Why did the author produce this work, and what is the central argument(s) being made by the author? - are there any biases in the arguments?

The author of The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci is the renowned Sterling Professor of History Emeritus Jonathan Spence of Yale. His main area of study is Chinese history from 1600 to the present day and to date he has written thirteen books on Chinese history. As such, the perspective of The Memory Palace is that of a professional historian of the highest quality. The author comes off as erudite, detailed, measured, nuanced, maintaining a clear, compelling narrative. The Memory Palace is full of citations and discussions of the best understanding the historical community has of Matteo Ricci's life and times. We see the original painting and ideographs the Matteo Ricci worked with reproduced in the book. Often The Memory Palace take detours into 16th century Chinese or Italian history, important theological debates, the state of 16th and 17th century science, East Asian relations, Greek and Roman philosophy, Confucian theology and so on. The author does not appear to have an ax to grind of any kind. Instead, he appears most interested in communicating different aspects of Matteo Ricci's life, personality, culture and his interaction with Chinese culture, particularly by associating his different topics with the pictures within Matteo Ricci's Memory Palace. The author neither white-washes Ricci's life, nor criticizes him. Spence appears to have great respect for Ricci, but always points out when Ricci's opinions had ill influences, or when his perspective had elements of bigotry and he catalogs Ricci's historical errors. However, this is done without unfairly tarnishing Ricci or the Chinese people of the 16th and 17th centuries.