Introduction

Home , Ba Jin, Boris Fogel, Cao Ying (translator), Fu Lei, Hu Qiuyuan, Hu Yuzhi

Notes

Introduction

1. It is not a history of the translation process, which I have tried to address in detail elsewhere. See Mark Gamsa, The Chinese Translation of Russian Literature: Three Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 2. See chap. 9 in Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Here and below, the spellings Peking and Nanking will be used in historical reference to Beijing and Nanjing before the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). 3. Cf. Song Binghui, “Ruoxiao minzu wenxue de yijie yu Zhongguo wenxue de xiandaixing” (The Translation and Introduction of Literature by Weak and Small Nations and Chinese Literary Modernity), collected in idem, Fangfa yu shijian: Zhong-wai wenxue guanxi yanjiu (Shanghai: Fudan daxue chubanshe, 2004), at p. 118. The translator of Shakespeare, Liang Shiqiu (1902–87), recalled with approval an explanation once given by the literary reformer and May Fourth leader Hu Shi (1891–1962): Liang remembered Hu Shi saying that those Chinese who knew English did not translate English literature (but, rather, used English as an intermediary to retranslate French and Russian works) because the language of original English fiction was so much more difficult than that of translations. Liang Shiqiu, “Fanyi” (Translation, 1928), quoted in Ping Baoxing, Wusi yitan yu Eluosi wenxue (Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 2004), p. 134. 4. While the cultural dimension to Russian-Chinese relations remains neglected, contacts and/or similarities between the two literatures have been discussed in sinological research, albeit without recourse to Russian-language material. Rudolf G. Wagner, Inside a Service Trade: Studies in Contemporary Chinese Prose (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), takes what we might call the “contacts” approach in studying the appropriation of contemporary Soviet literature in the Chinese literary scene of the 1950s. The analysis by Perry Link of literary bureaucracy, writers’ conventions and strategies mainly in the post-Mao “thaw”, The Uses of Literature: Life in the Socialist Chinese Literary System (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), notes “similarities” with 144 NOTES

the functioning of the parallel system in the USSR and the literature of the thaw that followed the death of Stalin. 5. The latest study, Max Ko-wu Huang, The Meaning of Freedom: Yan Fu and the Origins of Chinese Liberalism (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2008), highlights the Chinese foundations of Yan Fu’s response to European thought with an emphasis on J. S. Mill. See also Douglas Howland, Personal Liberty and Public Good: The Introduction of John Stuart Mill to Japan and China (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005). 6. Hutcheson Macaulay Posnett, Comparative Literature (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1886; reprint 1970), p. 85. On this author and his book, see David Damrosch, “Rebirth of a Discipline: The Global Origins of Comparative Studies”, Comparative Cultural Studies, vol. 3, nos. 1–2 (2006), pp. 99–112. 7. Aileen M. Kelly, “Introduction”, in her Toward Another Shore: Russian Thinkers between Necessity and Chance (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998), p. 6, my emphasis. Compare (repeating the experiment of replacing “Russia” by “China”) with the following passage in Erich Auerbach, trans. Willard R. Trask, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 523–24: [M]odern European and especially . . . German and French forms of life and thought . . . in all their power collided in Russia with a society which, though frequently rotten, was wholly independent . . . and which above all was hardly yet prepared for such an encounter. For moral and practical reasons it was impossible to avoid coming to terms with modern European civilization, although the preparatory periods which had brought Europe to the position it then occupied had not nearly been lived through in Russia. The process of coming to terms was dramatic and confused. [. . .] The very choice of the ideas and systems over which the struggle takes place is somehow accidental and arbitrary. Then too, nothing but their final result is extracted, as it were, and this is not evaluated in its relation to other ideas or systems [. . .] but is immediately evaluated as an absolute, which is true or false, an inspiration or a devil- ish delusion. Immense theoretical countersystems are improvised. The most complex phenomena, fraught with historical premises and very difficult to formulate in a clear synthesis—phenomena like “western culture”, liberalism, socialism, the Catholic Church—are judged in a few words, in accordance with a particular and more often than not erroneous point of view. 8. The quotation is from John M. Headley, The Europeanization of the World: On the Origins of Human Rights and Democracy (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008), p. 27; on the integration of China, as perceived through the reports of Jesuit missionaries, within the expanding European concept of the civilized world, see his chap. 2, “The Universalizing Principle and the Idea of a Common Humanity”. 9. See Elizabeth McGuire, China, the Fun House Mirror: Soviet Reactions to the Chinese Cultural Revolution, 1966–1969 (Berkeley: Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies Working Paper Series, 2001), p. 17. Mao’s Red Guards, NOTES 145

in fact, were not based on Lenin’s: Barend J. ter Haar, “China’s Inner Demons: The Political Impact of the Demonological Paradigm”, in Woei Lien Chong, ed., China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution: Master Narratives and Post-Mao Counternarratives (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), pp. 27–68, esp. p. 52 ff., argues that they occupied a symbolic space made vacant by the Communist Party’s destruction of popular religion. The colour red was borrowed from the vocabulary of Chinese millenarianism; the Red Guards became divine soldiers. We shall return to discuss Maoist political religion in Chapter 4. 10. “Zhu Zhong-E wenzi zhi jiao”, collected in Nanqiang beidiao ji (Mixed Dialects, 1934), in Lu Xun quanji, in 18 vols. (Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 2005) (hereafter: LXQJ), vol. 4, pp. 472–80; translated as “The Ties between Chinese and Russian Literatures” in Lu Xun, trans. Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang, Selected Works, in 4 vols. (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1980), vol. 3, pp. 209–13. 11. See Maurice Meisner, “Iconoclasm and Cultural Revolution in China and Russia”, in Abbott Gleason et al., eds., Bolshevik Culture: Experiment and Order in the Russian Revolution (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), pp. 279–93. 12. “Ideologues who questioned China’s legitimacy as a socialist country because it was poor, undemocratic, and repressive could not have known that these categories would be applied in the future with fatal force to the Soviet Union”. McGuire, China, the Fun House Mirror, p. 36. 13. Vladimir Solov’ev’s Short Tale of the Antichrist (dating to a short time before the author’s death in 1900) is among his best-known writings. See Susanna Soojung Lim, “Between Spiritual Self and Other: Vladimir Solov’ev and the Question of East Asia”, Slavic Review, vol. 67, no. 2 (summer 2008). Cf. Nikolai Fedorov’s (1828–1903) article of 1901, “What the Most Ancient Christian Monument in China Can Teach Us”, available in English in idem, trans. and ed. by Elizabeth Koutaissoff and Marilyn Minto, What Was Man Created For? The Philosophy of the Common Task (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1990), pp. 196–204. 14. Haun Saussy, “Mei Lanfang in Moscow, 1935: Familiar, Unfamiliar, Defamiliar”, Modern Chinese Literature and Culture, vol. 18, no. 1 (spring 2006), pp. 8–29, shows how the master of traditional Chinese theatre, harshly criticized as a conservative by modernizers at home, was applauded as an artistic revelation by the most sophisticated directors of Soviet theatre on the eve of the Stalinist purges. 15. J. D. Chinnery, “The Influence of Western Literature on Lu Xun’s ‘Diary of a Madman’ ”, Bulletin of SOAS, vol. 23, no. 2 (1960), p. 318; my emphasis. 16. Marston Anderson, The Limits of Realism: Chinese Fiction in the Revolutionary Period (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 36. Also in 1920, the journal editor and translator Hu Yuzhi, whom we shall meet again below, showed himself aware of realism’s decline, but he too believed that China was not ready for such, more advanced, current writing as “mysticism” or 146 NOTES

“symbolism”: see the conclusion of his “Jindai wenxue shang de xieshi zhuyi” (Modern Literary Realism, 1920), in Hu Yuzhi wenji (Beijing: Sanlian shudian, 1996), vol. 1, pp. 48–60. 17. Anderson, The Limits of Realism, p. 134. 18. The young translator and critic Xie Liuyi rejected symbolism for this same reason, in the conclusion to his “Wenxue shang de biaoxiang zhuyi shi shenma?”, Xiaoshuo yuebao vol. 11, no. 6 (June 1920). 19. Peter Duus, “Introduction”, in Duus et al., eds., The Japanese Wartime Empire, 1931–1945 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. xix– xxiv. Manela, The Wilsonian Moment, p. 13, uses the positive images of “dis- patch and energy” to describe the “Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, and Korean nationalists”, who seized on the American president’s rhetoric to promote their political struggles in 1919. He considers “somewhat incongruent” the concurrent Japanese claims that “due to the material development of Korea under Japanese rule and the ‘racial kinship’ between the two peoples, the Japanese annexation of Korea . . . represented ‘the perfection of the principle of self-determination of races’ ” (p. 198; cf. pp. 210–11). 20. “ ‘Ah Q zhengzhuan’ de chengyin”, in Huagaiji xubian de xubian (Sequel to the Sequel to Splendid Cover Collection; 1927), in LXQJ, vol. 3, pp. 394– 403, here pp. 398–99. Cf. the freer translation of this text in “How The True Story of Ah Q Was Written”, in Lu Xun, Selected Works, vol. 2, at p. 318. 21. Quoting Hegel to have said that “alle grossen weltgeschichtlichen Tatsachen und Personen sich sozusagen zweimal ereignen würden”, Marx quipped: “das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce”. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, ed. Elizabeth Knowles, 5th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 500, translates as follows from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, noting that “the origin of the Hegel reference is uncertain”: “Hegel says somewhere that all great events and personalities in world history reap- pear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce”. 22. On literary responses to the betrayal of these promises in Russia, cf. Kevin M. F. Platt, History in a Grotesque Key: Russian Literature and the Idea of Revolution (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997). Cf. comments on “the grotesque” in chap. 7 of Ban Wang, The Sublime Figure of History: Aesthetics and Politics in Twentieth-Century China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), and in Geremie R. Barmé, In the Red: On Contemporary Chinese Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), p. xx. 23. Rudolf G. Wagner, “Life as a Quote from a Foreign Book: Love, Pavel, and Rita”, in Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer, ed., Das andere China. Festschrift für Wolfgang Bauer zum 65. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1995), here p. 476. 24. Its argument may be summarized as follows: 1. The literary decadence imported to Shanghai was then sinicized under the residual influence of traditional fiction. 2. The end result was a deficient version of the European NOTES 147

original, because it concentrated on the physical (sexual and hedonistic) strain of Decadence while neglecting its deeper aspects. Xie Zhixi, Mei de pianzhi: Zhongguo xiandai weimei—tuifeizhuyi wenxue sichao yanjiu (Shanghai: Shanghai wenyi chubanshe, 1997), esp. pp. 251–52. 25. “The leaders of one revolution have often seen themselves as re-enacting an earlier one. The Bolsheviks had their eyes on the French Revolution, for instance, the French revolutionaries thought of themselves as re-enacting the English Revolution, and the English in turn saw the events of their time as a replay of the French religious wars of the sixteenth century”. Peter Burke, What Is Cultural History? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004), p. 124, adds the rather gnomic caveat: historians need to “incorporate such views, without of course repeating them uncritically”. Franco Moretti, Atlas of the European Novel 1800–1900 (London and New York: Verso, 1998), argued in his con- cluding pages that the French and English models of the novel were the object of worldwide imitation, but that their diffusion also produced two “paradigm shifts”: the novel of ideas in Russia (1860–90) and, a century later, magical realism in Latin America (1960–90). Moretti returned to the uneasy “compromise” between borrowed literary form and local reality “in cultures that belong to the periphery of the literary system (which means: almost all cultures, inside and outside Europe)” in his “Conjectures on World Literature” (2000), now in Christopher Prendergast, ed., Debating World Literature (London: Verso, 2004), esp. pp. 152–59 (quoting p. 152; emphasis in the original). Criticism of this position, on grounds of method by some and political incorrectness by others, led Moretti to modify it in “More Conjectures”, New Left Review, no. 20 (March–April 2003): “no [national] literature [is] without compromises between the local and the foreign”, he now stated (p. 79), though he still pointed out that the influence of the Anglo-French model on other literatures had been stronger than that of the Spanish or German novel on the English and French. 26. Daniel Fried, “Beijing’s Crypto-Victorian: Traditionalist Influences on Hu Shi’s Poetic Practice”, Comparative Critical Studies, vol. 3, no. 3 (2006).

One The Russian Classics as a Moral Example

1. Link, The Uses of Literature, pp. 104–5, considers the following three “basic assumptions” central to modern, as to traditional, Chinese literary culture: 1. Written Chinese embodies moral and political power. 2. A literary intellectual has a responsibility to help set the world in order. 3. A literary intellectual can reasonably expect that the state will utilize his talents. 2. This is noticed also at the outset of Wang Jianzhao, Zhong-E wenzi zhi jiao: E-Su wenxue yu ershi shiji Zhongguo xin wenxue (Guilin: Lijiang chubanshe, 1999), pp. 4–8. 148 NOTES

3. “Mangmu de fanyijia” (Blind Translators, 1921); reprinted in Zheng Zhenduo quanji, in 20 vols. (Shijiazhuang: Huashan wenyi chubanshe, 1998), vol. 3, pp. 491–92. Mao Dun, in “Eguo jindai wenxue zatan” (Random Remarks on Modern Russian Literature, 1920), collected in Mao Dun quanji, in 41 vols. (Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 1984–2001), vol. 32, pp. 124–32, also expressed the opinion that concern for the underprivileged classes was far more convincing in Russian literature than were parallel attempts by writers in English and French. See Sun Naixiu, Tugeniefu yu Zhongguo: Ershi shiji Zhong-wai wenxue guanxi yanjiu (Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe, 1988), p. 32; cf. on this Li Shixue, “Tuo’ersitai yu Zhongguo zuoyi wenren” (Tolstoy and China’s Left-League Literati), in his Zhong-Xi wenxue yinyuan (Taipei: Lianjing, 1991), here p. 151. 4. Wang Yougui, Fanyijia Lu Xun (Tianjin: Nankai daxue chubanshe, 2005), pp. 138–41. 5. Ibid., p. 143; for the following remarks on Lu Xun, cf. ibid., pp. 292–95. See more in the chapters on Mao Dun and Bing Xin as translators in idem, Fanyi Xifang yu Dongfang: Zhongguo liu wei fanyi jia (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 2004); on Zhou Zuoren in idem, Fanyijia Zhou Zuoren (same publisher, 2001). 6. Xie Liuyi, “Wenxue yu minzhong” (Literature and the Masses, 1922), as cited in Qiu Yang, Xie Liuyi pingzhuan (Guiyang: Guizhou minzu chubanshe, 1997), pp. 73–4. In an essay praising contemporary literature in Russia, where “the proletariat is now in actuality imitating art in its flesh- and-blood human life”, Yu Dafu, “Class Struggle in Literature” (1923), as trans. in Kirk A. Denton, ed., Modern Chinese Literary Thought: Writings on Literature, 1893–1945 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), p. 267, also pronounced: “The English literary world is the most conservative and most accommodating of all”. 7. Levenson, Revolution and Cosmopolitanism: The Western Stage and the Chinese Stages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), p. 42. 8. These words are put in the mouth of the first-person narrator in Ba Jin, “Sinking Low” (Chenluo, 1934), trans. Perry Link, in Joseph S. M. Lau et al., eds., Modern Chinese Stories and Novellas 1919–1949 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), pp. 310–11. Attacking the reading of Chekhov by a bourgeois professor, the narrator displays the “correct” view on the behaviour and reading matter of intellectuals at a time of national crisis. However, Ba Jin later thoroughly revised his views: on the evolution completed by his anniversary essay “Women hai xuyao Xiehefu” (We Still Need Chekhov, 1954), see Dai Yi, “Cong bu liaojie dao re’ai: Ba Jin yu Xiehefu” (From Misapprehension to Love: Ba Jin and Chekhov), in Zhi Liang, ed., Bijiao wenxue sanbai pian (Shanghai: Shanghai wenyi chubanshe, 1990), pp. 454–58. 9. Qian Gurong, “Xu” (Introduction), in Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi (Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe, 1998), p. 1. 10. Ibid., pp. 4–5. NOTES 149

11. Li Ding, “Eguo wenxue fanyi zai Zhongguo”, in Zhi Liang, ed., Eguo wenxue yu Zhongguo (Shanghai: Huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 1991), pp. 346–49. These statistics refer to individual book titles; the inclusion of reprints would change the order, making Turgenev the most published Russian writer in China, followed by Tolstoy, Chekhov and (still at some distance) Dostoevsky. The most published “Soviet” author, from 1928 to 1987, was naturally Gorky (ibid., p. 337). 12. An early example of this view is the untitled article following his translation of the short story “Ben-Tovit” by Andreev. See Zhou Zuoren, trans., “Chitong”, Xin qingnian, vol. 7, no. 1 (December 1919), p. 69. 13. Shen Zemin (signed Ming Xin), “Enteliefu wenxue sixiang gailun” (Outline of Andreev’s Literary Thought), Xuesheng zazhi, vol. 7 (1920), no. 5, p. 2. 14. This was how the article’s author, a Russian-born American critic, had put it: “For in no country is literature so much part of life as it is in Russia, in no country does it so faithfully reflect the ideas and the spiritual and material conditions of the people, nowhere is literature taken so seriously, and nowhere, therefore, does it wield so great an influence”. Thomas Seltzer, “Introduction”, in Leonid Andreyev, ed. Seltzer, The Seven That Were Hanged (New York: Boni and Liveright, The Modern Library, 1918), p. viii. 15. Li Dazhao, “Eluosi wenxue yu geming”, in Li Dazhao wenji (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1984), vol. 1, pp. 581–88. Commentary on this article is in Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, pp. 55–8, and Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi: Zhongguo xiandaixing wenti zhong de Eguo yinsu (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2005), pp. 187–88. 16. Mao Dun, “Tuo’ersitai yu jinri zhi Eluosi” (Tolstoy and Today’s Russia), in Mao Dun quanji, vol. 32, pp. 14–37; discussion in Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, pp. 63–4; Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi, pp. 188–89. Excerpts appear also in Beijing daxue bijiao wenxue yanjiusuo, ed., Zhongguo bijiao wenxue yanjiu ziliao (1919–1949) (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1989), pp. 1–4. 17. On this subject, see the publications of Julia K. Murray: a useful synopsis is her “Portraits of Confucius: Icons and Iconoclasm”, Oriental Art, vol. 47, no. 3 (2001), pp. 17–28. 18. Benjamin Schwartz, In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West. Western Thought in Chinese Perspective (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 239. 19. Ibid., pp. 36–7. 20. Ibid., p. 45. 21. Huang, The Meaning of Freedom, p. 95. 22. J. S. Mill wrote in On Liberty, which Yan Fu translated in 1899, that “it is the duty of governments, and of individuals, to form the truest opinions they can” (quoted and commented in Howland, Personal Liberty and Public Good, pp. 43–5; emphasis in the original). As Huang, The Meaning of Freedom, p. 58, puts it, “For Yan, the wrongfulness of wrong ways of thinking was obvious”. 150 NOTES

23. Demanding submission to truth, scientism leaves no room for subjectivity and excludes pluralism. See Tzvetan Todorov, “Totalitarianism: Between Religion and Science”, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, vol. 2, no. 1 (summer 2001). 24. On the ideology of “national literature” as expressed by one of its proponents, the writer Chen Quan (1905–69), see Ursula Stadler, “Chen Quans Beiträge in der Zeitschrift Zhanguo ce”, Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques, vol. 56, no. 1 (2002), esp. pp. 183–88. 25. See Hu Qiuyuan, “Do Not Encroach upon Literary Art”, and Su Wen, “Regarding the Literary News and Hu Qiuyuan’s Literary Arguments” (both 1932), trans. in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, pp. 363–75. Cf. on these polemics: Wang-chi Wong, Politics and Literature in Shanghai: The Chinese League of Left-Wing Writers, 1930–1936 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991), pp. 129–33; Anderson, The Limits of Realism, pp. 57–60. 26. C. T. Hsia, A History of Modern Chinese Fiction, 3rd ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), p. 22. 27. For an argument that the model, set by Qu Yuan’s moralizing didacticism, had deleterious effects on modern Chinese literature, see Bonnie S. McDougall, Fictional Authors, Imaginary Audiences: Modern Chinese Literature in the Twentieth Century (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2003), pp. 66–7. 28. Victor Erlich, The Double Image: Concepts of the Poet in Slavic Literatures (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964) is the founding study of this dichot- omy in the Russian and Polish contexts. See pp. 23–4 on “tender” versus “martial”; p. 52 on “poetry of art” versus “poetry of action”; p. 71 on the “Parnassian” versus the “Dionysian” concepts of the poet. 29. Lu Xun, “On the Power of Mara Poetry”, partly trans. in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, pp. 96–109. On the desire for military fame of another “national poet” and his avowed regret at having ridden Pegasus rather than a horse in battle, see David M. Bethea, Realizing Metaphors: Alexander Pushkin and the Life of the Poet (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), pp. 79–80, 228–30. Bethea explores Pushkin’s struggle with the image of Gavrila Derzhavin, Russia’s foremost poet of the eighteenth century, who had earned glory both as an army commander and the bard of Catherine the Great; an example of such double excellence in the nineteenth century was the poet and general Denis Davydov, Pushkin’s friend. 30. See Xia Xiaohong, “Ms Picha and Mrs Stowe”, and Chu Chi Yu, “Lord Byron’s ‘The Isles of Greece’: First Translations”, esp. pp. 79, 102, both in David E. Pollard, ed., Translation and Creation: Readings of Western Literature in Early Modern China, 1840–1918 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998). T. A. Hsia, The Gate of Darkness: Studies on the Leftist Literary Movement in China (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1968), p. 76, said of the poem that the Communist romantic Jiang NOTES 151

Guangci (1901–31) wrote on the hundredth anniversary of Byron’s death that “Byron the poet and Byron the hero who died for Greece became indivis- ible in his imagination”. Cf. Leo Ou-fan Lee, The Romantic Generation of Modern Chinese Writers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 289–92. 31. Qingchun de meng, in Zhang Wentian zaoqi wenji (1919.7–1925.6) (Beijing: Zhong gongdang shi chubanshe, 1999), esp. pp. 337–43. 32. Yu Dafu, Wenxue gaishuo, as cited in V. S. Adzhimamudova, Iui Da-fu i literaturnoe obshchestvo “Tvorchestvo” (Moscow: Nauka, 1971), p. 25, n. 16. 33. Ibid., pp. 39–40, 64. 34. “Thoughts on the League of Left-Wing Writers” (1930), in Lu Xun, Selected Works, vol. 3, pp. 103–8 (“it is certainly not the duty of the working class to give poets or writers any preferential treatment”, p. 105). See “Duiyu zuolian zuojia lianmeng de yijian”, collected in Erxin ji (Two Hearts, 1932); LXQJ, vol. 4, pp. 238–44, at p. 240. Lu Xun repeated here thoughts he had already expressed on the shattering effect of a real revolution upon poets who had dreamt about it. In his essay “Zai zhonglou shang” (December 1927), collected in Sanxian ji (Three Leisures, 1932), ibid., pp. 29–39 (at p. 36), such ruminations had led him to conclude that the suicides of poets Esenin and Andrei Sobol’ (respectively, in 1925 and 1926) were proof of the Revolution’s progress. See “In the Belfry”, in Selected Works, vol. 2, pp. 367–76 (p. 375). 35. Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 334–41; “Geming shidai de wenxue”, in LXQJ, vol. 3, pp. 436–43. The venue of this speech was, significantly, the Huangpu (Whampoa) Military Academy. 36. Lu Xun, Selected Works, vol. 3, pp. 25–8. See the reply letter to translator Dong Qiufang, collected in Sanxian ji; in LXQJ, vol. 4, pp. 83–7. 37. Translated in Selected Works, vol. 3, pp. 51–6 (“though devotees of art like to claim that literature can sway the course of world affairs, the truth is that politics comes first, and art changes accordingly”, p. 52). See “Xianjin de xin wenxue de gaiguan”, also in Sanxian ji; in LXQJ, vol. 4, pp. 136–42. 38. See, on Qu Qiubai’s criticism, Paul G. Pickowicz, Marxist Literary Thought in China: The Influence of Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 119, 154–55, 163, 176. Lu Xun’s instinctive suspicion of “intellectuals” is well attested: a memoir by his associate, the Communist critic Feng Xuefeng (1903–76), “Huiyi pianduan: guanyu zhishi fenzi de tanhua”, Wenyi fuxing, vol. 2, no. 3 (May 1946), can be trusted fully where it reports his strictures against “the book readers” (dushu ren), and only somewhat less where it describes his love for “real” revolutionary fighters. 39. For the speeches, see Bonnie S. McDougall, Mao Zedong’s “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art”: A Translation of the 1943 Text with Commentary (Ann Arbor: Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies, 1980). On Mao’s poor knowledge of Marx and embrace of the Stalinist model, cf. A. James Gregor, Marxism, China, and Development: Reflections on Theory and 152 NOTES

Reality (New Brunswick, NJ, and London: Transaction Publishers, 1995), pp. 33–6, 213–14. 40. “The Anxiety of Out-fluence: Creativity, History and Postmodernity” (1993), collected in McDougall, Fictional Authors, Imaginary Audiences. 41. Yu Dafu, trans. Joseph S. M. Lau and C. T. Hsia, “Sinking”, in Lau and Howard Goldblatt, eds., The Columbia Anthology of Modern Chinese Literature, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), here p. 42. 42. Xiaoming Chen, From the May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolution: Guo Moruo and the Chinese Path to Communism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), pp. 26, 29. 43. Kyna Rubin, “Writers’ Discontent and Party Response in Yan’an before ‘Wild Lily’: The Manchurian Writers and Zhou Yang”, Modern Chinese Literature, vol. 1, no. 1 (1984), pp. 84, 93. The last two arguments were brought up in mock fashion, but the writer Xiao Jun (1908–88) still saw fit to mobilize “biographical” details of this sort in his polemic against the Party literary theorist Zhou Yang (1908–89). 44. Ye Zhishan, “Wenxue yanjiu hui de ‘wenxuejia mingxinpian’ ”, Xin wenxue shiliao, no. 3 (1994) (quotation from p. 20), identifies the first set of postcards with the images of Tagore, Byron, Yeats, France, Hauptmann and Dostoevsky. Of the six writers included in the second set, Ye names Shakespeare, Hugo, Tolstoy, Bjørnson and Emerson. He also recalls having seen a postcard of Chekhov—who may have completed the second set rather than belonged to a possible third, of which Ye can supply no information. 45. These three writers were probably the author’s own favourites at that time. Ye Shengtao, “Yi ge qingnian”, collected in Ye Shengtao ji, in 26 vols., eds. Ye Zhishan, Ye Zhimei and Ye Zhicheng (Nanjing: Jiangsu jiaoyu chubanshe, 2004), vol. 2, p. 111, tells readers that the photographs “attested that the master of the room was a lover of literature”. The story, first published in Xiaoshuo yuebao in February 1924, entered Ye Shengtao’s collection Xianxia (Below the Horizon) in 1925. 46. From the memoirs of Shaoxing writer Xu Qinwen (1897–1984), “Zai laohu weiba de Lu Xun xiansheng” (Lu Xun at Tiger’s Tail; 1959), in Xu Qinwen daibiao zuo (Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 1999), p. 349. “Tiger’s tail” was a Peking dialect expression for a room at the back of a living compound, which Lu Xun happily adopted. 47. Li Jiye, Lu Xun xiansheng yu weiming she (Lu Xun and the Unnamed Society), in Li Jiye wenji (Tianjin: Baihua wenyi chubanshe, 2004), vol. 2, p. 73. 48. The most widely pictured and photographed writer was doubtless Tolstoy. Postcards of Andreev, offered for sale in the 1900s, are reproduced in Richard Davies, Leonid Andreev: Photographs by a Russian Writer. An Undiscovered Portrait of Pre-Revolutionary Russia (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), p. 130. 49. Janine Barchas, Graphic Design, Print Culture, and the Eighteenth-Century Novel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), at p. 19; see p. 28 ff. NOTES 153

on frontispiece portraits of Captain Lemuel Gulliver and Robinson Crusoe. On early spread of the portraits in the 1610s (when they were still not necessarily placed to face the title page), see Sarah Howe, “The Authority of Presence: The Development of the English Author Portrait, 1500–1640”, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 102, no. 4 (December 2008). 50. “Polochka”, in Ivan Shmelev, Sobranie sochinenii (Moscow: Russkaia kniga, 1998–2001), vol. 2, pp. 95–107, quoting p. 97. 51. Zhou Shoujuan, Oumei mingjia xiaoshuo congkan (Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju, 1917), in 3 vols. See Gamsa, The Chinese Translation of Russian Literature, pp. 294–95. 52. Peter Burke, “The Renaissance, Individualism and the Portrait”, History of European Ideas, vol. 21, no. 3 (May 1995), pp. 393–400, here p. 396. 53. In the 1920s, the propagator of Western literature Zheng Zhenduo was also prominent among the scholars who rekindled interest in premodern illustrated editions of Chinese fiction. See Craig Clunas, Pictures and Visuality in Early Modern China (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), pp. 29, 42–3, 89–90. 54. Ibid., pp. 96–9. 55. On photographs hung on walls, see Frank Dikötter, Things Modern: Material Culture and Everyday Life in China (London: Hurst and Company, 2007), pp. 128–29, 242, 244, 248. 56. Letter 132 (30 May 1929), in Lu Xun and Xu Guangping, trans. Bonnie S. McDougall, Letters between Two: Correspondence between Lu Xun and Xu Guangping (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2000), p. 375, and “In Memory of Wei Suyuan”, in Lu Xun, Selected Works, vol. 4: “On the wall hung a large portrait of Dostoevsky. I respect and admire this master, but I hate the cal- lousness of his writing [. . .] Now his gloomy eyes were fixed on Suyuan and his couch, as if to tell me: Here is another poor wretch for me to write about” (p. 71; translation slightly modified). Cf. “Yi Wei Suyuan jun” (1934), collected in Qiejieting zawen (Essays from Demi-Concession Studio, 1937); in LXQJ, vol. 6, pp. 65–72, at p. 69. 57. Jiang Deming, “Ting Cao lao tan Wei Suyuan” (Listening to Old Cao Speak of Wei Suyuan; 1988), in Zhang Demei and Leng Ke, eds., Cao Jinghua jinian wenji (Zhengzhou: Henan jiaoyu chubanshe, 1992), here p. 130. 58. Letter to Tai Jingnong and Li Jiye (December 1927), in Wei Suyuan, ed. Xu Zifang, Wei Suyuan xuanji (Hefei: Anhui wenyi chubanshe, 1985), pp. 105–6. The writer Tai Jingnong (1902–90) was also a member of the Unnamed Society; another society member, Suyuan’s brother Wei Congwu (1905–78), became the main translator of Dostoevsky into Chinese. We cannot today identify the sculptor, to whom Wei referred in gratitude by her name and patronymic, Lydia Nikolaevna. 59. “Yi Fei Ming” (Recollections of Fei Ming), in He Xi, ed. Jiang Zhinong, He Xi wenji (Kunming: Yunnan meishu chubanshe, 2003), p. 155. The book was 154 NOTES

Fei Ming’s (1901–67) short novel, Moxuyou xiansheng zhuan (The Biography of Mr Neverwas, 1932). 60. “Wenxue geming lun”, as trans. in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, at p. 145. On the enlistment of Wilde by Chen Duxiu “in the cause of a national, realistic, and social literature”, see C. T. Hsia, A History of Modern Chinese Fiction, p. 4. 61. Wang Tongzhao, “Eluosi wenxue de pianmian” (The Emphasis of Russian Literature), in Wang Tongzhao wenji (Jinan: Shandong renmin chubanshe, 1980–84), vol. 6, pp. 349–59. These five salient qualities of Russian literature were all given by Wang in English, along with their Chinese translations. Cf., on this text: Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, pp. 71–2. 62. Contrary to his method when writing on Andreev with the help of Thomas Seltzer in Xuesheng zazhi in 1920 (see n. 13 above), Shen Zemin provided the full reference to William Phelps’s popular Essays on Russian Novelists (1911) in Xiaoshuo yuebao of April 1921. In an introduction to his translation of a play by Andreev in 1923, Zhang Wentian silently passed off a number of Phelps’s quotations from Russian literature as his own findings, but he did not appro- priate the main text of the American critic’s book: see Zhang Wentian zaoqi wenji, pp. 263–67. 63. See Jon E. von Kowallis, The Lyrical Lu Xun: A Study of His Classical-Style Verse (Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 1996), pp. 210, 214, commenting on a satirical poem on Zhang Yiping by Lu Xun (1932/33). Li Jiye, for one, could never forgive Zhang for borrowing and then neglecting to return his copy of Edward Carpenter, Angel’s Wings: A Series of Essays on Art and Its Relation to Life (1898): see Lu Xun xiansheng yu Weiming she, in Li Jiye wenji, vol. 2, p. 192. 64. Wang Tiran, “Qianyan” (Foreword), in idem, trans., Xinling dianbao (The Human Telegraph) (Shanghai: Xiandai shuju, 1933), p. 2. 65. Quoted from introductions of 1920 in Ge Baoquan, “Geng Jizhi xiansheng yu Eguo wenxue” (Geng Jizhi and Russian Literature), Wenyi fuxing, vol. 3, no. 3 (1 May 1947), p. 271. 66. Zheng Zhenduo, “Azhibasuifu yu Shaning: Shaning de yi xu”, Xiaoshuo yuebao, vol. 15, no. 5 (May 1924), at pp. 9–10. 67. Lung-kee Sun, “The Presence of the Fin-de-Siècle in the May Fourth Era”, in Gail Hershatter et al., eds., Remapping China: Fissures in Historical Terrain (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), pp. 201–5. 68. Lu Xun, “A Reading List for the Youth” (1925), as trans. in T. A. Hsia, The Gate of Darkness, p. 148. See “Qingnian bidu shu”, collected in Huagai ji (Splendid Cover Collection, 1926), in LXQJ, vol. 3, pp. 12–3. 69. See Kelupaotejin, “Eguo de piping wenxue” (literally, “Russian Critical Literature”), in Eguo wenxue yanjiu, special issue of Xiaoshuo yuebao in 1921. 70. Zheng Zhenduo, Eguo wenxue shilüe (Concise History of Russian Literature, 1924), in Zheng Zhenduo quanji, vol. 15, p. 494. Cf. Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, p. 86. NOTES 155

71. Lu Xun’s introduction to The Harp, an anthology of ten short stories by Soviet writers published in early 1933, opened with the words: “The literature of Russia has been ‘for life’ (wei rensheng) since the time of Nicholas II”. See “Shuqin qianji”, collected in Nanqiang beidiao ji, in LXQJ, vol. 4, pp. 443–49. 72. See the recent study of the tensions between “literature” and “life”, in Chinese and Western literary discourse, Zhu Shoutong, Wenxue yu rensheng shiwu jiang (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2006), here pp. 67–76. Much of the discussion in it is relevant for the issues raised here and below. 73. Further examples of the application of “rensheng de wenxue” and “rendao zhuyi” to Turgenev, by writers and translators in the early 1920s, can be found in Sun Naixiu, Tugeniefu yu Zhongguo, pp. 31, 101, 105. 74. Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, pp. 78–9. See Geng Jizhi, “Eguo si da wenxuejia hezhuan” (A Collective Biography of Four Great Russian Writers), in Eguo wenxue yanjiu. 75. Hu Yuzhi, “Tugeniefu”, collected in Hu Yuzhi wenji, vol. 1, pp. 61–8 (here pp. 61–2). Cf. on this article: Sun Naixiu, Tugeniefu yu Zhongguo, pp. 102–4. 76. A much cited article by Wing-tsit Chan, “Chinese and Western Interpretations of jen (Humanity)”, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, vol. 2, no. 2 (March 1975), pp. 107–29, began by suggesting the translations of the term as “humanity, love, humaneness”. 77. Criticism of “Confucian humanism”, for the linking of a Western term to ancient Chinese thought, the vagueness of its definition and the ambition of proponents to offer it as an Eastern panacea for the ills of Western society, was expressed in two papers, delivered at the conference “East Asian Culture in Western Perceptions”, University of Latvia in Riga, on 24 October 2008: Vytis Silius, “What Is Confucian Humanism?”, and Kaspars Eihmanis, “Unlikely Advocates of Chinese Philosophy: François Jullien and Contemporary New Confucianism”. Huang, The Meaning of Freedom, p. 37, attaches the term “modern Confucian humanism” to a group of philosophers active in Hong Kong after 1949. 78. The main treatment of “humanism” in China, through the twentieth century, must now be Hao Minggong, Rendao zhuyi yu Ershi shiji de Zhongguo wenlun (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 2005). 79. On the positions of Critical Review, see Lydia H. Liu, Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity—China, 1900–1937 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), pp. 246–56, and (by Mei Guangdi’s daughter) Yi-tsi Mei Feuerwerker, “Reconsidering Xueheng: Neo- Conservatism in Early Republican China”, in Kirk A. Denton and Michel Hockx, eds., Literary Societies of Republican China (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008). 80. These examples are cited in Leo Ou-fan Lee, “Some Notes on ‘Culture’, ‘Humanism’, and ‘the Humanities’ in Modern Chinese Cultural Discourses”, Surfaces, vol. 5 (1995). See also Mei Guangdi, “A Critique of the New 156 NOTES

Culturists” (Ping tichang xin wenhua zhe, 1922), trans. in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, pp. 218–27. 81. Liang Shiqiu, “Baibide ji qi renwen zhuyi” (Babbitt and His Humanism), reprinted in Jia Zhifang and Chen Sihe, eds., Zhong-wai wenxue guanxi shiz- iliao huibian (1898–1937) (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2004), vol. 2, pp. 697–705, here p. 701. In a cluster of four articles on Babbitt in China, published in the journal Humanitas, vol. 17, nos. 1–2 (2004), cf. Bai Liping, “Babbitt’s Impact in China: The Case of Liang Shiqiu”. The recent flurry of publications includes Tze-ki Hon, “From Babbitt to ‘Bai Bide’: Interpretations of New Humanism in Xueheng”, in Kai-Wing Chow et al., eds., Beyond the May Fourth Paradigm: In Search of Chinese Modernity (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008). Focusing on the chief editor of Xueheng, Babbitt’s student and disciple Wu Mi (1894–1978), Hon also surveys the state of this rapidly developing field of research. 82. Zhou Zuoren, “Ren de wenxue”, trans. as “Humane Literature” in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, pp. 151–61. 83. Zhou Zuoren, “Wenxue shang de Eguo yu Zhongguo”, printed as the first article in the appendixes part of Eguo wenxue yanjiu; modern reprint in Beijing daxue bijiao wenxue yanjiusuo, ed., Zhongguo bijiao wenxue yanjiu ziliao (1919–1949), pp. 5–12. 84. Although Zhou used his quotation from Andreev, “We are all equally unhappy”, as a statement on the character of Russian literature, these words came from a very different context, fragment 9 of the novella The Red Laugh. My thanks to Richard D. Davies for locating this source. Cf. Gamsa, The Chinese Translation of Russian Literature, p. 240. 85. Gan Zhexian, “Zhongguo zhi Tuo’ersitai” (The Chinese Tolstoy; serialized in the Chenbao fujuan, August 1922) was a long systematic comparison between Tolstoy and Tao Yuanming (traditional dates 365–427), the poet most famous for his Notes on the Land of Peach Blossoms. See summaries in Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, pp. 99–101; Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi, pp. 120–21. 86. Zhou Zuoren, “Wenxue shang de Eguo yu Zhongguo”, in Eguo wenxue yanjiu, pp. 4, 6. 87. The respective terms in Russian are gumanizm and gumannost’. The former word entered the Russian vocabulary already in the beginning of the nineteenth century and relates to humanism as the cultural tradition identified with the Renaissance and harking back to ancient Greece. The latter word was a creation of the 1840s, a derivation either from the French humain or the German human, which became notable for its use by Belinskii: see P. Ia. Chernykh, Istoriko-etimologicheskii slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo iazyka (Historical-Etymological Dictionary of Contemporary Russian) (Moscow: Russkii iazyk, 1993), vol. 1, pp. 226–27. With Belinskii’s encouragement, gumannost’ (as carrier of the “benevolence”, “pity” and “compassion” that may NOTES 157

all be subsumed under the English “humanitarianism”) became the quality in which Russian literature excelled, but which it would be misleading to identify with “humanist” values. 88. Closely akin to this interpretation was the May Fourth understanding of “rendao” as the equivalent of the French humanité, evocative of the Enlightenment and of the French Revolution. A single issue of the journal Rendao, its Chinese title accompanied by Humanité, was published in Peking on 5 August 1920 by a group of students (including Zheng Zhenduo, Qu Qiubai and Geng Jizhi), whose previous journal, Xin shehui (New Society), had been banned shortly before. See Qu Qiubai, Exiang jicheng (A Journey to the Land of Hunger), in Qu Qiubai wenji (Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 1985), vol. 1, pp. 27–8; T. A. Hsia, The Gate of Darkness, p. 17. The students may have been acquainted with L’Humanité, the newspaper of the French socialists since 1904 (and organ of the French Communist Party after its foundation in 1920). 89. Zheng Zhenduo, “Yi ge buxing de chefu” (1921), in Zheng Zhenduo quanji, vol. 1, pp. 379–81. 90. Hu Shi, “Dong-xi wenhua de jiexian”, in Hu Shi wencun (Taipei: Yuandong tushu, 1953), vol. 3. Cf. his English-language essay, “The Civilizations of the East and the West”, in Charles A. Beard, ed., Whither Mankind: A Panorama of Modern Civilization (New York: Longmans, 1928), pp. 25–41. More mun- dane reasons for Hu Shi’s objection to rickshaws are suggested in Hanchao Lu, Beyond the Neon Lights: Everyday Shanghai in the Early Twentieth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), p. 67. 91. Cheng Fangwu, “Shizhi fangyuzhan” (Defensive War for Poetry, 1923), in Cheng Fangwu wenji (Jinan: Shandong daxue chubanshe, 1985), pp. 75–88, at pp. 76–7. This quotes Hu Shi’s poem, “Renli chefu” (The Rickshaw Driver), from his collection Changshi ji. 92. See original text “Renli che yu zhanjue”, and its translation under the above title, in Zhou Zuoren: Selected Essays, trans. David E. Pollard (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2006), pp. 88–93. 93. “Xiandai Zhongguo wenxue zhi langmande qushi” (The Romantic Trend in Modern Chinese Literature, 1926), in Liang Shiqiu wenji (Xiamen: Lujiang chubanshe, 2002), vol. 1, pp. 34–54, at pp. 44–5. 94. See Geremie R. Barmé, An Artistic Exile: A Life of Feng Zikai (1898–1975) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), pp. 364–68, and the reference to comments by C. T. Hsia, ibid., p. 372. 95. Zheng Zhenduo, Eguo wenxue shilüe, in Zheng Zhenduo quanji, vol. 15, p. 495. Zheng would have read very similar words on Chernyshevskii in one of the most widely used sources of reference in the 1920s, Moissaye J. Olgin’s A Guide to Russian Literature (1820–1917) (originally published in 1920): “His numerous essays and articles had the aim of showing young Russia how to live . . .” (p. 57). 158 NOTES

Two Writers and Readers

1. Hu Yuzhi, “Tugeniefu”, in Hu Yuzhi wenji, vol. 1, p. 64, said that Turgenev’s Hunter’s Notes (1847–51) led to the liberation of the serfs in the same way that Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) by H. E. Beecher Stowe brought about the end of slavery (1862). Such hyperbolic praise of Hunter’s Notes, which met with no scepticism in China, was common in Russian and Western criticism. As Oxford University awarded an honorary doctorate of Civil Law to Ivan Turgenev, the first novelist ever to be honoured in this fashion, on 18 June 1879, the Regius Professor James Bryce read out a presentation in Latin, in which he claimed that “as soon as the Russian emperor had learnt from the works of this writer how miserable the situation of the peasant serfs was, he immediately took the decision to liberate them from the power of their lords”—thus, Bryce said, “the creation of a great talent may rise above reality itself”. See J. S. G. Simmons, “Turgenev i Oksford”, in P. N. Berkov et al., eds., Russko-evropeiskie literaturnye sviazi. Sbornik statei k 70-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia akademika M. P. Alekseeva (Russian-European Literary Contacts: Essays for the 70th Birthday of Academician M. P. Alekseev) (Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka, 1966), pp. 392–98 (at p. 398). 2. On Russia, see the guide by Manfred Schruba, Literaturnye ob’edineniia Moskvy i Peterburga 1890–1917 godov (Literary Associations in Moscow and Petersburg; Moscow: NLO, 2004) and the introduction to it. On republican- period China, see Michel Hockx, Questions of Style: Literary Societies and Literary Journals in Modern China, 1911–1937 (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Denton and Hockx, Literary Societies of Republican China. 3. On “thick journals” in Russia, from the beginnings to the 1880s, see overview in William Mills Todd III, “The Ruse of the Russian Novel”, in Franco Moretti, ed., The Novel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), vol. 1, esp. pp. 411–13. His “ruse”, rather than the expected “rise”, refers to writers’ strategies in a social and political setting little favourable to the emergence of literature as a profession. See also Abram Reitblat and Christine Thomas, “From Literary Almanacs to ‘Thick Journals’: The Emergence of a Readership for Russian Literature, 1820s–1840s”, in Simon Eliot et al., eds., Literary Cultures and the Material Book (London: The British Library, 2007), pp. 191–205. 4. The perceived lack of an equivalent for Russian “repentance consciousness” in modern Chinese culture has preoccupied the critic Liu Zaifu (in emigration in the United States since 1989): see Link, The Uses of Literature, p. 45, n. 109 and p. 54, n. 137; on traditional culture, cf. comparative remarks in Wolfram Eberhard, Guilt and Sin in Traditional China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 20–21. Wang Jiezhi, Xuanze yu shiluo: Zhong-E wenxue guanxi de wenhua guanzhao (Nanjing: Jiangsu wenyi chubanshe, 1995), pp. 165–72, regards the critical introspection of Lu Xun and NOTES 159

Ba Jin as being closest to the Russian example, but sees their tendency for social and moral self-criticism as an exception in Chinese discourse, reject- ing possible analogy between “repentance consciousness” and the Confucian imperative for “self-examination”. Consider, however, the case of writer Zhu Ziqing (1898–1948), described in Vera Schwarcz, The Chinese Enlightenment: Intellectuals and the Legacy of the May Fourth Movement of 1919 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), pp. 184–94, 205–6. Guo Moruo found the legitimation he needed to expose his “moral sins” in print in the confessional writing of St Augustine, Rousseau and Tolstoy: Chen, From the May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolution, pp. 26, 45. 5. David M. Bethea, “Literature”, in Nicholas Rzhevsky, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Modern Russian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), here pp. 165–66. 6. Cf. comments on Russian “belatedness” in comparison to the West, ibid., pp. 169–70. 7. This point is made by Benjamin Schwartz, “The Intelligentsia in Communist China: A Tentative Comparison”, in Richard Pipes, ed., The Russian Intelligentsia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), here pp. 176–77. 8. “Avtobiografiia” (1913), in Shmelev, Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, pp. 16, 18–9. Cf. a statement by Leonid Andreev, a writer who also only read Russian, in an “Autobiographical Sketch” of 1910: “By the age of twenty [i.e. 1891] I was well-acquainted with all the Russian and foreign (translated) literature; there were authors, such as Dickens for example, whom I had reread scores of times”. L. N. Andreev, Sobranie sochinenii, in 6 vols. (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1990–96), vol. 1, at p. 576. 9. See Zheng Zhenduo, “Wenxue de tongyi guan” (A Unified View of Literature), Xiaoshuo yuebao, vol. 13, no. 8 (August 1922), pp. 1–10. 10. Chen, From the May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolution, pp. 97–101. 11. Chap. 4 in Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi, does list (pp. 407–8) republican- period writers of Christian background (such as Lin Yutang), others who converted to Christianity (Xu Dishan, Bing Xin, Wen Yiduo) and many more with interest in Christian, or biblical, subjects. Lin stresses the limited knowledge in China of confessional differences within Christianity and poor understanding of the influence exerted on Russian literature by the Russian Orthodox worldview. 12. Frederic Wakeman, Jr., “The Price of Autonomy: Intellectuals in Ming and Ch’ing Politics”, in S. N. Eisenstadt and S. R. Graubard, eds., Intellectuals and Tradition (New York: Humanities Press, 1973), pp. 35, 60–7. 13. On the history and use of the word, see S. O. Shmidt, “K istorii slova ‘intelligentsiia’ ”, in D. S. Likhachev et al., eds., Rossiia, Zapad, Vostok: Vstrechnye techeniia. K 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia akademika M. P. Alekseeva (St Petersburg: Nauka, 1996), and Galina N. Skliarevskaia, “Russkie poniatiia ‘intelligentsiia’, ‘intelligent’: Razmyshleniia o semanticheskikh 160 NOTES

transformatsiiakh”, in Peter Thiergen, ed., Russische Begriffsgeschichte der Neuzeit: Beiträge zu einem Forschungsdesiderat (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2006). The literature on the intelligentsia as a cultural phenomenon is very large: see, e.g., the essays in T. B. Kniazevskaia, ed., Russkaia intelligentsiia. Istoriia i sud’ba (Moscow: Nauka, 1999), and Boris Uspenskii, “Russkaia intelligentsiia kak spetsificheskii fenomen russkoi kul’tury”, in his Etiudy o russkoi istorii (St Petersburg: Azbuka, 2002). 14. See Igal Halfin, From Darkness to Light: Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000). 15. Zhishi fenzi replaced zhishi jieji (“the knowledgeable class”), the term ini- tially appropriated from the Japanese in the 1910s as an alternative to the old Chinese “literati” and “scholars”. Eddy U, “Reification of the Chinese Intellectual: On the Origins of the CCP Concept of Zhishifenzi”, Modern China, vol. 35, no. 6 (November 2009), pp. 604–31, here pp. 608–12. 16. Attitudes towards religious sectarians also differed widely: many writers in Russia expressed admiration for Old Believers as the representatives of an authentically Russian way of life, and showed an interest in other sects. Educated Chinese, however, shared the state’s fear and suspicion of heterodox believers. 17. A social group to be set apart here are republican-period scientists. Tracing their mobilization for work under the Kuomintang’s National Defence Planning Commission and its successor organizations, William C. Kirby, “Technocratic Organization and Technological Development in China: The Nationalist Experience and Legacy, 1928–1953”, in Denis Fred Simon and Merle Goldman, eds., Science and Technology in Post-Mao China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 23–43, suggests that this “scientific and technological elite” (which, he points out, may be compared to Soviet-period “technical intelligentsia”) was drawn into state service because of wartime patriotic sentiment. 18. Cf. Schwartz, “The Intelligentsia in Communist China: A Tentative Comparison”, p. 177. 19. See Charles W. Hayford, To the People: James Yen and Village China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990). 20. Cf. Hung Chang-tai, Going to the People: Chinese Intellectuals and Folk Literature, 1918–1937 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 173–75. 21. Alexander Etkind, “Orientalism Reversed: Russian Literature in the Times of Empire”, Modern Intellectual History, vol. 4, no. 3 (2007), p. 626. 22. “Moral and political pressure” on writers to represent “communal instincts” intensified by the mid-1930s, according to Anderson, The Limits of Realism, p. 189 (ibid., p. 182, calls this “the true drama of 1930s’ fiction”). Ibid., p. 201, concludes (without mentioning the Russian example) that by the end of the decade “humanistic pity” in fiction had been superseded by descriptions of politically unified masses. NOTES 161

23. For a survey of these origins, see W. Gareth Jones, “Politics”, in Malcolm V. Jones and Robin Feuer Miller, eds., The Cambridge Companion to the Classic Russian Novel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 24. The last point is argued in Zhao Ming, “Tuo’ersitai, Tugeniefu, Qiehefu: 20 shiji Zhongguo wenxue jieshou Eguo wenxue de san zhong moshi”, Waiguo wenxue pinglun, no. 1 (1997), a provocative essay disputing many received notions (such as Mao Dun’s claim of being a student of Tolstoy). Zhao regards republican-period statements about “learning” from the Russian classics as wishful thinking at best. Tolstoy’s most perceptible effect in China was to have served as a model of personal integrity for a writer such as Ba Jin (whom Zhao calls a “character out of Russian literature”); Turgenev was read mainly for the love stories, to which May Fourth readers were susceptible no less than the readers of entertainment fiction, while genuine appreciation of Chekhov, impossible within a literary discourse demanding hero figures and “answers to the questions of life”, still needs to await the maturation of the Chinese reader. This article understandably created a stir, but in a later issue of the journal Waiguo wenxue pinglun it received the support of Zha Mingjian: see his comments in no. 4 (1997), pp. 131–34. 25. Quoted in the entry by V. N. Baskakov in P. A. Nikolaev, Russkie pisateli 1800–1917: biograficheskii slovar’ (Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1989), vol. 1, p. 411. Another useful perspective is provided in S. B. Dzhimbinov, “Velikii knigochei i ego trudy” (The Great Book Lover and His Works), an introduction to vol. 1 of Vengerov, Russkaia literatura XX veka 1890–1910 (Moscow: “XXI vek–soglasie”, 2000). 26. Vengerov, “V chem ocharovanie russkoi literatury XIX veka?”, Russkaia slovesnost’, no. 2 (1993). Excerpts of this lecture are also reprinted in S. Konovalov and D. J. Richards, eds., Russian Critical Essays: XXth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 226–32. 27. Vorovskii’s article, “Bazarov and Sanin: Two Kinds of Nihilism” (1909), was translated in China by Feng Xuefeng: see Xiaoshuo yuebao, vol. 19, no. 10 (October 1928). 28. The didacticism in Sanin was noticed in 1913 by D. H. Lawrence, whom one could have imagined as Artsybashev’s ideal reader. Lawrence found Sanin “very interesting” (though not “very good”) and “a bit too much of an illustrated idea of how one should behave—exactly like the novels to promulgate virtue”. He had borrowed the book (in either the French or the German translation) from the son of Constance Garnett. See The Letters of D. H. Lawrence, eds. George J. Zytaruk and James T. Boulton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), vol. 2, pp. 33, 70. 29. “Smert’ Bashkina”, in Mikhail P. Artsybashev, Sobranie sochinenii (Collected Works), in 3 vols. (Moscow: Terra, 1994), vol. 3, p. 683. Artsybashev expressed strong criticism of “the writer’s” authority as teacher and prophet in his essays of the 1910s, “Uchiteli zhizni” (The Teachers of Life) and “Propoved’ i zhizn’ ” (Preaching and Life); see ibid., pp. 718–60. 162 NOTES

30. Andrew Wachtel, “Psychology and Society”, in Jones and Miller, The Cambridge Companion to the Classic Russian Novel, p. 136. 31. “A celebrated scholar in England once remarked that fiction is the soul of the people. How true! How true!” Liang Qichao, “Foreword to the Publication of Political Novels in Translation” (1898), in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, at p. 73. 32. See, e.g., Ernest Barker, National Character and the Factors in Its Formation (London: Methuen, 1927). These are large questions, studied in recent years by historians such as Julia Stapleton and Peter Mandler. Closer to our subject, consider the opening sentence of Olgin, A Guide to Russian Literature (1820–1917): “A national literature may be viewed as a mani- festation of a purely creative genius, or as a reflection of the spiritual life of a people, or as a picture of its national character and socio-political conditions”. Another guide, widely cited in Chinese even before its translation in 1933, Maurice Baring’s Landmarks in Russian Literature (1910; reissued London: Methuen, 1960), pp. 72–3, 78, explained why a “truly great” writer must be representative of his nation. An identical conviction is expressed by Zhi Liang, “Lun wenxue de minzu jieshou” (On the National Reception of Literature), in idem, ed., Eguo wenxue yu Zhongguo (1991); by Wang Jiezhi, Xuanze yu shiluo (1995), p. 100, and a host of other contemporary authors in the PRC. 33. See chap. 2, “China in Britain, and in the British Imagination”, in Robert Bickers, Britain in China: Community, Culture and Colonialism 1900– 1949 (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999), at pp. 26–31. 34. This is the subject of Lung-kee Sun, “Chinese Intellectuals’ Notion of ‘Epoch’ (Shidai) in the Post-May Fourth Era”, Chinese Studies in History, vol. 20, no. 2 (winter 1986–87). 35. Arguments along these lines may be found in Guo Moruo, “Revolution and Literature” (1926), trans. in John Berninghausen and Ted Huters, eds., Revolutionary Literature in China: An Anthology (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1976), pp. 28–32. At the time they could still be answered by voices such as that of Liang Shiqiu, “Literature and Revolution” (1928), trans. in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, pp. 307–315 (Sun, “Chinese Intellectuals’ Notion of ‘Epoch’ ”, p. 64, called this article “a last-ditch battle in defense of May Fourth individualism”). Cf. a doggerel by the Communist critic Ah Ying (pen-name of Qian Xingcun), urging “leisured” and “petty bourgeois” Chinese writers to follow the example of Sergei Esenin, the poet who commit- ted suicide declaring that he did not fit “the age”: “Yesaining de shi” (Esenin’s Poem, 1928), in Ah Ying quanji, in 12 vols. (Hefei: Anhui jiaoyu chubanshe, 2003), vol. 1, pp. 197–200. Speaking in the name of the new “age”, Ah Ying’s essay “The Bygone Age of Ah Q” (see Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, pp. 276–88), aimed earlier in the same year to hasten the departure of Lu Xun. NOTES 163

36. “And, so it seems to me, the Revolution has justified all my main tenets. The most important one of these [. . .]—the view of new Russian literature as a century-long preparation for the Revolution—can hardly today be called a personal ‘view’ and interpretation. This, methinks, is today for everybody a clear, and for all an indubitable, fact”. As pointed out by Dzhimbinov, “Velikii knigochei i ego trudy”, in Vengerov, Russkaia literatura XX veka 1890–1910, p. 13, Russia’s pre-eminent bibliographer died as the result of malnutrition in revolutionary Petrograd within but a year of uttering these words in an introduction to a reprint of his Collected Works in 1919. The inner cover of Sobranie sochinenii S. A. Vengerova, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Geroicheskii kharakter russkoi literatury (Petrograd: Svetoch, 1919), which I have used at the library of the Slavisches Seminar at the University of Zurich, was bound with a questionnaire for entering the Bolshevik Party. For a restatement of this thesis, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet system, see K. N. Lomunov, “Russkaia literaturnaia klassika i revoliutsionno-osvoboditel’noe dvizhenie”, in V. R. Shcherbina, ed., Mirovoe znachenie russkoi literatury XIX veka (Moscow: Nauka, 1987). 37. N. Ia. Berkovskii, ed. by V. G. Bazanov and G. M. Fridlender, O mirovom znachenii russkoi literatury (On the World Importance of Russian Literature) (Leningrad: Nauka, 1975), only mentioned Asia, negatively, to rebut the claims of European commentators who traced Russian literature to its supposedly “Oriental” roots; see pp. 31–7, 126, 133–34, esp. p. 169 (on the error of comparing the plays of Alexander Ostrovskii with “primitive theatre such as the Japanese or the Chinese”). This study of the effects of Russian literature on French, German and British literary cultures posited its superiority to them all. 38. See, e.g., Timothy Brook, “Capitalism and the Writing of Modern History in China”, in Brook and Gregory Blue, eds., China and Historical Capitalism: Genealogies of Sinological Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 110–57, at p. 139. 39. Cf. T. A. Hsia, “Demons in Paradise: The Chinese Images of Russia”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 349 (September 1963), p. 36. 40. Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, p. 165. An identical argument is developed, e.g., in the foreword to Sun Naixiu, Tugeniefu yu Zhongguo, pp. 5–7, 13–4, 22–3. 41. Vitalii A. Shentalinskii, Donos na Sokrata (Moscow: Formika-S, 2001), esp. pp. 72–3. These writings were first made public in Russia in 2002: Vladimir Korolenko, Byla by zhiva Rossiia! Neizvestnaia publitsistika 1917–1921 gg. (As Long as Russia Lives! Unknown Essays, 1917–21) (Moscow: Agraf, 2002). 42. Tolstoy’s letter to Gu Hongming (1857–1928) was well-known, though rarely discussed in the PRC prior to the appearance of Wu Zelin, Tuo’ersitai he Zhongguo gudian wenhua sixiang (Tolstoy and the Thought of Classical Chinese Culture) (Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue chubanshe, 2000). Ah Ying, 164 NOTES

who quoted it in 1929 to accuse Tolstoy of “foul preaching” (Ah Ying quanji, vol. 1, p. 44), switched to the diametrically opposite position by 1938 (ibid., vol. 5, pp. 788–89). The Taiwan scholar Li Sher-shiueh has drawn attention to the discrepancy between Tolstoy’s cultural conservatism and his enlistment by the Chinese Left; his Christian faith and the anti-religious zeal of both the Bolshevik and New Culture reformers. See Li Shixue, Zhong-Xi wenxue yinyuan, p. 141 ff. 43. See, e.g., Olgin, A Guide to Russian Literature (1820–1917), p. 14: “Russia instantly recognized in Pushkin her own and loved him as people love their soil, their nature, the house of their parents. Pushkin’s influence on the following generations is incalculable. Not one Russian possessing the knowledge of reading has failed to learn from Pushkin beautiful and inspiring things”. The “things” learned were meant to extend beyond the realm of literature: they are described as “love [for] Russian nature and the best elements in the past and present of Russia” (pp. 17–8). On Russia’s nineteenth-century writers as teachers, see more ibid., p. 65 (on Pisarev), p. 67 (on the poet Nekrasov) and pp. 76–7 (on Turgenev). 44. A powerful argument for the potential of classical and canonical literature to reach readers at all levels of society and against the patronizing association of the lower classes with a set of “alternative values” was mounted in Jonathan Rose, “Rereading the English Common Reader: A Preface to a History of Audiences” (1992), now in David Finkelstein and Alistair McCleery, eds., The Book History Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 324–39 and was developed in Rose, The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). 45. Gary Saul Morson, “Philosophy in the Nineteenth-Century Novel”, in Jones and Miller, The Cambridge Companion to the Classic Russian Novel, p. 152, adds that these writers considered the millenarian tendency of the intelligentsia, their readers, as “at best misguided and at worst extremely dangerous”. This essay underestimates the belief of Russian writers in abstractions and their propensity for espousing total solutions for the problems of society. Pamela Davidson, “The Moral Dimension of the Prophetic Ideal: Pushkin and His Readers”, Slavic Review, vol. 61, no. 3 (autumn 2002), takes a leap in the opposite direction by connecting “the exaggerated adulation of writers as a source of moral and spiritual authority” to the “messianic ideals that deter- mined the course of Russian history” (pp. 517–18). 46. Irina Gutkin, The Cultural Origins of the Socialist Realist Aesthetic 1890–1934 (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1999), pp. 32–7. 47. In the end, as Shentalinskii, Donos na Sokrata, p. 167, observes about Boris Savinkov’s voracious reading in Lubianka prison in 1925 (his diary reflections on rhythm and style in Russian and French literature and his hectic literary work in anticipation of near death), the revolutionary who had lived so as to “make the word into deed” is left alone with the Word, as his last companion. Savinkov killed himself (or was murdered by his jailers) in May that year. The NOTES 165

return to literature and poetry of the imprisoned Qu Qiubai in 1935 has been described, most recently, in Jamie Greenbaum’s commented translation of Qu Qiubai, Superfluous Words (Canberra: Pandanus Books, 2006). 48. As A. James Gregor puts it, “the evidence reveals that the ‘revolutionary’ left- wing regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have left us a history of human bestiality and homocidal [sic] violence that easily matches that of National Socialist Germany”. See his The Search for Neofascism: The Use and Abuse of Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 51. 49. Cf. on this last point comments in S. A. Smith, Revolution and the People in Russia and China: A Comparative History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 193–95, 203–5. 50. See chap. 2, “Leonard Schapiro’s Russia”, in Kelly, Toward Another Shore. 51. See, e.g., the beginning of his Ocherki prestupnogo mira (Sketches of the Criminal World, written in 1959), part One of Kolyma Tales, in Varlam Shalamov, Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh (Collected Works in 4 vols.) (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1998), vol. 2. The idea that classical Russian literature was to be blamed for “ruining Russia” (a mirror image of the Communist celebration of “critical realism” as inspirer and forerunner of the Revolution) was expressed in the 1910s by the critic Vasilii Rozanov (1856–1919): see entry on him by V. G. Sukach, in Nikolaev, Russkie pisateli 20 veka, p. 597. 52. See chap. 4, “Do Books Make Revolutions?” in Roger Chartier, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1991), which, discussing the relations between “reading” and “belief”, asks whether contemporary philosophical books “should be taken as the torches that set the Revolution ablaze” (p. 81). Chartier disagrees here with Robert Darnton, who would answer that question with a resolute “yes”; Darnton’s response to Chartier may be found in his The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France (New York: Norton, 1996). A Russianist’s statement of belief in the decisive contribution of (dissident) books to the “revolution” of 1989 is Karl Schlögel, “Lob des Schweignes. Über Sprachlosigkeit in geschichtlichen Umbruchzeiten”, speech on receiving the Prix Européen de l’Essai Charles Veillon (1990); published as Fondation Charles Veillon, Karl Schlögel (Bussigny, 1991), pp. 21–30. 53. Halfin, From Darkness to Light, p. 260. 54. See Michael Schoenhals, “Demonising Discourse in Mao Zedong’s China: People vs Non-People”, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, vol. 8, nos. 3–4 (2007). 55. Auerbach, Mimesis, p. 242. “Humanist” is meant here as the opposite of “mediaeval”. 56. See Qian Gurong, “Lun ‘Wenxue shi renxue’ ”, in “Lun ‘Wenxue shi renxue’ ” pipan ji (Shanghai: Xin wenyi chubanshe, 1958), pp. 138–84; partially translated in Hualing Nieh, ed., Literature of the Hundred Flowers, in 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), vol. 1, pp. 181–98. In both 166 NOTES

publications, the essay is accompanied by articles criticizing it. Cf. the discussion of “Wenxue shi renxue” in Hao Minggong, Rendao zhuyi yu Ershi shiji de Zhongguo wenlun, pp. 139–52. 57. D. W. Fokkema, “Chinese Criticism of Humanism: Campaigns against the Intellectuals 1964–1965”, The China Quarterly, no. 26 (April–June 1966). On the fierce criticism of humanism as “capitalist” and “revisionist” up to the late 1970s, cf. Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, pp. 242, 249–51. 58. Cf. Axel Schneider, “Bridging the Gap: Attempts at Constructing a ‘New’ Historical-Cultural Identity in the People’s Republic of China”, East Asian History, vol. 22 (December 2001), pp. 129–44. 59. Hu Feng, “Gaoerji zai shijie wenxueshi shang jiashangle shenme?” (What did Gorky Add to World Literary History?), in Hu Feng quanji, in 10 vols. (Wuhan: Hubei renmin chubanshe, 1999), vol. 2, pp. 581–85; commented in Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, pp. 161–62, and in Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi, pp. 377–78. 60. Hu Feng’s translations are collected in vol. 8 of Hu Feng quanji. Liu Yan, Xiehefu yu Zhongguo xiandai wenxue (Shanghai: Shanghai shehui kexueyuan chubanshe, 2005), pp. 78–9, highlights the connection between an article on Chekhov, which Hu Feng published in February 1945, and his opposition to the demands of “revolutionary literature”. On Hu Feng’s article in commemoration of Pushkin in 1947 and his translations of Gorky’s essays on Russian writers, see Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi, pp. 208–11. 61. See Ba Jin’s account of his recent meeting with Herzen’s great-grandson in Paris, “Monsieur Noël Rist”, in his Random Thoughts, trans. Geremie Barmé (Hong Kong: Joint Publishing, 1984), pp. 110–13. The original text is in Ba Jin, Suixiang lu (Beijing: Sanlian shudian, 1987), pp. 89–92. While living in Paris in 1927–28, Ba Jin had paid homage to the tombs and monuments of Rousseau, Voltaire, Hugo and Zola, all of whom he also called his “teachers”: see Random Thoughts, pp. 70–1. 62. Quoted by Sun Naixiu, Tugeniefu yu Zhongguo, p. 54. 63. See the chapters on Herzen in Kelly, Toward Another Shore, pp. 307–52, and introductory remarks ibid., pp. 10–13. 64. A recent mention of Eichenwald, along with other émigré critics of the time, is made by Wang Jiezhi in an introductory article setting out to correct the established image of twentieth-century Russian literary criticism as the pre- serve of the Marxist school. See his “Zhongguo wenxue jieshou 20 shiji Eguo wenlun de huiwang yu sikao”, Eluosi wenyi, no. 2 (2004). 65. This expulsion is the subject of Stuart Finkel, On the Ideological Front: The Russian Intelligentsia and the Making of the Soviet Public Sphere (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008); cf. V. G. Makarov, ed., Vysylka vmesto rasstrela: deportatsiia intelligentsii v dokumentakh VChK–GPU, 1921–1923 (Expulsion Instead of Execution: The Deportation of the Intelligentsia in the Documents of VChK–GPU) (Moscow: Russkii put’, 2005). Eichenwald’s NOTES 167

best-known series of critical essays, Siluety russkikh pisatelei (Silhouettes of Russian Writers; begun in 1906), included the attack on Belinskii that enraged the socialist literary camp in 1914: see, in the first Russian re-edition since 1917 (Moscow: Terra, Respublika, 1998; in 2 vols.), vol. 2, pp. 199–207, 252–86 (the latter—a “reply to critics” on the Belinskii affair). 66. Osip Mandelstam, Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh (Collected Works in 4 vols.) (Moscow, 1993–97), vol. 2, p. 358. 67. Boris Pasternak, Safe Conduct: An Autobiography and Other Writings (New York: New Directions, 1958), p. 119. 68. One would not want to “explain” this suicide only by biographical circumstances and political oppression. Bethea, “Literature”, pp. 167–68, 178, 192–96, connects the self-inflicted deaths of Tsvetaeva and Mayakovsky to the demanding Russian view of the poet as “secular saint”. 69. Marina Mogil’ner, Mifologiia “podpol’nogo cheloveka”: radikal’nyi mikrokosm v Rossii nachala XX veka kak predmet semioticheskogo analiza (Moscow: NLO, 1999), pp. 205–6, suggests that older readers, who had been exposed to the critical deconstruction of the revolutionary Hero in pre-war (“Silver age”) Russian literature, would have been largely immune to the resuscitation of the same figure after 1917. 70. Vladimir Nabokov, Nikolai Gogol, corrected ed. (New York: New Directions, 1961), pp. 38–9. 71. Awareness of the role that writers of entertainment fiction played in the introduction of foreign literature is still new in China, promoted by the research of Guo Yanli: see his Zhongguo jindai fanyi wenxue gailun, 2nd revised ed. (Wuhan: Hubei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2005). Cf. Gamsa, The Chinese Translation of Russian Literature, pp. 289–304. 72. Zhao also translated works by Turgenev, including the seminal novel Rudin (serialized in Xiaoshuo yuebao from January to April 1928 and published by the Commercial Press in September the same year). 73. See, e.g., Qu Qiubai, “Kuli de fanyi” (The Translation of Coolies, 1931), in Qu Qiubai wenji, vol. 1, pp. 379–80 (with Zhao’s statement on “fluency”, dating to the same year, quoted in editors’ commentary). The title of this piece referred to a recent translation of the book Chinese Coolies by the Polish writer and traveller in the Orient, Wacław Sieroszewski (1858–1945), but the double entendre must have been intended. Cf. Leo Tak-hung Chan, Twentieth- Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues, Debates (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004), pp. 22–4, and disparaging references to Zhao’s “fluency” in the Qu Qiubai–Lu Xun correspondence on translation in 1931–32, as made available ibid. 74. On Lu Xun’s criticism, see ibid., p. 159. Cf. Kowallis, The Lyrical Lu Xun, p. 213. Zhao himself dared not argue with a writer he greatly admired. A section of his extensive book collection (donated to Fudan University in Shanghai after his death) consisted of publications by and about Lu Xun. See Jiang Jurong, “Zhao Jingshen xiansheng de cangshu”, in Li Ping and 168 NOTES

Hu Ji, eds., Zhao Jingshen yinxiang (Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe, 2002), here p. 83; on “the Milky Way”, see Jia Zhifang, “Zhao Jingshen xiansheng meiyou yicuo” (Zhao Jingshen Did Not Mistranslate), followed by Xu Shuofang, “Qieshuo ‘niunai lu’ ” (Another Word on “The Cow Milk Road”), ibid., pp. 119–22. Xu Shuofang, it may be noted, would still prefer Zhao to have kept out his “cow”. 75. These sketches were brought together posthumously in Zhao Jingshen, ed. Ni Fan, Wo yu wentan (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1999), here pp. 77, 96. 76. Cf. his little-known translation from the English of Na Vostoke (In the East, 1936), by the arch-Communist author Petr A. Pavlenko (1899–1951): a novel predicting war between the Soviet Union and Japan as well as socialist revolutions in China, India and Indochina. The translator’s Introduction, signed by “Lingfeng” in Hong Kong, November 1939, tied the plot to China’s current war of resistance. See Paifulangke, Hongyi dongfei (accom- panying English title: Red Wings Fly East) (Chongqing: Da shidai chubanshe, 1940). My thanks to Konstantin Tertitskii for sending me his copy of this translation. 77. See “Xin E duanpian xiaoshuo ji” (1957), in Ye Lingfeng, Dushu suibi (Beijing: Sanlian shudian, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 11–4; the journal, combining articles of an “aesthetic” bent with a leftist political line, is described as “a perfect reflection of Ye’s own intellectual profile” in Leo Ou-fan Lee, Shanghai Modern: The Flowering of a New Urban Culture in China, 1930–1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 256. Ye believed his anthology to have been the second after Yandai (The Pipe), translated by Cao Jinghua. V. V. Petrov, “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae v 1928–1930 gg.”, in A. I. Borshchukov et al., eds., Literatura stran zarubezhnogo Vostoka i sovetskaia literatura (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), p. 223, correctly indicates that Cao’s book only appeared some months after Ye’s, in December 1928. 78. Ibid., p. 248. 79. Ibid., pp. 239–43. 80. Cf. Jones, “Politics”, p. 73. 81. Nabokov, Nikolai Gogol, pp. 115–16, 120. The civic school of criticism (Belinskii, Chernyshevskii, Pisarev, Dobroliubov and Nikolai Mikhailovskii) is dealt with ibid., p. 128. Cf. ibid., p. 85: “It is inconceivable what type of mind one must have to see in Gogol a forerunner of the ‘naturalistic school’ and a ‘realistic painter of life in Russia’ ”. With reference to the reception of Gogol abroad, cf. George Hyde, “Russian Nineteenth-Century Fiction”, in Peter France, ed., The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 588: “[Gogol] was dragged screaming by his translators into the realist fold, and made to yield up ‘descriptions’ of Russian life which surely (if taken literally) warped people’s imaginings of Russia and Russians for generations”. 82. See Ba Jin, Suixiang lu (no. 69), pp. 377–85. NOTES 169

83. Evgeny Dobrenko, The Making of the State Reader: Social and Aesthetic Contexts of the Reception of Soviet Literature (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), pp. 12–4, 77. Link, The Uses of Literature, pp. 210–11, points out that “preferences” as indicated in such surveys were necessarily limited by the availability of titles in the book market. A form of reader response common to China and Russia were readers’ letters to writers; cf. ibid., pp. 217–18. 84. On early Soviet Russia, see A. K. Sokolov, “Predislovie” (Introduction), in his, ed., Golos naroda. Pis’ma i otkliki riadovykh sovetskikh grazhdan o sobytiiakh 1918–1932 gg. (The People’s Voice: Letters and Responses by Ordinary Soviet Citizens on the Events of 1918–32) (Moscow: Rosspen, 1997), pp. 5, 9. The letters were not always intended for publication; as newspapers and journals were organs of the state, writing to them was a way of communicating with the authorities. As Frank Dikötter, Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–1962 (forthcoming; New York: Walker & Company, 2010), shows with regard to the PRC, citizens wrote in profusion to China Daily, to the provincial authorities and directly to Chairman Mao. Few letters to the press were published (and that after being rewritten); many of their authors sought redress against local-level abuse and some obtained it, but the more critical letter writers would be traced (as the police routinely opened the mail) and punished. 85. See Dobrenko, The Making of the State Reader, beginning of chap. 8.

Three The Agents of Soviet Literature

1. Rachel May, “Russian: Literary Translation into English”, in Olive Classe, ed., Encyclopedia of Literary Translation into English, in 2 vols. (London and Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000), vol. 2, at p. 1207. 2. Zheng Zhenduo, “Azhibasuifu yu Shaning: Shaning de yi xu”, p. 10, n. 6. 3. See “Xuyan” (Foreword), in Exiang jicheng, in Qu Qiubai wenji, vol. 1, p. 3. A recent non-academic edition of this travelogue is recommended: Qu Qiubai zuopin jingbian (The Best of Qu Qiubai) (Guilin: Lijiang chubanshe, 2004), pp. 231–306. A study of Qu Qiubai that devotes much space to his two years in Russia is chap. 1 of T. A. Hsia, The Gate of Darkness; see also Li Yu-ning and Michael Gasster, “Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai’s Journey to Russia, 1920–1922”, Monumenta Serica, vol. 29 (1970–71). 4. See esp. the beginning of section 4 in Exiang jicheng, in Qu Qiubai wenji, vol. 1, p. 23. 5. Ibid, p. 31. Here Qu also reveals the classical origins of the “land of hunger”: the difficult journey to Soviet Russia is for him an act of sacrifice, comparable to the decision of the righteous brothers of antiquity, Bo Yi and Shu Qi, who had starved themselves to death on a remote mountain so as “not to eat the grain” of the Zhou dynasty. 170 NOTES

6. Ibid., pp. 33–4. 7. Ibid., pp. 90–93. 8. Ibid., pp. 96–7, 99. 9. Ibid., pp. 104, 109. 10. See now an illustrated edition, Qu Qiubai, Chidu xinshi (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2004). 11. As Jiang Guangci explained in the introduction, his own part of the book was placed first because revolutionary literature was more important and interesting for the readers. He was, though, deeply grateful to his friend “Qu Weita” (pseudonym of Qu Qiubai) for his contribution on Russian literature before 1917. See Eguo wenxue shi (A History of Russian Literature), in Qu Qiubai wenji, vol. 2, p. 134, and the recent edition: Qu Qiubai, Eguo wenxue shi ji qita (Shanghai: Fudan daxue chubanshe, 2004). 12. Zheng Zhenduo, Eguo wenxue shilüe, in Zheng Zhenduo quanji, vol. 15, pp. 450–53. See the many errors in Zheng’s writings on Russian literature, identified in Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi, pp. 170–71. 13. Zheng’s Concise History, for one, was certainly no mere retelling in Chinese of Maurice Baring’s An Outline of Russian Literature (first ed. 1915), as argued by Mau-sang Ng, The Russian Hero in Modern Chinese Fiction (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1988), pp. 26–7. In his extensive bibliography, Zheng made no secret of his debt to Baring, but his use of the Outline comes close to standard academic practice in becoming only one of the many sources that he weaves into his chronicle (it will suffice to compare the treatment of Pushkin and Lermontov by Baring and Zheng: the two poets, occu- pying more than a third of the English book, receive less than five pages altogether in the Chinese, which is far more interested in Russian prose). 14. Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi, pp. 94–5; Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi, p. 501. The poet and early Bolshevik agitator Dem’ian Bednyi (1883– 1945), a favourite of Lenin but not (contrary to Lin’s claim, ibid.) of Stalin, would be excluded from the Party in 1938. 15. Ellen Widmer, “Qu Qiubai and Russian Literature”, in Merle Goldman, ed., Modern Chinese Literature in the May Fourth Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977). 16. This translation, begun by Qu in 1933–34 and left incomplete at his death, was first published in 1940: see Xie Tianzhen and Zha Mingjian, eds., Zhongguo xiandai fanyi wenxue shi (1898–1949) (Shanghai: Shanghai waiyu jiaoyu chubanshe, 2003), pp. 146–47. As a pointer to the aesthetic sensibili- ties of a Party ideologue, who demanded politicized literature from Chinese writers, Qu’s Gypsies may be compared with Zhou Yang’s involvement in a col- laborative translation of Anna Karenina (first volume published 1936, second in 1956; ibid., p. 97). Both works belonged to a classical canon sanctioned by the Soviet Union. 17. Qu Qiubai, trans. Greenbaum, Superfluous Words, p. 172. See also the translation and commentary by Alain Roux and Wang Xiaoling, Qu Qiubai NOTES 171

(1899–1935), “Des Mots de trop” (Duoyu de hua): L’autobiographie d’un intel- lectuel engagé chinois (Paris and Louvain: Éditions Peeters, 2005). The Chinese original, included in an annex to the French edition, is by now allowed into print in the PRC: see Qu Qiubai, Chidu xinshi, pp. 165–92. 18. The blind admiration of the worldly and well-informed Mao Dun for the USSR is addressed in Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi, p. 202. 19. See post-script to the first PRC reprint, ed. by Ge Baoquan in 1984, as appended to Hu Yuzhi, Mosike yinxiang ji, in Hu Yuzhi wenji, vol. 2, pp. 354– 442. The entry on Hu Yuzhi in Zhongguo fanyijia cidian (Beijing: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi chubanshe, 1988), p. 279, calls this book “the first to systemati- cally introduce the Soviet Union in China”. 20. Mosike yinxiang ji, in Hu Yuzhi wenji, vol. 2, pp. 410–13. 21. A. V. Golubev, “. . . Vzgliad na zemliu obetovannuiu”: Iz istorii sovetskoi kul’turnoi diplomatii 1920–1930-kh godov (Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2004), pp. 140–42. 22. Dreiser’s Russian Diary, eds. Thomas P. Riggio and James L. W. West III (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), includes critical remarks on the cult of Lenin (the portraits and statues of the Leader filling every available public space along with the images of Marx and Stalin), and “the kow-towing of the intelligentsia to the workingman & peasent [sic] with the gun” (p. 172). Despite its generally favourable image of the USSR, Dreiser Looks at Russia was only excerpted there and remained untranslated in China; see Michael David-Fox, “The Fellow Travelers Revisited: The ‘Cultured West’ through Soviet Eyes”, Journal of Modern History, vol. 75 (June 2003), pp. 300–35, at p. 320, and Wolfgang Bauer, Western Literature and Translation Work in Communist China (Frankfurt am Main and Berlin: Alfred Metzner Verlag, 1964), p. 26. 23. See David E. Apter, “Bearing Witness: Maoism as Religion”, Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 22 (2005). For more Western parallels to the Chinese voyages to Moscow, cf. Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981) and Ludmila Stern, Western Intellectuals and the Soviet Union, 1920–40: From Red Square to the Left Bank (London: Routledge, 2006). 24. “Preface to First Volume of American Edition”, included in Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia (London: C. W. Daniel, 1925), p. xi. 25. Mosike yinxiang ji, in Hu Yuzhi wenji, vol. 2, pp. 421–25. 26. Ibid., pp. 425–30. 27. Hu Yuzhi, “Bali guoji xiju jie de liang wan: Eguo de xin yanju yishu”, Dongfang zazhi, vol. 25, no. 15 (10 August 1928), described his impressions of Turandot (this independent adaptation of Carlo Gozzi’s eighteenth-century play, set in an imagined Peking, was staged by Evgenii Vakhtangov in Moscow shortly before his death in 1922, four years prior to the posthumous release of Puccini’s opera by the same name) and, in lesser detail, 200,000 (first 172 NOTES

staged, with Solomon Mikhoels in the leading role, in 1923, and included in the Yiddish Theatre’s programme when it performed in Paris in 1928). For more on Vakhtangov’s Turandot, see Nick Worrall, Modernism to Realism on the Soviet Stage: Tairov—Vakhtangov—Okhlopkov (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 127–39; on the Yiddish Theatre’s tour of Western Europe, Alla Zuskina-Perel’man, Puteshestvie Veniamina: Razmyshleniia o zhizni, tvorchestve i sud’be evreiskogo aktera Veniamina Zuskina (The Voyage of Veniamin: Reflections on the Life, Creative Work and Destiny of the Jewish Actor Veniamin Zuskin) (Jerusalem: Gesharim, 2002), pp. 101–14. 28. The Red Poppy was first performed in Moscow in June 1927; for the name change, see G. V. Keldysh, ed., Entsiklopedicheskii muzykal’nyi slovar’ (An Encyclopaedic Musical Dictionary) (Moscow: Bol’shaia Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1959), pp. 56, 119. Cf. Bei Wenli, “E-Su yishu zhong de Zhongguo qingdiao”, Eluosi wenyi, no. 4 (1999), pp. 57–8, for a somewhat different description of the ballet (which does not refer to Hu Yuzhi) and for a mention of the “Red Poppy incident” in late 1949. See also Bickers, Britain in China, pp. 45–7, on offensive stereotyping of Chinese in British plays staged by London theatres and Chinese protests against them in the late 1920s. Puccini’s Turandot, performed worldwide since its premiere in 1926, was banned from Chinese stages until the 1990s because of its allegedly offensive portrayal of Chinese cruelty. The story of the opera’s later admission into China, its “sinification” and adaptation, was told by Marco Ceresa in “From Music Box to Chinese Box: The Fable of Turandot between East and West”, a paper presented at the conference “East Asian Culture in Western Perceptions”, University of Latvia in Riga, on 23 October 2008. 29. Chapter on Reinhold Gliere in Stanley D. Krebs, Soviet Composers and the Development of Soviet Music (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1970), at p. 75. 30. The set designer of Red Poppy was Boris M. Erbstein (1901–63). His some- time teacher V. E. Meierhold was arrested in 1939 and executed in February 1940. The director and former star actor of the Moscow State Yiddish Theatre, Solomon M. Mikhoels, was murdered in an orchestrated car accident on 13 January 1948; his colleague and successor (who had played the first supporting role in 200,000), Veniamin L. Zuskin, was arrested on 24 December 1948 and shot together with other Jewish artists and writers on 12 August 1952. 31. In memoirs published in the emigration, Boris Bazhanov, a former secretary of Stalin who escaped the Soviet Union in 1928, did describe VOKS (The All- Soviet Association for Cultural Contact with Foreign Countries) as a “theatre production”. Golubev, “. . . Vzgliad na zemliu obetovannuiu”, p. 104. 32. Stanislav Rassadin, Samoubiitsy. Povest’ o tom, kak my zhili i chto chitali (Moscow: Tekst, 2002). 33. Basic sources are the entries on Cao Jinghua and his daughter Cao Suling in Zhongguo fanyijia cidian and the autobiographical sketch by Cao Jinghua in Wang Shoulan, Dangdai wenxue fanyi baijia tan (Beijing: Beijing daxue NOTES 173

chubanshe, 1989), pp. 746–48. Zhang Demei and Leng Ke, Cao Jinghua jinian wenji, opens with a biographical outline by Zhang Demei, “Cao Jinghua zhuanlüe”. 34. Cf. S. A. Smith, A Road Is Made: Communism in Shanghai, 1920–1927 (Richmond: Curzon, 2000), p. 19. The Socialist Youth League (SY) formed in Shanghai in August 1920 and was disbanded, for failing to conform to Communist ideological discipline, in May 1921 (ibid., pp. 14, 26). It was “refounded” (as CY) in November, this time according to the model of the Communist Youth International (ibid., p. 45). 35. Jiang Deming, “Ting Cao lao tan Wei Suyuan”, in Zhang Demei and Leng Ke, Cao Jinghua jinian wenji, here pp. 128–29. Cao Jinghua described the adventures of the voyage in a lively play, Kongbu zhi ye (A Night of Terror, 1923): see Jiang Deming, “Cao Jinghua yu Kongbu zhi ye” (1978), ibid., pp. 105–8, and the text in Cao Jinghua yizhu wenji (Beijing: Beijing daxue and Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1989), vol. 9, pp. 31–47. 36. A number of modern Chinese writers, translators and political figures had a strong personal connection with the Soviet Union. Cao’s daughter has the “Su” of “Sulian” (Soviet Union) in her given name. Other examples are a son of Lao She, who studied forestry in Leningrad, and the wife of translator Ge Baoquan who, while Ge served in the PRC embassy, graduated from the Moscow Conservatory. See Oleg B. Rakhmanin, Iz kitaiskikh bloknotov (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), pp. 24, 31. When Mao Dun and his wife visited Moscow in the 1940s, they met with their niece Maya, daughter of Mao Dun’s younger brother Shen Zemin; born while her parents studied at Sun Yat-sen University in 1926, she was left in a Moscow institution when they returned to China in 1930 and would only arrive in the PRC in 1950. See Zhong Guisong, Shen Zemin zhuan (A Biography of Shen Zemin) (Beijing: Zhongyang wenxian chubanshe, 2003), pp. 142, 312. Much on these human connections, the personal dimension of early Chinese-Soviet relations, can be found in Du Weihua and Wang Yiqiu, eds., Zai Sulian zhangda de hongse houdai (The Red Offspring Raised in the Soviet Union) (Beijing: Shijie zhishi chubanshe, 2000) and still more will become available in English when Elizabeth McGuire publishes her dissertation at the University of California, Berkeley, “The Sino-Soviet Romance, 1920–2008”. 37. Sergei L. Tikhvinskii, Diplomatiia: issledovaniia i vospominaniia (Diplomacy: Studies and Memoirs) (Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2001), pp. 305–7. 38. On this period in Cao’s translation work, and on the relationship with Lu Xun, cf. the chapter in Li Jin, Sansishi niandai Su-E Hanyi wenxue lun (Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 2006), pp. 96–127. 39. Roman S. Belousov, “Za stranitsami dnevnikov Lu Sinia”, Problemy Dal’nego Vostoka, no. 5 (1987), here pp. 114–21. 40. Lu Xun’s diary records 292 letters to Cao, the first a reply to Cao’s letter from Kaifeng in May 1925 and the last written only two days before Lu Xun’s 174 NOTES

death. See “Wuxian cangsang hua yijian” (Lost Letters of Reversals Without End), in Cao Jinghua, Cao Jinghua sanwen xuan (Xi’an: Shanxi renmin chubanshe, 1983), p. 133, where Cao says that the actual number of letters he received from Lu Xun was even higher. 41. See, on this translation, Petrov, “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae”, pp. 227–29. 42. Joshua A. Fogel, “Japanese Literary Travelers in Prewar China”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 49, no. 2 (1989), pp. 588–90; Christopher T. Keaveney, “Uchiyama Kanzô’s Shanghai Bookstore and Its Impact on May Fourth Writers”, E-ASPAC, 2002. Cf. David E. Pollard, The True Story of Lu Xun (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2002), p. 179. Uchiyama’s foreign nationality must have made him immune to KMT sanction for enabling the appearance in Chinese of The Iron Flood as well as of the already mentioned The Rout. The claim is also made, and may be true, that both books were published at Lu Xun’s personal expense. 43. Pollard, The True Story of Lu Xun, p. 166. 44. Wang Yougui, Fanyijia Lu Xun, pp. 288–89, estimates that the reason was Lu Xun’s realization that accepting the invitation would force him to part with his illusions. 45. Belousov, “Za stranitsami dnevnikov Lu Sinia”, p. 116. 46. E.g., in a letter from Switzerland (signed 17 July 1924) to his translator Jing Yinyu, Romain Rolland expressed joy at Jing’s intention to translate Jean- Christophe, granting him full permission to do so and asking to be sent two copies of the translated book. We know this because Jing (although he would not manage the entire length of the novel itself) translated and published Rolland’s letter in Xiaoshuo yuebao, vol. 16, no. 1 (January 1925). 47. “The Forty-First” and “The Story of a Simple Thing”. Petrov, “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae”, pp. 224–25. 48. A copy of this rare edition is at the Sinological Institute Library, Leiden University. See, on the circumstances of its publication, A. G. Shprintsin, “O literature na kitaiskom iazyke, izdannoi v Sovetskom Soiuze (20–30-e gody)”, in L. Z. Eidlin et al., eds., Izuchenie kitaiskoi literatury v SSSR. Sbornik statei k shestidesiatiletiiu chlena-korrespondenta AN SSSR N.T. Fedorenko (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), pp. 254–55. 49. Belousov, “Za stranitsami dnevnikov Lu Sinia”, p. 118. Signed copies of Aleksei Tolstoy’s Bread, Serafimovich’s Iron Flood and Konstantin Fedin’s Towns and Years (all of which Cao Jinghua had translated into Chinese), along with letters to the translator from the last two writers, were admired in Cao’s Beijing apartment by Nikolai T. Fedorenko: see his Kitaiskie zapisi (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1955), pp. 516–17. Some of Cao’s correspondence with these and other Soviet writers is included in translation in Zhang Demei and Leng Ke, Cao Jinghua jinian wenji. 50. R. Belousov, V tysiachiakh ieroglifov: o knigakh i liudiakh (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostochnoi literatury, 1963), pp. 123, 167–68. NOTES 175

51. Numerous such trips are mentioned in A. S. Tsvetko, Sovetsko-kitaiskie kul’turnye sviazi (Moscow: Mysl’, 1974). 52. “The residents in those places and I harbor different feelings and live in different worlds”. See Lu Xun’s preface as included in Xiao Hong, trans. Howard Goldblatt, The Field of Life and Death and Tales of Hulan River (Boston: Cheng & Tsui, 2002), p. 4; “Xiao Hong zuo Shengsi chang xu”, in LXQJ, vol. 6, p. 423. 53. Qu Qiubai, Exiang jicheng, in Qu Qiubai wenji, vol. 1, p. 40. The Pass between the Mountains and the Sea, in present-day Hebei province, was the only gate in the Great Wall allowing access to Manchuria. The railway line from Shenyang (also known as Fengtian or Mukden) to Changchun was the northern stretch of the South Manchuria Railway, owned and operated by Japan; Qu went on to say that the “other world” to which he felt transported was Japanese. But his later account of Harbin makes plain that the “other- ness” of Manchuria was for him more essential than could be ascribed to the effects of colonialism. 54. Chen Jiying, Sanshi niandai zuojia ji (Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1979), p. 139. Cf. ibid., pp. 178, 195, where Chen explains that much of Asia’s export to Europe also had to pass via Harbin, to be carried further by the CER and the Trans-Siberian. 55. Olga Bakich, Harbin Russian Imprints: Bibliography as History, 1898–1961. Materials for a Definitive Bibliography (New York: Norman Ross, 2002), p. 47, gives the total number of Russian books published in Harbin as 3,447 and the total number of “imprints” (including 338 journals and 182 newspapers) as 4,261. 56. Qu Qiubai, Exiang jicheng, in Qu Qiubai wenji, vol. 1, p. 47. 57. Chen Jiying, Sanshi niandai zuojia ji, p. 194 (Chen gives the year of foundation as 1927 on p. 139). His assertion that the Beilei she was the first literary society in Harbin receives corroboration from Fan Quan, Zhongguo xiandai wenxue shetuan liupai cidian (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 1993), where all other entries for Harbin literary societies are dated 1932 or later: on the “Beilei she”, see pp. 533–34. 58. Chen Jiying, Sanshi niandai zuojia ji, pp. 133, 138. The “International Gazette” was the main vehicle for the group’s publications, just as it would provide the venue for Xiao Hong’s first story in January 1933. 59. Ibid., pp. 200–203. 60. Andreev’s play To the Stars, forbidden by censorship in Russia, was staged in Harbin in summer 1907: see James B. Woodward, Leonid Andreyev: A Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 135. A production of He Who Gets Slapped was announced in the Harbin newspaper Russkoe slovo on 4 January 1927. Additional Harbin performances of Andreev’s plays from 1920 to 1932 are listed by V. N. Chuvakov, in V. A. Keldysh and M. V. Koz’menko, Leonid Andreev: materialy i issledovaniia (Materials and Studies; Moscow: Nasledie, 176 NOTES

2000), pp. 355–96: while the revolutionary To the Stars was not repeated, there were four more productions of He Who Gets Slapped and of The Days of Our Life; three of Waltz of the Dogs; one production each of Thou Shalt Not Kill, Anathema, Professor Storitsyn and Ekaterina Ivanovna. The only known Russian performance of an Andreev play in Shanghai is Days of Our Life, in May 1925 (ibid., p. 376). Anathema and Waltz of the Dogs were retranslated into Chinese from English in 1923, and To the Stars in 1926; He Who Gets Slapped was adapted for the stage in 1940 and Professor Storitsyn retranslated in 1944. See the Annex in Gamsa, The Chinese Translation of Russian Literature. 61. According to Chen Jiying, Sanshi niandai zuojia ji, p. 199, one society member, a poet from Jilin who attended the Harbin Polytechnic (today’s Harbin Institute of Technology), later became a translator of Soviet fiction. 62. Zhou Zuoren, “Guanyu Lu Xun zhi er” (On Lu Xun, part 2; 1937), in Liu Xuyuan, Kuyuzhai zhu: Mingren bixia de Zhou Zuoren, Zhou Zuoren bixia de mingren (Shanghai: Dongfang chuban zhongxin, 1998), p. 222, mentioned Lu Xun’s brief study of Russian in Tokyo in 1907. In a letter to Cao Jinghua, of 13 June 1931, Lu Xun asked to be sent missing volumes of Sholokhov’s Quiet Flows the Don; yet, he explained that he would only need them to look at the illustrations. LXQJ, vol. 12, pp. 265–67. Lu Xun also bought books in other languages which he knew very little or not at all, respectively English and French. 63. Evidence on this is equivocal; the Austrian-born socialist Ruth F. Weiss, who in a book about Lu Xun mentioned her conversations with the writer in German shortly before his death, would have been too polite to comment on his fluency in the language. See her Lu Xun: A Chinese Writer for All Times (Beijing: New World Press, 1985), pp. 11–2. Wang Yougui, Fanyijia Lu Xun, pp. 16–7, quotes Xu Guangping, to the effect that Lu Xun sometimes spoke German with the American journalist Agnes Smedley, and another memoir- ist who witnessed an encounter between Lu Xun and the Russian Esperantist from Harbin, Innokentii Seryshev: apparently, when Seryshev addressed him in German, Lu Xun answered in Japanese and the conversation could make no further progress. 64. As quoted in T. A. Hsia, The Gate of Darkness, p. 56. Lisha de aiyuan is reprinted in Jiang Guangci wenji (Shanghai: Shanghai wenyi chubanshe, 1982–88), vol. 3, but a more enjoyable way to read the novel is offered by an attractive recent edition (Beijing: Xin shijie chubanshe, 2003). On Jiang as a propagator of Soviet literature, best-known for his translation of Iurii Libedinskii’s short novel The Week in 1930, see Petrov, “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae”, pp. 230–33. 65. Ba Jin, “Jiangjun”, from a 1933 collection by the same name, in Ba Jin xuanji (Chengdu: Renmin chubanshe, 1996), vol. 7, pp. 219–29. The ending is an example of the “alienation” effect which Lee, Shanghai Modern, p. 311, believes to be missing in Shanghai-written fiction (it does appear with even greater force in the representation of Harbin Russians in Market Street by Xiao Hong, NOTES 177

published in 1936). This story is available in English, as “The General”, in translations by Nathan K. Mao, in Lau et al., Modern Chinese Stories and Novellas 1919–1949, pp. 299–304 and by Don J. Cohn, Chinese Literature, no. 1 (1984), pp. 99–108. There may be an allusion involved: Susan Daruvala, Zhou Zuoren and an Alternative Chinese Response to Modernity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), pp. 80–81, mentions Zhou Zuoren’s sympathy with a seventeenth-century Chinese émigré from Zhejiang, who before breathing his last in Japanese exile had said words in his native language that none around him could understand. Less attuned to such lore, Ba Jin too could have known this story. 66. Cf. for further evidence of this perception, Ba Jin, Suixiang lu (no. 96), pp. 538–42. 67. See Xiao Jun, “Goats”, trans. Howard Goldblatt, in Lau et al., Modern Chinese Stories and Novellas 1919–1949, quoting p. 356 (translation modified). In the original, “Goats” is signed 11 July 1935. Following the sale of the Chinese Eastern Railway to Japan in March 1935, at least 25,000 employees and their families were repatriated to the USSR from Harbin beginning from late May; most would fall victim to the purge conducted on the orders of Stalin’s hench- man Ezhov in 1937. Cf. Steven E. Merritt, “Matushka Rossiia, primi svoikh detei! [Mother Russia, Receive Your Children!]: Archival Materials on the Stalinist Repression of the Soviet Kharbintsy”, Rossiiane v Azii (Toronto), vol. 5 (1998), pp. 205–29. Tolstoy wrote no poetry, and Xiao had confused him with Nekrasov. 68. The following account is from Yuan Muzhi, Yanju mantan (Shanghai: Xiandai shuju, 1933), pp. 119–22. A description of this first performance of Chekhov on a Chinese stage in M. E. Shneider, Russkaia klassika v Kitae: perevody, otsenki, tvorcheskoe osvoenie (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), pp. 124–25, tells only a part of the story. 69. “Benliu bianjiao hou ji” (Notes after Editing and Proof-Reading The Current), in LXQJ, vol. 7, pp. 186–87. Lu Xun was referring to Sologub’s story “Golodnyi blesk” (1908), published in the same issue of Benliu in a retranslation from English by Yao Pengzi. His remarks suggest that he was familiar with the harsh criticism of Sologub by Gorky. 70. Following the entry on Ivanov in Marina Iu. Sorokina, “Snova vostokovedy . . . materialy dlia biobibliograficheskogo slovaria Rossiiskoe nauchnoe zarubezh’e”, Diaspora: novye materialy, vol. 7 (2005). According to Alexander Pantsov, The Bolsheviks and the Chinese Revolution 1919–1927 (Richmond: Curzon, 2000), p. 285, Ivanov/Ivin stayed at Peking University until 1927 and was a Pravda correspondent in China from then to 1930. 71. A. Ivin, Kitai i Sovetskii Soiuz (China and the Soviet Union) (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Iz-vo, 1924), came out with an introduction by the Soviet ambassador in China, Lev Karakhan, who described it as “quite possibly the only [Russian] publication devoted to contemporary China” (p. 7). In the book, Ivin illustrated what he considered the haphazard translation and 178 NOTES

misinformed admiration of foreign authorities in China by juxtaposing such names as Tolstoy and Artsybashev; Bernard Shaw and Homer (p. 15). 72. On the play, see Xiaobing Tang, “Echoes of Roar, China! On Vision and Voice in Modern Chinese Art”, Positions, vol. 14, no. 2 (2006). Also, the chapter in Belousov, V tysiachiakh ieroglifov, pp. 133–64 and its revised and foot- noted version, “Sergei Tret’iakov o Kitae” (Tret’iakov on China), Vostochnyi al’manakh, no. 10 (1982), pp. 559–80. 73. See, in English, Chinese Testament: The Autobiography of Tan Shih-hua as told to S. Tretiakov (London: Victor Gollancz, 1934; also published by Simon and Schuster in New York). Chapter 21 of the book described Aleksei Ivin’s classes in Peking (in which he criticized the political positions of Chekhov and Tolstoy) and the first attempts of his students, among them Cao Jinghua, at translating Russian literature. 74. Documents related to the arrest and execution of Tret’iakov and the impris- onment of his wife are in V. F. Koliazin, ed., “Vernite mne svobodu!” Deiateli literatury i iskusstva Rossii i Germanii—zhertvy stalinskogo terrora (“Give Me Back My Freedom!” Russian and German Writers and Artists—Victims of Stalinist Terror) (Moscow: Medium, 1997). This collection of KGB documents includes a chilling chapter on the fate of Vsevolod Meierhold, whose last plea from prison serves as the volume’s title. 75. Next to the numerous publications on Alekseev in Russian, see L. N. Men’shikov, “Academician Vasilii Mikhailovich Alekseev (1881–1951) and His School of Russian Sinology”, in Ming Wilson and John Cayley, eds., Europe Studies China (London: Han-Shan Tang Books, 1995), pp. 136–48. 76. See Cao Jinghua, “Haosi chunyan di yi zhi” (Like a First Swallow) and “Wuxian cangsanghua yijian”, in Cao Jinghua sanwen xuan, both indicating Vasil’ev’s year of death as described below. Vasil’ev’s translation was published in Leningrad in 1929 as “Pravdivaia istoriia A-Keia”. 77. Cf. the life dates in the title of a first Soviet commemorative article, published in the same year as Cao’s: Viktor V. Petrov, “Nauchno-pedagogicheskaia deiatel’nost’ B. A. Vasil’eva (1899–1946)” (The Scientific-Pedagogical Activity of B. A. Vasil’ev), in Filologiia i istoriia stran zarubezhnoi Azii i Afriki (Leningrad: Iz-vo Leningradskogo un-ta, 1965), pp. 71–3. These dates could be found in print up to the end of the Soviet era; similarly, until as late as the mid-1990s the year of Sergei Tret’iakov’s execution was believed to have been 1939 rather than 1937 (Tang, “Echoes of Roar, China!”, p. 484, repeats this error). 78. Entry in Iaroslav V. Vasil’kov and Marina Iu. Sorokina, Liudi i sud’by: bio- bibliograficheskii slovar’ vostokovedov—zhertv politicheskogo terrora v sovetskii period (1917–1991) (St Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2003), pp. 91–2. 79. Another name in need of a mention here is that of Nikolai Fedorenko (1912–2000), like Boris Vasil’ev—a student of V. M. Alekseev, a specialist NOTES 179

in classical Chinese literature and translator of Lu Xun. Spending much time in Chongqing and Shanghai as a diplomat in the 1940s, he later served as ambassador to the PRC, Japan and the United Nations, also becoming one of the prominent intermediaries in Soviet cultural relations with China and Japan. See ibid., pp. 387–88; Fedorenko, Kitaiskie zapisi, and introductory matter in Eidlin et al., Izuchenie kitaiskoi literatury v SSSR. The father of a future Israeli prime minister remembered Fedorenko as a classmate in Qiqihar (Heilongjiang province) in the 1920s, a biographical detail in need of further verification: see Mordechai Olmert, Darki be-derech ha-rabim (supplied English title: My Way) (Tel Aviv: Or-Am, 1981), p. 19. 80. Li Sui’an, Zhong-Su wenhua jiaoliu shi 1937–1949 (Harbin: Haerbin chubanshe, 2003), pp. 136–58, 262–66, gives the Association’s bylaws and list of members and has much on its executive director, the professor of Russian Zhang Ximan (1895–1949), who held senior positions in the KMT. 81. “Pamiati V. N. Rogova” (In Memory of V. N. Rogov), Problemy Dal’nego Vostoka, no. 2 (1989), p. 240. 82. A. N. Zhelokhovtsev, “Iz istorii oznakomleniia kitaiskoi obshchestven- nosti s sovetskoi literaturoi (20–40-e gody)”, in V. F. Sorokin, ed., Kitaiskaia kul’tura 20–40-kh godov i sovremennost’ (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), pp. 255–59; in Chinese, see Meng Zhaoyi and Li Zaidao, eds., Zhongguo fanyi wenxue shi (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2005), pp. 260–64, and Li Sui’an, Zhong-Su wenhua jiaoliu shi, pp. 159–77. See also the catalogue of the books published by Shidai up to 1951, as included ibid., pp. 270–303. 83. Ibid., pp. 166–67. 84. Tensions leading to the closing down of Epoch Press have to be read between the lines of Li Sui’an’s celebratory account, ibid., pp. 176–77. 85. Li Ding, “Eguo wenxue fanyi zai Zhongguo”, pp. 373–74. 86. On Cao Ying, as the translator of Sholokhov and the complete works of Tolstoy, see Meng Zhaoyi and Li Zaidao, Zhongguo fanyi wenxue shi, pp. 429–31. Epoch Press was also active in translating modern Chinese literature into Russian and so attracted the brief collaboration of Valerii Pereleshin (1913–92): by common consent the greatest of Harbin’s Russian poets, he was the only one to have studied Chinese and to translate classical Chinese poetry from the original. Pereleshin began publishing his translations in Russian émigré journals in 1935 and would resume this activity after set- tling in Brazil in 1953. Living in Shanghai from 1943 to 1952, he translated Lu Xun’s story “Medicine” and some of his essays. See Russian Poetry and Literary Life in Harbin and Shanghai, 1930–1950: The Memoirs of Valerij Perelešin, ed. in Russian by Jan Paul Hinrichs (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1987), pp. 110–13. A biography of Pereleshin in English is forthcoming from Olga Bakich. 87. See Li Jin, Sansishi niandai Su-E Hanyi wenxue lun, pp. 140–41. The first to translate volume three of Quiet Flows the Don from the Russian in 1936 180 NOTES

(after volumes one and two had appeared in retranslation from the German in 1931), the 1917-born Zhao Xun also came from Harbin, where he returned to teach after 1945. Meng Zhaoyi and Li Zaidao, Zhongguo fanyi wenxue shi, p. 250. 88. See ibid., pp. 265–67. 89. Information on book-related activities of the Soviet Plenipotentiary Represen- tative Office in Shanghai is drawn from Tat’iana V. Kuznetsova, Russkaia kniga v Kitae (1917–1949) (Khabarovsk: DVGNB, 2003), pp. 163–64. 90. Ol’ga Bakich, “Pushkinskie dni v Kharbine—1937 god”, Zapiski russkoi akademicheskoi gruppy v SShA, vol. 30 (1999–2000). On the manipulated celebrations in the Soviet Union, see Stephanie Sandler, “The 1937 Pushkin Jubilee as Epic Trauma”, in Kevin M. F. Platt and David Brandenberger, eds., Epic Revisionism: Russian History and Literature as Stalinist Propaganda (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006), pp. 193–213. 91. An exhibition of these paintings resulted in an impressive commemorative album: Kirill I. Zaitsev (ed.), Pushkin i ego vremia (Pushkin and His Time) (Harbin: Tsentral’nyi Pushkinskii komitet pri Biuro po delam rossi- iskikh emigrantov v Man’chzhurskoi imperii, 1938). A re-edition of this album, S. G. Blinov and M. D. Filin, eds., 1799–1837: Pushkin i ego vremia (Moscow: Terra, 1997), includes K. I. Zaitsev, “Bor’ba za Pushkina” (The Fight for Pushkin, 1937), which attests to the competition between Soviet and émigré interpretations of the poet’s heritage. In only half the number of pages of the Harbin album, the commemorative book published in Shanghai in 1937 nevertheless included texts in Russian, French, English and Chinese—this last, an indication of the closer contact between the Shanghai Russian community and its surroundings. See Pushkinskii komitet v Shankhae, Pushkinskie dni v Shankhae, 1837–1937 (supplied English title: Pushkin Centenary), copy Hamilton Library, University of Hawaii. 92. One among several recent reportages on Gao is Si Xiaojian, “Gao Mang: yongyuan de Eluosi qinghuai” (An Eternal Feeling for Russia), Beijing ribao, 26 January 2007. Among Gao Mang’s many books, the following titles speak richly of his perspective on Russia: Linghun de guisu: Eluosi muyuan wenhua (The Soul’s Last Abode: Russian Cemetery Culture; Beijing, 2000), describing the tombs of great Russian writers and historical figures; Shengshan xing: Xunzhao shiren Puxijin de zuji (A Voyage to the Sacred Mountain: In Search for Traces of the Poet Pushkin; Beijing, 2004); Eluosi dashi guju (Old Homes of the Russian Masters; Beijing, 2005), a record of his visits to writers’ places of birth. Cf. in this context a study of Chinese writers’ hero- worshipping visits to the tombs of Western poets, Raoul David Findeisen, “Thanatographie oder auf der Suche nach literarischen Helden. Chinesische Autoren als Besucher von ausländischen Dichtergräbern”, in Marc Hermann and Christian Schwermann, eds., Zurück zur Freude: Studien zur chinesischen NOTES 181

Literatur und Lebenswelt und ihrer Rezeption in Ost und West. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kubin (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2007), pp. 321–51. 93. Another example, deserving of separate treatment, is Wang Meng, Sulian ji (Memorial to the Soviet Union) (Beijing: Zuojia chubanshe, 2006). Its glossy illustrations resurrecting all the defunct symbols of Soviet statehood, this unabashedly nostalgic tribute by the former PRC minister of culture is dedi- cated to the ninetieth anniversary of the October revolution and describes a pilgrimage to Lenin’s mausoleum. 94. Other translators of Russian fiction to come out of Harbin include Diao Shaohua (1934–2001), also known as a scholar of the Harbin Russian emigration, and Gan Yuze (born 1942; graduate of Harbin University in 1964). An original autobiographical essay by Gan, expressing a perfectionist approach to the art of translation, is in Wang Shoulan, Dangdai wenxue fanyi baijia tan, pp. 104–11. 95. Larisa P. Chernikova and Bei Wenli, “Istoriia pamiatnika A. S. Pushkinu v Shankhae”, Problemy Dal’nego Vostoka, no. 5 (2000), traces the symbolic history of “the only Pushkin monument in Asia”. Erected by the Shanghai Russian community in 1937, it was removed by the Japanese in 1944, rebuilt through the efforts of the Soviet Consulate (for the 110th anniversary of Pushkin’s death) in 1947, demolished by Red Guards in 1966 and restored by a team of Chinese sculptors in 1987. Cf. Amir A. Khisamutdinov, Rossiiskaia emigratsiia v Kitae: opyt entsiklopedii (Vladivostok: DVGU, 2002), p. 179. An émigré participant in the Shanghai celebrations of 1937, Vladimir A. Slobodchikov describes these in his memoir, O sud’be izgnannikov pechal’noi . . . Kharbin, Shankhai (On Exiles’ Plangent Fate: Harbin, Shanghai) (Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2005), pp. 210–12. 96. See the participant’s report by Vl. Rogov, “Pushkin v Kitae (Iz istorii kul’turnykh sviazei)”, Vostochnyi al’manakh, no. 3 (1960), pp. 189–90. This article also described the Soviet activities in 1947: restoration of the Pushkin monument, publication of a new collection of Pushkin’s poetry and the festive evening, featuring a speech by Communist poet Guo Moruo, organized in Guanghua theatre on 10 February. Cf. Khisamutdinov, Rossiiskaia emigratsiia v Kitae, p. 209. 97. On the eight books, see Vladimir Rudman, “Pushkin v Kitae”, Novyi mir, no. 6 (1949); cf. Xie Tianzhen and Zha Mingjian, Zhongguo xiandai fanyi wenxue shi (1898–1949), pp. 144–45. Revived after six months of inactivity in September 1936, Yiwen folded in the following year: see ibid., pp. 105–7. A journal by this name was launched again in 1953, as a main forum for the translation of Soviet and other socialist literature; it assumed the name Shijie wenxue (World Literature) in 1959. Gao Mang joined this journal in 1962, returned to it after the Cultural Revolution and retired as chief editor in 1989. 182 NOTES

Four Soviet Socialist Realism as a Manual of Practice

1. See Bernard Williams, Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), pp. 168–69. 2. Anthony C. Yu, “History, Fiction and the Reading of Chinese Narrative”, Chinese Literature Essays, Articles, Reviews, vol. 10, nos. 1–2 (1988), p. 8. 3. Quoting Yu, ibid., p. 19, who calls this “an immense irony”. 4. Cf. On-cho Ng, “The Epochal Concept of ‘Early Modernity’ and the Intellectual History of Late Imperial China”, Journal of World History, vol. 14, no. 1 (March 2003), p. 48: “Even in the heyday of evidential learning [. . .] there was no clear discrimination between facts (factual descriptions) and values (moral and value judgments), a distinction that is the fundamental tenet of modern science”. 5. D. H. Green, The Beginnings of Medieval Romance: Fact and Fiction, 1150– 1220 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), quoting pp. 13, 11. 6. The reader is referred, however, to the opening section (“ ‘Real Life’ and Fiction”) of the introduction to Vladimir Nabokov, Lectures on Don Quixote (San Diego, CA: Harvest / HBJ, 1983), at which point, it is hoped, no reader would want to stop before finishing the book. 7. Olgin, A Guide to Russian Literature (1820–1917), p. 19. 8. At the Sherlock Holmes museum in Meiringen, Switzerland (near the Reichenbach Falls, where the detective plummeted to his apparent death on a 4 May of an unspecified year), his Baker Street room is recreated in wonder- ful detail. Pilgrimages to this pleasant locality by Sherlock fans from all over the world take place on every May Fourth. On the detective, see in particular Nick Rennison, Sherlock Holmes: The Unauthorized Biography (London: Atlantic Books, 2005). 9. This is the novel argument of Ming Dong Gu, Chinese Theories of Fiction: A Non-Western Narrative System (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), p. 194. 10. See, on this last, Adzhimamudova, Iui Da-fu i literaturnoe obshchestvo “Tvorchestvo”, p. 166. 11. Kai Vogelsang, “Some Notions of Historical Judgment in China and the West”, in Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer et al., eds., Historical Truth, Historical Criticism, and Ideology: Chinese Historiography and Historical Culture from a New Comparative Perspective (Leiden: Brill, 2005), does not argue that all genres of writing were perceived as “true”, but that factual “truth” was of no concern to writers—whether of history or fiction—whose aim was to teach by moral example: “there was neither a clear-cut distinction between history and fiction nor, by the same token, between history and myth” (p. 160). Cf. David Der-wei Wang, “Fictional History / Historical Fiction”, Studies in Language NOTES 183

and Literature, no. 1 (1985), p. 70: “We can hardly find a literary tradition other than the Chinese one that has so constantly adopted the narrative modes and assumptions of historical writing in all kinds of fiction generation after generation up to the late Ch’ing period”. 12. Leo Ou-fan Lee, “Lin Shu and His Translations: Western Fiction in Chinese Perspective”, Papers on China, vol. 19 (1965), p. 163; for Lin’s tears over Dickens’s Dombey and Son, cf. ibid., p. 174. Lee reminds us that Marguerite Gautier of the Dumas novel was modelled on a real-life courtesan, Marie Duplessis. 13. Cf., for examples of this, articles in Pollard, ed., Translation and Creation, pp. 18, 196, 230, 247. 14. A reader of Rider Haggard’s novel in Lin’s translation complained, in 1907, that Lin had mistreated Joan (Jiayin): “If Jiayin could speak out”, he added, “she would not appreciate such a biographer”. Quoted in Hu Ying, Tales of Translation: Composing the New Woman in China, 1899–1918 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), p. 87. See also Eva Hung, “Sherlock Holmes in Early Twentieth Century China (1896–1916): Popular Fiction as an Educational Tool”, in Ann Beylard-Ozeroff et al., eds., Translators’ Strategies and Creativity (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998), pp. 73–4. 15. The principal text is Liang Qichao, “On the Relationship between Fiction and the Government of the People” (1902), in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, pp. 74–81. “It was more than obvious that those Reformists saw in the novel, which had more popular appeal than historiography, a new weapon most suitable for their political agenda . . .”: Henry Y. H. Zhao, “Historiography and Fiction in Chinese Culture”, in Moretti, ed., The Novel, vol. 1, p. 82. Cf. Pollard, Translation and Creation, pp. 106, 118. 16. E. Perry Link, Jr., Mandarin Ducks and Butterflies: Popular Fiction in Early Twentieth-Century Chinese Cities (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 13, 31–2, 37; on “the pretense of truth”, see esp. ibid., p. 186, and on the persistence of similar expectations among audiences in Communist China, idem, The Uses of Literature, pp. 212, 225–26. Timothy C. Wong, Stories for Saturday: Twentieth-Century Chinese Popular Fiction (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003), pp. 238–40, also shows the insistence of entertainment fiction on factuality: the successful popular writer was as a rule also a journalist, who would not give up his claim of telling “a true story” even when “reporting” on events in the realm of the supernatural. Wong is in obvious disagreement with Denise Gimpel, Lost Voices of Modernity: A Chinese Popular Fiction Magazine in Context (Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 2001), pp. 166–75, where a discussion of the “desire for authentication” starts out from a refusal to regard writers’ “preoccupation with history and verifiable fact” as “a sign of backwardness . . . or as an adherence to traditional forms” (p. 169). Gimpel’s suggestion that writers of the 1910s emphasized verisimilitude so as to distance themselves from the heritage of “preposterous 184 NOTES

plots [of] fairies and demons, gods and spirits” (p. 172) and the comparison she draws with the attempts of some writers of popular fiction in early twentieth-century Britain to convince readers of the “authenticity” of their stories, ignore—while seeking to defend Chinese writers presented as “voices of modernity”—their distinctive penchant for the fantastic, which linked them with native tradition. 17. Adzhimamudova, Iui Da-fu i literaturnoe obshchestvo “Tvorchestvo”, p. 128. On Yu’s deliberate blurring of “the distinction between life and fiction”, e.g., by publishing to rich commercial and practical rewards the diaries docu- menting his (until then, unsuccessful) courtship of the beauty Wang Yingxia in 1927, see Yunzhong Shu, “The Cost of Living Up to the Demand of Autobiographical Fiction: An Analysis of the Interaction between Yu Dafu’s Fiction and His Life”, Tamkang Review, vol. 33, no. 1 (autumn 2002), here pp. 67–9. 18. Consider the strategy of Ye Lingfeng, as described in Lee, Shanghai Modern, pp. 263–64. 19. “Zenma xie” (How to Write, 1927), collected in Sanxian ji; LXQJ, vol. 4, pp. 18–28, at p. 23. On Lu Xun’s role in relieving Chinese fiction from “the unbearable pressure of historiography”, see Zhao, “Historiography and Fiction in Chinese Culture”, pp. 91–3. 20. On these matters, cf. an acclaimed study of demarcation lines between levels of “truth” in ancient Greece: Paul Veyne, Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes? Essay sur l’imagination constituante (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1983). 21. See Renditions, special issue 53 & 54, Chinese Impressions of the West, pp. 134 (Ambassador Xue Fucheng in the early 1890s), 142, 144 (Ambassador Wang Zhichun in 1894). Expressing the disdain for traditional fiction that was common among the literati, both diplomats judged the Christian canon ridicu- lous enough to be compared with The Enfeoffment of the Gods—a novel of the late Ming, set in the remote antiquity of the rising Zhou dynasty and rich in its display of magical military tactics. 22. Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 62–5, 294. The Taiping rebels, between 1851 and 1864, had also “borrowed military stratagems from [popular novels]”: see ibid., pp. 218–19, and Colin P. Mackerras, “Theatre and the Taipings”, Modern China, vol. 2, no. 4 (October 1976), pp. 473–501, at p. 476. 23. Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising, pp. 329–30. 24. A partisan overview, to be treated with some caution, is Jean Chesneaux, “The Modern Relevance of Shui-hu chuan: Its Influence on Rebel Movements in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century China”, Papers on Far Eastern History, no. 3 (March 1971), pp. 1–25. 25. As cited in Sun Naixiu, Tugeniefu yu Zhongguo, p. 105. While his admiration for Turgenev could get out of hand, here as well as in his essay on Hunter’s Notes in Xiaoshuo yuebao in 1922 (partly quoted ibid., pp. 106–7) Geng stressed that Turgenev had always used “purely artistic” means to convey his “message”. He NOTES 185

thereby expressed his own resistance to the subjugation of Chinese literature to political ends. 26. Zi Yi, “Wenxue he rensheng” (Literature and Life), Wenxue xunkan, no. 75 (2 June 1923), p. 1. 27. Mao Zedong, “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship” (30 June 1949), available in Pei-kai Cheng and Michael Lestz, eds., The Search for Modern China: A Documentary Collection (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1999), here p. 355. The same novel would be withdrawn from bookstores with the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution and become the target of an ideological campaign as late as 1975. 28. See, e.g., Harrison E. Salisbury, The Long March: The Untold Story (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), pp. 73, 220. 29. C. T. Hsia, “Yen Fu and Liang Ch’i-ch’ao as Advocates of New Fiction”, in C. T. Hsia on Chinese Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), p. 226. Cf. ibid., p. 237, on the two subjects of his article: “They both exaggerate the power of fiction and presuppose a naïve reader utterly docile to persuasion”. See also remarks on Liang Qichao in Link, Mandarin Ducks and Butterflies, pp. 131–32. 30. Adzhimamudova, Iui Da-fu i literaturnoe obshchestvo “Tvorchestvo”, pp. 168–69. 31. The “educative” prestige of history in Chinese civilization is compared to the function of religion in Western cultures in Yu, “History, Fiction and the Reading of Chinese Narrative”, p. 13. 32. The phrase was probably first used by writer Iurii Olesha, rather than by Stalin or Gorky, as has often been claimed. See Valentina Antipina, Povsednevnaia zhizn’ sovetskikh pisatelei. 1930–1950-e gody (Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 2005), pp. 46–7. Gutkin, The Cultural Origins of the Socialist Realist Aesthetic, pp. 51–6, emphasizes (in line with the central thesis of her study) the close connection between this slogan of socialist realism and the earlier aspira- tions of Russian futurists, notably Mayakovsky and Tret’iakov. The émigré Czech writer Joseph Škvorecky satirized the slogan in his novel The Engineer of Human Souls (1977). 33. Link, The Uses of Literature, p. 286. 34. The four Chinese authors rewarded in 1951 included the poet He Jingzhi (b. 1924) and his collaborator in creating the propagandistic opera The White- Haired Girl, Ding Yi (b. 1920). See V. F. Svin’in and K. A. Oseev, Stalinskie premii: dve storony odnoi medali (Novosibirsk: Svin’in i synov’ia, 2007), pp. 426–28; Yang Lan, “ ‘Socialist Realism’ versus ‘Revolutionary Realism plus Revolutionary Romanticism’ ”, in Hilary Chung, ed., In the Party Spirit: Socialist Realism and Literary Practice in the Soviet Union, East Germany and China (Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 1996), p. 99. A survey of the prizes, awarded from 1941 to 1952, Alla Latynina, “The Stalin Prizes for Literature as the Quintessence of Socialist Realism”, ibid., notes that the winning novels were meant to be emulated. Thus every national minority in the Soviet Union 186 NOTES

“had its own Virgin Soil Upturned describing collectivization in terms appro- priate to local conditions, as well as its own Quiet Flows the Don” (p. 120). 35. Lorenz Bichler, “Coming to Terms with a Term: Notes on the History of the Use of Socialist Realism in China”, ibid., pp. 30–43. The following discussion also draws on Nicholas Luker’s introduction to his (trans. and ed.) From Furmanov to Sholokhov: An Anthology of the Classics of Socialist Realism (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1988). This anthology, gathering translations of The Iron Flood, Cement, The Rout and How the Steel Was Tempered, may be recommended for closer acquaintance with these works. 36. Yang Lan, “ ‘Socialist Realism’ versus ‘Revolutionary Realism plus Revolutionary Romanticism’ ”, in Chung, In the Party Spirit, pp. 88–105. The second slogan had replaced the first by 1960. It was glorifed in the Cultural Revolution, but allowed to peter out in the early 1980s. 37. Cyril Birch, “The Institution of a Socialist Literature, 1949–1956”, in Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank, eds., The Cambridge History of China, vol. 15 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 744. 38. See T. A. Hsia, Metaphor, Myth, Ritual and the People’s Commune. Studies of Chinese Communist Terminology, No. 7 (Berkeley: Center for Chinese Studies, 1961), chap. 1, and quotation from p. 40. 39. Ibid., pp. 43–4. 40. See, e.g., Mark T. Hooker, The Military Uses of Literature: Fiction and the Armed Forces in the Soviet Union (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996), pp. 1–6. It was Lenin who called the press “one of the most powerful weapons, which in a critical moment in the battle, can be more mighty and dangerous than bombs or machine guns”. In the 1930s “the sharp pens of Soviet writers” were likened to “bayonets” in their indispensability to the Red Army (ibid., pp. 2–3). 41. The second United Front was enabled after the kidnapping of Chiang Kai- shek by Northeastern warlord Zhang Xueliang in the “Xi’an incident” of December 1936, and was followed by massive Soviet assistance to the KMT in its war effort against Japan. Such assistance stemmed from the Soviet fear of Japan, who did attack the USSR in July 1938 and August 1939; the signing of a Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact in April 1941 brought it to an end. 42. Kuznetsova, Russkaia kniga v Kitae, pp. 165–66. 43. Ibid., pp. 167–69. 44. “Eluosi he Sulian wenxue zai Zhongguo” (Russian and Soviet Literature in China), in Ah Ying quanji, vol. 2, pp. 823–29, at pp. 827–28. Comments in square brackets are mine, M. G. 45. The play, serialized in Pravda in summer 1942 and awarded the Stalin prize for drama in 1943, blamed initial Soviet defeats in the war on the smugness of backward generals of the older generation. See Evgenii Dobrenko, Metafora vlasti. Literatura stalinskoi epokhi v istoricheskom osveshchenii (Munich: Otto Sagner, 1993), p. 234, and excerpts translated in James von Geldern and Richard Stites, eds., Mass Culture in Soviet Russia: Tales, Poems, Songs, Movies, Plays, and Folklore, 1917–1953 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana NOTES 187

University Press, 1995), pp. 345–71. The only work on Ah Ying’s list not to have won the Stalin prize was Sholokhov’s They Fought for the Motherland (mistakenly attributed by Ah Ying to Aleksei Tolstoy); the author had already obtained it for his Quiet Flows the Don in 1941. 46. The translator and poet Xiao San attended in 1922–24 the Communist University of the Toilers of the East in Moscow. Like Cao Jinghua, he returned to the USSR after the break-up of the United Front in 1927, remaining there until as late as 1939. Meng Zhaoyi and Li Zaidao, Zhongguo fanyi wenxue shi, p. 253. 47. Information drawn from Su Zhenlan and Wu Xiaoyan, “Sulian zhanshi wenxue dui Zhongguo geming de junshi yingxiang”, Dangshi zongheng, no. 11 (2008) and Li Sui’an, Zhong-Su wenhua jiaoliu shi, pp. 85–8. 48. Belousov, V tysiachakh ieroglifov (numbers in brackets in this paragraph refer to page numbers in the book). Born in 1927 and recently deceased, R. S. Belousov did not write on China after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. A productive author, since the 1970s, of popular books about writers and protagonists of Russian and world literature, from the 1990s he published also in the domains of fantasy and the occult. 49. Simonov’s novel (awarded the Stalin prize for literature in 1946), and the first two parts of Bek’s, first appeared serially in Russian in 1943–44. Volokolamsk Highway was renamed Fear and Fearlessness (Kongju yu wuwei) in the Chinese translation, first published in June 1945. 50. Mao Dun, “S pozhelaniem uspekhov” (With Wishes of Success), Pravda, no. 331 (27 November 1954), p. 2; cited also in Rakhmanin, Iz kitaiskikh bloknotov, p. 20. I found no corresponding Chinese version in Mao Dun’s Complete Works, which do gather his greetings to and speech at the Third Congress of Soviet Writers in 1959. Notable for the condemnation of Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago (p. 679), these texts, in Mao Dun quanji, vol. 33, pp. 678–85, no longer referred to the practical effects of Soviet literature in China. 51. Cao Jinghua, “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae” (Soviet Literature in China), Pravda, no. 326 (22 November 1951). There are differences between this text and the revised Chinese version, “Sulian wenxue zai Zhongguo”, published in Renmin ribao of 14 February 1952 (now collected in Cao Jinghua yizhu wenji, vol. 10, pp. 379–84). Miin-ling Yu, “A Soviet Hero, Pavel Korchagin, Comes to China”, Russian History / Histoire Russe, vol. 29, nos. 2–4 (2002), p. 335, cites the Renmin ribao text in an article overloaded with detail and conceptu- ally confused; here she misses the point by merely dismissing Cao’s claims as “somewhat exaggerated” (cf. ibid., p. 330). 52. Cao Jinghua, “Sovetskaia literatura vospityvaet nashu molodezh’ ” (Soviet Literature Educates our Youth), Narodnyi Kitai, no. 21 (1952), pp. 30–32. 53. For the general problem raised here, cf. the discussion of “actual” and “prescribed” reader preferences in Link, The Uses of Literature, pp. 66–7: “In the Communist base areas of the 1940s there was great convergence of actual and 188 NOTES

prescribed preferences for resist-Japan stories, especially when the anti-Japan message was delivered through oral or performing arts that circumvented the problem of illiteracy. [. . .] On the other hand, during the same war years in China, Mao Zedong’s pronouncements that the proletarian masses love the difficult language and subtle art of Lu Xun is a good example of wide diver- gence between actual and prescribed preferences”. 54. On the appeal of Russian poetry and literature to audiences at wartime, see Richard Stites, “Frontline Entertainment”, in idem, ed., Culture and Entertainment in Wartime Russia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), pp. 129–30, 135 (translated poetry by Heinrich Heine was used too, with the express aim of contrasting it with the present degradation of German culture). 55. Mao Tun, trans. Hsu Meng-hsiung and A. C. Barnes, Midnight (repr. Amsterdam: Fredonia Books, 2001), p. 79. 56. “(T)he PLA was an army of peasants with low educational levels even at the time of the Korean War, let alone before. This meant that a command system based on the written word or class-room instruction with written materials were not possible”. Hans Van de Ven, “The Military in the Republic”, in Frederic Wakeman Jr. and Richard L. Edmonds, eds., Reappraising Republican China (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 120. The level of literacy in the first country to spread the image of the book-inspired Communist fighter was, while generally better, far from satisfying: according to a survey published in Pravda in January 1923, and cited by Pantsov, The Bolsheviks and the Chinese Revolution 1919–1927, p. 75, over 92 per cent of the members of the Russian Communist Party at that time were “only semiliterate”. 57. See Salisbury, The Long March, p. 153. 58. This comes across in the chapter on Sassoon in Jon Stallworthy, Anthem for Doomed Youth: Twelve Soldier Poets of the First World War (London: Constable, 2002), here pp. 63–7. 59. Birch, “The Institution of a Socialist Literature, 1949–1956”, p. 754. 60. Dobrenko, Metafora vlasti, pp. 186–89, 198. 61. “Say we have never been to a battlefield, but reading the novels of Tolstoy and others enables us to experience the misery of war and provokes in us antiwar thoughts”. Zhou Zuoren, “Women and Literature”, as translated in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, here p. 231. Cf. remark in Zhou Zuoren, “Wenxue shang de Eguo yu Zhongguo”, in Eguo wenxue yanjiu, p. 5. 62. Xie Tianzhen and Zha Mingjian, Zhongguo xiandai fanyi wenxue shi (1898– 1949), pp. 467, 507–9. 63. Stites, “Frontline Entertainment”, pp. 132–33, 138, notes that troops did not want to hear military songs, asking for love songs instead; they preferred comical performances to enacted battle scenes (ibid., p. 137, does mention “spontaneous readings out loud” from what must have been anti-fascist poetry by Soviet authors). The distribution of paperback books (the “Armed Service Editions”) to U.S. troops in the same years presents a contrast in NOTES 189

its concern to provide “relief from the constant sense of subjection to arbitrary authority and from the bewildering lack of privacy”, a “release of tension” for “the boys overseas”: see Trysh Travis, “Books as Weapons and ‘The Smart Man’s Peace’: The Work of the Council on Books in Wartime”, Princeton University Library Chronicle, vol. 60, no. 3 (spring 1999), quoting pp. 386–87. Encouraging reading as a pastime, rather than fostering it to promote an ideology, represented a compromise with another image the Council on Books in Wartime wished to spread: that of books functioning as Thomas Paine’s unsigned pamphlet of January 1776 supposedly did, in contributing to the American Revolution. A play by the Writers’ War Board, A Book That Fought a War, closed with “a dog-eared, dirty copy of [Paine’s] Common Sense in every haversack, good to wipe a razor on, good to start fires with, good for a man’s soul and his body, good to copy into apologetic letters sent home” (quoted ibid., p. 384). 64. The responsibility for propaganda was shifted from the Workers and Peasants Red Army to the CCP in the Gutian conference of 1929, revert- ing to the army in the early 1960s. Stefan R. Landsberger, “The Deification of Mao: Religious Imagery and Practices during the Cultural Revolution and Beyond”, in Chong, ed., China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, pp. 142, 148. 65. Zou Zhenhuan, 20 shiji Shanghai fanyi chuban yu wenhua bianqian (Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu chubanshe, 2000), p. 172. 66. Yu, “A Soviet Hero, Pavel Korchagin, Comes to China”, p. 341, refers in passing to “various abridged editions” of How the Steel Was Tempered that were published by the CCP during the civil war. Popular adaptations of Volokolamsk Highway are mentioned, parenthetically, in Su Zhenlan and Wu Xiaoyan, “Sulian zhanshi wenxue dui Zhongguo geming de junshi yingxiang”, p. 58. 67. Li Hsiao-t’i, “Making a Name and a Culture for the Masses in Modern China”, Positions, vol. 9, no. 1 (spring 2001), pp. 35, 54. 68. James E. Sheridan, Chinese Warlord: The Career of Feng Yü-hsiang (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966), pp. 87–9. 69. Cf. Li Sui’an, Zhong-Su wenhua jiaoliu shi 1937–1949, p. 170. 70. Cf. Chang-tai Hung, “The Politics of Songs: Myths and Symbols in the Chinese Communist War Music, 1937–1949”, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 30, no. 4 (1996), pp. 916, 929. 71. Wang Meng, “Banished to Xinjiang, or about Bestial Hatred of Literature” (1981), in Helmut Martin and Jeffrey Kinkley, eds., Modern Chinese Writers: Self-portrayals (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992), here pp. 55–6. How the Steel Was Tempered was retranslated from the English by Mei Yi on CCP instruc- tions in 1942, when it replaced a previous translation of 1937. Revised with the help of a translator able to consult the Russian, Mei’s became the standard version of the book in the PRC after 1952; when a translation from the original came out in 1976, Mei Yi countered it (in 1979) with a new retranslation 190 NOTES

from English. See the chapter on How the Steel Was Tempered in Wang Jiezhi and Chen Jianhua, Youyuan de huixiang: Eluosi zuojia yu Zhongguo wenhua (Yinchuan: Ningxia renmin chubanshe, 2002), at pp. 384–85. 72. The chapter on Liu Bocheng in Liu Sui’an, Zhong-Su wenhua jiaoliu shi 1937– 1949, pp. 178–208, mentions his reading of Simonov’s Russian People in the original in 1950 and his use of the sanctioned examples of good and bad characters from Korneichuk’s The Front (see also ibid., p. 87). 73. Aaron William Moore, The Peril of Self-discipline: Chinese Nationalist, Japanese, and American Servicemen Record the Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1937– 1945, PhD thesis at Princeton University (2006). Another necessary qualifi- cation is that these diaries were not spontaneous reflections of their authors’ thoughts: written partly for submission to superiors, they obeyed discursive laws that did not legitimize the expression of personal opinion. Moore points out that the discourse of Nationalist diaries “reveals many influences from Chinese Communist writers such as Mao Dun, but no noticeable influence by Russians” (personal communication, 13 December 2006). 74. Peng Ming, Istoriia kitaisko-sovetskoi druzhby (Moscow: Iz-vo sotsial’no- ekonomicheskoi literatury, 1959; a translation of Zhong-Su youyi shi, 1957), p. 262. 75. Yao Yuanfang, “Suwei’ai zhanshi wenxue chengle women wuxing de junshi liliang”, Wenyi bao, vol. 1, no. 3 (1950), pp. 15–6, is explicitly mentioned also in V. Ovchinnikov, “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae”, Novyi mir, no. 5 (1951), p. 220. As Ovchinnikov stated that Chinese soldiers, forced to abandon all their personal effects (“even clothes . . . and the letters of relatives”), would never part from the books of Soviet writers, which they considered “as essential in battle as their weapons”, he referred to Zhou Libo, but this claim, too, appeared already in Yao Yuanfang (p. 15). Another article by the same title, N. Fedorenko, “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae”, Oktiabr’, no. 5 (May 1953), also cited Yao, on whose report descriptions of the battle use of Volokolamsk Highway in Fedorenko, Kitaiskie zapisi, pp. 251–52, were again based. 76. See Nie Rongzhen, trans. Zhong Renyi, Inside the Red Star: The Memoirs of Marshal Nie Rongzhen (Beijing: New World Press, 1988; Chinese edition first published in 1984), chap. 19. The victorious Taiyuan campaign was led by Xu Xiangqian in March and April 1949. 77. As an anonymous Chinese soldier in the Korean War did with his copy of Volokolamsk Highway, which future lieutenant general Li Jijun, then a young volunteer, respectfully picked up and brought back to China. The book’s cover had been lost and some pages already removed, “probably having been rolled for cigarettes”. Li’s act and subsequent reading impressions are adduced as a case of “the influence of Soviet wartime literature” in Su Zhenlan and Wu Xiaoyan, “Sulian zhanshi wenxue dui Zhongguo geming de junshi yingxiang”, p. 59. 78. Bethea, “Literature”, p. 163, notes the absence of secular writing “until well into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries”, adding that “the category NOTES 191

of ‘fiction’ (i.e. a self-contained world wholly created through words that is understood by its reader to be artificial, hence ‘untrue’) came late to Russian literature”. On the sacralization of the book in Russia, see also Alexandre Stroev, “Lecture en Russie”, in Roger Chartier, ed., Histoires de la lecture: un bilan des recherches (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 1995), p. 189. 79. Alexander Des Forges, “Burning with Reverence: The Economics and Aesthetics of Words in Qing (1644–1911) China”, PMLA, vol. 121, no. 1 (2006), p. 145. As Des Forges puts it, the aspiration of word-cherishing societies was “to establish a universal recognition of the value of the written word as written word, even among those who were illiterate” (ibid.). Cf. the discussion in Joseph P. McDermott, A Social History of the Chinese Book: Books and Literati Culture in Late Imperial China (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2006), pp. 182–85, 189–90. 80. Yan Shoucheng, “Signifying Scriptures in Confucianism”, in Vincent L. Wimbush, ed., Theorizing Scriptures: New Critical Orientations to a Cultural Phenomenon (New Brunswick, NJ, and London: Rutgers University Press, 2008), at p. 78, n. 15. 81. Des Forges, “Burning with Reverence”, pp. 143, 147–49. 82. See E. V. Volchkova, “Amuletnaia magiia v ritual’nykh praktikakh kitaiskikh derevenskikh traditsionalistskikh soiuzov (pervaia polovina XX veka)”, in K. M. Tertitskii, ed., Religioznyi mir Kitaia: al’manakh 2003 (Moscow: Muravei, 2003). This study takes its rich source material mainly from the practices of republican-period popular societies, the Red Spears and Big Swords. 83. David Cressy, “Books as Totems in Seventeenth-Century England and New England”, The Journal of Library History, vol. 21, no. 1 (winter 1986), dis- cusses Bibles being carried on a pole, “like a legionary standard”; “The Bible, held aloft, served as an inspirational emblem and as a weapon, even without the necessity of being opened” (p. 94). 84. See John Keegan, The Face of Battle (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), p. 274, referring to the battle of the Somme in 1916. 85. Cressy, “Books as Totems”, p. 99; cf. the section on “talismanic use of books and texts” in Rowan Watson, “Some Non-textual Uses of Books”, in Simon Eliot and Jonathan Rose, eds., A Companion to the History of the Book (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), at pp. 483–84. 86. Soviet-era claims on Ostrovskii’s novel as the inspiration for soldiers and hero workers are too uncritically treated in Katerina Clark, “The Cult of Literature and Nikolai Ostrovskii’s How the Steel Was Tempered”, in Klaus Heller and Jan Plamper, eds., Personality Cults in Stalinism—Personenkulte im Stalinismus (Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2004), pp. 424–25. The entry on Ostrovskii by I. V. Kondakov in Nikolaev, Russkie pisateli 20 veka, pp. 525–27, attributes the immense popularity of the novel to the unprecedented state campaign that aimed to elevate its author to socialist sainthood. 192 NOTES

87. Elena Tolstaia-Segal, “K literaturnomu fonu knigi Kak zakalialas’ stal’ ”, Cahiers du Monde russe et sovietique, vol. 22, no. 4 (October–December 1981), p. 392. 88. Cf. the section “Za rodinu, za Stalina!” (For the Motherland, for Stalin!), in Benedikt Sarnov, Nash sovetskii Novoiaz: Malen’kaia entsiklopediia real’nogo sotsializma (Moscow: Materik, 2002), pp. 137–53. 89. An example of this perspective can be found in the stories by writer Shen Congwen (1902–88) on the soldiers conscripted into warlord armies in his native Hunan province. 90. Meir Shahar (Xia Weiming), “Jin Yong wuxia xiaoshuo: yi wenhua wei wuqi”, in Wu Xiaodong and Ji Birui, eds., 2000 Beijing Jin Yong xiaoshuo guoji yantaohui lunwen ji (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2002), at p. 65. Jin Yong’s Shujian enchou lu (A Record of Book and Sword, Gratitude and Revenge) was translated as The Book and the Sword for publication by Oxford University Press in 2004. 91. Werner Meissner, trans. Richard Mann, Philosophy and Politics in China: The Controversy over Dialectical Materialism in the 1930s (London: Hurst and Company, 1990), pp. 102, 105. Cf. Meissner’s comments on the mythical qualities thereby attached to the Marxist texts: “they are like foreign gods, in which one has more confidence than in one’s own” (p. 8); on their “supernatural power”, see further ibid., p. 185. 92. Alan Patten, “The Humanist Roots of Linguistic Nationalism”, History of Political Thought, vol. 27, no. 2 (summer 2006), quoting pp. 228, 238. 93. To describe his struggle to reconstruct the purity of Latin grammar, Valla used the terms of battle: “I shall put together, however small my forces will be, an army which I will lead [. . .] I will go before the soldiers, I will go first, so as to encourage you”. Ibid., p. 246. 94. See Lisa Jardine and Anthony Grafton, “ ‘Studied for Action’: How Gabriel Harvey Read his Livy”, Past and Present, vol. 129 (November 1990), pp. 30–78, on a late sixteenth-century reading, by an English admirer of Valla, of the history of Rome as “a treasury of military devices to be imitated and heroic battles to be savoured” (p. 69); the authors conclude by calling Harvey’s reading an example of “an entirely unfamiliar brand of engagement with experience and intellectual history”. Recourse to history as a guide for political action was, however, standard in imperial China, while the tendency to conflate history with fiction facilitated the application of a similar reading mode to Russian literature. For Western military uses of the written word in the twentieth century, cf. Manela, The Wilsonian Moment, p. 51 (George Creel, the American journalist who chaired the Committee on Public Information in 1917–19, assured President Wilson that, due to their unprecedented circula- tion worldwide, his declarations “had the force of armies”); on the adoption of the motto “books are weapons in the war of ideas” in the United States in the Second World War, see Travis, “Books as Weapons and ‘The Smart Man’s Peace’ ”. NOTES 193

95. Cf. cautious remarks in Peter Burke, “Strengths and Weaknesses of the History of Mentalities”, collected in his Varieties of Cultural History (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997), at pp. 179–81. 96. Chen Duxiu, “On Literary Revolution”, in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, pp. 141, 145. 97. Li Chuli, “Zenyangde jianshe geming wenxue” (How to Build a Revolutionary Literature), as quoted in Anderson, The Limits of Realism, p. 48. 98. Yang Sao, “Zuichu he waiguo wenxue jiechu shi zai Riben”, in Zheng Zhenduo and Fu Donghua, eds., Wo yu wenxue (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 1934), pp. 142–43. 99. Random examples from Qu Qiubai are in his letter on translation to Lu Xun (1931), trans. in Chan, Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory, pp. 152 (writers as “revolutionary fighters on the literary front”), 155 (a more extensive metaphor, involving troops and weapons) and his essay “The Question of Popular Literature and Art” (1932), trans. in Denton, Modern Chinese Literary Thought, esp. p. 425. 100. See, e.g., statements by the editor and playwright Ke Ling (1909–2000) on forging literature into a “bayonet”, or the parallel drawn by another essayist (soon to become a collaborator with the Japanese) “between weapon and pen”. Poshek Fu, Passivity, Resistance, and Collaboration: Intellectual Choices in Occupied Shanghai, 1937–1945 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), p. 37. 101. Charles A. Laughlin, “The Battlefield of Cultural Production: Chinese Literary Mobilization during the War Years”, Journal of Modern Literature in Chinese, vol. 2, no. 1 (July 1998), esp. p. 92. On the rejection of jour- nalistic objectivity by correspondents who saw their newspapers as “paper bullets”, cf. Chang-tai Hung, “Paper Bullets: Fan Changjiang and New Journalism in Wartime China”, Modern China, vol. 17, no. 4 (October 1991), pp. 427–68. 102. McDougall, Mao Zedong’s “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art”, pp. 57–86, includes several statements by Mao in this vein. In the struggle for liberation “there is a cultural as well as an armed front”; May Fourth has formed the new “cultural army” in China (p. 57); the aim of the Yan’an Forum was to unite the cultural with the revolutionary armies (pp. 58–9); writers had so far been “heroes without a battlefield” (pp. 60–61). 103. Ibid., p. 75; cf. commentary on this in Wagner, Inside a Service Trade, pp. 12–3. 104. Erlich, The Double Image, p. 56; cf. pp. 70, 77. The Russian parallel to this process may be illustrated with the help of well-known statements by poets Valerii Briusov and Vladimir Mayakovsky. Briusov’s address “To the Poet” (1907) began: “You must be proud as a banner / You must be sharp as a sword” (translated ibid., p. 72). A poem by Mayakovsky (“Home!”, 1925) included the infamous lines: “I want . . . / the Gosplan [State Economic Planning Commission] / to sweat / in debate / assigning me / goals a year 194 NOTES

ahead. / I want the factory committee / to lock / my lips / when the work is done / I want / the pen to be on a par with the bayonet . . .” (ibid., p. 127). 105. “Da Xu Maoyong bing guanyu kang-Ri tongyi zhanxian wenti” (A Reply to Xu Maoyong, With [Statement on] the Problem of a United Front to Resist Japan, August 1936), in LXQJ, vol. 6, at p. 549. An earlier reply by Lu Xun to challenges from the Left in February 1928, his essay “ ‘Zuiyan’ zhong de menglong”, in Sanxian ji, ibid., vol. 4, at pp. 65–6, amounted to an acknowl- edgement of the same vocabulary even though Lu Xun here countered his critics’ slogan of an “art of weapons” with his own “weapons of art”. See “Befuddled Wooliness”, in Lu Xun, Selected Works, vol. 3, at pp. 19–20. 106. See entry on Pisarev by I. V. Kondakov, in Nikolaev, Russkie pisateli 1800– 1917, vol. 4, esp. p. 620. 107. This summarizes the argument in Mogil’ner, Mifologiia “podpol’nogo cheloveka”, pp. 22–3, 31, and passim. 108. “[P]opular life [is] the sole and inexhaustible source of processes forms of literature and art. [. . .] [O]nly this kind of source can exist; no other exists apart from it”. McDougall, Mao Zedong’s “Talks at the Yan’an Conference,” p. 69. While Mao allowed some inspiration to be derived not from popular life but from other literary works, he made clear that these last could only be counted as the writer’s “secondary” sources. 109. “Our literature and art are [. . .] primarily for workers, peasants, and soldiers, and only secondarily for the petty bourgeoisie [later corrected, to read: ‘for the petty bourgeois intelligentsia’]”. Ibid., pp. 65, 72–3. 110. Rubin, “Writers’ Discontent and Party Response in Yan’an before ‘Wild Lily’ ”, pp. 92, 95. 111. See, e.g., Tang, “Echoes of Roar, China!”, p. 475. 112. The wartime service of Ding Ling, a convert to Communism after the arrest and execution by the KMT of her common-law husband, at the head of “a brigade of writers and composers” (the Northwestern Front Service Corps), is described in terms of “trading the pen for the gun” in Fedorenko, Kitaiskie zapisi, pp. 447–50; cf. Laughlin, “The Battlefield of Cultural Production”, pp. 96–8. 113. On the “exemplary status” of The Rhymes of Li Yucai, see Hilary Chung and Tommy McClellan, “The ‘Command Enjoyment’ of Literature in China: Conferences, Controls and Excesses”, in Chung, In the Party Spirit, here pp. 8–9. 114. Claims on literary influence should be mistrusted where they imply the exclusion of other sources of inspiration, though Wagner, “Life as a Quote from a Foreign Book”, p. 468, believes that the later 1950s represented a still more extreme case: “a cultural scene where practically all the core texts are either translations or domestic imitations of a set of foreign texts”. Xiao Jun’s novel Village in August (1934) was not the only book of the decade to carry a heavy debt to Fadeev’s The Rout, read in Lu Xun’s translation; in addition to titles already mentioned, Wang Angang, “Sulian junshi wenxue dui woguo NOTES 195

junshi wenxue de yingxiang” (The Influence of Soviet Military Literature on Chinese Military Literature), summarized in Zhi Liang, Bijiao wenxue sanbai pian, pp. 118–20, surveys connections and differences up to the 1980s. 115. A recent treatment is Nicolai Volland, “Translating the Socialist State: Cultural Exchange, Natural Identity, and the Socialist World in the Early PRC”, Twentieth-Century China, vol. 33, no. 2 (April 2008). 116. Statements approvingly collected on the Soviet side, as evidence of “the moral impact of Soviet literature on the young generation of China”, are presented in E. A. Serebriakov, “Nravstvennoe vozdeistvie sovetskoi literatury na molodoe pokolenie Kitaia (1949–1957 gg.)”, in Borshchukov et al., Literatura stran zarubezhnogo Vostoka i sovetskaia literatura. On the appropriation of Nikolaeva’s book by the reform-minded Youth League, and the “learn-from Nastia” campaign, see chaps. 6–7 in Wagner, Inside a Service Trade. 117. See Wagner, “Life as a Quote from a Foreign Book”, esp. pp. 468, 474; idem, Inside a Service Trade, pp. 48–50. 118. Yu, “A Soviet Hero, Pavel Korchagin, Comes to China”, pp. 337, 341–42. 119. “The Chinese Pavel”, devout Communist writer Wu Yunduo (1917–91), was repeatedly wounded in battles against the Nationalists and the Japanese; his book Give Everything to the Party (Ba yiqie xiangei dang) was published to high official acclaim in 1953. More “Chinese Pavels” returned from the Korean front. Cf. ibid. p. 342; Peng Ming, Istoriia kitaisko-sovetskoi druzhby, p. 263. 120. Tina Mai Chen, “Internationalism and Cultural Experience: Soviet Films and Popular Chinese Understandings of the Future in the 1950s”, Cultural Critique, vol. 58 (fall 2004), pp. 90, 93–4. Ibid., p. 105, notes that Chinese film viewers were again required to learn from Matrosov after the Sino-Soviet rift, although by this time he was construed as an example of the upright socialist spirit that Soviet Russia had lost. The reasons for my reservations about Chen’s conviction that the propaganda worked (“Seeing, in this case, was believing”, p. 101), should become even clearer below. 121. The writer Wang Ruowang published Xiang Nasijia xuexi (Learn from Nastia) in February 1956; 400,000 copies of it were issued. In 1957, however, Wang was expelled from the Party as a “Rightist”; rehabilitated by Deng Xiaoping, he was expelled again in 1987, and jailed after Tiananmen. Allowed to emigrate in 1992, he died in 2001 as a political dissident in New York, where he was lamented by Liu Binyan. Jonathan Mirsky, “The Life and Death of Wang Ruowang”, China Brief, vol. 2, no. 2 (January 2002). 122. On Liu Binyan’s first contact with Ovechkin in 1954, see Wagner, Inside a Service Trade, pp. 82–4. During the anti-rightist movement in 1957, the idea of “intervening in life” was denounced, and Liu revived it in 1979: see Nieh, Literature of the Hundred Flowers, vol. 1, pp. 258, xli–xlii. In 1987 196 NOTES

Liu too was expelled from the CCP for his persistent criticism of cadre cor- ruption and other ills of the Communist system (in which he remained a believer). He left China for the United States in the following year. Valentin Ovechkin attempted suicide, and stopped writing his ocherki, after being confronted with the reality of “virgin soil” management in the Omsk region in 1961. See entry by V. A. Bogdanov in Nikolaev, Russkie pisateli 20 veka, pp. 508–10. 123. Landsberger, “The Deification of Mao”, p. 143. 124. Cf., for two very different perspectives on this connection between language and political terror, Cheng-chih Wang, Words Kill: Calling for the Destruction of “Class Enemies” in China, 1949–1953 (New York and London: Routledge, 2002) and Igal Halfin, Intimate Enemies: Demonizing the Bolshevik Opposition, 1918–1928 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007), esp. Halfin’s chap. 2, “Killing with Words”. 125. W. J. F. Jenner, The Tyranny of History: The Roots of China’s Crisis, 2nd ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1994), pp. 216–17. 126. See Ji Fengyuan, Linguistic Engineering: Language and Politics in Mao’s China (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004); a version of chap. 5 is also available as Ji, “Language and Violence during the Chinese Cultural Revolution”, American Journal of Chinese Studies, vol. 11, no. 2 (October 2004), pp. 93–117. The weakness of Ji’s argument lies in her insistence that the violent rhetoric of Maoism was imposed on the Chinese people by the regime, and more concretely by some villains at its top echelons; e.g., analyz- ing the dehumanizing use of “dogs” by the Red Guards, she does not mention how often this tag was attached to ideological opponents in polemics between well-educated persons already in the China of Lu Xun’s time, and indeed by Lu Xun himself. 127. See the chapter on the iconic function of the leader’s portrait (both visual and literary), in Dobrenko, Metafora vlasti, pp. 74–137. See, too, Jan Plamper, “Abolishing Ambiguity: Soviet Censorship Practices in the 1930s”, The Russian Review, vol. 60, no. 4 (October 2001), pp. 526–44. 128. This form of humiliating the accused was not invented in the Cultural Revolution, but it did become most closely associated with this period. 129. Li Zhensheng, Red-color News Soldier (London: Phaidon Press, 2003), p. 179, referring to the Cultural Revolution in Harbin. 130. Landsberger, “The Deification of Mao” (quotation on p. 140); cf. Link, The Uses of Literature, pp. 149, 274, and Ji Fengyuan, Linguistic Engineering, pp. 180–81. On the use of the Quotations from Chairman Mao in the “Campaign to Study and Apply Chairman Mao’s Thought”, begun in 1964, see Ji, ibid., pp. 96–101. The Little Red Book protected its bearers only in so far as such persons were less likely to be tortured by Red Guards when apprehended by them; however, there were also earnest believers in the Book’s potency. See Jiping Zuo, “Political Religion: The Case of the NOTES 197

Cultural Revolution in China”, Sociological Analysis, vol. 51, no. 1 (1991), pp. 99–110, at pp. 103–4. 131. Joseph Brodsky, “Uncommon Visage. The Nobel Lecture” (trans. Barry Rubin), in idem, On Grief and Reason: Essays (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1997), pp. 46–7. 132. Ibid., p. 51. 133. Ibid., pp. 52–4. 134. “Acceptance Speech”, ibid., pp. 60–61. 135. Gao Xingjian, “The Case for Literature”, Nobel Lecture, now in idem, trans. Mabel Lee, The Case for Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 32–48. 136. Neither “mere” metaphor nor fully explained by the demands of political discourse in the PRC, the tension this statement reveals between the realms of literature and action is the concern of Wei-ming Chen, Pen or Sword: The Wen-Wu Conflict in the Short Stories of Lao She (1899–1966), PhD thesis at Stanford University, 1985. 137. See chap. 13, “The Strange Death of Lao She”, in Jasper Becker, City of Heavenly Tranquillity: Beijing in the History of China (London: Allen Lane, 2008), here pp. 197–98. 138. “Yao Wenyuan, Last Survivor of China’s Gang of Four, Dies at 74”, New York Times (6 January 2006). 139. Gamsa, The Chinese Translation of Russian Literature, p. 329.

Afterword

1. The theatre director Sun Weishi, who had studied in Moscow, translated in the 1950s a Soviet work entitled The Directing Lessons of K. S. Stanislavskii. In the Cultural Revolution, she and her co-translator Zhang Shoushen were persecuted to their death. Li Sui’an, Zhong-Su wenhua jiaoliu shi 1937–1949, p. 89. 2. See Andrew G. Walder, “Cultural Revolution Radicalism: Variations on a Stalinist Theme”, in William A. Joseph et al., eds., New Perspectives on the Cultural Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), esp. p. 61. 3. See Liu Xinwu, “Class Counsellor” (Ban zhuren, 1977), in Lu Xinhua et al., trans. Geremie Barmé and Bennett Lee, The Wounded: New Stories of the Cultural Revolution 77–78 (Hong Kong: Joint Publishing, and London: Guanghwa, 1979), pp. 147–78, here pp. 172–73. “Class Counsellor” was indebted to “The Watch” (“Chasy”, 1928) by L. Panteleev (Aleksei I. Eremeev, 1908–89): a book its young heroes read in Lu Xun’s popular translation of 1935. The freshly rehabilitated trio of “Mao Dun, Balzac and 198 NOTES

Tang poetry” (but still not the more politically sensitive Russians) appeared also at the outset of another story of “scar literature”, which then went on to eulogize Hugo’s Les Misérables: see Yang Wenzhi, “Ah, Books!”, ibid., pp. 55–71. 4. See his speeches “The Call of the Times” and “Man Is the Aim, Man Is the Center”, translated in Howard Goldblatt, ed., Chinese Literature for the 1980s: The Fourth Congress of Writers & Artists (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1982), pp. 103–31. 5. Dai Houying’s best-known novel Ren, ah ren! (Man, Oh Man!, also translated as People, Oh People!; 1980) is the subject of Carolyn S. Pruyn, Humanism in Modern Chinese Literature: The Case of Dai Houying (Bochum: Studienverlag Brockmeyer, 1988). 6. Ba Jin, “ ‘Zai renshi Tuo’ersitai’?” (“Getting Once More to Know Tolstoy?”, 1985), in idem, Suixiang lu, pp. 717–23. As he defended Tolstoy from a recent rearguard attack, Ba Jin put the emphasis on the Russian writer’s commit- ment to the ideal of “matching word with deed”. Six decades earlier, Ba Jin had responded in a similar way to an article by Ah Ying; cf. Ah Ying quanji, vol. 1, pp. 44–5. 7. Barmé, In the Red, pp. 284–85, 299. Cf. Chen Jianhua and Robin Visser, “Humanistic Spirit, ‘Spirit of the Humanities’ ”, in Edward L. Davis, ed., Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 273–74. 8. The most recent Luolita by Zhu Wan (a posthumous publication, completed by the translator’s son for the Shanghai Yiwen chubanshe) can justly claim to be the first annotated translation of the novel. It was in its fifth impression by May 2006. Lolita (1955) was translated on Taiwan already in 1964; the first PRC translation in January 1989 was followed by four competing versions in that year alone. See the survey by Zhang Ying, Shi Xisheng and Huang Mei, “50 sui Luolita, 11 zhang Zhongguo lian” (Lolita’s Fifty Years: Eleven Chinese Faces), Nanfang zhoumo (Guangzhou), 16 March 2006. 9. Elena Ivanitskaia, “ ‘Desantnyi nozh v serdtse blizhnemu’: Masslit kak shkola zhizni”, Druzhba narodov, no. 9 (2005), available in an English translation, by Liv Bliss, as “ ‘At Close Quarters, An Assault Knife into the Heart’: Mainstream Literature as a School of Life”, Russian Studies in Literature, vol. 43, no. 2 (spring 2007), pp. 27–55. The most famous of tortured heroes was the wartime partisan Zoia Kosmodem’ianskaia, whose story reached China in both print and film; on her, see Rosalinde Sartorti, “On the Making of Heroes, Heroines, and Saints”, in Stites, ed., Culture and Entertainment in Wartime Russia. 10. This is the thrust of Barmé, In the Red. Cf. Yue Tao, “The New Chineseness: Great Leap Forward or Backward?”, IIAS Newsletter, no. 37 (June 2005). 11. I. V. Kondakov, in Nikolaev, Russkie pisateli 20 veka, p. 527. 12. T. I. Andronova, “Kak zakalialas’ stal’ na frontakh Velikoi Otechestvennoi voiny” (How the Steel Was Tempered on the Fronts of the Great Patriotic War) NOTES 199

(Moscow: Gosudarstvennyi muzei–gumanitarnyi tsentr “Preodolenie” imeni N. A. Ostrovskogo, 2001), p. 8. 13. Wang Jiezhi and Chen Jianhua, Youyuan de huixiang, p. 386. The authors go on to describe the revaluation of Ostrovskii’s novel by the PRC literary scene, offering a nuanced analysis of the views expressed by representatives of different generations. The polemic took off in 1998, as the critic Yu Yizhong responded to the argument that the novel possessed a timeless “charm” by saying that it rather demonstrated how “an average person could be turned into a supporter and ‘material’ for the Stalin line” (ibid., p. 390). How the Steel Was Tempered was then excluded from projected entry into a textbook for students of Russian literature, but controversy over the book was resumed (with the opposition still headed by Yu Yizhong) parallel to the screening of the TV series. The series, finally, has attracted some attention abroad: conference papers on it have been presented by U.S. academics He Donghui and Mingwei Song. 14. Cf. Aleksandr S. Martynov, “Rossiia i Kitai: skhodstvo naslediia—obshch- nost’ sud’by” (Russia and China: Similarity in Heritage, Commonality in Fate), Zvezda, no. 10 (1995), pp. 167–75, at p. 171. Referring to China as Russia’s “great neighbour”, this author wondered whether post-Soviet Russia was still entitled to call itself “a great nation and a great people”. Martynov was one of the several sinologist advocates of “learning from China”: cf. Christopher Marsh, Unparalleled Reforms: China’s Rise, Russia’s Fall, and the Interdependence of Transition (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), pp. 144–52. 15. In anticipation of these large-scale cultural undertakings, some conflicting statements on the time spans of “the year of Russia in China” and “the year of China in Russia” were issued. I take this opportunity to correct wrong information on the latter, given in the end of my “Traces of Russian Libraries in China”, Library History, vol. 22, no. 3 (November 2006), pp. 201–12. Concurrently, 2006 was also declared “the year of Italy in China”. The first initiative of this kind, “the year of France in China”, was celebrated from October 2004 to September 2005. In March 2009 “the year of the Russian language in China” was launched, to be followed by “the year of the Chinese language in Russia” in 2010. 16. Chi Li, “Tuo’ersitai weijin”, revised version now in her Kanmainiang (Nanjing: Jiangsu wenyi chubanshe, 2006). The scarf is first mentioned only on p. 208, and its connection to Tolstoy is not revealed until the last five pages of the novella. For the meaning of Kanmainiang, the unusual title of the collection, see the title story, ibid., pp. 13–4. 17. This detail must be the author’s invention. Two major biographies that describe Tolstoy’s clothing on the voyage that ended at Astapovo station (Lev Tolstoi by Viktor Shklovskii and Tolstoy by Henri Troyat), say nothing of a scarf. The writer’s daughter Tat’iana, however, knitted “shawls and scarves”, and then sold them herself on the marketplace to make ends meet in 1919: see Shentalinskii, Donos na Sokrata, p. 33. 200 NOTES

18. Professor He Shaojun of Shenyang Normal University, quoted in Louisa Winkler, “Writers Bring Plight of the Marginalised and Spirituality to Society”, China Daily, 7 July 2005. 19. Howe, “The Authority of Presence”, p. 474. 20. Cf. Des Forges, “Burning with Reverence”; and see Peter Stallybrass, “Marx’s Coat” in Patricia Spyer, ed., Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Spaces (New York and London: Routledge, 1998). Select Bibliography

Adzhimamudova, Viola S., Iui Da-fu i literaturnoe obshchestvo “Tvorchestvo” (Yu Dafu and the “Creation” Literary Society). Moscow: Nauka, 1971. Ah Ying (Qian Xingcun), Ah Ying quanji (The Complete Works of Ah Ying), in 12 vols. Hefei: Anhui jiaoyu chubanshe, 2003. Anderson, Marston, The Limits of Realism: Chinese Fiction in the Revolutionary Period. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Antipina, Valentina A., Povsednevnaia zhizn’ sovetskikh pisatelei. 1930–1950-e gody (The Daily Life of Soviet Writers, 1930s–1950s). Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 2005. Apter, David E., “Bearing Witness: Maoism as Religion”, Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 22 (2005), pp. 5–37. Auerbach, Erich, trans. Willard R. Trask, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, Fiftieth-Anniversary Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Ba Jin, “The General”, trans. Nathan K. Mao, in Joseph S. M. Lau et al., eds., Modern Chinese Stories and Novellas 1919–1949. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981, pp. 299–304. ———, “Sinking Low”, trans. Perry Link, ibid., pp. 305–12. ———, Random Thoughts, trans. Geremie Barmé. Hong Kong: Joint Publishing, 1984. ———, Suixiang lu (Random Thoughts). Beijing: Sanlian shudian, 1987. ———, Ba Jin xuanji (Selected Works), in 10 vols. Chengdu: Renmin chubanshe, 1996. Bai Liping, “Babbitt’s Impact in China: The Case of Liang Shiqiu”, Humanitas, vol. 17, nos. 1–2 (2004), pp. 46–68. Bakich, Ol’ga M., “Pushkinskie dni v Kharbine—1937 god” (The Pushkin Festivities in Harbin in 1937), Zapiski russkoi akademicheskoi gruppy v SShA, vol. 30 (1999–2000), pp. 243–50. ———, Harbin Russian Imprints: Bibliography as History, 1898–1961. Materials for a Definitive Bibliography. New York: Norman Ross, 2002. Baring, Maurice, Landmarks in Russian Literature (1910). London: Methuen, 1960. 202 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barmé, Geremie R., In the Red: On Contemporary Chinese Culture. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. ———, An Artistic Exile: A Life of Feng Zikai (1898–1975). Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Bauer, Wolfgang, Western Literature and Translation Work in Communist China. Frankfurt am Main and Berlin: Alfred Metzner Verlag, 1964. Bei Wenli, “E-Su yishu zhong de Zhongguo qingdiao” (The Chinese Note in Russian and Soviet Art), Eluosi wenyi, no. 4 (1999), pp. 55–8. Beijing daxue bijiao wenxue yanjiusuo, ed., Zhongguo bijiao wenxue yanjiu ziliao (1919–1949) (Research Materials on Chinese Comparative Literature, 1919–49). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1989. Belousov, Roman S., V tysiachakh ieroglifov: o knigakh i liudiakh (In Thousands of Characters: On Books and People). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostochnoi literatury, 1963. ———, “Za stranitsami dnevnikov Lu Sinia” (Beyond the Pages of Lu Xun’s Diaries), Problemy Dal’nego Vostoka, no. 5 (1987), pp. 114–33. Berninghausen, John, and Ted Huters, eds., Revolutionary Literature in China: An Anthology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1976. Bethea, David M., “Literature”, in Nicholas Rzhevsky, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Modern Russian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 161–204. Bickers, Robert, Britain in China: Community, Culture and Colonialism 1900– 1949. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999. Birch, Cyril, “The Institution of a Socialist Literature, 1949–1956”, in Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank, eds., The Cambridge History of China, vol. 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 743–812. Cao Jinghua, Cao Jinghua sanwen xuan (Selected Essays). Xi’an: Shanxi renmin chubanshe, 1983. ———, Cao Jinghua yizhu wenji (Collected Translations and Writings), in 11 vols. Beijing: Beijing daxue and Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1989. Chan, Leo Tak-hung, ed., Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues, Debates. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. Chartier, Roger, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1991. Ch’en, Jerome, China and the West: Society and Culture 1815–1937. London: Hutchinson, 1979. Chen Jianhua, 20 shiji Zhong-E wenxue guanxi (Chinese-Russian Literary Relations in the Twentieth Century). Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe, 1998. Chen Jiying, Sanshi niandai zuojia ji (Writers of the Thirties: A Memoir). Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1979. Chen, Tina Mai, “Internationalism and Cultural Experience: Soviet Films and Popular Chinese Understandings of the Future in the 1950s”, Cultural Critique, vol. 58 (fall 2004), pp. 82–114. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 203

Chen, Xiaoming, From the May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolution: Guo Moruo and the Chinese Path to Communism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Cheng Fangwu, Cheng Fangwu wenji (Collected Works). Jinan: Shandong daxue chubanshe, 1985. Chernikova, Larisa P., and Bei Wenli, “Istoriia pamiatnika A. S. Pushkinu v Shankhae” (The History of the Pushkin Monument in Shanghai), Problemy Dal’nego Vostoka, no. 5 (2000), pp. 169–75. Chi Li, “Tuo’ersitai weijin” (Tolstoy’s Scarf), in Chi Li, Kanmainiang (Alopecurus). Nanjing: Jiangsu wenyi chubanshe, 2006, pp. 162–246. Chinnery, J. D., “The Influence of Western Literature on Lu Xun’s ‘Diary of a Madman’ ”, Bulletin of SOAS, vol. 23, no. 2 (1960), pp. 309–22. Chung, Hilary, et al., eds., In the Party Spirit: Socialist Realism and Literary Practice in the Soviet Union, East Germany and China. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 1996. Clark, Katerina, “The Cult of Literature and Nikolai Ostrovskii’s How the Steel Was Tempered”, in Klaus Heller and Jan Plamper, eds., Personality Cults in Stalinism—Personenkulte im Stalinismus. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2004, pp. 415–41. Clunas, Craig, Pictures and Visuality in Early Modern China. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Cressy, David, “Books as Totems in Seventeenth-Century England and New England”, The Journal of Library History, vol. 21, no. 1 (winter 1986), pp. 92–106. Daruvala, Susan, Zhou Zuoren and an Alternative Chinese Response to Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Denton, Kirk A., ed., Modern Chinese Literary Thought: Writings on Literature, 1893–1945. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. ———, and Michel Hockx, eds., Literary Societies of Republican China. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008. Des Forges, Alexander, “Burning with Reverence: The Economics and Aesthetics of Words in Qing (1644–1911) China”, PMLA, vol. 121, no. 1 (2006), pp. 139–55. Dikötter, Frank, Things Modern: Material Culture and Everyday Life in China. London: Hurst and Company, 2007. Dobrenko, Evgenii, Metafora vlasti. Literatura stalinskoi epokhi v istoricheskom osveshchenii (A Metaphor of Power: Literature of the Stalin Era in Historical Perspective). Munich: Otto Sagner, 1993. ———, trans. Jesse M. Savage, The Making of the State Reader: Social and Aesthetic Contexts of the Reception of Soviet Literature. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. Eguo wenxue yanjiu (The Study of Russian Literature). Special issue of Xiaoshuo yuebao, vol. 12 (September 1921); separate pagination. Eidlin, Lev Z., et al., eds., Izuchenie kitaiskoi literatury v SSSR. Sbornik statei k shestidesiatiletiiu chlena-korrespondenta AN SSSR N. T. Fedorenko (The Study 204 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

of Chinese Literature in the USSR. Collected Essays on the 60th Birthday of Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, N. T. Fedorenko). Moscow: Nauka, 1973. Erlich, Victor, The Double Image: Concepts of the Poet in Slavic Literatures. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964. Esherick, Joseph W., The Origins of the Boxer Uprising. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Fan Quan, ed., Zhongguo xiandai wenxue shetuan liupai cidian (Dictionary of Societies and Schools in Modern Chinese Literature). Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 1993. Fedorenko, Nikolai T., “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae” (Soviet Literature in China), Oktiabr’, no. 5 (May 1953), pp. 171–79. ———, Kitaiskie zapisi (Chinese Notes). Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1955. Feng Xuefeng, “Huiyi pianduan: guanyu zhishi fenzi de tanhua” (Fragments of Memory: A Conversation on Intellectuals), Wenyi fuxing, vol. 2, no. 3 (May 1946), pp. 266–70. Signed Xuefeng. Finkelstein, David, and Alistair McCleery, eds., The Book History Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Fogel, Joshua A., “Japanese Literary Travelers in Prewar China”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 49, no. 2 (December 1989), pp. 575–602. Fokkema, D. W., “Chinese Criticism of Humanism: Campaigns against the Intellectuals 1964–1965”, The China Quarterly, no. 26 (April–June 1966), pp. 68–79. Fried, Daniel, “Beijing’s Crypto-Victorian: Traditionalist Influences on Hu Shi’s Poetic Practice”, Comparative Critical Studies, vol. 3, no. 3 (2006), pp. 371–89. Fu, Poshek, Passivity, Resistance, and Collaboration: Intellectual Choices in Occupied Shanghai, 1937–1945. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993. Gamsa, Mark, The Chinese Translation of Russian Literature: Three Studies. Sinica Leidensia, vol. 90. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Gimpel, Denise, Lost Voices of Modernity: A Chinese Popular Fiction Magazine in Context. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 2001. Golubev, A. V., “. . . Vzgliad na zemliu obetovannuiu”: Iz istorii sovetskoi kul’turnoi diplomatii 1920–1930-kh godov (“A Glimpse of the Promised Land”: From the History of Soviet Cultural Diplomacy in the 1920s and 1930s). Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2004. Gregor, A. James, Marxism, China, and Development: Reflections on Theory and Reality. New Brunswick, NJ, and London: Transaction Publishers, 1995. Guo Yanli, Zhongguo jindai fanyi wenxue gailun (An Outline of Literary Translation in Early Modern China), 2nd revised ed. Wuhan: Hubei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2005. Gutkin, Irina, The Cultural Origins of the Socialist Realist Aesthetic 1890–1934. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1999. Halfin, Igal, From Darkness to Light: Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 205

