The pillage and destruction by French and British troops in 1860 of the so-called “Old Summer Palace” (Yuanming yuan), the vast and magnificent complex of palaces, temples, pavilions, lakes and gardens built near Beijing in the 18th and early 19th centuries as the primary residence of several Qing emperors, remains a potent symbol of China's “humiliation” at the hands of foreign imperialists. Although largely neglected in Western historical accounts, this act of cultural vandalism nevertheless continues to be a topic of considerable controversy. The meticulously researched work by Ines Eben von Racknitz sheds much light on a rather dark chapter in the history of Chinese–Western interactions. Originally presented as her doctoral dissertation at the University of Konstanz, the author carefully reconstructs the Anglo-French military campaign against the Qing in 1860, culminating in the destruction of the Yuanming yuan. The author does not consider the conflict a typical 19th-century colonial war, but points out that the Allied forces had gained relevant experiences in colonial contexts in India (British) and Algeria (French). These colonial encounters help explain, according to Eben von Racknitz, the distinct variations in the conduct of war by British and French troops in 1860. These relative large military contingents were escorting the diplomatic missions that were intent on having the 1858 treaties ratified in Beijing. The Qing government, on the other hand, sought to prevent the presence of foreigners in the capital.
Having consulted a wide range of published primary and secondary sources, supplemented by British and French archival material as well as currently accessible Chinese language material, the author carefully and competently reconstructs the protracted diplomatic negotiations during the military campaign. Moreover, in her comprehensive analysis of the war itself, she discusses the causes and progress of the war. Particular attention has been paid to the composition of the respective foreign armies and the thorny issue of logistics. The cultural history perspective, including “semantic strategies” in the way the events of 1860 were reported, is particularly valuable. The reader learns from Eben von Racknitz's account that the war of 1860 has differentially nourished historical memory in Britain and France ― and, of course, in China.
The delicate issue concerning the spoils of war forms the central theme that runs through the entire book. The author discusses at considerable length the phenomenon of pillaging as “cultural practice” in all Kulturkreise (culture circles) in wartime. In light of the existing informal rules in Europe, formal distinctions are made between “requisition” (with compensation), the unlawful acquisition of property belonging to the enemy (“plundering”) and the acquisition of “legitimate” booty in accordance with the laws of war (“prize”). Eben von Racknitz introduces “looting,” a term that originated in 19th-century India, to describe not only the taking of essentials from civilian populations but more specifically the theft of art objects in colonial wars. As her detailed account of the military advance from the Dagu Forts to Beijing illustrates so graphically, the British and French had their distinct looting systems. These different styles were vividly demonstrated in the pillaging of priceless antiquities, art collections, books and valuable religious objects from the Yuanming yuan. It should, however, be noted that the rules concerning “prize” and attitudes toward pillage had emerged in European cultural contexts. Given the historical fact that Chinese soldiers were notorious looters as well, an answer to the question whether similar rules and understandings existed in imperial China would have been helpful.
The book contains some inaccuracies. The Société des Missions Etrangères (MEP) in Paris did not take charge of “the mission in China” in 1848 (p. 44), but had been there since the 17th century. On page 73, footnote 47, the statement that “governor” Ye Mingchen as well as Lin Zexu obtained cannons from foreigners in Guangzhou between 1854 and 1856 seems muddled. Lin died in 1850 and Ye was appointed “governor” of Guangdong in 1848 and “governor general” of Liang-Guang in 1852. Karl Gützlaff did not marry one of Parkes's sisters (p. 99), but the latter's distant relative Mary Wanstall. The Taipings captured neither Fuzhou in Fujian nor attacked Guangzhou in 1860 (see p. 102). The rank of daotai (circuit intendant) cannot be equated with “mayor” (Bürgermeister) (see e.g. p. 144). Although some French sources erroneously write “Abbé Duluc,” the missionary's correct name is Dominique Deluc. Hengfu was “governor general” of Zhili province (p. 151). Note also that the “Fonds Charles Cousin-Montauban, Comte de Palikao (1857–1873)” is in the French National Archives.
These few anomalies, however, do not detract from the excellence of this important monograph. Ines Eben von Racknitz presents a coherent, comprehensive, balanced and nuanced account of the Allied military campaign, the complicated diplomatic negotiations, the hidden rivalries between the foreign armies, the fate of the Yuanming yuan, the way the looting frenzy was (not) reported in Europe and how it is remembered in China, with additional notes on the afterlife of several important stolen art objects. For students with a good command of the German language, this book offers a thorough and clearer understanding of one of the more disturbing episodes in the encounter between China and the West.
