Constructing British Selfhood through Depictions of China: The Art of the Macartney Embassy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Detailed comments: 

L15: add Qianlong’s reign years.

L20: It is common to write “Qianlong Emperor” instead of “Emperor Qianlong”. Keep the consistency throughout the manuscript.

L28-29: No need to mention where the scholars come from. Eliminate “the United States” and “of China.”

L65: if the author writes “on the other hand,” the reader might wonder where is “on the one hand.” The phrases should not be too far away from each other. 

L82: Remove the second “China” and write “the country’s [...]”.

L110: L91 writes, “Macartney Embassy.” Capitalized?

L128-129, the “Enlightenment principles” remind me of John Finlay’s book on Henri Bertin. The book needs to be included in the author’s manuscript.

L133: maybe “garden architecture”?

L174: Should “embassy” be capitalized?

L215: A source is needed. Which countries of northern Europe? Not Portugal?

L292: If I’m not mistaken, Figure 4 by Xu Yang does not match what the author writes. Xu Yang’s picture is seen in Figure 7.

L370: Figure 7 does not match. The figure numbers are jumping. Please double-check the numbers carefully.

L498: Since the term ‘pastoral state’ can be found throughout the text, the reviewer wonders whether this view was also shaped by the French physiocratic movement, which prioritized the use of land and agriculture. See Finlay’s book on Henri Bertin; see further Anthony E. Clark’s China Gothic (2019) regarding the French ‘civilizing mission’ in the nineteenth century.  

General comment: It would be great if the author could deliver a more concise visual analysis instead of using drawings as a secondary by-product of her/his narrative.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revision is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The structure of the article is unbalanced. The second part is very long, it is suggested to divide it into different sections.

2. A review must be carried out in the format of the bibliographic sources, since now the format is not uniform, in addition, the order of the author's last name and first name is not coherent.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I found this article to be a very interesting read and thoroughly enjoyed it. It provides an extensive background on the Macartney Embassy, detailing its objectives, the journey, and the reception in China. This context helps readers understand the broader political and social motivations behind the mission. However, while the article effectively argues that British self-perception was bolstered by depicting China as inferior, it might overemphasize this point. A more balanced discussion of the complexities and contradictions in British attitudes towards China could provide a more nuanced analysis. 

Mid-article, I still fail to understand the Chinese perspective. I'm not a huge fan of the Eurocentric perspective in academia, so I recommend a more nuanced view. Despite its engagement with postcolonial theory, the article maintains this Eurocentric focus by primarily considering how China served British self-definition. Greater effort should be put into deconstructing this perspective, as it is not entirely accurate. Including more Chinese perspectives on the Macartney Embassy and its visual representations could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the intercultural encounter. The analysis heavily relies on the visual documentation produced by the embassy. While this is a strength, incorporating more textual sources, such as diaries and official documents, could offer additional layers of insight into the perceptions and attitudes of the embassy members. 

I return to my main critique: Include more insights from Chinese perspectives on the Macartney Embassy! This could involve translating and analysing Chinese historical records, diaries, or official documents that discuss the British mission. We need to hear their side as well, not just the British perspective!!!!

The article, while dense in academic language, could expand its analysis by incorporating textual sources such as letters, journals, and official reports from embassy members. This will provide a fuller view of the embassy's impact and the attitudes of its members. To strengthen your argument, consider comparing the Macartney Embassy with other contemporary European missions to China or other Asian countries. This could help highlight what was unique about the British approach and its subsequent influence on British selfhood.

Another valuable addition, in my opinion, would be to discuss how the embassy’s representations of China were received by different segments of British society, including the general public, intellectuals, and policymakers. This will provide a more nuanced understanding of the embassy's impact on British culture.  

I appreciate that the article includes a substantial number of references, indicating thorough research. However, ensuring that these references cover a wide range of perspectives and sources is crucial. We want both sides, not just the British one - it would benefit from a more balanced perspective that includes Chinese viewpoints and a broader range of sources.

To summarize: including more Chinese perspectives, incorporating additional textual sources, and offering a more nuanced discussion of British attitudes would significantly enhance the article's contribution to the field. Best of luck!!! 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx