马筱璐 香港科技大学

The term“revolution”orgeming革命captures the public ethos of modern China in the twentieth century.The word also appears frequently in discussions of Russo-Chinese interactions across political，social，and cultural domains.While the most common historical narrative starts with the 1917 Russian October Revolution and moves chronologically to the 1919 Chinese May Fourth Movement，this article instead focuses on the turn of the twentieth century，when Russia first gained prominence in the Chinese press.Readers became especially interested in Russian radical populist activities of the 1860s and 1870s，understood as essential to the global surge of anarchist movements at the time.The Russian populists（narodniki）—known in China as the“nihilist party”（xuwudang虚无党）and famed for their advocacy of violence and terrorism—inspired many Chinese readers to express their fascination through written publications and political campaigns.1As this article discusses，multiple terms—nihilism，anarchism，populism—are used to characterize the Russian radical movements of the 1860s and 1870s.While these terms evoke distinct connotations，they are on many occasions used interchangeably in the Chinese context.For the sake of consistency，this article uses Russian nihilism，the Russian nihilist movement，and Russian nihilist to refer to the philosophical ideas，political activities，and people involved in this cultural trend writ broadly.Sig nificantly，the introduction of recent Russian political history into China coincided with the intro duction of Russian literature to a broad Chinese readership. Consequently，Chinese readers’firstexposure to Russian literature was closely connected with political affairs，in turn affecting its re ception in China throughoutthe twentieth century.

Chinese readers in the early twentieth century generally associated the Russian nihilist party with revolutionary agitation against tsarism，including the 1881 assassination of Alexander II.However，as a cultural movement and early form of Russian anarchism，actual Russian nihilism barely had a cohesive program of political action or ideology，apart from a consistently rebellious spirit against tradition and the current social order. The work that popularized this term—Ivan Tur genev’s（1818-1883）1862 novel Fathers and Sons（Ottsy i deti）—used“nihilists”to refer to theyoung，radical generation that espoused materialism and positivism.2I.S.Turgenev，Ottsyideti（Fathers and Sons）（Moscow：Gosudarstvennoeizdatel'stvokhudozhestvennoiliteratury，1948）..When members of this gener ation—provoked by Russia’s persistent social problems after the 1861 emancipation of the serfs—attempted to engage with the peasantry as the revolutionary force that could overthrow monarchy，they were identified as populists（or Narodniks）. Not every Russian populist resorted to terrorism，but some of the most prominent ones plotted in secret to overthrow the government with violenceand terror，and these eventually came to representthe Russian nihilist party in China.3Studies on Russian nihilism/anarchism/populism include：Ronald Hingley，Nihilists：Russian Radicals and Revolutionaries in the Reign of Alexander II，1855-81（London：Weidenfeld and Nicolson，1967）；Daniel R.Brower，Training the Nihilists：Education and Radicalism in Tsarist Russia（Ithaca，NY：Cornell University Press，1975）；Paul Avrich，The Russian Anarchists（New York：Norton，1978）；Emel'ian IAroslavskii，History of Anarchism in Russia（New York：International publishers，1937）；Irving Louis Horowitz，TheAnarchists，ed.Irving Louis Horowitz（New York：Dell Pub.Co.，1964）；Richard Wortman，The Crisis of Russian Populism（London：Cambridge University Press，1967）.

The Chinese image of the Russian nihilist party took shape largely through the mediation of Japan.As a result，the initial Chinese perception of Russian literature and its intimate relationship with revolution adopted certain features derived from Japanese scholarship and interpretation.In particular，the towering figure of Kemuyama Sentarō煙山専太郎（1877-1954）stands out among Japanese cultural mediators，with his work forming a bridge to connect Chinese readers with not only Russian radical politics of the late nineteenth century，but also with the Russian literature produced during this period of social turmoil.4Scholars have recognized Kemuyama’s importance in the initial Chinese reception of Russian nihilism.See Don C.Price，Russia and the Roots of the Chinese Revolution，1896-1911（Cambridge，MA：Harvard University Press，1974），122-24；Nakamura Tetsuo，“The Influence of Kemuyama Sentarō’s Modern Anarchism on the Chinese Revolutionary Movement，”in The 1911 Revolution in China—Interpretive Essays，eds.Shinkichi Etōand Harold Z.Schiffrin（Tokyo：University of Tokyo Press，1984）；Mark Gamsa，The Chinese Translation of Russian Literature：Three Studies（Leiden，Boston：Brill，2008），18-19.Most of extant scholarship—both these texts and the many other Japanese and Chinese studies on this issue—examine the political and social implications of the reception of Kemuyama’s book and ignore its impact on the literary sphere，where it also shaped the initial Chinese interpretation of Russian literature.In the first decade of the 1900s，Kemuyama’s 1902book Kinsei museifu shugi《近世無政府主義》（Modern Anarchism）offered many Chinese readerstheir introduction to the Russian nihilist party. According to Don Price，this book“provided thefirst extensive treatment in the Japanese language of Russian‘nihilism’and the most authoritativesource on the subject accessible to the Chinese intelligentsia.”5Price，Russia and the Roots of the Chinese Revolution，1896-1911，122.