Hao Minggong, Rendao zhuyi yu Ershi shiji de Zhongguo wenlun (Humanism and Twentieth-Century Chinese Literary Theory). Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 2005. He Xi (i.e. Cheng Kansheng), ed. Jiang Zhinong, He Xi wenji (Collected Works). Kunming: Yunnan meishu chubanshe, 2003. Howe, Sarah, “The Authority of Presence: The Development of the English Author Portrait, 1500–1640”, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 102, no. 4 (December 2008), pp. 465–99. Howland, Douglas, Personal Liberty and Public Good: The Introduction of John Stuart Mill to Japan and China. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. Hsia, C. T., A History of Modern Chinese Fiction, 3rd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. ———, C. T. Hsia on Chinese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Hsia, T. A., Metaphor, Myth, Ritual and the People’s Commune. Studies of Chinese Communist Terminology, No. 7. Berkeley: Center for Chinese Studies, 1961. ———, “Demons in Paradise: The Chinese Images of Russia”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 349 (September 1963), pp. 27–37. ———, The Gate of Darkness: Studies on the Leftist Literary Movement in China. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1968. Hu Feng, Hu Feng quanji (Complete Works), in 10 vols. Wuhan: Hubei renmin chubanshe, 1999. Hu Shi, “Dong-xi wenhua de jiexian” (The Boundary Line between Eastern and Western Cultures), in idem, Hu Shi wencun (Collected Works). Taipei: Yuandong tushu, 1953, vol. 3, pp. 24–5. Hu Yuzhi, “Bali guoji xiju jie de liang wan: Eguo de xin yanju yishu” (Two Evenings at the Paris International Theatre Festival: New Russian Performing Art), Dongfang zazhi, vol. 25, no. 15 (10 August 1928), pp. 53–63. Signed Yuzhi. ———, Hu Yuzhi wenji (Collected Works), in 6 vols. Beijing: Sanlian shudian, 1996. Huang, Max Ko-wu, The Meaning of Freedom: Yan Fu and the Origins of Chinese Liberalism. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2008. Hung, Chang-tai, Going to the People: Chinese Intellectuals and Folk Literature, 1918–1937. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. ———, “The Politics of Songs: Myths and Symbols in the Chinese Communist War Music, 1937–1949”, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 30, no. 4 (1996), pp. 901–29. Hung, Eva, “Sherlock Holmes in Early Twentieth Century China (1896–1916): Popular Fiction as an Educational Tool”, in Ann Beylard-Ozeroff et al., eds., Translators’ Strategies and Creativity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998, pp. 71–9. 206 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jenner, W. J. F., The Tyranny of History: The Roots of China’s Crisis, 2nd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1994. Ji Fengyuan, Linguistic Engineering: Language and Politics in Mao’s China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004. Jia Zhifang and Chen Sihe, eds., Zhong-wai wenxue guanxi shi ziliao huibian (1898–1937) (Compiled Materials on the History of Sino-Foreign Literary Relations, 1898–1937), in 2 vols. Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2004. Jiang Guangci, Jiang Guangci wenji (Collected Works), in 4 vols. Shanghai: Shanghai wenyi chubanshe, 1982–88. Jones, W. Gareth, “Politics”, in Malcolm V. Jones and Robin Feuer Miller, eds., The Cambridge Companion to the Classic Russian Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 63–85. Keaveney, Christopher T., “Uchiyama Kanzô’s Shanghai Bookstore and Its Impact on May Fourth Writers”, E-ASPAC, 2002. Kelly, Aileen M., Toward Another Shore: Russian Thinkers between Necessity and Chance. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998. Khisamutdinov, Amir A., Rossiiskaia emigratsiia v Kitae: opyt entsiklopedii (A Draft Encyclopaedia of the Russian Emigration in China). Vladivostok: DVGU, 2002. Kniazevskaia, T. B., ed., Russkaia intelligentsiia. Istoriia i sud’ba (The Russian Intelligentsia: History and Fate). Moscow: Nauka, 1999. Kowallis, Jon E. von, The Lyrical Lu Xun: A Study of His Classical-Style Verse. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 1996. Kuznetsova, Tat’iana V., Russkaia kniga v Kitae (1917–1949) (The Russian Book in China, 1917–49). Khabarovsk: DVGNB, 2003. Landsberger, Stefan R., “The Deification of Mao: Religious Imagery and Practices during the Cultural Revolution and Beyond”, in Woei Lien Chong, ed., China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution: Master Narratives and Post-Mao Counternarratives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, pp. 139–84. Laughlin, Charles A., “The Battlefield of Cultural Production: Chinese Literary Mobilization during the War Years”, Journal of Modern Literature in Chinese, vol. 2, no. 1 (July 1998), pp. 83–103. Lee, Leo Ou-fan, “Lin Shu and His Translations: Western Fiction in Chinese Perspective”, Papers on China, vol. 19 (1965), pp. 159–93. ———, The Romantic Generation of Modern Chinese Writers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. ———, “Some Notes on ‘Culture’, ‘Humanism’, and ‘the Humanities’ in Modern Chinese Cultural Discourses”, Surfaces, vol. 5 (1995), pp. 5–29. ———, Shanghai Modern: The Flowering of a New Urban Culture in China, 1930– 1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Levenson, Joseph R., Revolution and Cosmopolitanism: The Western Stage and the Chinese Stages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 207

Li Dazhao, Li Dazhao wenji (Collected Works), in 2 vols. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1984. Li Ding, “Eguo wenxue fanyi zai Zhongguo” (The Translation of Russian Literature in China), in Zhi Liang, ed., Eguo wenxue yu Zhongguo (q.v.), pp. 335–83. Li Hsiao-t’i, “Making a Name and a Culture for the Masses in Modern China”, Positions, vol. 9, no. 1 (spring 2001), pp. 29–68. Li Jin, Sansishi niandai Su-E Hanyi wenxue lun (The Translation of Soviet and Russian Literature into Chinese in the Thirties and Forties). Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 2006. Li Jiye, Li Jiye wenji (Collected Works), in 9 vols. Tianjin: Baihua wenyi chubanshe, 2004. Li Ping, and Hu Ji, eds., Zhao Jingshen yinxiang (Impressions of Zhao Jingshen). Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe, 2002. Li Shixue [Li Sher-shiueh], Zhong-Xi wenxue yinyuan (The Predestined Affinity of Chinese and Western Literature). Taipei: Lianjing, 1991. Li Sui’an, Zhong-Su wenhua jiaoliu shi 1937–1949 (History of Chinese-Soviet Cultural Exchange, 1937–49). Harbin: Haerbin chubanshe, 2003. Li Yu-ning, and Michael Gasster, “Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai’s Journey to Russia, 1920– 1922”, Monumenta Serica, vol. 29 (1970–71), pp. 537–56. Liang Shiqiu, Liang Shiqiu wenji (Collected Works), in 15 vols. Xiamen: Lujiang chubanshe, 2002. Lin Jinghua, Wudu Eluosi: Zhongguo xiandaixing wenti zhong de Eguo yinsu (Misreading Russia: The Russia Factor in the Problem of China’s Modernity). Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2005. Link, E. Perry, Jr., Mandarin Ducks and Butterflies: Popular Fiction in Early Twentieth- Century Chinese Cities. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. ———, The Uses of Literature: Life in the Socialist Chinese Literary System. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Liu, Lydia H., Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity—China, 1900–1937. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. Liu Xuyuan, ed., Kuyuzhai zhu: Mingren bixia de Zhou Zuoren, Zhou Zuoren bixia de mingren (Master of the Bitter Rain Studio: Famous People on Zhou Zuoren, Zhou Zuoren on Famous People). Shanghai: Dongfang chuban zhongxin, 1998. Liu Yan, Xiehefu yu Zhongguo xiandai wenxue (Chekhov and Modern Chinese Literature). Shanghai: Shanghai shehui kexueyuan chubanshe, 2005. Lomunov, K. N., “Russkaia literaturnaia klassika i revoliutsionno-osvoboditel’noe dvizhenie” (Russian Classical Literature and the Movement for Revolution and Liberation), in V. R. Shcherbina, ed., Mirovoe znachenie russkoi literatury XIX veka (The World Importance of Nineteenth-Century Russian Literature). Moscow: Nauka, 1987, pp. 70–119. Lu Xun, trans. Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang, Selected Works, in 4 vols., 3rd ed. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1980. 208 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lu Xun, Lu Xun quanji (Complete Works), in 18 vols. Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 2005. Abbreviated as LXQJ. Lu Xun, and Xu Guangping, trans. Bonnie S. McDougall, Letters between Two: Correspondence between Lu Xun and Xu Guangping. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2000. Luker, Nicholas, “Introduction”, in Luker, ed. and trans., From Furmanov to Sholokhov: An Anthology of the Classics of Socialist Realism. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1988, pp. 12–38. McDermott, Joseph P., A Social History of the Chinese Book: Books and Literati Cul ture in Late Imperial China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2006. McDougall, Bonnie S., Mao Zedong’s “Talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art”: A Translation of the 1943 Text with Commentary. Ann Arbor: Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies, 1980. ———, Fictional Authors, Imaginary Audiences: Modern Chinese Literature in the Twentieth Century. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2003. McGuire, Elizabeth, China, the Fun House Mirror: Soviet Reactions to the Chinese Cultural Revolution, 1966–1969. Berkeley: Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies Working Paper Series, 2001. Manela, Erez, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Mao Dun (Shen Yanbing), Mao Dun quanji (Complete Works), in 41 vols. Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 1984–2001. Martin, Helmut, and Jeffrey Kinkley, eds., Modern Chinese Writers: Self-portrayals. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992. Meissner, Werner, trans. Richard Mann, Philosophy and Politics in China: The Controversy over Dialectical Materialism in the 1930s. London: Hurst and Company, 1990. Meng Zhaoyi and Li Zaidao, eds., Zhongguo fanyi wenxue shi (A History of Translated Literature in China). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2005. Mogil’ner, Marina, Mifologiia “podpol’nogo cheloveka”: radikal’nyi mikrokosm v Rossii nachala XX veka kak predmet semioticheskogo analiza (Mythology of “The Underground Man”: The Radical Microcosm in Early Twentieth-Century Russia as the Subject of Semiotic Analysis). Moscow: NLO, 1999. Moretti, Franco, “Conjectures on World Literature” [2000], in Christopher Prendergast, ed., Debating World Literature. London: Verso, 2004, pp. 148–62. ———, “More Conjectures”, New Left Review, no. 20 (March–April 2003), pp. 73–81. Morson, Gary Saul, “Philosophy in the Nineteenth-Century Novel”, in Jones and Miller, The Cambridge Companion to the Classic Russian Novel, pp. 150–68. Ng, Mau-sang. The Russian Hero in Modern Chinese Fiction. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1988. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 209

Nieh, Hualing, ed., Literature of the Hundred Flowers, in 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981. Nikolaev, Petr A., ed., Russkie pisateli 1800–1917: biograficheskii slovar’ (A Biographical Dictionary of Russian Writers), in 5 vols. (publication contin- ues). Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1989 (vol. 1), overtaken by Bol’shaia rossiiskaia entsiklopediia, 1992–2007 (vols. 2–5). ———, ed., Russkie pisateli 20 veka: biograficheskii slovar’ (A Biographical Dictionary of Russian Writers in the Twentieth Century). Moscow: Bol’shaia rossiiskaia entsiklopediia, 2000. Olgin, Moissaye J., A Guide to Russian Literature (1820–1917). New York: Russell & Russell, 1971 (reprint of 1920 edition). Ovchinnikov, V., “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae” (Soviet Literature in China), Novyi mir, no. 5 (1951), pp. 213–23. Pantsov, Alexander, The Bolsheviks and the Chinese Revolution 1919–1927. Richmond: Curzon, 2000. Patten, Alan, “The Humanist Roots of Linguistic Nationalism”, History of Political Thought, vol. 27, no. 2 (summer 2006), pp. 223–62. Peng Ming [Pyn Min], trans. A. F. Kotova, Istoriia kitaisko-sovetskoi druzhby (The History of Chinese-Soviet Friendship). Moscow: Iz-vo sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi literatury, 1959. Petrov, Viktor V., “Sovetskaia literatura v Kitae v 1928–1930 gg.” (Soviet Literature in China, 1928–30), in A. I. Borshchukov et al., eds., Literatura stran zarubezhnogo Vostoka i sovetskaia literatura (Literature of the Countries of the Outer East and Soviet Literature). Moscow: Nauka, 1977, pp. 213–50. Phelps, William L., Essays on Russian Novelists. New York: Macmillan, 1911. Pickowicz, Paul G., Marxist Literary Thought in China: The Influence of Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Ping Baoxing, Wusi yitan yu Eluosi wenxue (The Circle of May Fourth Translators and Russian Literature). Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 2004. Pollard, David E., ed., Translation and Creation: Readings of Western Literature in Early Modern China, 1840–1918. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998. ———, The True Story of Lu Xun. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2002. Qian Gurong, “Lun ‘Wenxue shi renxue’ “ (On “Literature is the Study of Man”), in “Lun ‘Wenxue shi renxue’ “ pipan ji (On “Literature Is the Study of Man”: A Collection of Criticism). Shanghai: Xin wenyi chubanshe, 1958, pp. 138–84. Qiu Yang, Xie Liuyi pingzhuan (A Critical Biography of Xie Liuyi). Guiyang: Guizhou minzu chubanshe, 1997. Qu Qiubai, Qu Qiubai wenji (Collected Works), in 14 vols. Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 1985–98. ———, Chidu xinshi (History of the Heart in the Red Capital).Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2004. 210 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Qu Qiubai, trans. and ed. by Jamie Greenbaum, Superfluous Words. Canberra: Pandanus Books, 2006. Rakhmanin, Oleg B., Iz kitaiskikh bloknotov (From Chinese Notebooks). Moscow: Nauka, 1982. Rassadin, Stanislav B., Samoubiitsy. Povest’ o tom, kak my zhili i chto chitali (The Suicides: The Story of How We Lived and What We Read). Moscow: Tekst, 2002. Renditions, special issue 53 & 54 (spring & autumn 2000), Chinese Impressions of the West. Rogov, Vladimir N., “Pushkin v Kitae (Iz istorii kul’turnykh sviazei)” (Pushkin in China: From the History of Cultural Ties), Vostochnyi al’manakh, no. 3 (1960), pp. 187–95. Rubin, Kyna, “Writers’ Discontent and Party Response in Yan’an before ‘Wild Lily’: The Manchurian Writers and Zhou Yang”, Modern Chinese Literature, vol. 1, no. 1 (September 1984), pp. 79–102. Rudman, Vladimir, “Pushkin v Kitae” (Pushkin in China), Novyi mir, no. 6 (1949), pp. 227–33. Salisbury, Harrison E., The Long March: The Untold Story. New York: Harper & Row, 1985. Sarnov, Benedikt M., Nash sovetskii Novoiaz: Malen’kaia entsiklopediia real’nogo sotsializma (Our Soviet Newspeak: A Little Encyclopaedia of Realist Socialism). Moscow: “Materik”, 2002. Sartorti, Rosalinde, “On the Making of Heroes, Heroines, and Saints”, in Richard Stites, ed., Culture and Entertainment in Wartime Russia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995, pp. 176–93. Schoenhals, Michael, “Demonising Discourse in Mao Zedong’s China: People vs Non-People”, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, vol. 8, nos. 3–4 (September–December 2007), pp. 465–82. Schwarcz, Vera, The Chinese Enlightenment: Intellectuals and the Legacy of the May Fourth Movement of 1919. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Schwartz, Benjamin I., “The Intelligentsia in Communist China: A Tentative Comparison”, in Richard Pipes, ed., The Russian Intelligentsia. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 164–81. ———, In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West. Western Thought in Chinese Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964. Serebriakov, Evgenii A., “Nravstvennoe vozdeistvie sovetskoi literatury na molodoe pokolenie Kitaia (1949–1957 gg.)” (The Moral Impact of Soviet Literature on the Young Generation of China), in Borshchukov et al., Literatura stran zarubezhnogo Vostoka i sovetskaia literatura (q.v. Petrov), pp. 251–63. Shahar, Meir (Xia Weiming), “Jin Yong wuxia xiaoshuo: yi wenhua wei wuqi” (Jin Yong’s Martial Arts Fiction: Culture as a Weapon), in Wu Xiaodong and Ji Birui, eds., 2000 Beijing Jin Yong xiaoshuo guoji yantaohui lunwen ji (Collected SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 211

Papers of the Beijing 2000 International Forum on Jin Yong’s Fiction). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2002, pp. 58–67. Shentalinskii, Vitalii A., Donos na Sokrata (Socrates Denounced). Moscow: Formika-S, 2001. Shmelev, Ivan S., Sobranie sochinenii (Collected Works), in 5 vols., with additions. Moscow: Russkaia kniga, 1998–2001. Shmidt, Sigurd O., “K istorii slova ‘intelligentsiia’ ” (On the History of the Word “Intelligentsia”), in D. S. Likhachev et al., eds., Rossiia, Zapad, Vostok: Vstrechnye techeniia. K 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia akademika M. P. Alekseeva (Russia, West, East: Parallel Currents. In Commemoration of the 100th Anniversary of Academician M. P. Alekseev). St Petersburg: Nauka, 1996, pp. 409–17. Shneider, Mark E., Russkaia klassika v Kitae: perevody, otsenki, tvorcheskoe osvoenie (Russian Classical Literature in China: Translation, Appreciation and Creative Appropriation). Moscow: Nauka, 1977. Shprintsyn, Aleksandr G., “O literature na kitaiskom iazyke, izdannoi v Sovetskom Soiuze (20–30-e gody)” (On Literature in Chinese, Published in the USSR in the 1920s–30s), in Eidlin (q.v.), Izuchenie kitaiskoi literatury v SSSR, pp. 242–66. Shu Yunzhong, “The Cost of Living Up to the Demand of Autobiographical Fiction: An Analysis of the Interaction between Yu Dafu’s Fiction and His Life”, Tamkang Review, vol. 33, no. 1 (autumn 2002), pp. 57–75. Skliarevskaia, Galina N., “Russkie poniatiia ‘intelligentsiia’, ‘intelligent’: Razmyshleniia o semanticheskikh transformatsiiakh” (The Russian Notions “Intelligentsia” and Intelligent: Reflections on Semantic Transformations), in Peter Thiergen, ed., Russische Begriffsgeschichte der Neuzeit: Beiträge zu einem Forschungsdesiderat. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2006, pp. 435–47. Smith, S. A., A Road Is Made: Communism in Shanghai, 1920–1927. Richmond: Curzon, 2000. ———, Revolution and the People in Russia and China: A Comparative History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Song Binghui, Fangfa yu shijian: Zhong-wai wenxue guanxi yanjiu (Method and Practice: Research on Sino-Foreign Literary Relations). Shanghai: Fudan daxue chubanshe, 2004. Sorokina, Marina Iu., “Snova vostokovedy . . . materialy dlia biobibliograficheskogo slovaria Rossiiskoe nauchnoe zarubezh’e” (The Orientalists Once More: Materials for a Bio-bibliographical Dictionary of Russian Science in the Emigration), Diaspora: novye materialy, vol. 7 (2005), pp. 619–80. Stadler, Ursula, “Chen Quans Beiträge in der Zeitschrift Zhanguo ce”, Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques, vol. 56, no. 1 (2002), pp. 153–99. Stallybrass, Peter, “Marx’s Coat” in Patricia Spyer, ed., Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Spaces. New York and London: Routledge, 1998, pp. 183–207. 212 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stites, Richard, “Frontline Entertainment”, in idem, ed., Culture and Entertainment in Wartime Russia (q.v. Sartorti), pp. 126–40. Stroev, Alexandre, “Lecture en Russie”, in Roger Chartier, ed., Histoires de la lecture: un bilan des recherches. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 1995, pp. 181–96. Su Zhenlan and Wu Xiaoyan, “Sulian zhanshi wenxue dui Zhongguo geming de junshi yingxiang” (The Military Influence of Soviet Wartime Literature on the Chinese Revolution), Dangshi zongheng, no. 11 (2008), pp. 56–9. Sun, Lung-kee, “Chinese Intellectuals’ Notion of ‘Epoch’ (Shidai) in the Post- May Fourth Era”, Chinese Studies in History, vol. 20, no. 2 (winter 1986–87), pp. 44–74. ———, “The Presence of the Fin-de-Siècle in the May Fourth Era”, in Gail Hershatter et al., eds., Remapping China: Fissures in Historical Terrain. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996, pp. 194–209. Sun Naixiu, Tugeniefu yu Zhongguo: Ershi shiji Zhong-wai wenxue guanxi yanjiu (Turgenev and China: A Study of Sino-foreign Literary Relations in the Twentieth Century). Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe, 1988. Svin’in, V. F., and K. A. Oseev, Stalinskie premii: dve storony odnoi medali (The Stalin Prizes: Two Sides of One Medal). Novosibirsk: Svin’in i synov’ia, 2007. Tang, Xiaobing, “Echoes of Roar, China! On Vision and Voice in Modern Chinese Art”, Positions, vol. 14, no. 2 (2006), pp. 467–94. Todorov, Tzvetan, trans. by Brady Brower and Max Likin, “Totalitarianism: Between Religion and Science”, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, vol. 2, no. 1 (summer 2001), pp. 28–42. Tolstaia-Segal, Elena, “K literaturnomu fonu knigi Kak zakalialas’ stal’ ” (On the Literary Background of the Book How the Steel Was Tempered), Cahiers du Monde russe et sovietique, vol. 22, no. 4 (October–December 1981), pp. 375–99. Travis, Trysh, “Books as Weapons and ‘The Smart Man’s Peace’: The Work of the Council on Books in Wartime”, Princeton University Library Chronicle, vol. 60, no. 3 (spring 1999), pp. 353–99. Tsvetko, A. S., Sovetsko-kitaiskie kul’turnye sviazi (Soviet-Chinese Cultural Contacts). Moscow: Mysl’, 1974. Uspenskii, Boris A., “Russkaia intelligentsiia kak spetsificheskii fenomen russkoi kul’tury” (The Russian Intelligentsia as a Specific Phenomenon of Russian Culture), in his Etiudy o russkoi istorii (Studies on Russian History). St Petersburg: Azbuka, 2002, pp. 393–413. Van de Ven, Hans, “The Military in the Republic”, in Frederic Wakeman Jr. and Richard L. Edmonds, eds., Reappraising Republican China. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 98–120. Vasil’kov, Iaroslav V., and M. Iu. Sorokina, eds., Liudi i sud’by: biobibliogra- ficheskii slovar’ vostokovedov—zhertv politicheskogo terrora v sovetskii period (1917–1991) [supplied English title: Men and Destiny: A Biographical SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 213

and Bibliographical Dictionary of Oriental Scholars—Victims of Political Repression During the Soviet Era (1917–1991)]. St Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2003. Vengerov, Semen A., Sobranie sochinenii S. A. Vengerova (Collected Works), 2nd ed., vol. 1, Geroicheskii kharakter russkoi literatury (The Heroic Character of Russian Literature). Petrograd: Svetoch, 1919. ———, “V chem ocharovanie russkoi literatury XIX veka? Rech’, proiznesen- naia v Moskve 22 oktiabria 1911 goda na prazdnovanii stoletnego iubileia Obshchestva Liubitelei Russkoi Slovesnosti” (In What Lies the Charm of Nineteenth-Century Russian Literature? Speech Given in Moscow on 22 October 1911 on the Occasion of the Centenary of the Society of Amateurs of Russian Letters), Russkaia slovesnost’, no. 2 (1993), pp. 22–7. ———, Russkaia literatura XX veka 1890–1910 (Russian Literature of the Twentieth Century), in 2 vols. Moscow: “XXI vek–soglasie”, 2000. Vogelsang, Kai, “Some Notions of Historical Judgment in China and the West”, in Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer et al., eds., Historical Truth, Historical Criticism, and Ideology: Chinese Historiography and Historical Culture from a New Comparative Perspective. Leiden: Brill, 2005, pp. 143–75. Volchkova, E. V., “Amuletnaia magiia v ritual’nykh praktikakh kitaiskikh derevenskikh traditsionalistskikh soiuzov (pervaia polovina XX veka)” (Amulet Magic in the Ritual Practice of Traditionalist Chinese Village Societies in the First Half of the Twentieth Century), in K. M. Tertitskii, ed., Religioznyi mir Kitaia: al’manakh 2003 (The Religious World of China: A Miscellany). Moscow: Muravei, 2003, pp. 227–36. Volland, Nicolai, “Translating the Socialist State: Cultural Exchange, Natural Identity, and the Socialist World in the Early PRC”, Twentieth-Century China, vol. 33, no. 2 (April 2008), pp. 51–72. Wachtel, Andrew, “Psychology and Society”, in Jones and Miller, eds., The Cambridge Companion to the Classic Russian Novel, pp. 130–49. Wagner, Rudolf G., Inside a Service Trade: Studies in Contemporary Chinese Prose. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. ———, “Life as a Quote from a Foreign Book: Love, Pavel, and Rita”, in Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer, ed., Das andere China. Festschrift für Wolfgang Bauer zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1995, pp. 463–76. Wakeman, Frederic, Jr., “The Price of Autonomy: Intellectuals in Ming and Ch’ing Politics”, in S. N. Eisenstadt and S. R. Graubard, eds., Intellectuals and Tradition. New York: Humanities Press, 1973, pp. 35–70. Walder, Andrew G., “Cultural Revolution Radicalism: Variations on a Stalinist Theme”, in William A. Joseph et al., eds., New Perspectives on the Cultural Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991, pp. 41–61. Wang, David Der-wei, “Fictional History / Historical Fiction”, Studies in Language and Literature, no. 1 (March 1985), pp. 64–76. Wang Jianzhao, Zhong-E wenzi zhi jiao: E-Su wenxue yu ershi shiji Zhongguo xin wenxue (Chinese-Russian Literary Contact: Russian and Soviet Literature, and 214 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

the New Literature of Twentieth-Century China). Guilin: Lijiang chubanshe, 1999. Wang Jiezhi, Xuanze yu shiluo: Zhong-E wenxue guanxi de wenhua guanzhao (Selection and Omission: A Cultural Perspective on Chinese-Russian Literary Relations). Nanjing: Jiangsu wenyi chubanshe, 1995. ———, “Zhongguo wenxue jieshou 20 shiji Eguo wenlun de huiwang yu sikao” (The Reception of Twentieth-Century Russian Literary Theory in China: A Retrospective and a Reflection), Eluosi wenyi, no. 2 (2004), pp. 23–7. Wang Jiezhi and Chen Jianhua, Youyuan de huixiang: Eluosi zuojia yu Zhongguo wenhua (Distant Echoes: Russian Writers and Chinese Culture). Yinchuan: Ningxia renmin chubanshe, 2002. Wang Shoulan, ed., Dangdai wenxue fanyi baijiatan (Talks by a Hundred Contemporary Literary Translators). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1989. Wang Tongzhao, Wang Tongzhao wenji (Collected Works), in 6 vols. Jinan: Shandong renmin chubanshe, 1980–84. Wang Yougui, Fanyijia Zhou Zuoren (supplied English title: Zhou Zuoren as Translator). Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 2001. ———, Fanyi Xifang yu Dongfang: Zhongguo liu wei fanyijia (Translating West and East: Six Chinese Translators).Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 2004. ———, Fanyijia Lu Xun (Lu Xun as Translator). Tianjin: Nankai daxue chubanshe, 2005. Wei Suyuan, ed. Xu Zifang, Wei Suyuan xuanji (Selected Works). Hefei: Anhui wenyi chubanshe, 1985. Widmer, Ellen, “Qu Qiubai and Russian Literature”, in Merle Goldman, ed., Modern Chinese Literature in the May Fourth Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977, pp. 103–25. Williams, Bernard, Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Wong, Timothy C., trans. and ed., Stories for Saturday: Twentieth-Century Chinese Popular Fiction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003. Wong, Wang-chi, Politics and Literature in Shanghai: The Chinese League of Left- Wing Writers, 1930–1936. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991. Xie Liuyi, “Wenxue shang de biaoxiang zhuyi shi shenma?” (What Is Symbolism in Literature?), Xiaoshuo yuebao vol. 11, no. 5 (May 1920), pp. 1–3; no. 6 (June 1920), pp. 1–7. Xie Tianzhen, and Zha Mingjian, eds., Zhongguo xiandai fanyi wenxue shi (1898– 1949) [supplied English title: A History of Translated Literature in Modern China]. Shanghai: Shanghai waiyu jiaoyu chubanshe, 2003. Xie Zhixi, Mei de pianzhi: Zhongguo xiandai weimei—tuifeizhuyi wenxue sichao yanjiu (The Extremities of Beauty: A Study of the Aesthetic—Decadent Current in Modern Chinese Literature). Shanghai: Shanghai wenyi chubanshe, 1997. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 215

Xu Qinwen, Xu Qinwen daibiao zuo (Representative Works). Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 1999. Yang Sao, “Zuichu he waiguo wenxue jiechu shi zai Riben” (My First Contact with Foreign Literature Was in Japan), in Zheng Zhenduo and Fu Donghua, eds., Wo yu wenxue (I and Literature). Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 1934, pp. 138–43. Yao Yuanfang, “Suwei’ai zhanshi wenxue chengle women wuxing de junshi liliang” (Soviet Wartime Literature Became Our Invisible Military Force), Wenyi bao, vol. 1, no. 3 (1950), pp. 15–6. Ye Lingfeng, Dushu suibi (Random Notes on Reading), 2nd ed., in 3 vols. Beijing: Sanlian shudian, 1992. Ye Shengtao, eds. Ye Zhishan, Ye Zhimei and Ye Zhicheng, Ye Shengtao ji (Collected Works), in 26 vols. Nanjing: Jiangsu jiaoyu chubanshe, 2004. Ye Zhishan, “Wenxue yanjiu hui de ‘wenxuejia mingxinpian’ ” (The “Writers’ Postcards” of the Literary Research Association), Xin wenxue shiliao, no. 3 (1994), pp. 20–2. Yu, Anthony C., “History, Fiction and the Reading of Chinese Narrative”, Chinese Literature Essays, Articles, Reviews, vol. 10, nos. 1–2 (July 1988), pp. 1–19. Yu, Miin-ling, “A Soviet Hero, Pavel Korchagin, Comes to China”, Russian History / Histoire Russe, vol. 29, nos. 2–4 (2002), pp. 329–55. Yuan Muzhi, Yanju mantan (General Thoughts on the Performance of Plays). Shanghai: Xiandai shuju, 1933. Zhang Demei, and Leng Ke, eds., Cao Jinghua jinian wenji (Collected Papers in Commemoration of Cao Jinghua). Zhengzhou: Henan jiaoyu chubanshe, 1992. Zhang Wentian, Zhang Wentian zaoqi wenji (1919.7–1925.6) (Collected Early Writings, July 1919–June 1925). Beijing: Zhong gongdang shi chubanshe, 1999. Zhao, Henry Y. H., “Historiography and Fiction in Chinese Culture”, in Franco Moretti, ed., The Novel, in 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006, vol. 1, pp. 69–93. Zhao Jingshen, ed. Ni Fan, Wo yu wentan (I and the Literary World). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1999. Zhao Ming, “Tuo’ersitai, Tugeniefu, Qiehefu: 20 shiji Zhongguo wenxue jieshou Eguo wenxue de san zhong moshi” (Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov: Three Models in the Reception of Russian Literature by Twentieth-Century Chinese Literature), Waiguo wenxue pinglun, no. 1 (1997), pp. 114–21. Zhelokhovtsev, Aleksei N., “Iz istorii oznakomleniia kitaiskoi obshchest- vennosti s sovetskoi literaturoi (20–40-e gody)” (From the History of the Chinese Public’s Acquaintance with Soviet Literature, 1920s to 1940s), in Vladislav F. Sorokin, ed., Kitaiskaia kul’tura 20–40-kh godov i sovremennost’ (Chinese Culture of the 1920s–40s and Modernity). Moscow: Nauka, 1993, pp. 235–61. 216 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zheng Zhenduo, “Azhibasuifu yu Shaning: Shaning de yi xu” (Artsybashev and Sanin: Introduction to the Translation of Sanin), Xiaoshuo yuebao, vol. 15, no. 5 (May 1924), pp. 1–12. Signed Xidi. ———, Zheng Zhenduo quanji (Complete Works), in 20 vols. Shijiazhuang: Huashan wenyi chubanshe, 1998. Zhi Liang, ed., Bijiao wenxue sanbai pian (Three Hundred Pieces on Comparative Literature). Shanghai: Shanghai wenyi chubanshe, 1990. Zhi Liang et al., eds., Eguo wenxue yu Zhongguo (Russian Literature and China). Shanghai: Huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 1991. Zhongguo fanyijia cidian (Dictionary of Chinese Translators). Beijing: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi chubanshe, 1988. Zhou Zuoren, trans. David E. Pollard, Zhou Zuoren: Selected Essays. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2006. Chinese-English bilingual edition. Zhu Shoutong, Wenxue yu rensheng shiwu jiang (Fifteen Lectures on Literature and Life). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2006. Zou Zhenhuan, 20 shiji Shanghai fanyi chuban yu wenhua bianqian (Translation Publishing in Twentieth-Century Shanghai and Cultural Change). Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu chubanshe, 2000. Glossary of Chinese Terms

