the “Way”—the “Dao”—represented the same true God that Christians worship; third, that the same divine significance could be read into the Chinese philosophical phrase the “Taiji,” used in so many texts to refer to an ultimate truth.”
If one were dealing with typical linguistic or sociological inquiry, Foucquet’s hypothesis, although highly suspect, might be an interesting and culturally reconciling subject of investigation. That the Chinese purportedly discovered many of the same spiritual insights as Europeans is an important proposition. Among other things, if verified, it would give Christian missionaries conceptual and cultural entree for discussion and proselytisation in what had hitherto been a very tough, resistant, and unprofitable religious market.
But this apparently pragmatic hypothesis hides a sinister implication. If Christian ideas can be mapped to Buddhist, Confucian and Daoist ideas, these latter can in fact dilute Christian truth. Each of the Chinese concepts are part of an enormous tradition (Foucquet had several thousand Chinese volumes from which he selected his ‘target’ similarities). Therefore they are defined and derive their meaning through these alien texts and the traditions that have developed around them. If Foucquet’s conclusions are allowed to go unchallenged, Catholic doctrine will be potentially submerged by and compromised under the interpretive weight of these Chinese texts. If the words of doctrine aren’t kept from such contamination, the true faith might be lost.
Such concerns had been expressed for at least a century before the voyage of Hu and Foucquet to Europe. The Church’s initial expansion in Europe had largely been facilitated by the existence of the Roman Empire which exercised a sort of cultural magnetism that accepted the Church’s very Roman linguistic realism and dogmatic precision. But the systematic dispersion of missionaries into large populations with established cultures in South and Central America, but particularly in Japan, India and China produced this central issue unexpectedly. Policy vacillated continuously. On the one hand, Christian truth was thought to be a-cultural. Wasn’t this implied in the epithet Catholic? On the other hand non-European cultures, especially languages seemed incapable of conveying that truth reliably.
The Church was unable either to absorb or overcome the Eastern cultures of Buddhism, Dao, and Confucianism (in others they had partial success producing syncretistic voodoo-like religious sects in parallel with more orthodox establishments). The Church’s implicit strategy seems to have been to replace these cultures entirely by insisting that Christianity must be received as an entire linguistic whole; or not at all and allow activities to be closed down completely.
So, for example suggestions by missionaries throughout the 17th century that Chinese ancestor worship was a parallel practice to Catholic participation in the Community of Saints was rejected as quasi-heretical. Shortly after Foucquet’s departure, the Chinese emperor banned further missionary work in the country for precisely this reason, rejection being perceived as a profound lack of respect for Chinese tradtion. Not until 1939 was there a papal pronouncement that perhaps that particular similarity might have merit in catechesis.
In other words, the cultures of the East were implicitly considered a real threat to the very core of the Church, its treasury of doctrine. These doctrines, as well as various other texts like the Bible and papal instructions, were (and still are) formulated in carefully crafted Latin and essentially imposed on the various European languages (along with alphabets, vocabularies, and official translations as necessary). No such possibility existed in the East. The missionaries who did try to ‘connect’ cultural ideas were consistently blocked by central authority and their missions consistently failed except in those places which became European colonies, and not always even there.
So the Eastern religious ideas were not only alien, they were constitutionally wrong. They did not describe spiritual or supernatural reality. Those who practised these alien religions did not understand reality. Their languages weren’t even capable of describing reality accurately. In short, the people who spoke these languages were irrational, functionally insane from a Christian perspective. And their resolute unresponsiveness to proselytisation proved the point. They were incapable of understanding. Even those who appeared to accept Christian truths, couldn’t be considered Christians unless they could express those truths in an acceptable language.
Hence Mr. Hu’s (and also Pėre Foucquet’s) tragic situation. Hu was one of the few Chinese whom Europeans knew in the flesh, and the only one of an even fewer number who spoke no European language whatsoever. He was not just alien; he would likely be instinctively classed as pagan despite his putative baptism. In addition Hu was what might be called a religious enthusiast, very much attuned to visions and the visible acts of God, somewhat of an 18th century hippie child of God perhaps. His behaviour was simply odd during the voyage, moving toward the eccentric and even bizarre as he was exposed to European life.
Foucquet himself suffered less physically upon arrival but possibly experienced an equal degree of mental torture. His summons to Rome was in order to debrief the Vatican authorities on his remarkable findings before starting a sort of sabbatical in order the complete his writing. He reports an affable meeting with the Pope, which apparently didn’t touch upon the issue of the Chinese Rites or his controversial research about how “the Chinese had, in the long distant past worshipped the Christian God.”
I think there’s a very strong possibility that senior officials had decided to bury the issue. What to do with a problematic figure like Foucquet then? He was a dedicated, well-connected scholar from a good family and with a number of friends sympathetic to his views. It was not clear that he was heretical by contravening any particular doctrine, but he had already said that his only goal in life was the completion of the exposition of his monumental thesis. But his views on the translation and meaning of Chinese texts were certainly divisive within the Jesuit community and with the other clerical orders, particularly the Dominicans. In addition his contention that Christianity could be preached through classic Chinese texts had already proved moot. The Catholic mission had already failed with the missionaries expulsion.