As a result of the book’s importance，an examination ofModern Anarchism’s Chinese recep tion gives insight into how Chinese translators explored the relationship between revolution and literature at the beginning of the 1900s.I use the term“translation”in a broad sense in this article.6In a 2015 article，Li Dongmu lists every book and periodical essay published from 1903 to 1907 that scholars have identified as using Kemuyama’s Modern Anarchism for reference.See李冬木：《留学生周树人“个人”语境中的“斯契纳尔”——兼谈“蚊学士”、烟山专太郎》，《东岳论丛》2015年第6期，第64~65页。［LI Dongmu，“Liuxuesheng Zhou Shuren‘geren’yujing zhong de‘Siqina’er’——jiantan‘yixueshi’Yanshan Zhuantailang”（Max Stirner in the Context of Understanding Exchange Student Zhou Shuren as An Individual：A Study of“Master Mosquito”and Bungakushi Kemuyama Sentarō），Dongyue luncong（Dongyue Tribune）36，no.5（2015）：64-65.］These publications include：《俄罗斯虚无党三杰传》，《大陆》报，1903年6月5日，第7期“史传”栏。［Anon.，“Eluosi xuwudang san jie zhuan”（Biographies of Three Russian Nihilist Heroes），Dalu（Shanghai 1902）（Continent〈Shanghai 1902〉），June 5，1903：7］；《弑俄帝亚历山德者传》，《大陆》报，1903年，第9期。［Anon.，“Shi EdiYalishande zhe zhuan”（A Biography of theAssassin of Czar Alexander），Dalu（Shanghai 1902）（Continent〈Shanghai 1902〉），1903：9］；杀青译：《俄国压制之反动力》，《童子世界》，1903年6月16日，第33号。［Sha Qing，trans.，“Eguo yazhi zhi fandongli”（The Counterforce against Russian Repression），Tongzi shijie（Juvenile World），June 16，1903：33］；《俄罗斯虚无党付印》（广告），《汉声》，1903年7月，第6号。［“Eluosi xuwudang fuyin（guanggao）”（The Nihilist Party of Russia Goes to Press/The Printing of The Russian Nihilist Party）（Ad.），Hansheng（Voice of the Han），July，1903：6］；辕孙：《露西亚虚无党》，《江苏》，1903年7月24日、8月23日，第4、5期。［Yuan Sun，“Luxiya xuwudang”（The Russian Nihilist Party），Jiangsu（Dongjing）（Jiangsu Journal〈Tokyo〉），July 24，August 23，1903：4，5］；独头：《俄人要求立宪之铁血主义》，《浙江潮》，1903年4月20日、5月20日，第4、5号。［Du Tou，“Eren yaoqiu lixian zhi tiexue zhuyi（weiwan）”（The Iron and Blood Doctrines within the Context of the Russians’Demand of Constitutionalism），Zhejiang chao（Dongjing）（Tide of Zhejiang），April 20，May 20，1903：4，5］；杀青译：《俄罗斯的革命党》，《童子世界》，1903年6月16日，第33号。［Sha Qing，“Eluosi de gemingdang（weiwan）”（The Russian Revolutionary Party〈Unfinished〉），Tongzi shijie（Juvenile World），June 16，1903：33；任客：《俄国虚无党女杰沙勃罗克传》，《浙江潮》，1903年10月11日，第7期。［Ren Ke，“Eguo xuwudang nüjie Shaboluoke zhuan”（The Biography of the Heroine of the Russian Nihilist Party Sof'ia Perovskaia），Zhejiang chao（Dongjing）（Tide of Zhejiang），October 11，1903：7］；（清）中国之新民（梁启超）：《论俄罗斯虚无党》，《新民丛报》，1903年11月2日，第40、41期合刊。［Zhongguo Zhi Xinmin（LIANG Qichao），“Lun Eluosi xuwudang”（On the Russian Nihilist Party），Xinmin congbao（New Citizen Journal），November 2，1903：40/41］；张继等译：《俄皇亚历山大第二之死状》，《国民日日报》，1904年9月4日，第1版。［ZHANG Zai et al.，trans.，“Ehuang Yalishanda di er zhi sizhuang”（The Death of Czar Alexander II），Guomin riri bao huibian（A Collection of the National Daily/The China National Gazette），September 4，1904：1］；自然生（张继）译：《无政府主义》，《国民日日报》（1903年）。［Ziran Sheng（ZHANG Ji），“Wuzhengfu zhuyi”（Anarchism），Guomin riri bao huibian（The China National Gazette）（Shanghai，1903）］；湖南之湖南人（杨笃生）：《新湖南》，上海：镜今书局，1903年。［Hunan Zhi Hunanren（YANG Dusheng），Xin hunan（New Hunan），Shanghai：Jing Jin Bookstore，1903］；金一（金天翮）：《自由血》，上海：镜今书局，1904年。［Jin Yi（JIN Tianhe），Ziyou xue（Free Blood），Shanghai：Jing Jin Bookstore，1904］；冷血（陈冷）译：《虚无党》，上海：开明书店，1904年。［Leng Xue（CHEN Leng），Xuwudang（The Nihilist Party），Shanghai：Kaiming Bookstore，1904］；渊实（廖仲恺）：《无政府主义与社会主义》，《民报》，1906年11月15日，第9号。［Yuan Shi（LIAO Zhongkai），“Wuzhengfu zhuyi yu shehui zhuyi”（Anarchism and Socialism），Min bao（People’s Daily），November 15，1906：9］；《虚无党小史》，《民报》，1907年1月25日、10月25日，第11、17号。［“Xuwudang xiaoshi”（ABrief History of the Nihilist Party），Min bao（People’s Daily），January 25，October 25，1907：11，17.］Apart from the aforementioned publications，three articles—“Eguo xuwudang yuanliu kao”《俄国虚无党源流考》（The Origins of the Russian Nihilist Party），“Shensheng xuwudang”《神圣虚无党》（The Sacred Nihilist Party），and“E xuwudang zhi zhanyao zhuang”《俄虚无党之斩妖状》（The Story of How the Russian Nihilist Party Killed the Demons）—were published in Jingzhong Ribao《警钟日报》（Alarm Bell Daily）between March and April of 1904.Another journal，Han Zhi《汉帜》（The Han Banner），also published the essay“Eguo xuwudang zhi zhu jiguan”《俄国虚无党之诸机关》（The Agents of the Russian Nihilist Party）by an author using the pseudonym Baodan（爆弹）in March 1907.According to Li，there likely exist more publications that used Kemuyama’s book for reference.In some cases the translations were fairly complete：in 1904，Jin Yi金一（1873-1947，also known as Jin Tianhe金天翮or Jin Songcen金松岑）published a translation of the first half of Kemuyama’s book，which he renamedZiyou Xue《自由血》（Free Blood）. However，the majority of Chinese trans lators only rendered selected chapters from Kemuyama’s book. Moreover，most of these transla tions were published in periodicals，and were therefore influenced by the lack of standardization inthe Chinese publication industry，which tended to favor immediacy and efficiency. These factorsdetermined the translators’diverse approaches to their Japanese source. Some translators substan tially condensed Kemuyama’s chapters to meet page limits，while others added their own commen taries，passing them off as Kemuyama’s. Many did not even acknowledge their references，andsome merely weaved factual evidence from Kemuyama’s work into their own arguments.

Although the cases this article addresses include writers who might not view their literary production as translation，I still discuss these cases under the heading of translation.After all，if we consider translation as“an imperialist appropriation of foreign cultures for domestic agendas，”be it cultural or political，these works are indeed perfect examples of“the violence of translation，”which according to Lawrence Venuti“resides in its［translation’s］very purpose and activity”and determines“the production，circulation，and reception of texts.”7Lawrence Venuti，“Translation as a Social Practice：Or，the Violence of Translation，”Translation Perspectives 9（1996）：196.Fidelity to the original was not these translators’concern.Their aims went beyond conveying the original message，regardless of whether that message came from Russian revolutionaries or from Kemuyama.Instead，their efforts centered on the now-time（Jetztzeitin Benjamin’s term）within revolutionary historicity.8Walter Benjamin，“The Task of the Translator，”in Walter Benjamin：Selected Writings，vol.1，1913-1926，eds.Marcus Bullock and Michael W.Jennings（Cambridge，MA：Belknap Press of Harvard University Press，1996）；Walter Benjamin，“On the Concept of History，”in Walter Benjamin：Selected Writings，4：1938-1940，eds.Howard Eiland and Michael W.Jennings（Cambridge，MA；London：Harvard University Press，2003）；Walter Benjamin，“On Language as Such and On the Language of Man，”in Walter Benjamin：Selected Writings 1913-1926，eds.Marcus Bullock and Michael W.Jennings（Cambridge，MA：Belknap Press of Harvard University Press，1996）.While the facts they included may have largely come from Kemuyama’s book，they added their owncommentariesliberally，transforming Kemuyama’sscholarlywork intoacalltoarms.

