# Critique:  The Question of Hu

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-question-of-hu/126371>\
**Category:** Cafe Society\
**Created:** [August 30, 2002, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-question-of-hu/126371 "2002-08-30T21:49:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![grayhairedmomma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/47e85d/32.png) [@grayhairedmomma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grayhairedmomma)\
**Post date:** [August 30, 2002, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-the-question-of-hu/126371/1 "2002-08-30T21:49:36Z")

</div>

I just finished reading this [book](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0DI439EFZT&isbn=0679725806#customerReviews):

> [@](#):
>
> _NY Times Synopsis_  
> The author examines the story of John Hu, a Chinese convert who accompanied Jean-Francois Foucquet, a Jesuit missionary, to France in 1722. The priest “had devoted a lifetime to proving that the ancient Chinese religious texts . . . were originally handed to the Chinese by ‘the same true God that Christians worship.’ . . . Hu’s task was to copy out quotations . . . to demonstrate {the priest’s} theory. Hu did little copying, however; his exuberant response to the new world . . . entangled him in repeated difficulties. To the Europeans, he appeared to be mad. . . . Finally, Father Foucquet requested that Hube committed to {a} hospital for the insane.”

In the preface the author states that he has gotten most of his information regarding the relationship between Hu and Foucquet from the latter’s writings to others and from other records kept during that time period. He continues on to say that in reviewing the available information, he thinks that Foucquet was wrong in his treatment of Hu.

Understandably, given that the majority of the history comes from him, most the text would be skewed towards Foucquets’ view. But I think the author has done his readers a disservice by not including more information about chinese/european customs in relation to the experiences that Hu has during his travels.

Unless you continue to remind yourself that this is a one-sided story, it is hard not to come away from this book thinking of Hu as an unreasonable, perhaps mentally unstable person who has done nothing but provide trouble to the people who are doing him all of these immense favors.

This is shown by a person who has posted a review of this book on [amazon.com](http://amazon.com):

> [@](#):
>
> If you enjoyed “The Professor and the Madman”, this book might just be your cup of tea. In both books, the central character becomes schizophrenic. In “The Professor and the Madman”, he’s an American officer in London. In “The Question of Hu”, he’s an assistant to a Jesuit scholar in France.

I have seen no evidence in this book to support the notion that Hu is indeed schizophrenic. He is a man who’s motives are poorly understood by Foucquet, and who in turn poorly understands what he is getting himself into by pursuing this adventure.

For instance, there is a passage in the book (I’m sorry I don’t have it handy) in which Hu tells someone that Foucquet has not paid him for the past 4 years of service (which by our calendar is only 14 months; the contract they agreed upon was for 5 years). It would have been very good to know at that point, a little about the chinese calendar. Was Hu correct in his measurement of time? Or was he wrong by any calendar?

The author’s stated purpose is to let us decide for ourselves what to think of Foucquet. Without the information necessary to gain a better insight into Hu, whatever conclusions we come to are premature.

Has anyone else read this book? What do you think?