Very interesting account of a Chinese man brought to Paris by a priest. Hu was incarcerated in Chartres for several years. ( )

Loved this book when I read it if HK in 1990

Absolutely fascinated by the narrative

Saddened by the end resuly (but perhaps nit unexpected)

Big Ship

25 May 2017 (though read a thousand years ago) ( )

This slim book is written by China expert Jonathan Spence and although, it is non-fiction and Spence is an academic, it is written like a work of fiction and just as compelling. Spence’s story, told in the present tense is that of Father Jean-Francois Foucquet, a Jesuit missionary who spent decades in China studying Chinese texts and attempting to link those writings to Christian theology.
When he is recalled to Europe, Fouquet convinces John Hu, a literate Chinese convert to accompany him and assist in the transcription of the Chinese texts. Hu’s behavior becomes increasingly bizarre and erratic on the journey and once in France, his behavior only worsens. Because of the language barrier, Fouquet is Hu’s only link to communicating with the outside world and he becomes increasingly isolated. Unable to manage his Chinese assistant, a very ambitious and determined Fouquet understands that the situation presents a huge distraction and that Hu is actually becoming a liability. Fouquet ultimately arranges to have him committed to an asylum in Paris.
The story is told sparsely but effectively and I was completely drawn in by this story. Spence only relates to the reader what he has discovered of the story through his extensive and meticulous research (he provides a massive bibliography at the back of the book). Only the very last line of the book appears to be conjecture and "poetic license". The title itself seems to be a pun, because the issue the 21st Century reader walks away with is the issue of identity - both personal and cultural - and how one can live completely isolated in world that is both culturally and personally foreign. ( )

Back in 1721, a Jesuit missionary in Canton, China named Jean-Francois Foucquet was ordered to report back to Rome to see the Pope. Now, Foucquet had spent the last 25 or so years studying Chinese, and especially ancient Chinese writings like the I Ching and he had this theory that these works were really based on a knowledge - incomplete as it might be - of the one true Christian God. As one might imagine, this wasn't a generally accepted theory, and his Jesuit superiors wanted to put a lid on it. He just wanted to keep studying. The Pope wanted to hear him out. As part of deal, Foucquet was able to get permission of sorts to bring back a Chinese scholar who had converted to Christianity to help him decode these texts and make his case. But those who didn't want him to do so managed to convince those planning to go with him to back out at the last minute.

Enter Hu Ruowang (AKA John Hu), a Chinese convert and gatekeeper at the residence in Canton where Foucquet was temporarily staying. Foucquet was assured that while Hu wasn't a scholar, he could read an write well enough to help with Foucquet's studies. Hu wanted to see the Europe - and especially meet the Pope - and was able to go. So they entered into a work contract where Hu would be paid a relatively small salary and Roucquet would pick up traveling expenses in exchange for translation and copyist services. And off they went.

Almost from the beginning of the trip, Hu's behavior was odd. Foucquet had been in China for decades, and was familiar with Chinese custom, so was surprised by Hu's violent responses to the ship's crew and on arriving in Europe, those around them. Hu, on the other hand, had no sense of how long the trip would take, how much trouble they would run into , or just how isolated he would be without knowledge of French. On the third hand, it appears Foucquet made no attempt, at least until it was too late to try to teach Hu French so that he could communicate (although he did initially try to teach Hu European customs). As a result, Hu behaved in ways that was more and more often interpreted as bizarre - and it didn't help that Foucquet left Hu on several occasions to make side trips. Eventually, the French officials and Foucquet had Hu committed to Charendon, an asylum caring for the mentally ill, when he violently refused to go on to Rome with Foucquet. Eventually, the Jesuits were able to get Hu back to China, but not before he spent about 2 years in the asylum in pretty horrific conditions.

The Question of Hu is a short book, but is packed with information about the people and places of the time. Spence's work is rather episodic in that there's not a huge amount of source material - only one letter from Hu to Foucquet exists, and the rest of the material is essentially Foucquet's letters and papers - so there's little in the way to trying to get into Hu's thinking. And since the source material is so one-sided, I get the sense that Hu is pictured as more bizarre and inscrutable than he really was. After all, Foucquet's opponents used this episode against him, and much was written in by him in his own defense. In fairness, Spense believes that Foucquet was unusually honest in his depiction of the situation.

All in all, The Question of Hu is a great little book about a time and place I didn't know much about, and I enjoyed it very much. It's only about 150 pages long, so isn't a difficult read by any means. Recommended! ( )

This was a short history (novella-length) of John Hu, a Chinese Christian brought to France in the early eighteenth century as assistant to a Jesuit priest returning from China. It's a classic culture-clash story - the trip doesn't go according to either man's expectations, and when Hu becomes too difficult to handle the Jesuit has him packed off to a lunatic asylum (where, of course, he can't communicate with anyone).

I'm a big Jonathan Spence fan, and I also really like microhistories, but I found this disappointing. Spence tells the story very sparely, leaving us to read between the lines. That allows us to take away a story of misunderstanding and betrayal - but his decision not to give us any analysis or context makes it hard to make any sense of the story on any other level. ( )