Better to avoid fuss and possible scandal then, and kick the man upstairs. The solution is typical of any large corporate organisation. They let Foucquet publish the first of his intended volumes about the origins of Chinese religions in biblical events. It was a dead letter in any case. Then they promoted him to an honorary bishopric with duties that absorb any free time for further writing. And then they just wait until things out until his retirement or death, whatever comes first. This was an institution with a rather long planning horizon after all.
Foucquet’s intended life’s work was clearly in those unwritten volumes. Almost half his life had been spent in his endeavour. It was now merely crates full of notes and Chinese reference works that eventually found their way to the King’s library. Foucquet, like Hu, was caught in the intense linguistic imperialism of the European Church and subtly but decisively put out to pasture.
* An old theological joke comes to mind. Question: How can you tell a liturgist from a terrorist? Answer: The terrorist is willing to compromise.
March 30, 2018
3½. A brief but interesting story. Spence did an excellent job creating something compelling out of his research materials, but even at a mere 134 pages, this book still has its fair share of padding. If you are interested in 18th century France, you may not mind. I'm not, so the superfluous bits seemed all the more irritating. Nevertheless, a good little book that can be read in a day or two.
Read
September 19, 2017*idea for a new title*
"The Question of Foucquet's books"
"The Question of Foucquet's books"
July 16, 2022
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this book. Is it an extended ethical dilemma case study, or a history book, or...? It was a quick and enjoyable read, informative for its size. Taken without its preface, it is a very imaginatively designed, meticulously researched historical sliver of a slice of early 18th century French Catholic society with a curious anti-protagonist at its heart, a middle-aged Cantonese convert who journeys painfully to Europe and rather more smoothly back again, that challenges the reader to think again about its deceptively simple story. It uses an unusual present tense narrative style, is presented a bit like a diary, albeit written by a nearly omniscient narrator, and is liberally sprinkled with all kinds of insights into life and society in early 18th century France and to European-Chinese relations and their intellectual context.
Briefly, in 1722 Ruowang "John" Hu accompanies a Jesuit missionary back to France as a kind of secretary-scribe and has a very difficult time of it, starting with extreme seasickness, continuing through being a very awkward customer and guest in various inns, city residences and chapels from Port Louis to Paris, and ending up with nearly two years locked up on the grounds of insanity before being sent home, soon after to vanish from the historical record.
The titular question of Hu, "Why have I been locked up?", is generally further interpreted by readers to be referring a moral problem about how to treat the Other in an unfamiliar and complex setting (and secondarily to the general puzzlements occasioned by Hu in those who encountered him). Throughout the main body book Spence (one of the leading Western Sinologists of the last half century) leaves these questions open and writes a most engaging and clear narrative.
The language barrier seems to have been only a small part of the question of Hu, whose intransigence and odd behaviour are never really explained. The Jesuit's preoccupation with politics (the small scale stuff, that is - how to get his books through customs, how to protect his reputation, how to manage his own passage through the awkward relations that existed between different sorts of clergy and the French crown and various local authorities) and scholarship (especially his own ideas about how to interpret the Chinese classics, which of course fed back into his ecclesiastical political fragility) seem to have prevented him from really understanding Hu and how to deal with his eccentricities and distress. Hu hardly helped himself, by showing no interest in learning French, by refusing to do the work he was contracted for, and engaging in a variety of stubborn, apparently random and sometimes destructive activities. What struck me was both the generosity and patience of several of the people who hosted Hu, and the brutality of early modern society and the tremendous limits on what could be done.
Several reviewers (and Spence himself, in his preface) have been at pains to point out that their moral stance is that the Jesuit was "wrong" in how he treated Hu. I am not so sure that a summary judgement like that can be passed, and the narrative itself preserves the incomprehension and suggests that there really might have been 没办法...
Briefly, in 1722 Ruowang "John" Hu accompanies a Jesuit missionary back to France as a kind of secretary-scribe and has a very difficult time of it, starting with extreme seasickness, continuing through being a very awkward customer and guest in various inns, city residences and chapels from Port Louis to Paris, and ending up with nearly two years locked up on the grounds of insanity before being sent home, soon after to vanish from the historical record.
The titular question of Hu, "Why have I been locked up?", is generally further interpreted by readers to be referring a moral problem about how to treat the Other in an unfamiliar and complex setting (and secondarily to the general puzzlements occasioned by Hu in those who encountered him). Throughout the main body book Spence (one of the leading Western Sinologists of the last half century) leaves these questions open and writes a most engaging and clear narrative.
The language barrier seems to have been only a small part of the question of Hu, whose intransigence and odd behaviour are never really explained. The Jesuit's preoccupation with politics (the small scale stuff, that is - how to get his books through customs, how to protect his reputation, how to manage his own passage through the awkward relations that existed between different sorts of clergy and the French crown and various local authorities) and scholarship (especially his own ideas about how to interpret the Chinese classics, which of course fed back into his ecclesiastical political fragility) seem to have prevented him from really understanding Hu and how to deal with his eccentricities and distress. Hu hardly helped himself, by showing no interest in learning French, by refusing to do the work he was contracted for, and engaging in a variety of stubborn, apparently random and sometimes destructive activities. What struck me was both the generosity and patience of several of the people who hosted Hu, and the brutality of early modern society and the tremendous limits on what could be done.
