The Chinese Statue themes comprise, appearance versus reality and love for

customs and traditions.

The six-inch statue, which is the at the centre of the action of the story, is
believed to be a fine piece of art from the Ming Dynasty, created by Pen Q
himself during the fifteenth century. It was the appearance of the statue that
fooled Sir Alexander into believing, without any inquiry or research, that the
artefact was indeed an original. In fact, he even paid the craftsman he had
acquired the statue from a handsome gift of a nice house, the amount of which
equalled three years of his salary. However, appearances can be deceiving –
something we learn towards the end of the story. When Sir Alexander’s heir Alex
takes the statue to Sotheby, we find out that it was in fact a counterfeit, not more
than two fifty years of age. On the other hand, the base of the statue, which Sir
Alexander had not cared much for, ends up being valued at a very high price for
it was an original artefact. From the appearance, nobody would have guessed
that the base could have been of any value, but upon scrutiny it was found that it
was solely the base that was actually a real artefact. This conflict between
appearance and reality also extends to the heir Alex, who sold off the statue.
When it came to family name, Alex was indeed a Heathcote heir. But his family
name was deceiving, because in reality Alex was quite like a counterfeit heir –
nothing like his ancestors who had taken care of the family artefact with great
regard.

Love for customs and traditions forms the next important theme of this story. It
was solely due to the tradition that a host cannot say no to a guest that Sir
Alexander acquired the statue in the first place. And it was tradition itself that
made it imperative for Sir Alexander to repay the craftsman in equal measure.
This makes us realize how strong adherence to traditions and moral codes was
during olden days. However, we see the same love for tradition and custom
decline in the present time, as the last heir of the statue, Alex, does away with the
statue to pay for his gambling. It was the Heathcote family tradition to pass down
the statue to the first born of every heir – something that died with Alex to
support his extravagant lifestyle and gambling

Ending
The plot of the story follows the structure of a story within a story. The main
story, which takes place in London, takes place in the present time, where Alex, a
gambler, is doing away with a prized family heirloom in order to pay money to
his creditors. It is in this present time that we find out that the statue is a fake,
and that it is actually its nondescript base, which was attached to the statue much
later, which is of huge value as an artefact. The ‘story’ within the story delineates
how the statue was actually acquired and the number of heirs it was passed down
to. This parallel story takes place in 1871, in the Peking of old times. It was in that
year that Alexander Heathcote came into the possession of the statue, merely
due to a Chinese tradition that dictated that the host must part with anything
that a guest desires. Sir Alexander, on one of his trips around Peking, had casually
wondered aloud to a craftsman that he wished to acquire the Ming artefact that
belonged to him. And at once, the craftsman had parted with the statue. Sir
Alexander had then paid back the craftsman handsomely by building him a house
in the hills, in keeping with the Chinese tradition that made it imperative for the
recipient to pay back the host in equal measure. The statue then enjoyed a
privileged place in regiments’ mess and even at a bishop’s house, passed on from
one heir to next, until Alex auctioned it off. It is by contrasting these two parallel
stories in the plot, that we understand how tradition slowly lost its value with
time. Once tradition was so important to the Heathcote family that Sir Alexander
parted with three years’ worth of salary to repay the craftsman. On the other
hand, the same tradition held such little value in the same family that the prized
statue was auctioned off in order to pay for some gambling. This degeneration of
tradition is one of the first vital aspects of the short story.

The short story, although narrated in first person point of view, follows the
narrative technique akin to the omniscient narrator point of view. The narrator is
one of the bidders at the auction house, and it is to him that the Chinese statue
goes to. Dissatisfied by the meagreness of the details that came in the fact sheet
attached to the artefact, the narrator does his own research to find more about
the statue. It is then that this narrator takes on the role of the omniscient narrator
and reveals to us the history of the Chinese statue, narrating details that
ordinarily he was not supposed to possess. It is through this narrative technique
and the narrator that Jeffery Archer seamlessly moves between the past and the
present, creating an engaging narrative.