The relationship between revolution and literature is a central theme in the early Chinese reception of Russian literature and a crucial subject in modern Chinese literature broadly.The transition from“literary revolution”to“revolutionary literature”is a well-established way of framing the history of modern Chinese literature.9The first thirty years of the twentieth century witnessed the ideological transition of modern Chinese literature from wenxue geming文学革命（literary revolution）to geming wenxue革命文学（revolutionary literature）.The New Culture Movement in the late 1910s and early 1920s，which promoted a complete rejection of the Chinese literary tradition—including embracing a new vernacular writing style—was central to the“literary revolution”in China.Meanwhile，the advocacy of“revolutionary literature”is generally associated with the leftist literary turn in China；it was driven initially by Chinese Marxist disciples returning from Japan in 1927 and 1928，leading to the formation of the Left League espousing proletarian literature in the 1930s.See CHEN Jianhua Chen，“Revolution：From Literary Revolution to Revolutionary Literature，”in Words and Their Stories：Essays on the Language of Chinese Revolution，ed.WANG Ban（Leiden：Brill，2010）.This narrative captures the focal points of modern Chinese literature in the first thirty years of the twentieth century：Chinese writers’enthusiasm for revolu tion drew them closer to Russian literature which in turn led to profound engagement with the polit icalturmoil and social revolution represented there.

Although it was a book on philosophical ideas and political movements，Kemuyama’s book gave Chinese readers their first glimpse into the Russian literary world.Encouraged by the link Kemuyama draws between literature and revolution，Chinese translators—many of whom were lovers of literature—further explored this relationship by enhancing the literary rhetoric in their own renditions of Kemuyama’s book.As Lawrence Venuti argues：“Translating is always ideological because it releases a domestic remainder，an inscription of values，beliefs，and representations linked to historical moments and social positions in the receiving culture.In serving domestic interests，a translation provides an ideological resolution for the linguistic and cultural differences of the foreign text.”10Lawrence Venuti，“Translation，Community，Utopia，”in The Translation Studies Reader（New York：Routledge，2004），498.To effectively transmit the Russian revolutionary ideology described in Kemuyama’s book，the Chinese translators invoked Chinese rhetoric，including allusions to classical poetry and canonical moments in Chinese fiction.As a result，their translations became more effective in appealing emotionally to Chinese readers，which served the translators’goal of arousing the revolutionary spiritof thegeneralpublic.

Revolutionand theRussian Nihilist Party

Geming革命，a Chinese term for“revolution，”is commonly associated with political rebellion or revolt against the current regime，especially involving violence and social turmoil.11CHEN，“Revolution：From Literary Revolution to Revolutionary Literature，”16.Al though the term is not frequently used in traditional writing，it has appeared in ancient Chinese clas sics as early asYijing《易经》（The Book of Changes），the earliest records of which may date from theend of the second millennium BCE.12金观涛：《革命观念在中国的起源和演变》，《政治与社会哲学评论》2005年第13期，第5~8页。［JIN Guantao，“Geming guannian zai Zhongguo de qiyuan he yanbian”（The Origins and Transformation of the Concept of Revolution in China），Zhengzhi yu shehui zhexue pinglun（Political and Social Philosophy Review）13（2005）：5-8.］The general association between the change of dynasties andseasonal changes in nature granted the notion of shifting political leadership—and geming—overalllegitimacy in traditional Chinese discourse. Use of the term geming became more common duringthe late Qing dynasty. The political and cultural reforms initiated by the Qing government failed tosatisfy the expectations of intellectuals anxiously searching for a remedy to what looked like the na tion’s impending collapse.

The word’s increased popularity can be attributed to the Chinese readoption，from Japan，of classical terms with modern connotations.13The Sino-Japanese linguistic entanglement is the subject of a great deal of scholarship；one book especially relevant to my argument here is Lydia He Liu，Translingual Practice：Literature，National Culture，and Translated Modernity-China，1900-1937（Stanford，CA：Stanford University Press，1995）.In his 1887Riben Guozhi《日本国志》（Treatises on Japan），for instance，Huang Zunxian黄遵宪（1848-1905）usedgemingto refer to the goal of political assassins in Japan.14金观涛：《革命观念在中国的起源和演变》，第9~10页。［JIN，“Geming guannian zai Zhongguo de qiyuan he yanbian”（The Origins and Transformation of the Concept of Revolution in China），9-10.］It was one of the earliest uses ofgemingin its modern sense in China.The intimate association betweengemingand rebellion remains in Chinese discourse due to its wide reference to global affairs involving revolutionary violence.And Japanese mediation facilitated this association.For example，in 1890 Wang Tao’s王韬（1828-1897）translation of Okamoto Kensuke’s岡本監輔（1839-1905）Bankoku shiki《萬國史記》（Historical Records of All Countries）directly adopted the Japanese wordkakumei（gemingin Chinese）to describe the French Revolution.15陈建华：《“革命”的现代性——中国革命话语考论》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2000年，第30~36页。［CHEN Jianhua，Geming de xiandaixing——Zhongguo geming huayu kaolun（The Modernity of“Geming”：Textual Studies of Revolution Discourses in Modern China），Shanghai：Shanghai Chinese Classics Publishing House，2000，30-36.］

Russian revolutionary politics were studied in a similar transcultural context in late Qing China.The first Russian revolutionary movement widely known to Chinese readers was that which emerged from radical Russian politics in the 1860s and 1870s.For example，Liang Qichao梁启超（1873-1929），the foremost political activist and reformer of the late Qing dynasty，opened his influential 1903 essay“Lun Eluosi xuwudang”《论俄罗斯虚无党》（On the Russian Nihilist Party）by stating that the Russian nihilist party arose from Russian revolutionism（geming zhuyi革命主义）—or more specifically，the impossibility of directly implementing nihilist’s desired revolutionism.16（清）中国之新民（梁启超）：《论俄罗斯虚无党》，第59页。［Zhongguo Zhi Xinmin（LIANG Qichao），“Lun Eluosi xuwudang”（On the Russian Nihilist Party），59.］Another article from the same year，“Eren yaoqiu lixian zhi tiexue zhuyi”《俄人要求立宪之铁血主义》（The Blood and Iron Demand of the Russian People for a Constitution）written by Dong Hongyi董鸿褘（1878-1916）under the penname Dutou（独头），traced Russian revolutionary impulses to the French Revolution，which had stirred up anti-authoritarian political movements across Europe inthenineteenthcentury.17独头：《俄人要求立宪之铁血主义》，《浙江潮》，1903年4月20日，第4号，第21页。［DuTou，“Erenyaoqiu lixian zhi tie xue zhuyi（wei wan）”（TheIron and Blood Doctrines with in the Context of the Russians’Demand of Constitutionalism），April20，1903：4，21.］

Both these essays used Japanese scholar Kemuyama’s bookModern Anarchismfor reference.Liang Qichao’s declaration is a direct borrowing of Kemuyama’s assertion that both anarchism and Russian nihilism are the extreme forms of revolutionism.18（日）煙山専太郎：《近世無政府主義》，東京：明治文獻，1965年，第2頁。［SentarōKemuyama，Kinsei museifu shugi（Modern Anarchism），Tōkyō：Meiji Bunken，1965，2.］Dutou’s essay likewise borrowed substantially from Kemuyama’s factual descriptions.In fact，in the first five years after the 1902 publication of Kemuyama’s book，at least twenty books and periodical essays in China translated directly from the book or used the book as their primary reference.19李冬木：《留学生周树人“个人”语境中的“斯契纳尔”——兼谈“蚊学士”、烟山专太郎》，《东岳论丛》2015年第6期，第64~65页。［LI Dongmu，“Liuxuesheng Zhou Shuren‘geren’yujing zhong de‘Siqina’er’——jiantan‘yixueshi’Yanshan Zhuantailang”（Max Stirner in the Context of Understanding Exchange Student Zhou Shuren as An Individual：A Study of“Master Mosquito”and Bungakushi Kemuyama Sentarō），Dongyue luncong（Dongyue Tribune）36，no.5（2015）：64-65.］The heavy reliance on Kemuyama’s book is evidence of the importance of Japan’smediatingrole in the Chinese reception of Russiannihilism.Many scholars have documented the early twentieth-century Chinese enthusiasm for Russian nihilism；20See Martin Bernal，Chinese Socialism to 1907（Ithaca，NY：Cornell University Press，1976）；Arif Dirlik，Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution（Berkeley：University of California Press，1991）；Price，Russia and the Roots of the Chinese Revolution，1896-1911；Mary Backus Rankin，Early Chinese Revolutionaries：Radical Intellectuals in Shanghai and Chekiang，1902-1911（Cambridge，MA：Harvard University Press，1971）；Peter Zarrow，Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture（New York：Columbia University Press，1990）.The publications listed above are in English；there are too many Chinese publications on the Chinese reception of Russian nihilism to list here.they have also noted Japan’s central mediating role in early Chinese appropriation of Russian nihilism.In this period Japan hosted a large number of Chinese exchange students and political expatriates，to many of whom the ideas of social transformation and political apocalypse appealed.Although scholarly narratives about this period frequently make reference to Kemuyama，there remains the need for in-depth research to fully understand his scholarship’s importance in shaping the initial Chinese understanding of Russian politics and literature.On the one hand，Kemuyama’s book provided Chinese readers with crucial historical details that satisfied their curiosity about the Russian radical movements；on the other hand，Chinese translators filtered and repackaged the information from Kemuyama’s book to serve their own revolutionary pur suits.

Kemuyama graduated from Waseda University（早稲田大学，then known as Tōkyō Senmon Gakkō東京専門学校）.Although scholars have not found clear evidence of personal engagement between Kemuyama and any of his Chinese translators，we do know that Dong Hongyi，the author of“The Blood and Iron Demand of the Russian People for a Constitution，”studied at Waseda University and becameamember of theQingnianHui青年会（Youth Association），anearlyrevolutionary association organized by Chinese students in Japan—mostly from Waseda University.21Many translators of Kemuyama’s book had connections with Waseda University.Apart from Dong Hongyi，Zhang Ji张继（1882-1947），YangDusheng杨笃生（1871-1911）andLiaoZhongkai廖仲恺（1877-1925）alsostudiedatWasedaUniversity.In fact，many early translators of Kemuyama’s book were not only admirers of Russian nihilists but also ac tive members of the secret anti-Manchu political organizations in Japan.22Nakamura Tetsuo，“The Influence of Kemuyama Sentarō’s Modern Anarchism on the Chinese Revolutionary Movement，”in The 1911 Revolution in China：Interpretive Essays，eds.Shinkichi Etōand Harold Z.Schiffrin（Tokyo：University of Tokyo Press，1984），95-104.Hence，the translation of Kemuyama’s work did not merely provide them with ideological inspiration，but more importantly，a blueprint for radical activities.It is not surprising that the Chinese vision of Russian nihilism propagated by these early translators largely transformed it into a movement advocating assassina tion and terrorism，and offering a radical form of revolutionary inspiration.

Equally worth noting is the difference in the attitudes Kemuyama and his Chinese translators take towards Russian nihilists.In his introduction，Kemuyama makes clear that his book is a work of historical scholarship about anarchism as a social illness；he refers to anarchists as paranoiacs and fanatics.23（日）煙山専太郎：《近世無政府主義》，第1頁。［SentarōKemuyama，Kinsei museifu shugi（ModernAnarchism），1.］His approach differs significantly from that of the majority of his Chinese translators，who enthusiastically embraced the revolutionary spirit they found in Russian nihilism.The major media outlets that published translations from Kemuyama’s work—including periodicals such asJiangsu《江苏》（Jiangsu）andZhejiang Chao《浙江潮》（Tide of Zhejiang）—were established by Chinese students in Japan and expressed their founders’strong anti-Qing sentiments.The Chinese translators openly voiced their own enthusiasm.They condemned“the oppression of the autocratic［Russian］government”（zhuanzhi zhengfu zhi yazhi专制政府之压制）and called the nihilists the“people’s party that fights against violence for a righteous cause”（chu bao cheng ren zhimindang除暴成仁之民党）.24辕孙：《露西亚虚无党》（未完），《江苏》，1903年7月24日，第4期，第51、54页。［Yuan Sun，“Luxiya xuwudang（weiwan）”（Russian Nihilists，To-be-continued），Jiangsu（Dongjing）（Jiangsu Journal），July 24，1903：4，51，54.］The Chinese were greatly impressed by how the nihilists—regardless of gender—dared to challenge the highest authority with bombs and daggers for the sake of freedom，and considered the irtactics an effective option for transforming China’s corrupt political system and elevating the national spirit.25辕孙：《露西亚虚无党》（未完），《江苏》，1903年7月24日，第4期，第54~55页。［Yuan Sun，“Luxiya xuwudang（weiwan）”（Russian Nihilists，To-be-continued），Jiangsu（Dongjing）（Jiangsu Journal），July 24，1903：4，54-55.］Such strong support for Russian revolutionary politics is completely absent from Kemuyama’sbook.

Chinese readers and activists thus reconceived the Russian nihilist model as a manifestation of“extreme revolutionism”characterized by ruthless idealism，fanatical hostility to the existing political and social order，and strong connotations of violence.26Price，Russia and the Roots of the Chinese Revolution，1896-1911，122-23.This passion for Russian nihilism was clearly reflected in the late Qing publication industry，where there emerged a great number of translations and original literary creations about Russian nihilists.27There are over thirty titles of Russian nihilist stories published in the 1900s and 1910s in China.Most of them were translations，but there also existed a few literary creations by Chinese authors.Many of these stories include Russian nihilist party in their title to attract readers’attention.（See Jing Tsu，“Female Assassins，Civilization，and Technology in Late Qing Literature and Culture，”in Different Worlds of Discourse：Transformations of Gender and Genre in Late Qing and Early Republican China，eds.QIAN Nanxiu，Grace S.Fong，and Richard J.Smith（Leiden；Boston：Brill，2008）；赵星晨：《晚清虚无党小说研究》，上海：华东师范大学中文系硕士论文，2015年。［ZHAO Xingchen，“Wan Qing xuwudang xiaoshuo yanjiu”（The Study of Nihilist Novels in the Late Qing Dynasty），master’s thesis，East China Normal University，2015.］Translators such as Chen Jinghan陈景韩（1878-1965）and Zhou Shoujuan周瘦鹃（1895-1968）were especially influential in im porting foreign fiction about Russian nihilists into China via Japanese sources.Fascinated Chinese writers also recaptured the exciting bomb-throwing and knife-wielding scenes in their own stories，the most famous of which includedNie Hai Hua《孽海花》（Flower in a Sea of Sin）andDong’ou Nü Haojie《东欧女豪杰》（Heroines of Eastern Europe）.This interest also extended beyond literature：historical Russian nihilist martyrs found their Chinese counterparts in political activists such as Qiu Jin秋瑾（1875-1907）and Wu Yue吴樾（1878-1905），who believed in radical nationalism and participated in the assassinations of Manchu officials.