Several reviewers (and Spence himself, in his preface) have been at pains to point out that their moral stance is that the Jesuit was "wrong" in how he treated Hu. I am not so sure that a summary judgement like that can be passed, and the narrative itself preserves the incomprehension and suggests that there really might have been 没办法...
November 3, 2012
This story of a Chinese man's visit to Europe in the early 18th century is a really cool book on a few different levels. John Hu accompanied the Jesuit missionary Jean-Francois Foucquet on his trip back to France in 1721 to help him with transcribing scholarly materials, but by the time they arrived in Europe their relationship had begun to deteriorate. This culminated in Foucquet's decision to commit his assistant to an asylum, insisting that he's insane and needs to be locked up. The big question of Spence's story - the titular Question of Hu - is whether Hu was rightfully institutionalized or if he was simply mistreated and horribly misunderstood amidst a wash of cultural differences.
The content itself if fascinating, but one of the most interesting things about the work is how it straddles the line between being a piece of historical scholarship and being a novel. Even after having read it, I'm not entirely sure I know which one it is. Large sections are written in present tense, there are multiple viewpoints, scenes are very consciously shaped by the author for maximum dramatic impact. The emotions of the characters are imagined. There are long and rather beautiful sections describing geography and setting. Most novel-esque of all is the fact that Spence never really answers the questions he raises, and the work ends on a very ambiguous note.
Personally, I think that's pretty cool. It's a blurry line between history and lit anyway, and I really enjoyed seeing how Spence navigated it. It's also just a compelling story in its own right, and beautifully written.
The content itself if fascinating, but one of the most interesting things about the work is how it straddles the line between being a piece of historical scholarship and being a novel. Even after having read it, I'm not entirely sure I know which one it is. Large sections are written in present tense, there are multiple viewpoints, scenes are very consciously shaped by the author for maximum dramatic impact. The emotions of the characters are imagined. There are long and rather beautiful sections describing geography and setting. Most novel-esque of all is the fact that Spence never really answers the questions he raises, and the work ends on a very ambiguous note.
Personally, I think that's pretty cool. It's a blurry line between history and lit anyway, and I really enjoyed seeing how Spence navigated it. It's also just a compelling story in its own right, and beautifully written.
December 10, 2011
Another Spence gem that recreates the world he evokes with minute detail and sharp, vivid prose. This book tells of Hu Ruowang, called John Hu, a not-so-scholarly Chinese, who may or may not have been mad, brought to France in 1721 by a Father Foucquet and eventually imprisoned in a hospital for the insane. Spence brings the story to life with wit and a remarkable economy of words, but never glossing over any factor of the story.
The tale is an interesting one for several reasons, but perhaps most striking is the way it shows how even a low-class Chinese man could maintain his identity in the face of a complete and baffling change of environment, as well as withstand the wills of Europeans not so well disposed toward his peculiarities. In the end, Hu, who broke his contract with Foucquet by refusing to work, had his way: he was released, his journey back to Canton was paid for by Rome, and he was paid by some Jesuits in China for the work he didn’t do; all this despite his childlike behavior and occasional violence! It really says something about the stereotype of the “subservient” Chinese.
The tale is an interesting one for several reasons, but perhaps most striking is the way it shows how even a low-class Chinese man could maintain his identity in the face of a complete and baffling change of environment, as well as withstand the wills of Europeans not so well disposed toward his peculiarities. In the end, Hu, who broke his contract with Foucquet by refusing to work, had his way: he was released, his journey back to Canton was paid for by Rome, and he was paid by some Jesuits in China for the work he didn’t do; all this despite his childlike behavior and occasional violence! It really says something about the stereotype of the “subservient” Chinese.
August 20, 2015
Excellent book! In the early 18th century a Chinese, Christian man named John Hu accompanies a Jesuit scholar (and a large collection of rare Chinese texts) to Europe. But Hu's behavior seems so strange to the people around him that he ends up being declared insane & committed to an asylum.
(Personally I think Hu was unprepared to enter a society where almost no one understood his language, leaving him socially isolated. He also knew that the Jesuit really needed him, at least at first, giving him a measure of power in their relationship. He reacted to the situation by going rogue & trying to emulate Christ, giving away his fine garments, attempting to travel long distances on his own by foot, hanging around down-and-out people, etc.)
The narrative itself is interesting, unfolding in a brisk, novelistic manner -- but there's another, underlying story about the movement of books in this era & just how hard it was to do a cross-hemispheric theological study in a time when meddling priests, customs officials, the wrong choice of assistant, or bad weather aboard a ship could all scuttle or severely hamper a scholar's life work.
(Personally I think Hu was unprepared to enter a society where almost no one understood his language, leaving him socially isolated. He also knew that the Jesuit really needed him, at least at first, giving him a measure of power in their relationship. He reacted to the situation by going rogue & trying to emulate Christ, giving away his fine garments, attempting to travel long distances on his own by foot, hanging around down-and-out people, etc.)
The narrative itself is interesting, unfolding in a brisk, novelistic manner -- but there's another, underlying story about the movement of books in this era & just how hard it was to do a cross-hemispheric theological study in a time when meddling priests, customs officials, the wrong choice of assistant, or bad weather aboard a ship could all scuttle or severely hamper a scholar's life work.