Starting
As Sir Alexander’s ministerial appointment was only for three years, he did not
take any leave, and travelled on his horseback to various districts in order to learn
more about the country and its people. It was during one such trip to the Ha Li
Chuan village that Sir Alexander chanced upon an old craftsman’s workshop,
which was crammed from ceiling to floor with pieces of ivory and jade. The old
ordinary craftsmen was informed by the Mandarin interpreter of the diplomat’s
interest in Chinese art, and he gladly assented to Sir Alexander viewing the
artefacts in his humble workshop. Sir Alexander feasted his eyes on the
magnificent artefacts, and then praised the craftsman on his skills. Upon
discovering that Sir Alexander had a special interest in artefacts from the Ming
Dynasty, the craftsman brought to the diplomat a piece of Ming that had been in
his family for over seven generations. With enthralled eyes, Sir Alexander studied
the six-inch statue of Emperor Kung – the fine making of which made Sir
Alexander certain that the maker of the same must have been Pen Q; and hence,
the statue could be dated back to 15th century

Unable to contain his wonder upon seeing a fine sample of Ming art, Sir
Alexander uttered the words, “How I wish the piece of mine”. As it was Chinese
tradition to part with whatever a guest wished for, the old craftsman, with a heavy
heart, had to give away the statue to Sir Alexander, despite him assuring the
craftsman that he was only joking. As the statue was without a base, the
craftsman picked one out that fit the statue perfectly, and presented the finished
piece to the diplomat.

Guilt haunted Sir Alexander, but it was soon put to rest when his interpreter
informed him of the Chinese tradition that made it imperative for the recipient of
the gift to pay back the favour within the year. Upon some research, Sir Alexander
found out that the worth of the statue amounted to his three years’ salary.
However, he and his wife decided that the sum must be paid back to the humble
craftsman, and Sir Alexander had the amount withdrawn from his bank in
London. Sir Alexander had also found that the old craftsman wished to retire in
the hills. And hence, in order to pay back the craftsman, the diplomat built for
him a small white house in the hills. He also had the gift sanctioned by the
empress herself so that the craftsman could accept it, for it was forbidden for
natives to accept gifts from foreigners. The craftsman accepted the gift with no
little joy, and the debt between the two was settled.
Sir Alexander spent his final years in his ancestral home in Yorkshire, with his wife
and the Chinese statue, which was admired by his guests. Being an exact man, he
also left detailed instructions on how the statue was to be passed on through
generations. It was to be given to the first-born of each heir, and was not to be
sold until the family name was in peril.

Upon Sir Alexander’s death, the custody of the statue went to his first son, Major
James Heathcote, who displayed the statue in the Regiment’s mess in Halifax.
And when he became the Colonel, the statue adorned his table next to all his
trophies for guests to admire. The statue then passed to the Colonel’s son,
Reverend Alexander Heathcote, who placed the statue in his vicarage. However, it
was only when the Reverend became Right Reverend, and the statue was moved
to the Bishop’s house, that it met the right set of admirers who knew how to
value his great grandfather’s patronage of Ming Art.

Upon the death of the Right Reverend, the statue found its way back to Halifax,
where his son and the next heir of the statue, Captain James Heathcote was
stationed. Sadly, Captain James lost his life on the battlefields of Dirkirk, and the
statue then fell into the hands of his two-year-old son Alex. Alex grew up to be a
spoil brat, for his mother had spent her life lavishing on him to overcompensate
for the loss of his father at a young age.

Alex was a disaster in school, which he had to leave in order to avoid getting
expelled. He could not hold down any job, and eventually decided to make his
money by playing roulette. Alex lost a great deal of money while devising such a
system for playing roulette that would make it impossible to fail. However, all his
systems failed, and in the end he received a stern call from his creditors,
demanding that he pay eight thousand pounds, failing which bodily harm would
fall on him. It was at this point, when the family name was finally in peril, that Alex
decided to sell his heirloom – the Chinese statue that his ancestors had displayed
with great pride.

Conclusion

The Chinese Statue by Jeffery Archer is an intriguing short story revolving around
a statue, which was believed to be a fine specimen of Ming art but was later
declared to be a counterfeit. It is indeed funny how the first owner of the statue,
Sir Alexander Heathcote, made no attempts to ascertain the genuinity of the
statue, and the same statue was cherished as a rare artefact for generations after
him. What is more surprising is how it was actually the base of the statue that
ended up being the real artefact – something that had been ignored all along for
it looked nondescript in comparison to the statue it held in place. This makes us
question the disparity there is between appearance and reality. What sometimes
appears valuable on the outset is of no value in reality; and sometimes, what is
deemed of little value ends up being valuable. The twist at the ending of the
short story drives this point home in an effective manner.