It is important to note that there never existed a group in Russia that could be identified simply as the“nihilist party.”Radical activists of the time are commonly described using one of three terms：nihilist，anarchist，and populist.28The literal Chinese translations of nihilist，anarchist，and populist are：xuwu zhuyi zhe虚无主义者，wuzhengfu zhuyi zhe无政府主义者，and mincui zhuyi zhe民粹主义者respectively.However，in Chinese publications addressing the Russian context，the three terms are more frequently translated as xuwudang虚无党，wuzhengfu zhuyi zhe无政府主义者，and mincui pai民粹派.More specifically，in the late Qing period，the two most commonly used terms were xuwudang虚无党to refer to the general group and minyidang民意党to refer to the Narodniks（narodniki）in particular.Of all the terms，xuwudang（literal meaning：nihilist party）was most widely used.Although it was primarily employed when referring to Russian political events，it was also applied to dissidents in other countries.Some scholars have noticed this confusion in terminology.For example，Arif Dirlik points out that when nihilism was first introduced to China，many people considered it equivalent to anarchism.（Dirlik，Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution，63.）In most studies，though，scholars focus on the use of a subset of these labels，and overlook the great variety of terms that may potentially introduce divergent connotations.Although Chinese writers used these terms interchangeably to refer to the same group of people，xuwu dang虚无党（Russian nihilist party）is the phrase that dominated early Chinese periodicals.These three terms actually correspond with different philosophical schools—namely nihilism，anarchism and populism—but the Chinese were not generally interested in the theoretical nuances that caused the entanglement of these labels.By shifting attention from-ism to-ist，Chinese writers sought to highlight the activists themselves and their po litical deeds. The addition of“party”（dang 党），suggesting a group with shared political commit ments，reinforces a sense of coherence absent from the original Russian context.

This approach is clearly reflected in the Chinese appropriation of Kemuyama’sModern Anar⁃chism.To begin with，although Kemuyama chose“anarchism”（museifu shugi無政府主義）for his book title，most of the Chinese publications scholars have identified as based on his book instead use“nihilist party”in the title.One essay uses“Russian revolutionary party”and only a single essay mentions the term“anarchism”in its title.Moreover，while Kemuyama provides a comprehensive view of anarchist movements around the globe and uses the second half of his book to elaborate on the situation in Europe and America，Chinese readers focused primarily on Kemuyama’s description of Russian anarchism as a revolutionary movement originating from Russian nihilism.Within this portion of the book，Kemuyama articulates the philosophical origins of Russian nihilism and explores its theoretical complexity—yet many Chinese publications instead chose to emphasize specific figures who are recognized as Russian nihilists and who made their fame through assassination attempts.It is evident that the Chinese in their early reception of Russian nihilism preferred to view itin terms of the heroic deeds of specific figures from a well-organized political group.

Kemuyama presented Russian nihilism as an important component of the global anarchist movement.29（日）煙山専太郎：《近世無政府主義》，第2頁。［SentarōKemuyama，Kinsei museifu shugi（ModernAnarchism），2.］The abridged Chinese translations of Kemuyama’s book largely blur these categories，and“nihilist party”becomes the primary label to refer not only to Russian activists，but to radi cals with similar goals around the world. In extreme cases，“nihilist”simply became an equivalentfor“assassin.”The 1906 short story“Huangshi Zhi Xuwudang”《皇室之虚无党》（Imperial Nihilist）uses the term nihilist to describe the group of assassins that served the Yongzheng Emperor 雍正（1678-1735）.30（日）金津圆太郎著，大哀氏译：《皇室之虚无党》，《复报》，1906年10月12日，第5期。［Jinjin Yuantailang，“Huangshi zhi xuwudang”（Imperial Nihilist），trans.Da’aishi，Fubao（Restoration News/Magazine of Renaissance），October 12，1906：5.］

These transformations suggest the importance of the autonomy these Chinese translators exercised.The popularity of the termxuwudang虚无党（“Russian nihilist party”）emerged from the Chinese adoption of the Japanese termkyomutō虚无党，which is written with the same characters.However，the connotations of the characters in Chinese and Japanese differ in crucial ways.The Japanese charactertō党refers broadly to a group of people with similar interest or hobbies，which need notbe political；therefore，kyomutōmightpotentially be interpreted as a group of people interested in nihilism as an idea.Meanwhile，the equivalent Chinese characterdang，which translates to“party，”has stronger political associations than the Japanesetō.As a result，the direct adoption of the Japanese term actually first prompted Chinese readers to regard Russian nihilists as a group with a common political aim.In this way，direct borrowing from Japanese texts established a direc tion for interpretation which perfectly matched the political demands of Chinese radicals.

It is convenient for Chinese writers to emphasize the revolutionary impulse of the Russian nihilistparty.Indeed，itmay be considered a strategy by Chinese translators to underscore the revolutionary dimensions of the Russian nihilist movement.Again the Chinese interpretation focuses on only a narrow portion of Kemuyama’s book.Kemuyama divides the history of Russian nihilism into three periods：1.The period of revolutionary literature（the beginning of the nineteenth century to 1863）；2.The period of promotion and instigation（1863-1877）；3.The period of assassination and terrorism（1878-1883）.31（日）煙山専太郎：《近世無政府主義》，第77頁。［SentarōKemuyama，Kinsei museifu shugi（Modern Anarchism），77.］Although he also highlights individual activists in the movement，including the female assassins with whom Chinese writers were particularly fascinated，he does so for only a small portion of the book.Asignificant amount ofModern Anarchismis actually devoted to the social context and ideological developments in Russia that eventually led to the violence emphasized by Chinese translators.Instead of recognizing the ideological nuances，Chinese translators turned towards sensationalism，using eye-catching titles to accentuate the resulting violence—such as“Shi Edi Yalishande Zhe Zhuan”《弑俄帝亚历山德者传》（A Biography of the Assassin of Czar Alexander）or“Ehuang Yalishanda Di’er Zhi Sizhuang”《俄皇亚历山大第二之死状》（The Death of the Russian Tsar Alexander II）.This strategy of cultural remodeling helped unleash an era of terrorism arising from anti-Manchu nationalism，ultimately leading to the 1911 Revolution and the start of the Republican period energized by soaring revolutionary zeal.

Revolution and Literature

The Chinese discourse connecting literature with revolution is generally seen as arising in the late Qing period when Liang Qichao proposed the idea of“literary revolution”（wenjie geming文界革命），encompassing both“poetry revolution”（shijie geming诗界革命）and“fiction revolution”（xiaoshuojie geming小说界革命）.32（清）任公（梁启超）：《汗漫录》，《清议报》，1900年2月，第36册，第23~29页。［Ren Gong（LIANG Qichao），“Han man lu（jie qian ce）”（Chronique de Hanman/Record of Travel〈AContinuation〉），Qing yi bao（Journal of Popular Opinion/Pure Criticism/The China Discussion），February，1900：36，23-29.］Liang was inspired by the Japanese appropriation of Western literature and the role of the publication industry in Japanese modernization.In his famous 1902 essay“Lun Xiaoshuo Yu Qunzhi Zhi Guanxi”《论小说与群治之关系》（On the Relationship Between Fiction and the Government of the People），Liang considers the revolution of fiction to be a key contributor to the rejuvenation of the Chinese people.33（清）梁启超：《论小说与群治之关系》，载《梁启超全集》，北京：北京出版社，1999年，第884页。［LIANG Qichao，“Lun xiaoshuo yu qunzhi zhi guanxi”（On the Relationship between Fiction and the Government of the People），in Liang Qichao quanji（Complete Works of Liang Qichao），Beijing：Beijing Publishing House，1999，884.］The transformation of slogans from“literary revolution”to“revolutionary literature”in the early twentieth century may suggest that morphing ideologies drove changing cultural emphases，yet the close tie between revolution and literature in both slogans indicates a strong belief in the social function of literature.Such a conviction guided Chinese readers to Russian literature that demonstrated an intimate relationship with Russian politics.The formation of such impressions may be attributed to the Chinese reliance on Japanese media.The translation of Kemuyama’s book，for example，helped Chinese readers see Rus sian literature as closely connected with politics.

Although Kemuyama’s book is far from being a study of Russian literary history，it does provide a brief sketch of nineteenth-century Russian literature.As mentioned above，Kemuyama describes the first stage in the development of Russian nihilism as the period of revolutionary literature（kakumei bungaku no jiki革命文學の時期），to which he devotes a whole chapter.In this chapter，he mentions not only key literary figures closely connected with Russian nihilism，such as Turgenev and Nikolai Chernyshevskii（1828-1889），but also provides a broad survey of all the major figures in nineteenth-century Russian literature including Aleksandr Pushkin（1799-1837）and Nikolai Gogol（1809-1852）.34（日）煙山専太郎：《近世無政府主義》，第77~91頁。［Sentarō Kemuyama，Kinseimuseifushugi（Modern Anarchism），77-91.］Liang Qichao in his essay“On the Russian Nihilist Party”follows Kemuyama by also opening his account with Gogol’s 1842 novelDead Souls（Mertvye dushi），Tur genev’s 1847-1851 short story collectionA Sportsman’s Sketches（Zapiski okhotnika），and Alexan-der Herzen’s（1812-1870）Who is to Blame？（Kto vinovat？）.35（清）中国之新民（梁启超）：《论俄罗斯虚无党》，第59~60页。［Zhongguo Zhi Xinmin（LIANG Qichao），“Lun Eluosi xuwudang”（On the Russian Nihilist Party），59-60.］Liang does not detail the literary contribution of these works；the majority of his essay instead centers on the political implications of the Russian nihilist movement.Yet Liang’s narrative still acknowledges the connection between Russian literature and revolution and follows Kemuyama’s account in regarding literature as the starting point for the political movement.36In his essay，Liang Qichao does not show great interest in Russian literature.He even declares that the Russian authors’literary efforts could hardly be enough to incite riot.（Xinmin，“Lun Eluosi xuwudang，”64-65.）He also uses the example of a short story to illustrate the failure of communication between nihilist party members and the masses（Xinmin，“Lun Eluosi xuwudang，”66.）.At the same time，Kemuyama’s book makes it impossible for him to ignore the role Russian authors played in the development of Russian nihilism.

In his literary survey，Kemuyama presents all of the major nineteenth-century Russian writ ers as demonstrating some degree of revolutionary fervor.For example，instead of discussing Push kin’s poetic work，Kemuyama instead recounts a conversation between Tsar Alexander I（1777-1825）and Pushkin about the Decembrist Revolt. When the tsar asks him what he would have doneif had been in the capital on the day of the revolt，Pushkin admitted that he would certainly have par ticipated. Instead of punishing him，Alexander exonerates Pushkin as a reward for his honesty.37（日）煙山専太郎：《近世無政府主義》，第78頁。［SentarōKemuyama，Kinsei museifu shugi（Modern Anarchism），78.］This anecdote’s dramatic effect made it appealing，and it appeared in at least two essays that used Kemuyama’s book for reference.38杀青译：《俄罗斯的革命党》（未完），第31页。［ShaQing，“Eluosidegemingdang（weiwan）”（TheRussian Revolutionary Party），31；渊实（廖仲恺）：《虚无党小史》，第91页。［YuanShi（LIAOZhongkai），“Xuwudangxiaoshi”（ABrief HistoryoftheNihilistParty），91.］Kemuyama includes this anecdote at the beginning of his account of Russian nihilist history.The two Chinese renditions of Kemuyama’s chapter also adopt this strategy，opening their narration with a colorful story involving the Russian emperor and Russia’s most prominent poet.As stand-alone translations of a single chapter，these Chinese versions grant the anecdote considerable emphasis.The anecdote does not occupy a tremendous amount of space in Kemuyama’s original chapter，and he soon moves on to address the impact of Western European literature in Russia；nor does this small moment carry weight within the larger four-hundred-pagework.However，in the Chinese context，what the anecdote reveals about the complex re lationship between Russian writers and the political regime becomes more notable.

As the Qing dynasty approached its end at the turn of the twentieth century，Russian literature remained rare in Chinese periodicals.Systematic overviews of Russian literature only began to appear towards the end of the 1910s.Before then，Russian writers such as Lev Tolstoy（1828-1910）attracted Chinese readers’attention as individual writers.39陈建华主编：《中国俄苏文学研究史论》卷1，重庆：重庆出版社，2007年，第3~27页。［CHEN Jianhua，ed.，Zhongguo E Su wenxue yanjiushi lun（On the History of Russian-Soviet Literature Studies in China），vol.1，Chongqing：Chongqing Publishing House，2007，3-27.］Despite their particular emphasis on the close connection between literature and revolution，the Chinese discussions of Russian literature based on Kemuyama’s book may be considered among the first Chinese attempts to treat Russian literature as an integral entity.Although their reliance on Kemuyama’s narrative means the early Chinese presentations of Russian literature did not necessarily highlight the works’literary or aesthetic value，these efforts still provided an effective overview of important Russian writers throughout the nineteenth century.More importantly，these early introductions set the tone for how Russian literature would be conceived in modern China：the social and political dimension became central to Chinese readers，who came to regard it as a unique feature differentiating Russian litera ture from any other foreign literature.

Kemuyama’s descriptions also affected the reception of individual Russian writers in China.We may take Pushkin，among the first Russian writers mentioned in Chinese publications，as an ex ample.According to current scholarship，Pushkin’s name appeared first in 1897 in a Chinese trans lation of an essay by the Japanese scholar Kojō Teikichi古城貞吉（1866-1949），who brings upPushkin’s famous literary character Eugene Onegin as representative of certain Russian character istics.40（日）古城貞吉：《论俄人性质》，《时务报》，1897年，第31期，第21页。［Teikichi Kojō，“Lun Eren xingzhi”（A Discussion of the Character of the Russian People），Shiwu bao（CurrentAffairs），1897：31（21）.］The turn of the century saw scattered mentions of Pushkin as a great Russian poet.41陈建华主编：《中国俄苏文学研究史论》卷3，第3页。［CHEN Jianhua，ed.，Zhongguo E Su wenxue yanjiushi lun（On the History of Russian-Soviet Literature Studies in China），vol.3，3.］The earliest translation of Pushkin’s work appeared in 1903，when ZheYihui戢翼翚（1878-1908）translatedThe Captain’s Daughter（Kapitanskaja dochka）into Chinese based on the Japanese translation by Takasu Jisuke高須治助（1859-1909）.In that same year，the pseudonymous Sha Qing杀青published“Eluosi de gemingdang”《俄罗斯的革命党》（The Russian Revolutionary Party）—one of the Chinese renderings of Kemuyama’s chapter on Russian nihilism，which included the above-mentioned conversation between Alexander I and Pushkin.Sha Qing in fact confuses Pushkin with a figure who appears earlier in Kemuyama’s book，Alexander I’s tutor Frédéric-César de La Harpe（1754-1838）.The mix-up suggests how little Chinese translators as yet knew about Russian literature.A more systematic introduction of Pushkin to Chinese readers only appeared in 1908 in Lu Xun’s鲁迅（1881-1936）“Moluo shi li shuo”《摩罗诗力说》（The Power of Mara Poetry）.42同上，第3、4页。［Ibid.，3，4.］It is worth noting that the Japanese played an important role in the early Chinese reception of Pushkin as well.Lu Xun，for instance，relied heavily on Japanese materials in his reading and presentation of Pushkin.43（日）北岡正子：《魯迅文学の淵源を探tf：「摩羅詩力說」材源考》，東京：汲古書院，2015年。［Masako Kitaoka，Rojin bungaku no engen o saguru：“Marashi ryokusetsu”zaigenko（The Origin of Lu Xun’s Literary Composition：The Enlightening Significance of the Mara Poets（A Study of Lu Xun’s Literary Origins：Research into the References of“The Power of Mara Poetry”），Tōkyō：Kyūko Shoin，2015.］In general，the sporadic way Chinese readers initially encountered Pushkin created an incomplete and sometimes one-sided view of him.Although Pushkin was identified as a master of Russian romantic poetry，early translations focused primarily on his short stories in which certain humanistic and realistic features appear.The reformist May Fourth writers meanwhile framed him as a revolutionary poet.44陈建华主编：《中国俄苏文学研究史论》卷3，第5页。［CHEN Jianhua，ed.，Zhongguo E Su wenxue yanjiushi lun（On the History of Russian-Soviet Literature Studies in China），vol.3，5.］Such tendencies can arguably be traced back to the association between Pushkin and Russian revolutionary movements in Kemuyama’s book.

While Kemuyama’s writing played an important role in shaping Chinese readers’initial understanding of Russian literature and its relationship with politics，Chinese translators also pursued their own goals using Kemuyama’s text.Just as we noted Chinese translators’autonomy in repackaging Russian nihilism，it is essential to recognize how Chinese translators reshaped Kemuyama’s descriptions of Russian literature.In particular，whereas Kemuyama positions literature primarily as a social product that incites revolution，the Chinese translators mobilize various literary techniques to manifestthe power of literature in a more concrete manner.

Interestingly，whereas Kemuyama calls the first stage of the Russian nihilist movement“the period of revolutionary literature，”all of his Chinese translators reverse the word order and call it“the period of literary revolution.”45The Chinese renderings of the chapter title without exception altered the order of“revolution”and“literature.”Although the Chinese versions share the same（inverted）meaning，the phrasing varies slightly across different translations.The chapter’s title was translated as“Wenxue Geming De Shidai”《文学革命的时代》（The Time of Literary Revolution）in Sha Qing’s translation（杀青译：《俄罗斯的革命党》，未完，第29页。［Sha Qing，“Eluosi de gemingdang（weiwan）”（Russian Revolutionary Alliance），29］）；“Wenxue Geming Shiqi”《文学革命时期》（The Period of Literary Revolution）in Liang Qichao’s translation（新民：《论俄罗斯虚无党》，第59页。［Zhongguo Zhi Xinmin（LIANG Qichao），“Lun Eluosi xuwudang”（On Russian Nihilists），59］）；“Wenxue Geming Shidai”《文学革命时代》（The Time of Literary Revolution）in both Jin Yi and Liao Zhongkai’s translations.（金一/金天翮：《自由血》，第39页［Jin Yi/JIN Tianhe，Ziyou xue（Free Blood），39］；渊实/廖仲恺：《虚无党小史》，第91页。［Yuan Shi/LIAO Zhongkai，“Xuwudang xiaoshi”（A Brief History of the Nihilist Party），91.］）In attempting to explain the unanimous change by Chinese translators，I considered the possibility that there existed a different edition of Kemuyama’s book with the chapter title“The Period of Literary Revolution.”However，I was unable to find any evidence to support this hypothesis.The slight variations in the Chinese translation suggest the Chinese translators’liberal approach to translation，which might explain the change of word order.This revised phrasing was more consistent with Liang Qichao’s widely-known call for literary revolution in China.If one considers the actual content of Kemuyama’s chapter，the original title is certainly more appropriate.By contrast，the Chinese title，with its emphasis on the transformation of literature，directs readers to pay greater attention to the literature itself.Rather than discussing the literature merely in terms of its connection with revolution，itinstead becomes a subject with its own agenda and subjectivity.

Kemuyama only states literature’s role in Russian revolutionary politics as a matter of historical fact；by contrast，the Chinese translators sought to demonstrate the revolutionary effectiveness of literature by turning their own translations into highly-charged political essays embellished with various literary devices.As a case study，we may consider Liao Zhongkai’s translation of Kemuyama’s chapter on Russian nihilism.Liao’s rendering includes several remarks that do not appear in the original.Unlike other translators who kept only the facts offered in Kemuyama’s book and liberally transformed the whole narrative，Liao largely respected the original，even following Kemuyama’s sentence structures.However，he also added multiple paragraphs to express his own opinions.In the text，Kemuyama refrains from allowing his own judgement to overpower the historical narrative，maintaining a relatively impersonal tone and focusing on the presentation of facts rather than providing commentary.In his translation，by contrast，Liao added quite a few para graphs to accentuate things he felt strongly about.Directly after Kemuyama’s emphasis on the pow er of foreign literature，for instance，Liao added an expressive description：

When some［Russian writers］translated［foreign literature］into Russian，they added footnotes to the original text.They published these works to make them accessible to［Russian］readers.Words are best for building character and cultivating virtues.This is especially true for the Russian people who had long lived miserable lives.Once they［the Russian readers］saw such gorgeous and sentimental writing，it was as if they had seen an iridescent cloud in the sky and informed others about it with ecstasy.This was how the revolutionary spirit won universal praise.The people who received its influence felt as if there were a fragrant breeze coming from the south，and the mood of the mountain resisting the coldness.

有译为俄文者，有加注疏证解于原文下者，陆续出版，以贡献于读者前。夫淑性移情，莫善于词。况彼俄人，固素处惨淡穷漠之乡者，一旦忽睹此慷慨缠绵之美文，正如天半彩云，狂喜相告。革命风流，渐脍炙于人口。凡受其感化力者，乃始熏风南来，山意冲寒矣。46渊实（廖仲恺）：《虚无党小史》，第92页。［Yuan Shi（LIAO Zhongkai），“Xuwudang xiaoshi”（ABrief History of the Nihilist Party），92.］

This new paragraph departs from Kemuyama’s scholarly style，which might appear dry to Chinese revolutionaries expecting something more demagogical to match their revolutionary demands.The original text does not contain fantastical expressions that describe literature as an“iridescent cloud”（tian ban cai yun天半彩云），nor does it allude to Bai Juyi’s（白居易772-846）and Du Fu’s（杜甫712-770）poems—with lines such as“a fragrant breeze from the south”（xun feng nan lai熏风南来）and“the mood of the mountain resisting the coldness”（shan yi chong han山意冲寒）—in ways meant to convey the excitement of Russian readers.47The last sentence in this quoted paragraph alludes to Bai Juyi’s verse“fragrant breeze comes from the south”熏风自南来and Du Fu’s line“the mood of the mountain resists the coldness with plum flowers ready to blossom”山意冲寒欲放梅.In Liao’s rendering，however，the Russian encounter with the revolutionary spirit in Western European literature becomes assimilated to visual，olfactory，and tactile effects that make vivid the significance of transformation and revolution.

These lyrical expressions not only provide readers with a richly sensory image of the importation of foreign literature into Russia，their effects also confirm the importance ofci词（“words”），which Liao declares the best tool for personal cultivation.Interestingly，Liao quotes the sentence highlighting the power of words—which he has added to the text—in his own introduction to his translation：

In the text［I translated］，it says that“Words are best for building character and cultivating virtues.”The translator［referring to Liao himself］enjoys composing verse，but is not talented enough to compose much.He also enjoys fiction.…The literature mentioned in this translation is primarily fiction.The comments made by the［Japanese］author all sound as if they are coming from the depths of the translator’s heart.The translator has special feelings［for the literature mentioned in the translation］，regretting the misfortune that he is not able to read any in the original language.Hence，when translating the author’s comments，the translator has tried to understand the author’s intention，wishing not to betray the author’s efforts，like someone who does not wish to offend the beauty of Xishi.

篇中有言：“淑性移情，莫善于词。”译者性喜长言曼吟，然才短不能多作。爱读小说，…今此一篇，其言文学，均注重于小说，所下案语，亦语语似自译者肺腑中流出。译者颇别具感情，深恨缘悭，未尝得读一册。故于译诸案语时，细心体会，必祈无负作者苦心，求免搪突西施之诮。48渊实（廖仲恺）：《虚无党小史》，第89~90页。［Yuan Shi（LIAO Zhongkai），“Xuwudang xiaoshi”（ABrief History of the Nihilist Party），89-90.］

Earlier in the introduction，Liao explains the origin of his translation—the third chapter of Kemuyama’s book.By declaring Kemuyama to be an authoritative figure in the scholarly field of Russian history and politics，and mentioning the numerous reference books Kemuyama used for his study of anarchism，Liao affirms that Kemuyama’s book is the best resource one can find in East Asia on the history of the nihilist party，and is based entirely on facts.49Ibid.，89.What Liao does not tell his Chinese readers is that as a translator，he actually inserted many paragraphs he had written himself；moreover，the paragraphs are mostly the very“comments”（anyu案语）whose beauty he compares with that of Xishi西施，one of the four legendary beauties of ancient China.Once we know that the translator himself penned the quotation in the paragraph cited above about the power of words to cultivate virtues，we realize that Liao is inventing a conversation between Kemuyama and himself.The rationale behind this approach may indeed have originated from his belief in“words”as having effects and functions beyond the transmission of information.

Apart from such comments，Liao also adds a dramatic scene that embellishes Fyodor Dostoevsky’s（1821-1881）narrow escape from a death sentence.As Liao tells the story，on the morning of the intended execution，Dostoevsky and his fellow revolutionaries were made to wear white shirts and kiss the cross while waiting for their final moment.Right before the death sentence was carried out，however，a soldier on horseback brought an order from the emperor granting special amnesty：“the emperor has mercy on you people who were to be executed due to your ignorance.Because Heaven cares about every living thing，the emperor reduces your punishment and saves you from death.Itis hoped you will rehabilitate.”皇帝不忍尔辈无知，罹于大辟。仰体上天好生之法，特与宽典减死一等。汝辈其自新。50Ibid.，98.The addition of fictional features escalates the theatricality of Dostoevsky’s experience，making it more memorable to Chinese readers.Moreover，the scene of a soldier on horseback delivering an imperial order，as well as the rhetoric of the order itself，would sound familiar to readers acquainted with classical Chinese fiction.In a translation full of foreign names and exotic concepts，such a déjàvu effect makes Chinese readers feel closer to the Russian experience.

As this fictionalized scene implies，Liao particularly departs from Kemuyama’s original work in emphasizing the special“feelings”（ganqing感情）Russian fiction prompts in him.As he elaborates in the introduction to his translation：“The feelings are shared among people”人同此情也.51Ibid.，90.Through his translation，Liao intends to present not only the historical facts，but also the feelings the literature provokes—which he seems to view as a more effective tool for transmitting the revolutionary spirit.This attention to emotions also explains why he adds dramatic scenes and impassioned commentaries to make an impression on his readers.Through his translation，Liao transforms his Japanese interlocutor into someone more sympathetic to revolution，which in turn helps generate the emotional response necessary to propagate radical ideas.He demonstrates his belief in the power of words to win universal praise for the Russian nihilists’revolutionary spirit.

Conclusion

The Chinese translators laid claim to multiple roles in their engagement with Kemuyama’s book.They were first of all readers that sympathized deeply with the Russian nihilists who had made their fame in China through assassinations and terrorist plots.The translators were also medi ators who transmitted the Russian revolutionary fervor to China.To perform these roles more effec tively，they pretended to be active interlocutors who conversed with Kemuyama and Chinese audi ences at the same time. These effects arose from their sincere belief in the social function of litera ture and the power of words. For these reasons also，their translation careers did not stop withwords on paper. The culmination of their translation efforts involved the realization of the revolu tionary impetus in reallife.

Below is another paragraph Liao added on how the importation of foreign（revolutionary Western European）literature benefits Russian readers：

From then on，the importation of foreign books increased day by day，and their［the Russian students’］scholarship advanced and their horizons were broadened.They learned that their individual enterprise was not limited to scholarly research，and that scholarly research itself was not only carried out by college students.Spring wind breeds people.Summer rain nurtures people.“If we cannot do it，who can？”So they extended their influence［beyond college］to all students.

其后自外国输入书籍日多，学问愈进，眼界愈扩。知个人事业非限于学术研究已也。知学术研究亦非限于大学学生已也。春风风人，夏雨雨人。舍我辈其伊谁，乃扩充事业，普及于一般学生。52Ibid.，105.

Liao’s remarks are not only about Russian students，but about his own experience.When Liao translated Kemuyama’s work in 1907，he was a student in Japan.He had already joinedZhongguo tongmenghui中国同盟会（the Chinese Revolutionary Alliance）two years earlier.He would later join Sun Yat-sen’s revolutionary movement，and became one of the top leftist leaders in the Chinese Nationalist Party（KMT）.Liao is not the only translator of Kemuyama’s work who devoted his life to revolution.Inspired by the Russian nihilists，Kemuyama’s Chinese translators carried their radicalism into their own lives.For them，the translation project is not limited to rendering books from another language，but extends to propagating the revolutionary spirit found in foreign literature into China.This was the ultimate goal of Kemuyama’s Chinese translators.After all，“If we cannotdoit，whocan？”