March 15, 2014
A fascinating account of all of the things that can go wrong when good intentions meet cultural conflicts. Foucquet, the French Jesuit missionary thinks that he is doing Hu (a Christian convert)a favor taking him from China to France and then to Rome, and that Hu can help him by acting as his clerk and translator. Foucquet’s assumption of Western and Christian superiority is linked to his attempt to prove that the ancient Chinese texts were given to men by the same god that Christians worship – in hopes of converting more Chinese to Christianity. We never really learn what Hu thinks.
The fact is that Hu never adapts to Western mores and winds up in the asylum at Charenton for two years as a result of behavior that he cannot explain and that the French cannot understand. Whether Hu really was mad or whether his behavior was the result of loneliness and frustration in an alien culture, we will never know. And the complexity of the interactions between Christian faith and Chinese culture make this an engaging read.
The fact is that Hu never adapts to Western mores and winds up in the asylum at Charenton for two years as a result of behavior that he cannot explain and that the French cannot understand. Whether Hu really was mad or whether his behavior was the result of loneliness and frustration in an alien culture, we will never know. And the complexity of the interactions between Christian faith and Chinese culture make this an engaging read.
May 25, 2021
An interesting exploration of a very weird case of a Chinese man who travelled to France in the 18th Century. As he did not get along with his companion and he frequently acted crazy (running away into dangerous parts of Paris at night, tearing his clothes, not doing the work that he was required to do), his companion, the only person who Hu knew who spoke Chinese, committed him, partially because Hu might have been crazy, partially because the companion just wanted to get Hu off his hands.
It is one giant clusterfuck that speaks to interesting aspects of the Jesuits, China, France and the relations between the two worlds during this period.
Short, and not Spence's best work, but definitely worth the read.
It is one giant clusterfuck that speaks to interesting aspects of the Jesuits, China, France and the relations between the two worlds during this period.
Short, and not Spence's best work, but definitely worth the read.
September 5, 2007
This is an unusual, well documented and nicely put together story about the adventures of a Chinese man who came to Europe in the 18th century and the moral conundra (that IS the plural of conundrum, isn't it?) facing the man who brought him. Anyone who's been an outsider or tried to befriend one will relate to this story in one way or another, even if they never travel nearly as far.
September 3, 2013
Enjoyable read and interesting narrative that touches on early cultural exchange between Europe and China. I can't help but feel that Spence is putting a bit much of his own flourish into the work though, and it can be difficult to tell if and where the historical account ends and a literary narrative begins.
June 20, 2007
Interesting look at the European encounter with a Chinese man in the early modern era. The book is entertaining, but has many historiographical issues that cannot be overlooked when reading the book for informational purposes.
September 19, 2012
in 130 pages of limpid prose, spence brings to life this singular story (and an entire historical tapestry) of a chinese man's journey to france as a translator and scrivener for a french priest and his subsequent internment in an insane asylum for three years and final return to china.
November 1, 2025
La veritat la recerca historiogràfica és de 10, però pensava que el llibre seria més interessant...
January 26, 2010
The Question of Hu, written beautifully by Jonathan Spence, should be considered an important contribution to the broad field of humanities. However, the question remains if Spence’s research fits within the strict confines of historical literature, or whether its narrative-driven style is more characteristic of a historical novel. Spence’s tale about the travels of Jean-Francois Foucquet, a Jesuit priest, and his culture-shocked Chinese copyist, John Hu, blurs the line that arbitrarily divides the various fields that constitute the humanities. While The Question of Hu seemingly lacks the detached analysis that most historians infuse into their works, Spence’s tale, nonetheless, has to be considered an imaginative and exciting contribution to historical literature, which in its own subtle style, provides a platform for criticizing European cultural chauvinism during the 18th century
Throughout his work, Spence efficiently uses proven literary devices that make for a surprisingly entertaining analysis. Spence begins his story in medias res with Hu- a Chinese copyist -being visited by a concerned Jesuit clergyman. The two years that Hu had spent within a French insane asylum, after being abandoned by his own employer, proved harsh; even leaving one clergyman to comment that Hu looked like an “exhumed corpse” (Spence, 6). From this literary hook, Spence expertly details how Hu, who faithfully traveled with a Jesuit clergyman on a ship from China to France, had met this unfortunate end. Unlike most histories, where the author’s thesis is clearly stated and the sequence of events is laid out completely within the introductory pages of a book, Spence merely explains that he didn’t, “think Foucquet [Hu’s French employer:] was right in the way he treated Hu,” (Spence, XX). In this, Spence’s analysis seems weak and undeveloped. But this is misleading. Spence’s slight touch allows the audience’s to read further into the seemingly truthful narrative that Foucquet has set aside, and for which Spence has neatly organized into an excellent historical narrative.
The argument against The Question of Hu being considered a truly historical work lies in the belief that Spence avoids providing a detailed analysis about the themes that could be gleaned from Hu’s experiences. Of these themes, the perception that European Christian practices were superior to Chinese traditions, can be seen throughout the text. Spence, while not obnoxiously moralistic in his criticism, does open the door for judgments against the actions of Foucquet. With a close examination of Spence’s narrative it can been understood that Foucquet’s racially demeaning relationship with Hu serves as an example of cultural arrogance that pervaded European Christian thought during the 18th century . Was Hu’s eccentric behavior in France, in which he stole a horse, ran away on several occasions, and led an outwardly misogynistic parade through Paris, proof of his insanity? Or merely the frustrated reactions of pious albeit eccentric man completely overwhelmed by his experiences within cosmopolitan France; detached from his conservative Chinese heritage; and all the while, handicapped by his inability to speak French. To attribute Hu’s behavior to sudden bout of insanity detaches Foucquet of any responsibility of handling complex cultural relations between his Chinese employee and his own European culture, thus leaving his self-serving theological systems untouched by the sting of reality. Foucquet’s belief that “the Chinese lack the key to their own classical writings,” and that Christianity is the only way for them to truly understand their own cultural traditions. Even the intensely pious Hu, who attempted to attain Christian salvation by denouncing his wealth and possessions, was characterized by Foucquet as being a lunatic, because his expressions of Christian faith were considered primitive and ritualistic.
It is not historically responsible to attribute the actions of one man as an example of a whole society, as can be seen with the few Jesuit clergymen who were concerned with plight of Hu. However, to deny that Foucquet’s actions were not a function of broad European historical mechanisms that influenced his belief systems, and thus predicted his egregious decision to abandon Hu, would be just as irresponsible intellectually. Spence’s concise but brilliant history subtly examines the complex relationship between European Christian ideology and Chinese cultural practices. At only 134 pages, The Question of Hu, does not contain a preaching condemnation of European cultural chauvinism, but a quiet judgment can be gleaned from Spence’s tactful source analysis.
Throughout his work, Spence efficiently uses proven literary devices that make for a surprisingly entertaining analysis. Spence begins his story in medias res with Hu- a Chinese copyist -being visited by a concerned Jesuit clergyman. The two years that Hu had spent within a French insane asylum, after being abandoned by his own employer, proved harsh; even leaving one clergyman to comment that Hu looked like an “exhumed corpse” (Spence, 6). From this literary hook, Spence expertly details how Hu, who faithfully traveled with a Jesuit clergyman on a ship from China to France, had met this unfortunate end. Unlike most histories, where the author’s thesis is clearly stated and the sequence of events is laid out completely within the introductory pages of a book, Spence merely explains that he didn’t, “think Foucquet [Hu’s French employer:] was right in the way he treated Hu,” (Spence, XX). In this, Spence’s analysis seems weak and undeveloped. But this is misleading. Spence’s slight touch allows the audience’s to read further into the seemingly truthful narrative that Foucquet has set aside, and for which Spence has neatly organized into an excellent historical narrative.
The argument against The Question of Hu being considered a truly historical work lies in the belief that Spence avoids providing a detailed analysis about the themes that could be gleaned from Hu’s experiences. Of these themes, the perception that European Christian practices were superior to Chinese traditions, can be seen throughout the text. Spence, while not obnoxiously moralistic in his criticism, does open the door for judgments against the actions of Foucquet. With a close examination of Spence’s narrative it can been understood that Foucquet’s racially demeaning relationship with Hu serves as an example of cultural arrogance that pervaded European Christian thought during the 18th century . Was Hu’s eccentric behavior in France, in which he stole a horse, ran away on several occasions, and led an outwardly misogynistic parade through Paris, proof of his insanity? Or merely the frustrated reactions of pious albeit eccentric man completely overwhelmed by his experiences within cosmopolitan France; detached from his conservative Chinese heritage; and all the while, handicapped by his inability to speak French. To attribute Hu’s behavior to sudden bout of insanity detaches Foucquet of any responsibility of handling complex cultural relations between his Chinese employee and his own European culture, thus leaving his self-serving theological systems untouched by the sting of reality. Foucquet’s belief that “the Chinese lack the key to their own classical writings,” and that Christianity is the only way for them to truly understand their own cultural traditions. Even the intensely pious Hu, who attempted to attain Christian salvation by denouncing his wealth and possessions, was characterized by Foucquet as being a lunatic, because his expressions of Christian faith were considered primitive and ritualistic.
It is not historically responsible to attribute the actions of one man as an example of a whole society, as can be seen with the few Jesuit clergymen who were concerned with plight of Hu. However, to deny that Foucquet’s actions were not a function of broad European historical mechanisms that influenced his belief systems, and thus predicted his egregious decision to abandon Hu, would be just as irresponsible intellectually. Spence’s concise but brilliant history subtly examines the complex relationship between European Christian ideology and Chinese cultural practices. At only 134 pages, The Question of Hu, does not contain a preaching condemnation of European cultural chauvinism, but a quiet judgment can be gleaned from Spence’s tactful source analysis.
August 20, 2012
This book really pears nicely with one of my favorite books, "Shogun" which is about the English/Dutch trading in early Japan. Their fight for control over trading clashed with the much earlier settled Jesuit community. This book however begins with the Jesuit community that has settled and negotiated their influence in China, a sort of reverse role.
The story follows Hu's 4 years of service, one of the first Chinese to come over to Europe. He is enlisted as "a man of letters" that can copy and read Chinese, an adventures back to France with a Jesuit scholar who is escorting an astounding collection of books back home. What actually happens is a series of unfortunate events that I'm sure is spurred by personal culture shock and lack of communication. Hu must rely soley on the Jesuit scholar Foucquet for both understanding and being understood. Foucquet's age and determination to live a quiet life of books and notes clashes with Hu's need to explore and take in the European world.
