Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Chinese reception of Oblomov’s image
https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2024-2-102-120
Abstract
Chinese scholars have been studying Goncharov for over a century. The first acquaintance with his works happened through Japanese translations published in the late 19th c. Following the May Fourth movement that promoted new culture, the first Chinese translations from the Russian original came out and scholarly interest in Goncharov was reinvigorated. The initial reception of Oblomov in China was heavily influenced by N. Dobrolyubov, who saw Goncharov’s hero as a special type of the Russian national character. While some treated Oblomov with disdain and branded him a dawdler, others argued that his character is complex and controversial. A cohort of Chinese scholars considered Oblomov in the context of world literature as yet another ‘superfluous man,’ but as early as the 1950s, many Chinese experts of Russian studies began to adopt a more forgiving attitude to this character. Since the early 21st c., literary scholars have started to analyze Oblomov in the context of Chinese philosophy. The article seeks to describe the assumptions for this type of reception.
About the Authors
Chen Xinyu
Zhejiang University
China
China
Chen Xinyu, PhD
15b Yuhangtang Rd., Hangzhou, 310058
Xue Huixian
Zhejiang University
China
China
Xue Huixian, Master of Arts
15b Yuhangtang Rd., Hangzhou, 310058
References
1. Annensky, I. (1979). Goncharov and his Oblomov. In: I. Annensky, Books of reflections. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 251-271. (In Russ.)
2. Cao, Jinghua. (1989). History of Russian/Soviet literature. Beijing: People’s Literature Publishing House. (In Chin.)
3. Chen, Xinyu. (2012). Reinterpreting Oblomov. Russian Language, Literature and Culture Studies, 3, pp. 79-84. (In Chin.)
4. Ding, Siyan. (2005). Goncharov studies in China. Master’s Thesis (Russian Language and Literature). Shanghai: East China Normal University. (In Chin.)
5. Druzhinin, A. (1865). ‘Oblomov.’ I. Goncharov’s novel in 2 volumes. In: A. Druzhinin, Complete works (8 vols). Vol. 7. St. Petersburg: Izd. N. V. Gerbelya, pp. 579-601. (In Russ.)
6. Fang, Yuan. (1947). Parasitic humanism. New Hubei Daily, 8 Oct., p. 4. (In Chin.)
7. Fu, Xinghuan. (2014). A dialogue between urban civilization and pastoral ideal: A cultural interpretation of Oblomov’s double chronotope structure. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 6, pp. 81-86. (In Chin.)
8. Gao, Rongguo. (2012). Poetics of Goncharov’s novels. Harbin: Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House. (In Chin.)
9. Gao, Rongguo. (2019). A study on Goncharov: Cultural interpretation of Oblomov’s character. Changsha: Hunan Normal U. P. (In Chin.)
10. Gao, Weiling. (2010). Understanding oneself — a philosophical reflection on Ah Q and Oblomov as literary types. Journal of Huaihua University, 8, pp. 50- 51. (In Chin.)
11. Gao, Weiling. (2011). An interpretation of Chinese and Russian national characters (based on Ah Q and Oblomov). Journal of Central South University of Forestry and Technology, 5, pp. 78-80. (In Chin.)
12. Goncharov, I. (1963). Oblomov. Leningrad: Detgiz. (In Russ.)
13. Jiao, Yuiliang. (1998). Criticism of a useless and meaningless existence: A comparative study of the characters of Xiao Hong’s ‘Ma Bole’ and Goncharov’s ‘Oblomov.’ Journal of Hulan Teachers College, 2, pp. 25-28. (In Chin.)
14. Jin, Liuchun. (1988). Goncharov. Shenyang: Liaoning People’s Publishing House. (In Chin.)
15. Laozi. (2008). Tao-te Ching. Translated by Yang Xinshun. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-klassika. (In Russ.)
16. Li, Xiaolin. (1994). A preliminary exploration of the progressive role of the ‘superfluous men’ in Russian literature. Journal of Yancheng Teachers University (Humanities & Social Sciences Edition), 1, pp. 18-21. (In Chin.)
17. Liu, Qingping. (2001). Do nothing, and everything is done. — On the deep paradox of Laozi’s philosophy. Philosophical Gate, 1(2), pp. 30-45. (In Chin.)
18. Liu, Yayue. (2018). The choice between the real world and the other world: A further explanation of ‘оblomovism.’ Russian in China, 3, pp. 59-67. (In Chin.)
19. Lu, Qiu. (1947). Reflection on the reading of ‘What is oblomovism?’ [‘Chto takoe oblomovshchina?’]. The Age, 29 Oct., p. 3. (In Chin.)
20. Meisen. (1947). Oblomovism. The Guomin Xinbao, 22 Aug., p. 2. (In Chin.)
21. On the nature of Russians. Translated from Japanese by Kojyou Teikichi. (1897). The Chinese Progress, 31, p. 2110. (In Chin.)
22. Otradin, M. (2003). Oblomov among other I. Goncharov’s novels. St. Petersburg: SPbGU. (In Russ.)
23. Qu, Qiubai. (2004). History of Russian literature and others. Shanghai: Fudan U. P. (In Chin.)
24. Shi, An. (1946). Oblomov. The Zhengyanbao, 22 Apr., p. 4. (In Chin.)
25. Tian, Han. (1919). A glance at Russian literature. The People’s Tocsin, 6, p. 49. (In Chin.)
26. Tong, Qingbing and Qian, Han, eds. (2011). Newly compiled literary theory. Beijing: Renmin University of China Press, 2011. (In Chin.)
27. Wang, Delu. (1991). On the images of ‘superfluous men’ in the history of Chinese and Russian literature: A discussion of а world literature phenomenon. Guizhou Social Sciences, 4, pp. 24-29. (In Chin.)
28. Xu, Yuqin. (1982). ‘Oblomovism’ and beyond. Soviet Literature, 3, pp. 86-103. (In Chin.)
29. Yi, Shuquan, Lei, Chengde and Wang, Yuanjie. (1986). History of Russian literature. Changsha: Hunan Literary and Art Publishing House. (In Chin.)
30. Yu, Shengmin. (1992). Russian ‘superfluous men’ and a cultural conflict. Foreign Literature Studies, 4, pp. 25-31. (In Chin.)
31. Zhang, Hongzhen. (1986). Goncharov and his novels. Beijing: Beijing Publishing House. (In Chin.)
32. Zhang, Shaokang. (1979). The ‘superfluous man’ type: On Oblomov. Foreign Literature Review, 1, pp. 129-135. (In Chin.)
33. Zhang, Wei. (1998). The ‘superfluous man’ as a phenomenon of world literature. Beijing: Oriental Publishing House. (In Chin.)
34. Zhao, Min. (2015). A study of Oblomov’s character in Goncharov’s trilogy. Master’s Thesis (Russian Language and Literature). Changsha: Hunan Normal University. (In Chin.)
Review
For citations:
Xinyu Ch., Huixian X. Chinese reception of Oblomov’s image. Voprosy literatury. 2024;(2):102-120. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2024-2-102-120
Views:
269
Email this article 