Ah Ying 䰓㣅 (Qian Xingcun 䣶 dao minjian qu ࠄ⇥䭧এ ᴣᴥ) daoshi ᇢ᏿ Ai Siqi 㡒ᗱ༛ Diao Shaohua ߕ㌍㧃 Ding Ling ϕ⦆ Ba Jin Ꮘ䞥 Bao’er ֱ⠒ Ding Yi ϕᯧ Bei Wenli 䉱᭛࡯ Dong Qiufang 㨷⾟㢇 ߹䒞ᴰ Biechedu Fan Quan 㣗⊝ ބᖗ Bing Xin fengcai 䈤䞛 ԃ་ ন唞 Bo Yi and Shu Qi Feng Xuefeng 侂䲾ዄ

Cao Jinghua ᳍䴪㧃 Feng Zikai 䈤ᄤᜋ Cao Suling ᳍㯛⦆ Fu Donghua ٙᵅ㧃 Cao Ying 㤝ᄄ Fu Lei ٙ䳋䱇⤼⾔ Chen Duxiu Gan Yuze ⫬䲼╸ Chen Jiying 䱇㋔◙ Gan Zhexian ⫬㶘ҭ Chen Jianhua 䱇ᓎ㧃 Gao Mang 催㦑 Chen Quan 䱇䡧 عGao Xingjian 催㸠 Chen Sihe 䱇ᗱ੠ Ge Baoquan ៜᇊ⃞ Cheng Fangwu ៤ӓ਒ geming䴽ੑ chiguang 䌸ܝ Geng Jizhi 㘓△П Chi Li ∴㥝 Gu Hongming 䕰匏䡬 Dai Houying ᠈८㣅 Guo Moruo 䛁≿㢹 daofu 䘧ヺ Guo Yanli 䛁ᓊ⾂ 218 GLOSSARY OF CHINESE TERMS

Haiyan ⍋➩ Li Dazhao ᴢ໻䞫 Hao Minggong 䚱ᯢᎹ Li Ding ᴢᅮ He Jingzhi 䊔ᭀП LiDu ᴢᴰ He Shaojun 䊔㌍֞ Li Jijun ᴢ䱯ഛ He Xi 厈㽓 (Cheng Kansheng ⿟ Li Jiye ᴢ䴑䞢 ՗⫳) Li Jin ᴢҞ hong bao shu ㋙ᇊ᳌ Li Lanqing ᴢጤ⏙ hongweibing ㋙㸯݉ Li Ping ᴢᑇ Hu Feng 㚵乼 Li Shixue ᴢཁᅌ Hu Ji 㚵ᖠ Li Sui’an ᴢ䱼ᅝ Hu Qiuyuan 㚵⾟ॳ Li Yu ᴢ✰ 㚵䘽 Hu Shi Li Zaidao ᴢ䓝䘧 Hu Yuzhi 㚵ᛜП Li Zicheng ᴢ㞾៤ Ji Birui 㿜ຕ⨲ Liang Qichao ṕଳ䍙 Jia Zhifang 䊜ỡ㢇 Liang Shiqiu ṕᆺ⾟ Jiang Chunfang ྰἓ㢇 Lin Jinghua ᵫ㊒㧃 Jiang Guangci 㫷ܝ᜜ Lin Shu ᵫ㋧ Jiang Zhinong 㫷ᖫ䖆 Lin Yutang ᵫ䁲ූ Jin Ren 䞥Ҏ Liu Binyan ࡝䊧䲕 Jin Yong 䞥ᒌ Liu Bocheng ࡝ԃᡓ Jing Yinyu ᭀ䲅ⓕ Liu Shaoqi ࡝ᇥ༛ jingshen shiliang ㊒⼲亳㊻ Liu Xinwu ࡝ᖗ℺ Jue Qing ⠉䴦 Liu Xuyuan ࡝㎦⑤ Liu Yan ࡝ⷨ Kang Youwei ᒋ᳝⚎ Liu Zaifu ࡝ݡᕽ Ke Ling ᷃䴜 Lu Xun 元䖙 kou maozi ᠷᐑᄤ Luoguofu 㕙ᵰ໿ lao biandan 㗕᠕᪨ Ma Lie zhuyi Mao Zedong sixiang laoxiao 㗕㙪侀߫Џ㕽↯╸ᵅᗱᛇ Leng Ke ދ᷃ Mao Dun 㣙Ⳓ (Shen Yanbing ≜ Li Chuli ᴢ߱Ṽ 䲕ބ) GLOSSARY OF CHINESE TERMS 219

Mei Lanfang ṙ㰁㢇 taoye xunyu 䱊ފ❣㚆 Mei Yi ṙⲞ Tao Yuanming 䱊⏉ᯢ Meng Zhaoyi ᄳᰁ↙ tingche lou 㙑䒞ῧ toubi congrong ᡩㄚᕲ២ Ni Fan ׾޵ Nie Rongzhen 㙊ᾂ㟏 Wang Jianzhao ∾ࡡ䞫 niunai lu ⠯ཊ䏃 Wang Jiezhi ∾ҟП Wang Meng ⥟㩭 Peng Ming ᕁᯢ Wang Ruowang ⥟㢹ᳯ Ping Baoxing ᑇֱ㟜 Wang Shoulan ⥟ᅜ㰁 Qian Gurong 䣶䈋㵡 Wang Shuo ⥟᳨ ✊װ∾ Qiu Yang ⾟䱑 Wang Tiran Qu Qiubai ⶓ⾟ⱑ Wang Tongzhao ⥟㍅✻ Qu Shiwei ⶓϪ⨟ Wang Xili ⥟Ꮰ⾂ Qu Shiying ⶓϪ㣅 (Qu Junong Wang Yingxia ⥟᯴䳲 ⶓ㦞䖆) Wang Yougui ⥟ট䊈 Qu Weita ሜ㎁ᅗ Wang Zhichun ⥟П᯹ Qu Yuan ሜॳ Weiming she ᳾ৡ⼒ Wei Suyuan 䶟㋴೦ Shen Congwen ≜ᕲ᭛ wenyan ᭛㿔 Shen Ying ≜〢 Wen Yiduo 㘲ϔ໮ shidai ᰖҷ Wu Mi ਇᅧ Shimintu ຿ᬣೳ Wu Xiaodong ਇᲝᵅ shizai tai bu cheng dongxi le ᆺ೼໾ Wu Xiaoyan ਇᇣ➩ ϡ៤ᵅ㽓њ Wu Yunduo ਇ䘟䨌 Shi Zhecun ᮑ㳛ᄬ Song Binghui ᅟ⚇䓱 Xidi 㽓䂺 Su Wen 㯛≊ (Du Heng ᴰ㸵) Xia Weiming ໣㎁ᯢ Su Zhenlan 㯛ᤃ㰁 Xiao Hong 㭁㋙ Sun Ke ᄿ⾥ Xiao Jun 㭁䒡 Sun Naixiu ᄿЗׂ Xiao San 㭁ϝ Sun Weishi ᄿ㎁Ϫ Xie Liuyi 䃱݁䘌 220 GLOSSARY OF CHINESE TERMS

Xie Tianzhen 䃱໽ᤃ Zha Mingjian ᶹᯢᓎ Xie Zhixi 㾷ᖫ❭ zhanyang ⶏӄ Xinyou 䕯䜝 Zhang Ailing ᔉᛯ⦆ Xu Dishan 䀅ഄቅ Zhang Demei ᔉᖋ㕢 Xu Maoyong ᕤសᒌ Zhang Shoushen ᔉᅜᜢ Xu Qinwen 䀅ℑ᭛ Zhang Wentian ᔉ㘲໽ Xu Xiangqian ᕤ৥ࠡ Zhang Ximan ᔉ㽓᳐ Xu Zifang ᕤᄤ㢇 Zhang Xuecheng ゴᅌ䁴 Xue Fucheng 㭯⽣៤ Zhang Yiping ゴ㸷㧡 xuehui ᅌ᳗ Zhao Jingshen 䍭᱃⏅ Zhao Ming 䍭ᯢ Yan Fu ಈᕽ Zhao Shuli 䍭‍⧚ yanxing ruoyi 㿔㸠㢹ϔ Zhao Xun 䍭⌉ yanxing yizhi 㿔㸠ϔ㟈 ℷৡ Yang Sao ἞個 zhengming Yao Pengzi ྮ㫀ᄤ Zheng Zhenduo 䜁ᤃ䨌 Yao Wenyuan ྮ᭛ܗ Zhi Liang ᱎ䞣 Yao Yuanfang ྮ䘴ᮍ zhishi fenzi ⶹ䄬ߚᄤ Ye Lingfeng 㨝䴜勇 zhongyong Ёᒌ Ye Shengtao 㨝㘪䱊 Zhou Libo ਼ゟ⊶ Ye Zhicheng 㨝㟇䁴 Zhou Shoujuan ਼⯺匥 Ye Zhimei 㨝㟇㕢 Zhou Zuoren ਼԰Ҏ Ye Zhishan 㨝㟇୘ Zhu Rangcheng ᴅいϲ Yi E wei shi ҹ֘⚎᏿ Zhu Shoutong ᴅ໑Ḥ yinhe / yinhan 䡔⊇ˈ䡔⓶ Zhu Wan Џ㨀 yinying 䱄ᕅ Zhu Ziqing ᴅ㞾⏙ Yu Dafu 䚕䘨໿ zhuanke yishu ㆚ࠏ㮱㸧 Yu Yizhong ԭϔЁ Zi Yi ᄤ䊑 Yuan Muzhi 㹕⠻П zizhi ᄫ㋭ Yuefu ῖᑰ Zou Zhenhuan 䛦ᤃ⪄ Index

Ah Ying (Qian Xingcun), 106–8, 112, Bing Xin, 14, 159n11 115, 162n35, 163n42, 198n6 Bjørnson, Bjørnstjerne, 152n44 Ai Siqi, 117 Bo Yi and Shu Qi, 169n5 Akhmatova, Anna, 36, 92 Brandes, Georg, 22 Aldanov, Mark, 58 Brecht, Bertolt, 87 Aldington, Richard, 111 Briusov, Valerii, 193n104 Alekseev, Vasilii, 88 Brodsky, Joseph, 126–8, 133 Andersen, Hans Christian, 25 Brooke, Rupert, 110 Andreev, Leonid, 7, 17, 25, 29, 31, 36, Bulgakov, Mikhail, 59, 97 46, 58, 82, 111, 152n48, 154n62, Bunin, Ivan, 54 159n8 Burliuk, David, 58 Antokol’sky, Pavel, 58 Byron, George Gordon, 21–3, Artsybashev, Mikhail, 7, 28, 31, 45, 152n44 58, 67, 72, 97, 178n71 Augustine, St, 159n4 Camus, Albert, 54 Cao Jinghua, 26, 67, 76–9, 83, 88–9, Ba Jin, 14, 16, 36, 56–7, 64, 83–5, 105, 108–9, 112–13, 178n73 91–2, 133, 136, 159n4, 161n24 Cao Suling, 76 Babbitt, Irving, 30, 56 Cao Xueqin, 96 Bal’mont, Konstantin, 58 Cao Ying, 90, 121 Balzac, Honoré de, 55, 132 Carpenter, Edward, 154n63 Baltrušaitis, Jurgis, 58 Cervantes, Miguel de, 96 Baring, Maurice, 162n32, 170n13 Chang, Eileen, 136 Barrie, James, 15 Chekhov, Anton, 16–17, 24–5, 27, Bashkin, Vasilii, 45 36, 43, 61, 77, 85–6, 152n44, Beardsley, Aubrey, 61 161n24, 166n60, 178n73 Bednyi, Dem’ian, 71 Chen Duxiu, 27, 118 Beethoven, Ludwig van, 139 Chen Jiying, 81–4 Bek, Alexander, 108, 112 Chen Quan, 150n22 Belinskii, Vissarion, 29, 33, 44, 46, 57, Cheng Fangwu, 33 156n87, 168n81 Chernyshevskii, Nikolai, 29, 33, 57–8, Belousov, Roman, 107–8 103, 119, 168n81 Belyi, Andrei, 58 Chi Li, 139–41 222 INDEX

Chiang Kai-shek, 20, 72, 105, 109, English literature, 3–4, 11, 14–15, 18, 186n41 23, 25, 60 Cicero, 117 entertainment fiction, 3, 60, 99, Coleridge, Samuel T., 96 161n24 Communist University of the Toilers Epoch Press, 89–90, 108, 112, 133 of the East (Moscow), 76, Erbstein, Boris, 172n30 187n46 Esenin, Sergei, 22, 36, 162n35 Confucius, and Confucianism, 19–20, 24, 26, 30, 39–40, 42, 51 Fadeev, Alexander, 22, 77, 80–1, Creation Society, 29, 33, 62, 118 106, 108–9, 111–12, 123, 137, Cultural Revolution, The, 7–8, 57, 64, 194n114 77, 105, 124–6, 128, 131–3 Fedin, Konstantin, 174n49 Fedorenko, Nikolai, 174n49, 178n79, Dai Houying, 132 190n75 Dante Alighieri, 30, 64 Fedorov, Nikolai, 8 Darwin, Charles, 19 Fei Ming, 27 Daudet, Alphonse, 96 Feng Xuefeng, 151n38, 161n27 “decadent” literature, 11, 20, 61–2, 74 Feng Zikai, 33 Defoe, Daniel, 25 France, Anatole, 152n44 Diao Shaohua, 181n94 frontispiece portraits, 19, 25–6, 141 Dickens, Charles, 14, 27, 96, 98, 127, see also writers’ portraits 183n12 Fu Lei, 133 Ding Ling, 99, 102, 125, 194n112 Furmanov, Dmitrii, 109 Ding Yi, 185n34 Dobroliubov, Nikolai, 29, 33, 44, 46, Galsworthy, John, 15 57, 168n81 Gan Yuze, 181n94 Dong Qiufang, 151n36 Gan Zhexian, 31 Dostoevsky, Fedor, 16–17, 26, 29, 35, Gandhi, Mahatma, 24, 51 40, 45, 53, 70, 123, 134, 152n44, Gao Mang, 91–2, 137, 181n97 153n58 Gao Xingjian, 128 Dream of the Red Chamber, 72, 96, 99 Garnett, Constance, 56, 60–1, 161n28 Dreiser, Theodore, 73 Garshin, Vsevolod, 27, 111 Du Fu, 29, 139 Ge Baoquan, 89, 91, 173n36 Dumas fils, Alexandre, 98 Geng Jizhi, 28–9, 32, 61, 69, 77, Dumas père, Alexandre, 96 157n88 Gissing, George R., 23 Ehrenburg, Il’ia, 58, 106–8 Gladkov, Fedor, 104, 112 Eichenwald, Iulii, 57–8 Gliere, Reinhold, 75 Eliot, T.S., 12, 59 Glinka, Mikhail, 139 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 152n44 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 22, émigré literature, 7, 10, 54, 57–9, 64, 24, 27, 97–8, 110, 132 81, 83, 89, 135–6 Gogol, Nikolai, 16, 21, 24, 35, 60, 63, Enfeoffment of the Gods, 100 74, 139 Engels, Friedrich, 92, 123, 132 Goldman, Emma, 73 INDEX 223

Goncharov, Ivan, 16, 44–5 Jiang Chunfang, 90 Gorbatov, Boris, 106 Jiang Guangci, 67, 70–1, 76, 84, Gorky, Maxim, 24, 27, 29, 36, 38, 150n30 42, 44, 46, 55–6, 62, 67, 72, 77, Jin Ren, 90, 108 103, 108, 122, 135, 137, 149n11, Jin Yong, 116 177n69 Joan of Arc, 97 grotesque, the, 10–11, 73, 76, 128 Journey to the West, 100 Gu Hongming, 51 Joyce, James, 12, 59 Guo Moruo, 24, 39, 78, 107, 136–7, Jue Qing, 84 159n4, 162n35, 181n96 Kamenskii, Vasilii, 58 Haggard, H. Rider, 14, 98 Karakhan, Lev, 177n71 Hauptmann, Gerhart, 15, 27, Karamzin, Nikolai, 84, 97 152n44 Ke Ling, 193n100 He Jingzhi, 185n34 Keats, John, 27, 110 He Xi (Cheng Kansheng), 26 Kharms, Daniil, 59 Hegel, G.W.F., 10, 53 Khodasevich, Vladislav, 58 Heine, Heinrich, 23, 188n54 Khrushchev, Nikita, 8, 56, 123 Herzen, Alexander, 56–7, 91, 133 Korneichuk, Alexander, 106–7, 111, Hitler, Adolf, 106, 127 138, 190n72 Holmes, Sherlock, 92, 97–8 Korolenko, Vladimir, 27, 51 Homer, 178n71 Kosmodem’ianskaia, Zoia, 198n9 Hrabal, Bohumil, 140 Kropotkin, Peter, 29, 56–7 Hsia, C.T., 20, 101 Kupala, Ianka, 108 Hsia, T.A., 104 Hu Feng, 56 Lao She, 32, 128, 136, 173n36 Hu Qiuyuan, 20 Lavrenev, Boris, 78–9, 108 Hu Shi, 11, 14, 32–3, 143n3 Lawrence, D.H., 161n28 Hu Yuzhi, 29, 68, 72–6, 145n16 League of Left-Wing Writers, 22, 39, Hua Guofeng, 132 62, 102, 112 Hugo, Victor, 27, 138, 152n44, Leavis, F.R., 48 166n61, 198n3 Lei Feng, 124 “humanist” literature, and humanism, Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 30 18, 27–33, 43–5, 47, 50, 53–6, Lenin, Vladimir, 18, 77, 103, 118, 58, 110, 122, 131–4, 136, 123, 127, 132, 171n22, 186n40 139–41 Leonov, Leonid, 106 Lermontov, Mikhail, 21, 85, 97, Ibanez, Vicente Blasco, 111 170n13 Ibsen, Henrik, 30 Li Bai, 29, 139 Inber, Vera, 58 Li Chuli, 118 “intellectuals”, in Russia and China, Li Dazhao, 17–18 40–2, 52, 119, 132 Li Jijun, 190n77 Ivin, A. (Aleksei Ivanov), 86–7, 89, 93, Li Jiye, 25–6, 154n63 178n73 Li Lanqing, 138–9 224 INDEX

Li Yaolin, 45 Mei Lanfang, 75, 87, 145n14 Li Yu, 55 Mei Yi, 189n71 Li Zicheng, 107 Meierhold, Vsevolod, 74–5, 87, Liang Qichao, 8, 98, 100, 162n31, 178n74 185n29 Mickiewicz, Adam, 21 Liang Shiqiu, 14, 30–1, 33, 143n3, Mikhailovskii, Nikolai, 168n81 162n35 Mikhoels, Solomon, 172n27, 172n30 Libedinskii, Iurii, 176n64 Mill, J.S., 19, 144n5, 149n22 Lin Shu, 14, 22, 98 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 139 Lin Yutang, 33, 159n11 Literary Research Association, 9, 14, Nabokov, Vladimir, 10, 58–60, 63, 24–5, 29, 61 133, 182n6 Liu Binyan, 122–3, 132, 195n121 “national character,” 31, 42, 48–51, Liu Bocheng, 109, 112 53, 120 Liu Shaoqi, 76 Nekrasov, Nikolai, 164n43, 177n67 Liu Xinwu, 197n3 Nie Rongzhen, 109, 113 Liu Zaifu, 158n4 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 9, 18, 23, 57 Lu Xun, 3, 7, 9–11, 15–16, 21–2, Nikolaeva, Galina, 121–3 25, 28–9, 32, 36, 45, 61, 67, Nobel Prize for literature, 15, 59 72, 76–8, 83, 86–8, 92–3, 99, 111, 118–19, 122, 132, 134, Olesha, Iurii, 185n32 140, 162n35, 179n86, 188n53, Olgin, Moissaye, 57, 97, 157n95, 193n99, 194n114 162n32 Luzhkov, Iurii, 139 Orwell, George, 110 Ostrovskii, Alexander, 163n37 Maeterlinck, Maurice, 74 Ostrovskii, Nikolai, 11, 46, 79, 108, Mandelstam, Osip, 36, 58–9 111–12, 115, 122, 135–7 Mao Dun, 9, 14–15, 18, 72, 91, 108, Ovechkin, Valentin, 123 110, 122–4, 132, 136–7, 148n3, 161n24, 171n18, 190n73 Paine, Thomas, 189n63 Mao Zedong, 7–8, 23, 50, 55, 101, Panteleev, Leonid, 197n3 103, 107, 113, 116, 118, 120, Pasternak, Boris, 36, 58–9, 92, 123–4, 126–8, 132, 136, 187n50 173n36, 188n53 Pavlenko, Peter, 168n76 Marx, Karl, 10, 23, 39, 50, 53, 92, Peacock, Thomas Love, 21 123, 132, 137, 171n22 Pereleshin, Valerii, 179n86 Mary, Queen of Scots, 97 Petőfi, Sándor, 21 Maupassant, Guy de, 30 Petrarch, 117 May Fourth, 2–4, 14–15, 18, 21, 23, Phelps, William L., 154n62 30–3, 39, 42, 46–7, 49–50, 60, Pisarev, Dmitrii, 45, 119, 164n43, 69, 76, 116, 122, 140 168n81 Mayakovsky, Vladimir, 52, 58, Plato, 30 185n32, 193n104 Popper, Karl, 53 Mei Guangdi, 30 Princess Turandot, 74, 171n27, 172n28 INDEX 225

Pushkin, Alexander, 21, 25, 51, 59, Shen Zemin, 17, 29, 173n36 71–2, 85, 91–2, 97, 120, 132, Shi Zhecun, 62 138–9, 166n60, 170n13 Shidai chubanshe, see Epoch Press Shmelev, Ivan, 26, 38–9, 58 Qian Gurong, 16, 55, 122 Sholokhov, Mikhail, 90, 102, 106, Qu Qiubai, 18, 23, 36, 42, 52, 67–72, 108, 133, 138, 176n62, 186n34, 75–6, 80–1, 157n88, 167n73, 187n45 193n99 Sholom Aleichem, 74 Qu Shiying, 69, 76 Shostakovich, Dmitrii, 139 Qu Yuan, 20–1 Sieroszewski, Wacław, 167n73 “Silver-age” Russian literature, 10, 43, realism, 9, 12, 29, 38, 43–5, 47, 53, 57, 72, 92, 119–20, 123, 135, 60, 63, 74, 98, 101, 118 167n69 see also socialist realism Simonov, Konstantin, 106, 108–9, Red Flower / Red Poppy, 74–5 113, 133, 190n72 Remarque, Erich Maria, 110–11 Sino-Soviet Cultural Association, 77, rickshaws, 32–3 88, 90, 92 Rogov, Vladimir, 88–9, 181n96 Sino-Soviet Friendship Association, Roland, Madame, 97 88, 91, 139 Rolland, Romain, 174n46 Škvorecky, Joseph, 185n32 Rostand, Edmond, 74 Smedley, Agnes, 176n63 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 18, 159n4, Smith, Arthur H., 48 166n61 Snow, Edgar, 73 Rozanov, Vasilii, 165n51 socialist realism, 12, 14, 55, 58, 102–5, 119, 124, 128, 131 Salutati, Coluccio, 117 Sologub, Fedor, 31, 86–7 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 54 Solov’ev, Vladimir, 8 Sassoon, Siegfried, 110 Solzhenitsyn, Alexander, 133 Savinkov, Boris, 31, 52, 99, 164n47 Spencer, Herbert, 19 Schnitzler, Arthur, 62 Stalin, Joseph, 8, 23, 77, 103, 123, Scholars, The, 87 125, 127, 136, 171n22, 199n13 Seltzer, Thomas, 17, 60 Stalin Prize for literature, 89, 102, Serafimovich, Alexander, 78–9, 107–8 108–9, 111–12, 123 Stanislavskii, Konstantin, 197n1 Seryshev, Innokentii, 176n63 Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 21–2, 63, Shakespeare, William, 30, 96, 100, 158n1 152n44 Su Wen (Du Heng), 20 Shalamov, Varlam, 54 Sun Ke, 88 Shaw, George Bernard, 24, 30, Sun Weishi, 197n1 178n71 Sun Yat-sen, 88 Shelley, Mary, 23 Sun Yat-sen University (Moscow), 76, Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 21–3 173n36 Shen Congwen, 192n89 Sunzi’s Art of War, 113 Shen Ying, 100 symbolism, 9–11, 52, 93 226 INDEX

Tagore, Rabindranath, 14, 152n44 Wei Congwu, 153n58 Tai Jingnong, 153n58 Wei Suyuan, 26, 76–7 Tan Sitong, 30 Weiss, Ruth, 176n63 Tao Yuanming, 31 Wen Yiduo, 159n11 Tchaikovsky, Peter, 139 Wilde, Oscar, 15, 27 Thucydides, 95–6 Wilson, Woodrow, 10, 192n94 Tian Han, 78 Wordsworth, William, 23 Tolstoy, Aleksei, 106, 174n49 writers’ portraits, 19, 24–7, 91, 123, Tolstoy, Leo, 8, 16–18, 24–5, 29, 31, 137, 141 33, 36, 40, 43, 45, 51, 53, 55–7, writers’ tombs, 45–6, 56, 91, 139 59, 70, 72, 85, 90, 97, 109, 111, Wu Mi, 156n81 123, 132–3, 138–41, 152n44, Wu Yunduo, 195n119 152n48, 159n4, 161n24, 170n16, 178n71, 178n73 Xiao Hong, 80, 175n58, 177n65 Tret’iakov, Sergei, 87–8, 185n32 Xiao Jun, 85, 120, 152n43, 194n114 Tsvetaeva, Marina, 36, 58–9 Xiao San, 106–7 Turgenev, Ivan, 16–17, 29–30, 36, 43, Xie Liuyi, 15, 61, 78, 146n18 47, 57, 62–3, 72, 91, 100, 123, Xu Dishan, 159n11 158n1, 161n24, 164n43, 167n72 Xu Guangping, 26, 176n63 Xu Maoyong, 119 Uchiyama Kanzō, 78 Xu Qinwen, 152n46 Ulitskaia, Liudmila, 139 Xu Xiangqian, 109, 190n76 Unnamed Society (Weiming she), 26, Xu Zhimo, 14 76, 79 Xue Fucheng, 184n21

Vakhtangov, Evgenii, 74 Yan Fu, 5, 19 Valla, Lorenzo, 117, 192n94 Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art, Vasil’ev, Boris, 88–9 23–4, 55, 103, 118, 121 Vengerov, Semen, 44–6, 58, 131, 141 Yang Sao, 118 Visconti, Giangaleazzo, 117 Yao Pengzi, 128–9, 177n69 VOKS, 90, 105, 172n31 Yao Wenyuan, 128–9 Volkonskaia, Zinaida, 135 Yao Yuanfang, 113 Voltaire, 166n61 Ye Lingfeng, 61–2, 184n18 Vorovskii, Vaclav, 45 Ye Shengtao, 25 Voynich, Ethel, 11, 109–10 Yeats, W.B., 152n44 Yen, James, 42 Wang Meng, 112, 181n93 Yu Dafu, 22–4, 98–9, 101, 148n6 Wang Ruowang, 195n121 Yu Yizhong, 199n13 Wang Shuo, 133 Yuan Muzhi, 85–6 Wang Tiran, 28 Wang Tongzhao, 27, 84 Zaitsev, Boris, 58 Wang Yingxia, 184n17 Zhang Shoushen, 197n1 Wang Zhichun, 184n21 Zhang Wentian, 22, 52, 110, 154n62 Water Margin, The, 88, 100–1 Zhang Ximan, 179n80 INDEX 227

Zhang Xuecheng, 95 Zhou Yang, 102–4, 120, 152n43, Zhang Yiping, 28 170n16 Zhao Jingshen, 61 Zhou Zuoren, 3, 14, 17, 31–3, 39, 55, Zhao Shuli, 121 101, 111, 176n62, 177n65 Zhao Xun, 180n87 Zhu De, 123 Zhdanov, Andrei, 103 Zhu Rangcheng, 85 Zheng Zhenduo, 14, 25, 28–9, 32–3, Zhu Wan, 198n8 39, 52, 60–1, 67, 69–70, 118, Zhu Ziqing, 159n4 157n88 Zhurba, Pavel, 108, 122 Zhou Libo, 102, 104, 190n75 Zola, Émile, 27, 166n61 Zhou Shoujuan, 26, 60 Zuskin, Veniamin, 172n30