I gave this three stars because it was an entertaining light read. The historical settings and dates seem to be incredibly well documented. Notes and index in the back are quite extensive. I enjoyed it just by being able to piece together the extensive influence that trading and religion had in bringing to our modern industrial and economic exchange policies.
The story follows Hu's 4 years of service, one of the first Chinese to come over to Europe. He is enlisted as "a man of letters" that can copy and read Chinese, an adventures back to France with a Jesuit scholar who is escorting an astounding collection of books back home. What actually happens is a series of unfortunate events that I'm sure is spurred by personal culture shock and lack of communication. Hu must rely soley on the Jesuit scholar Foucquet for both understanding and being understood. Foucquet's age and determination to live a quiet life of books and notes clashes with Hu's need to explore and take in the European world.
I gave this three stars because it was an entertaining light read. The historical settings and dates seem to be incredibly well documented. Notes and index in the back are quite extensive. I enjoyed it just by being able to piece together the extensive influence that trading and religion had in bringing to our modern industrial and economic exchange policies.
July 14, 2013
An account of two men, vastly different from one another, thrown together for a sea voyage and trip to France. All the ingredients of an 18th century buddy movie! Hu is a fascinating human being, although I cringed along with Foucquet at his outbursts and refusals to cooperate. This was no easy man to deal with, Chinese cultural differences aside. I agree with Spence that Foucquet did wrong by Hu to abandon him when he left for Rome, but I also sympathize, guiltily, with his eagerness to get as far away from this man as possible, after months of power struggles. Shameful that those left to care for Hu committed him to a mental hospital. Encouraging that so many French people and so many Jesuits eventually worked to free him.
I expected to learn more about Chinese culture and didn't really, but I'm not disappointed. I do long for a more in-depth treatment of the religious life of these two men. Foucquet could be called a pioneer of pluralism (admittedly, with a supremacist undertone, although who could expect otherwise in an 18th century Jesuit?) and Hu a "Christian with Chinese characteristics."
I expected to learn more about Chinese culture and didn't really, but I'm not disappointed. I do long for a more in-depth treatment of the religious life of these two men. Foucquet could be called a pioneer of pluralism (admittedly, with a supremacist undertone, although who could expect otherwise in an 18th century Jesuit?) and Hu a "Christian with Chinese characteristics."
February 11, 2018
Very engaging story, especially considering the matter-of-fact style. Written by an historian making sound, rational extrapolations based solidly on the evidence available, yet manages to bring the characters to life - perhaps the choice of present tense helps give it a certain immediacy?
I don't know how, but Spence manages to inspire sympathy for Hu while maintaining a strict, professional distance from his subject. Somehow he brings the European characters closer to the reader and gives every chance for the reader to understand the reasoning for their treatment of Hu - and yet, that extra closeness reinforces just how despicable their treatment of Hu is.
Not that Hu is innocent, oh no, not by any means. There are so many ways that Hu could've handled his situation better. And yet.... it's very hard to blame him.
All up, an intriguing and disconcerting little story. Do read this.
I don't know how, but Spence manages to inspire sympathy for Hu while maintaining a strict, professional distance from his subject. Somehow he brings the European characters closer to the reader and gives every chance for the reader to understand the reasoning for their treatment of Hu - and yet, that extra closeness reinforces just how despicable their treatment of Hu is.
Not that Hu is innocent, oh no, not by any means. There are so many ways that Hu could've handled his situation better. And yet.... it's very hard to blame him.
All up, an intriguing and disconcerting little story. Do read this.
August 16, 2018
I’m always astounded when I get to read a first hand source about a certain moment in time. The fact that Foucquet’s memories are still alive and have been made immortalized nearly 300years later makes me love the time and energy put in by the author, Spence.
That being said, I think a more apt description of this book would be “How Foucquet dedicated his life to Chinese history and philosophy yet still held his Imperialist views of ethnocentricity and had flagrant disregard for China’s people. He cared more about his books than his fellow man, even if they were Christian converts no less.”
In all honesty I was expecting more. I was expecting to actually learn about Hu, but in reality it was 95% of the European Religious agenda mixed with Bureaucracy with lots of helpings of ego stroking. Very little is mentioned of Hu at all, and what is mentioned is nothing but complaints.
That being said, I think a more apt description of this book would be “How Foucquet dedicated his life to Chinese history and philosophy yet still held his Imperialist views of ethnocentricity and had flagrant disregard for China’s people. He cared more about his books than his fellow man, even if they were Christian converts no less.”
In all honesty I was expecting more. I was expecting to actually learn about Hu, but in reality it was 95% of the European Religious agenda mixed with Bureaucracy with lots of helpings of ego stroking. Very little is mentioned of Hu at all, and what is mentioned is nothing but complaints.
November 19, 2012
I loved this little book. As I do I gave this book to someone I loved. I forgot the title but not the absurd problem of Hu. What if an alien spaceship took Joe the plumber to a planet far, far away. Dumped him off. The ET disappeared. Joe has no common language or culture with the inhabitants of his new world who eat, dress, and behave totally different from anything he has ever experienced. While typing this i transpose "you" for "joe" and the problems became more immediate. Thats what i thought when i read this. These events happened to Hu. Who?
June 16, 2019
Jonathan Spence has a wonderful aptitude for placing you, the reader, in the front row of historical events. In The Question of Hu I felt as if I was an observer to this incredible story of a Jesuit priest who brought a Cantonese man, Christian-named, John Hu, to Europe in the early 1700’s.
This quick read offers insight into Jesuit life in China and Europe, and how the well-intended plan to bring Hu to Europe to help with Chinese text explanation ended in his confinement in a lunatic asylum.
This quick read offers insight into Jesuit life in China and Europe, and how the well-intended plan to bring Hu to Europe to help with Chinese text explanation ended in his confinement in a lunatic asylum.
December 17, 2017
A delightful book about an unfortunate guy and an otherwise pretty inconsequential trip. Still, fascinating bits and pieces about extreme culture clashes and the peculiarities of life in China and France during the early 1700's. And what was the deal with Hu? Was he maligned or insane?
February 26, 2017
Fascinating story of a Chinese traveling to Europe in the early 18th century told through the writings of a French Jesuit priest. I loved the deep dives on how stuff worked back then.
February 6, 2018
Interesting read, reads like fiction even though it is non-fiction, very well written.
January 27, 2022
This is a small book on a small story, the misadventures of man from China named Hu. Hu is a scribe, not an accomplished or ambitious academic, just a regular literate guy, and a fervent Christian convert. It's the early 18th century. Hu finds himself in the employ of a French Jesuit priest in Canton. This priest's mission in life is to prove to the Papacy his theory that Chinese religion and philosophical tradition is all fundamentally Christian, and that their great texts are all revelations from the Christian God, now buried under layers of superstition and cultural accretion. I guess his theory didn't catch on, but in our story the priest is embarking on his great journey of persuasion to Rome with his thousands of books and vital Chinese texts, and he wants a scribe to help him along the way. Hu isn't the top choice, but he's available. That's how Hu's disaster in Europe begins.
Hu was obviously excited and fascinated in France - he also obviously had no interest in conforming to foreign social expectations while on his trip. He doesn't learn a word of French, and he completely ceases to do the job he was hired to do. Hu wants, instead, to travel the countryside as a beggar. He starts escaping, exploring, protesting, and generally causing mayhem. Eventually, Hu's behavior seems so erratic and aberrant that our priest leaves him in the dust and he ends up in a mental hospital, and then in total solitary confinement, where he is almost completely ignored for years. It's a sad story. I wish we could crawl into Hu's mind, but Spence mostly declines to speculate, and except for one letter, we really don't have Hu's side of it. It's impossible to tell to what extent Hu's travails are caused by his blameless innocence of European behavior (and the lack of charity of his European hosts).
The narration isn't very imaginative, nor is it very authoritative - only a minimum of context is provided. It could have been presented in any number of ways, and I'm not sure that Spence hit on the right approach. He uses a strange present tense throughout. Also, the story doesn't really have a climax. It's a fascinating premise - Hu was literally the only Chinese man in Paris, and isn't that something? - but it doesn't deliver a cracking good narrative, and the end fizzles. It must have taken some serious scholarship to pull it all together, though.
Hu was obviously excited and fascinated in France - he also obviously had no interest in conforming to foreign social expectations while on his trip. He doesn't learn a word of French, and he completely ceases to do the job he was hired to do. Hu wants, instead, to travel the countryside as a beggar. He starts escaping, exploring, protesting, and generally causing mayhem. Eventually, Hu's behavior seems so erratic and aberrant that our priest leaves him in the dust and he ends up in a mental hospital, and then in total solitary confinement, where he is almost completely ignored for years. It's a sad story. I wish we could crawl into Hu's mind, but Spence mostly declines to speculate, and except for one letter, we really don't have Hu's side of it. It's impossible to tell to what extent Hu's travails are caused by his blameless innocence of European behavior (and the lack of charity of his European hosts).
The narration isn't very imaginative, nor is it very authoritative - only a minimum of context is provided. It could have been presented in any number of ways, and I'm not sure that Spence hit on the right approach. He uses a strange present tense throughout. Also, the story doesn't really have a climax. It's a fascinating premise - Hu was literally the only Chinese man in Paris, and isn't that something? - but it doesn't deliver a cracking good narrative, and the end fizzles. It must have taken some serious scholarship to pull it all together, though.
December 15, 2021
Spence is a top notch historian, but he really loves to tell a good story. This is an example. He found some interesting material and put it together to tell of an "adventure" by a 16th century Chinese man who travelled to France and back. The essence of the story is that Hu was a converted Christian and went to France to help a returning Jesuit priest translate some classic Chinese literature. Pretty much everything goes wrong for a few reasons. For one, the priest who brought him doesn't really know what to do with him Also Hu behaves in ways that are hard to understand and don't fit in French society. There were definite language and culture barriers that were not surmounted. The end result was that Hu returned to China feeling ill used while the priest had to defend himself against charges of maltreatment. He response to those charges is the major reason we have the story.
This is a fun book that puts a personal touch on the interaction between European missionaries and the Chinese. It is particularly interesting as Hu tries to understand French customs without learning French or making any particular efforts to conform. It doesn't have any major historical lessons, but it is a fun short read. Spence is a master story-teller.
This is a fun book that puts a personal touch on the interaction between European missionaries and the Chinese. It is particularly interesting as Hu tries to understand French customs without learning French or making any particular efforts to conform. It doesn't have any major historical lessons, but it is a fun short read. Spence is a master story-teller.
April 30, 2022
I finished it up in three days. And it is a windfall. I bought it quite some years ago in Collectables in HK and I probably wouldn't have appreciated it if reading it by then. Now after these years of reading seriously written history books by Chinese and western authors I began to know how to distinguish good history books from bad ones.
This is the kind of good ones. Very short, very simple way (reading like a diary) to structure the book, and very focusing, and best of all never trying to comment on what is right or wrong or who is good or bad. Instead, after reading this simple story and I got a much much better view of what people in China and in France were truly doing in 1720s (Kangxi,Yongzheng).
Hu Ruowang is a nobody but his adventures to Paris then back to Canton is very touchy to read. I particularly like the ending of this book when Hu sit in his hometown to tell his story to kids. Also by showing his letter written in Chinese which is preserved in Rome, I can tell this guy is not only sane but also more educated (in terms of traditional Chinese language) than most of today's Chinese people.
This is the kind of good ones. Very short, very simple way (reading like a diary) to structure the book, and very focusing, and best of all never trying to comment on what is right or wrong or who is good or bad. Instead, after reading this simple story and I got a much much better view of what people in China and in France were truly doing in 1720s (Kangxi,Yongzheng).
Hu Ruowang is a nobody but his adventures to Paris then back to Canton is very touchy to read. I particularly like the ending of this book when Hu sit in his hometown to tell his story to kids. Also by showing his letter written in Chinese which is preserved in Rome, I can tell this guy is not only sane but also more educated (in terms of traditional Chinese language) than most of today's Chinese people.
March 15, 2024
Spence, dopo uno studio approfondito di lettere scambiate tra Padre Foucquet e tanti altri uomini di chiesa, politici e conoscenti, è riuscito a comporre questa strabiliante storia tramite forma di diario. Perché di Giovanni Hu ci sono solo tante storie e leggende ma, per una chiamiamola “fatalità”, tutte le lettere - e quindi documentazioni - da lui scritte sono state perse o buttate via.
È incredibile pensare come nel 18esimo secolo fosse un evento più unico che raro incontrare un cinese in Europa, e Spence ci racconta l’avventura di questo uomo che si trova completamente straniato al suo arrivo in Francia, tanto da non lavorare per più di un giorno e passare il resto del suo soggiorno delirando per le strade, scappando e rifiutandosi di collaborare. Una storia davvero interessante e coinvolgente, a tratti comica, a tratti drammatica, che sembra quasi romanzata. Davvero ben scritto e ben documentato, mi è piaciuto tantissimo!
È incredibile pensare come nel 18esimo secolo fosse un evento più unico che raro incontrare un cinese in Europa, e Spence ci racconta l’avventura di questo uomo che si trova completamente straniato al suo arrivo in Francia, tanto da non lavorare per più di un giorno e passare il resto del suo soggiorno delirando per le strade, scappando e rifiutandosi di collaborare. Una storia davvero interessante e coinvolgente, a tratti comica, a tratti drammatica, che sembra quasi romanzata. Davvero ben scritto e ben documentato, mi è piaciuto tantissimo!
Read
March 11, 2023A strange little book about a priest (Father Foucquet) who brought a Chinese (Hu) man back with him to France from Canton in the early 18th century to help with his studies.
It's entirely based on Foucquet's diaries and correspondence, it seems, so we don't know what Hu thinks or feels. From Foucquet's perspective, Hu's behavior is problematic, if not insane.
I think it was mostly interesting as a glimpse into a time/place/life that is usually entirely inaccessible, so while not exactly riveting, even details of the ship passage, the bureaucracy around Foucquet's books, the networks of power in France, are a sort of time travel.
The greater question of what it must have been like for Hu, literally the only Chinese man in Paris, who can communicate with just one person who doesn't very much like him, is left to the imagination.
It's entirely based on Foucquet's diaries and correspondence, it seems, so we don't know what Hu thinks or feels. From Foucquet's perspective, Hu's behavior is problematic, if not insane.
I think it was mostly interesting as a glimpse into a time/place/life that is usually entirely inaccessible, so while not exactly riveting, even details of the ship passage, the bureaucracy around Foucquet's books, the networks of power in France, are a sort of time travel.
The greater question of what it must have been like for Hu, literally the only Chinese man in Paris, who can communicate with just one person who doesn't very much like him, is left to the imagination.
December 26, 2023
Really impressive telling of a story of a French missionary to China, who brings back upon returning home a Chinese assistant named Hu ("John"). Spence's work is well researched, drawing from various archives. We also get to learn a little bit about the nature of missionary work, about the tensions between Jesuits and the Catholic Church, about the attitudes that French theologians had towards ancestral worship in China, and about much misplaced understandings of mental illness in the early 17th century.
Spence once again delivers on a visceral historical piece that brings much dated materials to life.
Spence once again delivers on a visceral historical piece that brings much dated materials to life.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews