Chou Shu-jen 周樹人 Alt. Lu Hsün 魯迅
Chou Shu-jen (1881-19 October 1936), known as Lu Hsün, a writer and social critic of such prominence that he became an almost legendary figure.
Shaohsing, Chekiang, was the native place of Lu Hsün. He was born into a family of commercial and minor official background. Like his two younger brothers, Chou Tso-jen (q.v.) and Chou Chien-jen, he received an early classical education in a school maintained by the Chou clan. Browsing in the family library first attracted him to the subjects which became his central interests in adult life: popular literature, folklore, natural science, and art, particularly wood-block illustrations. The family financial situation declined sharply after 1893, when Lu Hsün's grandfather, Chou Fu-ch'ing, a chin-shih and the first scholar of consequence in the family for centuries, was arrested for the attempted bribery of a provincial examination official. That scandal, combined with the prolonged illness of his father, Chou Feng-i, seriously impaired the family's finances and resulted in Lu Hsün's having to leave the clan school. After the death of his father in 1897, he was sent to the country to live temporarily with his eldest maternal uncle. His mother, a capable country woman who had taught herself to read, did much to hold the family together during that difficult period, and her indomitable character influenced Lu Hsün throughout his life. Her maiden name had been Lu, and it was from his mother's name that Lu Hsün derived his pen name.
Aside from short stays in the countryside, Lu Hsün spent his formative years until the age of 17 in Shaohsing, where he also acquired a solid grounding in traditional Chinese history and literature and studied the history of his native district and its illustrious roster of scholars. Shortly before the reform movement of 1898, Lu Hsün left Shaohsing for Nanking to take the entrance examinations for the government supported Kiangnan Naval Academy. He passed the examinations and enrolled at Kiangnan, but was dissatisfied with the institution. In the following year, he transferred to the School of Railways and Mines, which was run in connection with the Kiangnan Army Academy at Nanking. He read translations of foreign books and in so doing he discovered the new world of Western science, literature, philosophy, and history. From the works of Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley he learned about the doctrine of evolution, which became an important theme in his later political and social thought. Such works encouraged him to believe that man, through rational action, could improve himself and his environment and that the Chinese, therefore, could build a strong China free of foreign encroachment. In 1901, after four years at Nanking, Lu Hsün was graduated from the School of Railways and Mines.
Because he believed that he could do most for China as a physician, Lu Hsün sought access to a modern medical school. He obtained a government scholarship to study medicine in Japan, and in February 1902 he sailed for Tokyo. During two years of language study in Tokyo, Lu Hsün avoided political-activities and devoted himself to continued study of Western learning. At the same time he attempted, through articles on popular scientific subjects published in Chinese student magazines in Tokyo, to expand the horizons of his countrymen, whom he called upon to emulate the self-disciplined "spirit of Sparta."
In the autumn of 1904, Lu Hsün entered the Sendai Provincial Medical School in Japan. However, he left the school after less than two years. Early in 1906 he witnessed a news slide of the Russo-Japanese war which showed a Chinese, bound and awaiting execution by the Japanese as a Russian spy, surrounded by other able-bodied but apathetic Chinese. Seeing the slide helped to convince him that a fundamental change in the spirit of the Chinese people was necessary to avoid such "futile spectacles" and that literature, which reaches the masses, and not medicine, which treats only individuals, was the best means to effect this change. Thus he left Sendai and, after a brief trip to China to submit to an arranged marriage, returned to Tokyo in June 1906, accompanied by his brother Chou Tso-jen, to devote himself to literature.
Lu Hsün was one of a small number of Chinese in Tokyo concerned with the rigorous study of literature. During this period he read and was most influenced by Nietzsche, Darwin, Gogol, and Chekhov. With his brother, Lu Hsün started a short-lived periodical, New Life, devoted to expounding Western ideas in classical Chinese. Essays published in 1907-8 summarize his observations on the development of Western civilization and the relevance of Western ideas to China. Having abandoned the opinions of his pre-Sendai days, he concluded that science should not be emphasized at the expense of moral, aesthetic, and spiritual values; that industrialization, materialism, and democracy — which he termed "the tyranny of a million unreliable rascals"—should not be blindly adopted by China; and that, in the realm of literature, engage writers like Byron were needed to lead China out of desolation and into beauty and strength. These essays reveal obvious conflicts in the thinking of the young Lu Hsün. He was attracted both to the material promise of science and to the essential vitality of spiritual values; he pitied the plight of the masses but was impatient with their submissiveness ; he wanted a modernized China yet desired to retain the "established blood vessels" of her traditional culture. During the years from 1906 to 1909 in Tokyo, Lu Hsün read many Japanese translations of the works of the "oppressed peoples" of Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans. With his brother Chou Tso-jen, he published two volumes of European and Russian short stories. Their objective was to portray to the Chinese the spirit of resistance to autocracy shown by peoples in other unfortunate lands. The translations were written in an archaic classical Chinese. At that time Lu Hsün was most strongly influenced by the Russian authors Gogol and Andreyev and by the Polish novelist Henryk Sienkiewicz.
For nine years after his return to China from Japan in 1909, Lu Hsün virtually abandoned his crusade to rescue China from her moral and physical ills. He taught science for a year at Hangchow and then served as school principal in Shaohsing in 1910-11. He found that the masses were still indifferent to social change, and he was also depressed by the lack of interest in his short story translations. A feeling of futility began to overtake him, and it was deepened by the results of the 1911 revolution. After the establishment of the republican government at Nanking in January 1912, Ts'ai Yuan-p'ai (q.v.), also a native of Shaohsing, invited him to Nanking to serve in the ministry of education, which Ts'ai headed. After the resignation of Sun Yat-sen in favor of Yuan Shih-k'ai, Ts'ai Yuan-p'ei went to Peking, where he held the post of minister of education in the first cabinet formed there. Lu Hsün also moved to Peking, where he served, with brief interruptions, in the ministry of education until the summer of 1926.
The politics at Peking soon made Lu Hsün suspicious of all reform efforts, and he retreated from public life to concentrate on the study of ancient Chinese texts and inscriptions, in which, as he wrote, "there were no political problems." The resulting sinological studies, done in the best tradition of Ch'ing dynasty philology, included compilations of biographical, anecdotal, and historical material relative to Shaohsing, as well as studies on natural history. More significantly, his studies embodied extensive research on the history of Chinese literature, especially the traditional tales, which he had loved from childhood. He published a volume of ancient stories of the pre-Chin period, Hsiao-shuo pei-chiao [ancient tales collected] ; a volume of tales from the Han, Wei, Chin, and Six Dynasties period, Ku hsiao-shuo ko-ch'en [ancient tales reclaimed] ; and a volume of T'ang and Sung short stories, the T'ang Sung ch 'uan-ch 'i-chi [short stories from T'ang and Sung]. Lu Hsün also produced an annotated edition of the works of the third-century poet Hsi K'ang (223-262), whose terse style strongly influenced him. He later systematized his treatment of Chinese literary history from its beginnings to the end of the Han dynasty in his Han wen-hsueh shih-kang [outline history of Chinese literature] and through the Ch'ing period in his Chung-kuo hsiao-shuo shih-lueh [brief history of Chinese fiction]. From miscellaneous anecdotes about, and notes on, old fiction and writers gathered in preparing these works, Lu Hsün compiled the Hsiao-shuo chiu-wen ch'ao [notes on old tales]. He also amassed an outstanding collection of rubbings of early inscriptions and carvings and worked on an as yet unpublished listing of Han stone portraits and Buddhist carvings and tomb inscriptions of the Six Dynasties (420-589) period.
Lu Hsün was roused from his creative apathy only by the Literary Revolution of 1919. His friend of Japan days Ch'ien Hsuan-t'ung (q.v.) prevailed upon him to contribute some poems and a story to the May 1918 issue of New Youth. The story, "A Madman's Diary," reminiscent of Gogol's tale of the same title, was a potent indictment of the traditional Chinese family system, which was revealed through the fantasies of a madman as a self-serving cloak for "cannibalism." "A Madman's Diary" was a tour de force which attracted immediate recognition. In a sense, it set the theme with which Lu Hsün was inextricably identified during the last portion of his life : abhorrence of the "putrid morals and death-stiff language" of the old China. It was the first story written in Chinese which was wholly Western in conception and execution. In subsequent issues he contributed short essays on the current Chinese scene, tsa kan [random thoughts], which laid the foundation for his later fame as an essayist.
"The Story of Ah Q," published in 1921, brought Lu Hsün national prominence and became the best known modern Chinese story abroad. It also gave to the modern Chinese language the term "Ah Q-ism" as a satiric term for the Chinese national penchant for selfdeceiving rationalization of defeat and frustration into "spiritual victory." Ah Q, an illiterate, poverty-stricken village outcast living in the period of the 1911 revolution, is constantly humiliated. He comforts himself with the idea that, in defeat, he is the most humble of men and argues that excessive humility is in effect a virtue, for "is not a superlative, the first or most of anything, a distinction to be achieved and envied." AhQ,convinces himself that he is better than those about him, that the sons he does not have would have been greater scholars than the village literati. By the same token, China, prostrate before Western military and technological superiority, argued that her "national essence" was superior to "barbarian culture."
In the years between 1918 and 1926 Lu Hsün wrote some two dozen short stories, which were published in two collections, Na-han [call to arms], which appeared in 1923, and P'ang-huang [hesitation], which appeared in 1926. These tales, according to Lu Hsün, were based "almost entirely on the lives of unfortunate people living in a sick society" and were intended to stimulate social reform. His style was terse, tight, and realistic; his influence on young Chinese students and writers was enormous. Interestingly, liberal scholars like Hu Shih and Ch'en Yuan were among the first to recognize his talents. Communists and other left-wing elements, however, were uniformly hostile until 1929, when Lu Hsün became openly sympathetic to their cause.
Lu Hsün's stories of rural life sharply portray the tragedies of life in the Chinese countryside; for the most part, they are based on his childhood experiences in Shaohsing and on a journey he made there in the winter of 1919-20. In "Benediction," the widow's small son is eaten by a wolf as surely as she herself is devoured by the inhumanities of Chinese superstition and by China's outmoded code of social ethics. The boatman in "Storm in a Teacup" and the discarded wife of "The Divorce" symbolize the helplessness of the peasantry before the unchecked power of vicious landlords. The protagonist of "My Old Home" is simply crushed by "too many sons, famine, oppressive taxes, soldiers, bandits, officials, and gentry" until life is drained from him, and he is scarcely more than a "wooden image." Lu Hsün sympathized with figures like the hero of "K'ung I-chi," a broken victim of the useless examination system; with the young rebels in "Regret for the Past," whose lives are crushed by economic pressure; and with the hero of "In the Wine Shop," who lets his ideals wither rather than confront the reality of unfulfilled dreams. At the same time Lu Hsün condemned the selfish, old-style gentry and hypocritical pseudo-modernists like the protagonist of "Professor Kao," who, beneath a veneer of new knowledge and feigned concern for the salvation of China, opposed women's education on the grounds that it subverted public morals. These stories comprise a condemnation of traditional China in the guise of Shaohsing and its denizens. After 1926, the year Hesitation appeared, Lu Hsün wrote only brief satirical tales that were gathered together as Ku-shih hsin-pien [old legends retold] in 1935. The stories in hesitation are Lu Hsün's finest creation and rank as the most profound writing done in the early period of the Literary Revolution. Why Lu Hsün then abandoned the writing ofstories is difficult to explain. Certainly his departure from north China in 1926 for an unhappy interlude in Amoy and Canton played a part, along with the grueling controversies he had with the Communists until late in 1929. After that date and his espousal of a kind of Communism, Lu Hsün may have settled, as C. T. Hsia put it, for emotional sterility in the interests of ideological consistency.
In essays written during the years following the May Fourth Movement of 1919, Lu Hsün called on China to shake off her lethargy, to discard the submissiveness which had enslaved the Chinese people throughout their history, to borrow courageously from abroad, and to create a rational society. He argued for the emancipation of women and children and against the traditional family system with its constricting conventions governing chastity and remarriage. He sternly criticized the Chinese concept of "national essence," with its veneration of past over present, of artificial classicism over the living language, of native medicine over modern science, and of traditional constraints on individual rights. Let those who want the past "go back," he held; "the earth today should be inhabited by men with a firm hold on the present." At the same time he brought to perfection his most characteristic prose style, terse and impassioned, witty and well larded with the vocabulary of ridicule and abuse.
From 1920 to 1926, Lu Hsün, in addition to his work in the ministry of education, taught Chinese literature at National Peking University and at other institutions in the capital. In 1925 he sided with the students of the Peking Women's Higher Normal School in a dispute with the government which had begun because of the appointment of a conservative woman as the new principal. That action led to his temporary dismissal from the ministry. The Women's Normal School affair also led to a spirited exchange of views between Lu Hsün, writing in the weekly Yü-ssu [thread of talk], of which he had been an original sponsor in November 1924, and Ch'en Yuan and others, writing in Hsien-tai p'ing-lun [contemporary critic] to support Chang Shih-chao (q.v.), the minister of education. During 1925 Lu Hsün also was active in assisting young writers and in forming the Wei-ming Society to publish reliable translations, chiefly, though not exclusively, of recent Russian works.
After the massacre of demonstrating students by the Tuan Ch'i-jui government on 18 March 1926, an incident which Lu Hsün called the "blackest day in Chinese history," he was forced into hiding for two months and soon was listed as a dangerous radical. In August 1926 he left Peking for Amoy University, where he taught unhappily under Lin Yü-t'ang (q.v.), the dean, for a few months before proceeding to Sun Yatsen University in Canton in January 1927. Now nationally acclaimed both as creative writer and as fearless social critic, Lu Hsün was followed to Canton by many students from Amoy and elsewhere and was given an enthusiastic welcome at the university. He taught Chinese literature and served as academic dean for three months. He resigned in April 1927 because he was disgusted by the purges that followed the break between the right-wing Kuomintang forces and the Communists.
Until that time, faith in evolutionary progress toward a better China had sustained Lu Hsün through all discouragement, but the bloody violence of the 1927 massacres, during which some of his students were killed or arrested, and the spectacle of Chinese youth split against itself severely troubled him. He remained in Canton for a few months before leaving with Hsu Kuang-p'ing (q.v.), a former student who had become his common-law wife, for Shanghai. He remained in Shanghai, except for two brief trips to Peiping in 1929 and 1932, from October 1927 until his death from tuberculosis on 19 October 1936.
Lu Hsün's first two years in Shanghai were of ..crucial significance in his relations with the political left. Despite an early interest in Russia dating from his years in Japan, Lu Hsün had paid little attention to the Russian Revolution; despite his contacts with Ch'en Tu-hsiu (q.v.) and Li Ta-chao (q.v.) through Hsin ch'ing-nien, he had not participated in Communist political activities in China before 1927. Apparently, it was in Canton that he came into indirect contact with the Chinese Communist party and concluded that it was the driving force in the Chinese revolution. Greatly disappointed by the events of 1927, he sought new insights and, immediately after arrival in Shanghai, began to read translations from works on modern Russian literature, Marxism, and Russia. He never pretended to systematic study, never read Das Kapital, and his scant works of this period show little reflection of his reading. He was close to Jou Shih (Chao P'ing-fu), Feng Hsueh-feng, and a few other young Communist writers, but he seemingly had no connections with the underground organizational apparatus of the Communist party. At the same time, the Communist party itself was by no means completely committed to Lu Hsün. Official Communist party organs intermittently characterized him as an outsider to the proletariat and criticized his political and intellectual attitudes. In 1928 the Creation Society and the Sun Society, both Communist groups, began a concerted attack on him in rebuttal to his caustic observations on revolutionary literature. A polemic ensued which ended only with his capitulation to his Communist critics.
During 1928-29 while publicly replying to his Marxist critics, Lu Hsün privately reappraised his past individualistic stand. He read Japanese translations of Marx and literature of Soviet Russia. Lu's grasp of dialectic always remained shaky, but by the end of 1929 Lu Hsün and the Chinese Communist party were ready for closer cooperation. In February 1930 he joined the Freedom League, a group organized to protest increasing restrictions on freedom of speech, news, assembly, and publication. In March 1930 he participated wholeheartedly in preparations for the establishment of the League of Left-Wing Writers. He became affiliated with the International Union of Revolutionary Writers, which had its headquarters at Moscow. In early 1933 he served on the executive committee of the China League for Civil Rights, a group which was anti-Kuomintang, but primarily non- Communist; and in the autumn of that year, he was named to the presidium of the Communist-front Far Eastern Conference of the Congress against Imperialist War, convened secretly in Shanghai, but found it too dangerous to attend. He was close to Ch'ü Ch'iu-pai (q.v.), former general secretary of the Chinese Communist party, who was then in Shanghai, and on three occasions he provided Ch'ü with refuge from arrest. Lu Hsün also had contact with Li Li-san and Ch'en Yi (qq.v.). In 1935 he was the channel through which the final letter of Fang Chih-min (q.v.) from his Nanchang prison was forwarded to the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist party. Similarly, in early 1 936 he was the individual through whom a secret Communist report on work in north China, brought by messenger from Peiping, was forwarded to the central authorities of the Chinese Communist party.
Never a serious student of dialectical materialism, and too skeptical to embrace Marxist- Leninist dogma, Lu Hsün never became a member of the Communist party. His sympathy with the Chinese Communists derived primarily from his longstanding hatred of the injustices inherent in the traditional Chinese social system, his spirited nationalism and hatred of foreign privilege in China, and his emotional revulsion to the brutality, persecution, and censorship perpetrated by the Kuomintang authorities associated with Chiang Kai-shek. He was an independent, undisciplined, and non-doctrinaire supporter of the Chinese Communist party as the only effective opposition to the Kuomintang and, under the circumstances then existing in China, as the sole agent for national regeneration. His non-doctrinaire position, which in many ways resembled that of his friends Soong Ch'ingling (q.v.) and Mao Tun (Shen Yen-ping, q.v.), conflicted with the rigid dictates of Chou Yang (q.v.), the young secretary general of the League of Left-Wing Writers with whom he came into conflict in the Battle of Slogans of 1936.
From the Chinese Communist standpoint, the major focus of Lu Hsün's social criticism was unorthodox, since, in the last analysis, it placed the blame for China's humiliations on China herself rather than on her "imperialist foes." By the time Lu Hsün reached Shanghai, his creative years as an author were over. Since he believed, however, that the basic obligation of literature was to criticize society and thereby to improve it, he then devoted himself to comments on the contemporary social, political, and literary scene. Using the pen which, he said, "gold cannot buy," he produced essay after essay in which he attacked the increasingly oppressive censorship of the Kuomintang, its indiscriminate campaign of terror against Communists and other critics, and its policy of nonresistance to Japanese aggression. He accused the National Government of betraying China's national interest and of exploiting the Chinese people. China, he declared, was a desperate spectacle of misery and sham ; her people were dumb and unquestioning slaves resigned to fate. "We in China . . . [live like] fish in a muddy stream, incoherent and confused," he wrote, "neither living nor dead." Nor did Lu Hsün soften his indictment with consoling references to positive virtues. To him the Chinese, in addition to being Ah Q, rationalizers of their own superiority, were deceitful, cruel, hypocritical, and opportunistic, concerned more with face and form than with substance. "Things in China are often considered completed when the sign board is hung up .... China is really too lacking in earnestness." With respect to the future, Lu Hsün was a realist, not a pessimist. With China a "black vat of human flesh" corrupting everything it touched, the road to national rebirth would be long and tortuous. Yet Lu Hsün was confident: "to say that there is no place for us on the twentieth century stage is nonsense."
Lu Hsün's hostility to the Kuomintang made him a marked man. Particularly after 1930, he lived constantly with the possibility of arrest; his greatest protection was his enormous personal prestige. Only reliable and trusted friends knew the location of his house in Shanghai; others he saw outside, often at the bookshop of a Japanese friend, Uchiyama Kanzo. After May 1933 he could no longer publish articles under the name Lu Hsün, and his style perforce became more elliptical. Collections of his articles were banned; but they were published in 1934-35 through extra-legal channels and were circulated clandestinely.
Although Lu Hsün produced no original creative work in Shanghai, he continued to be regarded as China's leading literary figure. In 1928 he founded an important monthly, Pen-liu [the torrent]. Later that year, with some young friends, he launched the Chao-hua Society. After 1930 he was connected with but did not lead, as was claimed in left-wing circles, the League of Left-Wing Writers. In 1934 he was one of the founders of I-wen [translation magazine].
Lu Hsün's real contribution to Chinese letters during this period was the final perfection of his tsa-wen, or essay, which was characterized by a laconic yet multileveled style. Lu Hsün's ability to camouflage his meaning in an unexpected phrase, a scintillating twist, a deft allusion as well as his economy and refinement of language, all reached their fullest development during the last decade of his life and were never equaled by his many imitators.
As a prolific translator and as a sponsor of organizations and periodicals devoted to translation, Lu Hsün sought to introduce fiction and literary theory which he considered useful to the development of China and of modern Chinese literature. Much of this work was retranslation from Japanese and German, the only foreign languages he knew. In the Peking period up to 1926, his translations of Russian and Japanese works reflected his preoccupation with questions of social morality and the social role of literature. His study of Marxist cultural theory in Shanghai between 1928 and 1930 led to translations from Lunacharsky and Plekhanov on theories of literature and art and of a brief but systematic Japanese work by Katakami Shin entitled, in translation, Some Questions of Proletarian Literature. To acquaint Chinese readers with recent developments in Russian literature, he translated basic documents of the 1924-25 Soviet controversy on literary policy as well as works to represent the Russian proletarian writers (Fadeyev's The Rout) and fellow travelers (Yakovlev's October). In the last two years of his life, he translated a selection of Chekhov's stories, some of Gorky's Russian Fables, and Gogol's Dead Souls. Lu Hsun also wrote poetry, both in the vernacular and in traditional style. His vernacular verse is weak, but his classical poems, in the words of one of his greatest critics, T. A. Hsia, "at least equal his best pai-hua prose in terseness, bitterness, sardonic humor, and the strange beauty of 'frozen flames' and the 'intricate red lines forming patterns like coral beneath the surface of bluish-white ice.' " Lu Hsün's poems were collected in Dead Fire.
Graphic art was a lifelong interest of Lu Hsün, who himself had minor talents as a draftsmandesigner. He was knowledgeable about traditional Chinese crafts and acquired an impressive collection of Han, Wei, Six Dynasty, and T'ang rubbings. As a result of his interest in Chinese woodblock printing, he became increasingly preoccupied with wood engraving as a contemporary medium used by Western artists. He recognized that woodblock printing was preferable to the imperfectly developed mechanical printing methods then available in China and that, as an economical method of mass communication, it could serve the cause of social education. In 1929 Lu Hsün published a volume of reproductions of wood engravings by British artists and a second collection containing French, American, Russian, and Japanese examples. By this time, several young Chinese artists had begun to practice Western-style wood engraving, and some of the earliest works in this genre were produced by the Muto-she [wood bell club] of Hangchow.
From the Hangchow group, disbanded in 1929, grew the 18 Club of Shanghai, which adopted the slogan, "out of the salons, into the streets." The club's aims reflected Lu Hsün's idea of a truly popular art, and he wrote a foreword to the catalogue of its first exhibition, which was held in the Chinese YMCA at Shanghai in the early summer of 1931. Lu Hsün then decided to encourage more artist-engravers. In August 1931 he organized a class in wood engraving under a Japanese teacher, with himself serving as interpreter. In 1932 the class developed into a new art club, and Lu Hsün patronized its first exhibition, also held in the Chinese YMCA at Shanghai. He also began to collect for safekeeping samples of the works of many of the younger Chinese artists, and in 1934 he published selected pieces in a volume entitled Mu-k'o chi-cheng [the woodcut record].
In addition to publishing the work of many contemporary Western artists for the instruction of young Chinese, Lu Hsün did much to help them know their own tradition. To that end, he published jointly with Cheng Chen-to (q.v.) two collections of traditional-style stationery bearing lightly inked woodblock engravings. These were the seventeenth century work by Wu Cheng-yen, Shih-chu-chai chien-p'u [letter papers of the bamboo studio], run from specially recut woodblocks, one volume of which appeared before Lu Hsün's death in 1936; and the Peip'ing chien-p'u [Peiping letter papers], arranged and edited from modern examples and printed in 1938 from the original blocks.
Beginning with respect for the technical accomplishments of European wood engravers, particularly the thriving British school, Lu Hsün later developed a deep admiration for the Russian engravers and for European socialist artists, notably Kathe Kollwitz in Germany. In 1931 he was greatly moved by the woodcut illustrations to the Russian novel Iron Current, which was published in the magazine Graphika. Their stark and powerful portrayal of industrial civilization gave Lu Hsün a new conception of the use of engraving in depicting contemporary realities. This portrayal, he argued, should be the aim of contemporary Chinese artists. His ambition was to encourage a new national art which, by retaining its Chinese spirit while drawing upon the superior technique of Western artists, could make a major appeal to the young people of China.
Lu Hsün's literary reputation rests on a relatively small body of published work: two volumes of short stories, some of his retold classical tales, and a small but highly regarded collection of prose poems collectively titled Yeh-ts'ao [wild grass]. His larger fame, however, stems from his role as a social critic, particularly during the last years of his life at Shanghai.
Lu Hsün's defiant indictment of the Chinese character and Chinese tradition had great impact on the young Chinese intellectuals of the 1920's and 1930's. They recognized the truth of Lu Hsün's words, they shared his passionate desire for a better China, and they honored his consistent and outspoken dedication to the basic libertarian goals of the May Fourth Movement. Their admiration was strengthened because Lu Hsün, in the face of official hostility after 1927, dared to remain uncompromising and because he articulated their protests against political terror, censorship, and Kuomintang temporizing in the face of Japanese aggression. Lu Hsün's political sympathies made him a national symbol of left-wing opposition to the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek's domination, but his underlying appeal was much broader. Essentially, Lu Hsün's concern was the development in China of a new spirit of self-respect and self-confidence to serve as the basis for genuine national regeneration. His essays, mostly too topical for later readers, became the province of the specialist in later years; but his name as a symbol of the quest for a mature, modernized China will long survive.
Despite his controversies with the Communists over literary matters, Lu Hsün was accorded major status as literary patriot by the Chinese Communists soon after his death. Writing in January 1940, Mao Tse-tung lauded Lu Hsün as the "giant of China's cultural revolution." In the cultural section of his influential essay On New Democracy, Mao Tse-tung created a near-legendary figure and depicted Lu Hsün as the most articulate and influential social critic to emerge from the May Fourth Movement of 1919: "and Lu Hsün was the greatest and most militant standard-bearer of this new cultural force. He was the supreme commander in China's cultural revolution; he was not only a great man of letters, but also a great thinker and a great revolutionary. Lu Hsün had the most unyielding backbone and was totally free from any trace of obsequiousness and sycophancy; such strength of character is the greatest treasure among the colonial and semi-colonial peoples."
Shortly after Lu Hsün's death in 1936, a special committee was organized at Shanghai to prepare a comprehensive edition of his writings. Its members included Cheng Chen-to, and Hu Yu-chih as well as his widow, Hsu Kuang-p'ing. The result of their labors was the collection entitled Lu Hsün hsien-sheng ch'uan-chi [complete works of Lu Hsün], published in 20 volumes at Shanghai in 1938, with an introduction by Ts'ai Yuan-p'ei. Since 1949 countless memoirs, biographies, studies, and tributes have been devoted to Lu Hsün. Two additional supplements to the Lu Hsün hsien-sheng ch'uan-chi were published, respectively, in 1946 and 1952, under the editorship of T'ang T'ao. The Lu Hsün shuchien [letters of Lu Hsün], edited by his widow, was published in two volumes (second edition, Peking, 1952). The Lu Hsün jih-chi [diaries of Lu Hsün] was published at Peking in 1959. The Foreign Languages Press at Peking published several volumes of Lu Hsün's works in English translation. In addition to The True Story of Ah Q, eighteen early stories were issued in 1954 as Selected Stories of Lu Hsün, and eight stories from his Old Tales Retold were issued in 1961. Peking's English-language edition of the Selected Works of Lu Hsün comprises four volumes. The first, including short stories, prose poems, and reminiscences, with a biographical and critical introduction by Feng Hsueh-feng, appeared in 1956. It was followed by three volumes of essays grouped chronologically : volume 2 (1957), covering the period 1918-1927; volume 3 (1959), the period 1928-1933; and volume 4 (1960), the final period from 1934 to 1936, with an appended chronology of Lu Hsün's life and writings. A translation of his Brief History of Chinese Fiction, containing reproductions ofancient woodcuts and some facsimiles of rare editions, was published at Peking in 1959.
周树人
笔名:鲁迅
周树人(1881—1936.10.19),以笔名鲁迅闻名。作家,社会评论家,其地位之重要,几乎成了一位传奇式人物。
鲁迅的故乡是浙江绍兴,他出身在一个商人兼小官吏家庭。他和两个弟弟周作人、周建人,幼年时都在周氏家族的学塾里接受经学教育。他浏览家中藏书,对其中的通俗文学、民间传说、自然科学、艺术,尤其是木刻绣像颇感兴趣,这些在他成年后成为其最喜爱的领域。
祖父周介孚中进士,为族中有名望的学者。1893年家道中落,因祖父被控企图行贿省监考官而下狱,父亲周凤仪又长期卧病,家境顿时窘困,鲁迅不得不离开学塾。1897年,父亲病故,他被送往乡间,暂时寄居于舅父家中。他母亲是一位能干的农村妇女,自学识字,在家境困难时期尽力设法维持家计,她的坚忍性格对鲁迅的一生都有影响。他母亲姓鲁,因此他以鲁迅为笔名。
鲁迅在成长时期,除偶尔在乡间闲居外,大部分时间都在绍兴,直到他十七岁时。他在绍兴期间掌握了中国历史和文学的坚实知识,对本地的乡土志和著名学者人物有丰富知识。1898年,维新运动前不久,鲁迅到南京考入江南水师学堂,但他对此学堂毫无兴趣,第二年就转入江南陆师学堂附设的矿路学堂,他读了不少外国的译书,发现了西方科学、文学、哲学、历史这个新天地。他从达尔文和赫胥黎的著作中学到了进化论,这是他以后的政治、社会思想中的重要课题。这些著作激发了他,使他相信只要经过合理的行动,人类是可以改变自己和改变环境的,因此,中国也可以解脱外国的羁绊而致强自由。1901年,他在南京待了四年后,于1901年从矿路学堂毕业。
他起先认为当一名医生会对中国有大作用,所以他想进现代医科学校。1902年2月,他获得官费去日本学医,搭乘轮船去东京。他在东京学了两年日文,不参加政治活动,继续潜心于西方知识的学习。与此同时,他在东京出版的中国学生刊物上,发表通俗科学的文章,以求扩大同胞们的眼界,呼吁他们仿效“斯巴达精神”。
1904年秋,他进了仙台医学专门学校,但只学了两年就离开了。1906年初,他在观看日俄战争的新闻幻灯片时,看到映出一个被日军视为俄国间谍的中国人,被绑着临刑,旁边围着一群身体虽健壮但是无动于衷的中国人。他看了这幻灯片后,认为要使中国人不再是“无动于衷的旁观者”,那么中国人民的精神需要来一个根本的改变,能够熏陶人民大众的文学就是促使这种改变的最好办法,而医学,只能治疗个别人的疾病而已。因此,他离开了仙台,在国内短暂逗留期间,听命于家中的安排,结了婚,1906年6月,又与他弟弟周作人回到东京,专心致力于文学。
鲁迅是在东京的少数热心学文学的中国人之一,在此期间他阅读了许多文学作品,对他影响最大的是尼采、达尔文、果戈里、契诃夫等人的作品。他和他的弟弟办了一个为期很短的刊物《新生》,热心于用西方的思想评述中国古文。他在1907—1908年发表的文章,概述了他对西方文化发展及西方思想与中国关系的看法。他放弃了从前在仙台时的意见,认为不能不顾道德、伦理和精神的价值而强调科学,他认为工业化、拜物主义、民主——他称之为“千千万万不可信赖的匪徒的专政”——不应盲目地在中国采用,他认为中国需要在文学领城内有像拜伦那样关心政治的作家,引导中国走出荒原而进入美满强盛之境。这些文章很明显地呈现出青年鲁迅的思想斗争。他对科学带来的物质成就和精神价值所促成的活力,都倾心向往;他同情大众的痛苦,而不忍见到他们的屈从;他渴望一个近代化中国,而又希望保持传统文化的精髓。1906—1909年在东京期间,他读了像俄国、东欧、巴尔干等“被压迫人民”著作的日文译本,他和其弟周作人出版了两卷欧洲、俄国短篇小说集。其目的是向中国人民描绘出在其他不幸的地域里的人民反抗暴政的精神。这些译文用的都是文言文。在这期间,俄国作家果戈里和安特烈夫及波兰小说家显克微支对他的影响最大。
自1909年回国后的九年中,他实际上放弃了从精神上、实体上拯救中国的想法。他在杭州教了一年自然科学,1910—1911年到绍兴当校长。他觉得群众仍漠视社会变革,他对翻译短篇小说的工作也因缺乏兴趣而漫不经心。他觉得自己无能为力,尤其是辛亥革命的结局加深了他的这种感觉。1912年1月,民国政府在南京成立后,绍兴同乡蔡元培请他到南京教育部工作,蔡系教育部的负责人。孙逸仙辞职,袁世凯继任,蔡元培到北京任教育总长,鲁迅也到北京,除短期离职外,他一直在教育部任事到1926年夏天。
北京的政局使他怀疑一切改革的实效,他退出公务生活专心研究中国古代文献碑刻,他写道:“这里没有政治问题”。他以清代考据方法,编纂传记、传说和绍兴地方史,以及对自然科学史的研究。他又广泛研究中国文学史,尤其是对他自童年起就喜爱的传奇小说的研究。出版了一本晋以前的古小说集《小说裨钞》,一本汉魏晋六朝的《古小说钩沉》,一本唐宋小说集《唐宋传奇集》,校勘三世纪时的诗人嵇康(223—262)的集子,嵇康的简洁文笔对鲁迅有很大影响。以后他编了一本汉代的文学史《汉文学史纲要》,《中国小说史略》。他编录了有关旧小说和作家的传闻并加以注释,编了《小说旧闻钞》。他又收集了大量早期的刻石拓本,以及编写了尚未发表的有关汉刻石、六朝佛雕和墓志铭的目录。
鲁迅经1919年文学革命运动,又激起了他的创作欲望。他在日本时的朋友钱玄同推动他在1918年5月号的《新青年》上发表几首诗和一篇小说,这篇小说题为《狂人日记》,摹仿果戈理小说的体裁,以中国旧家庭为背景,通过狂人而揭露了“人肉宴”。《狂人日记》很快引起了人们的注意,其情节是与鲁迅所接触的生活不可分的、它和“道德败坏言语僵死”的旧中国一样可憎。《狂人日记》是第一篇在体裁和观念上完全是西方型式的中国小说。在《新青年》以后几期中,他又发表了几篇论当代社会状况的短文,“杂感”就成了他此后闻名的评论文体。
1921年,《阿Q正传》的发表,使鲁迅闻名全国,这篇著作在国外成为最著名的现代中国小说。阿Q“式”已成了用“精神胜利”法在失败和挫折中作自我欺骗和自我安慰的、中国锢疾的讽刺字眼了。阿Q是辛亥革命期间的一名不识字的乡村贫民,他经常生活在屈辱之中,他在失败中自我安慰地觉得他是第一个能够自轻自贱的人,他认为极大的自轻自贱实际上有一种好处,因为“除了自轻自贱不算外,余下的就是‘第一个’。状元不也是‘第一个’么?”。阿Q自认为他比其他的人都好,甚至他的儿子,实际上他并无儿子,也是比本乡文人都高明的学问家。由此推理,中国虽在西方军事和技术优势前屈从,而还自认为“国粹”比“洋鬼子的文明”更高明。
1918—1926年间,鲁迅写了二十多篇短篇小说,这些小说分别刊载在两本集子中:1923年的《呐喊》,1926年《彷徨》。据鲁迅说,这些小说几乎全都是以“在病态社会中不幸人民的生活”为依据,并希望从中激起社会的改革。他的简洁、谨严而现实的文风,给年轻的中国学生和作家以巨大影响。有趣的是那些自由派学者如胡适、陈源,是属于最早承认鲁迅的天才的行列。然而共产党和其他左翼人士则一致反对。直到1929年,鲁迅公开同情他们的事业时才告停止。
鲁迅关于乡间生活的小说,辛辣地描绘了中国农村的悲剧,这些背景大都是根据鲁迅儿时在绍兴的经历和1919—1920年冬他回绍兴时的情景。在《祝福》里,寡妇祥林嫂的儿子被狼噬食,正如她自己被中国的害人的迷信和旧的社会道德所毁灭。《茶杯里的风波》中的船工,《离婚》中的弃妇,都是在万恶的地主压迫下无依无靠的农民典型。《故乡》中的主角,受到“多子,饥荒,苛税,兵,匪,官,绅”的重压直到生命枯竭而成为“木偶人”。鲁迅同情科举制度的受害者孔乙己这样的人物、《伤逝》里的生活为经济所迫的年轻反叛者、《在酒搂上》里的回避未能实现愿望的现实、放弃了理想的主人公。鲁迅谴责自私自利的旧士绅和伪善的冒牌新派人物,如《高老夫子》中的主角,他以新学和拯救中国为幌子,反对妇女教育,说它会败坏公共道德。这些小说,以绍兴和绍兴人为题材,谴责了旧中国。1926年出版了《彷徨》后,鲁迅只写作一些短篇讽刺小说,1935年收集在一起出版了《故事新编》。《彷徨》中的作品是鲁迅最好的创作,是文学革命运动早期的最深刻的作品。为什么后来鲁迅放弃写小说了呢,这是难以回答的。1926年鲁迅离开华北,在厦门、广州遇到了一段不愉快的插曲,这肯定是原因之一。伴随着他与共产党的激烈争论,直到1929年晚些时候。夏志清认为,此后鲁迅逐渐拥护共产主义,他可能是为了保持思想一致而平静下来。
1919年五四运动后,鲁迅所写的文章呼吁中国从沉睡中觉醒,丢掉历史上造成的束缚中国人民的顺从状态,敢于学习外国经验,建立一个合理社会。他反对守节纳妾等陋习的旧家庭制度,以求妇女儿童的解放。他严厉批评崇拜过去而忽视现在,拘守文言而反对白话,轻信土医而排斥近代科学,承袭传统束缚而轻视个人权利等等的“国粹”观念。他写道:“仰慕往古的,回往过去罢!”“现在的土地上,应该是执着现在,执着土地的人们居住的。”这一期间,他独特的散文体趋于完美的境地;简练热情、诙谐的笔调,嘲笑和热讽的词藻润色得很好。
1920—1926年间,鲁迅除在教育部任事外,还在北京大学和在北京其他一些院校教中国文学。1925年,他站在北京女子师范大学学生一边,反对政府派一守旧的妇女当新校长,因此解除了在教育部的职务。女子师范大学事件还导致他在《语丝》周刊(1924年11月鲁迅曾主办这一刊物)上发表文章,和支持教育总长章士钊的陈源等人在《现代评论》上发表文章,进行了一场论战。在1925年时,他还热心帮助年轻作家成立“未名社”,发表了不少俄国近代作品的译文。
1926年3月18日,段祺瑞政府屠杀游行学生,鲁迅称之为“中国历史上最黑暗的日子”,他被认为是危险过激分子,隐匿了两个月。1926年8月,他离北京去厦门大学执教,该校教务长林语堂使他很不愉快,他在厦门耽了几个月,于1927年1月去广州中山大学教书。鲁迅当时在全国被誉为创作家、无畏的社会评论家,他在厦门和其他地方的学生,有不少随同他去广州中山大学,他在中山大学受到热烈欢迎。他在那里教中国文学,并担任了三个月教务长之职。1927年4月,国民党右派和共产党破裂,接着发生清党,鲁迅对此憎恨而辞职。
直到那个时候鲁迅虽经过不少的失望,但总抱着中国能在向前发展中好起来的信念。但是1927年大屠杀中的流血暴行,当时他的一些学生被害被捕,以及中国青年自行分裂的局面,这些使他深为虑忧。他在广州逗留了几个月,和他从前的学生、后来成为他夫人的许广平去上海。除1929年、1932年两次短期去北平外,他从1927年10月到1936年一直住在上海。1936年10月19日去世。
鲁迅在上海的头两年,是他政治上与左派来往的关键时刻。他虽早在日本时就开始对俄国感兴趣,但并不注意俄国革命,他虽通过投稿《新青年》和陈独秀、李大钊有过接触,但并没有参加过1927年前共产党的政治活动。只是在广州时,他才和中国共产党有间接的接触,他断定中国共产党是中国革命的动力。1927年发生的事件,使他大为失望,他要寻求新的见解。他一到上海,就阅读有关近代俄国文学、有关马克思主义、有关俄国的翻译书籍。他从不妄求系统学习,没有读过《资本论》,他这一期间的著作也很少反映有关他读过的上述著作。他和柔石、冯雪峰以及其他一些共产党的青年作家来往密切,但与共产党地下组织似乎没有联系。那时,共产党也并没有完全肯定鲁迅,间或还认为他对无产阶级来说不过是个门外汉,而且还批评他的政治和学术上的看法。1928年,党领导的《创造社》和《太阳社》一致攻击他,回击他对革命文学苛刻的评论。一场论战接着发生,而以他屈服于共产党的批评者告终。
1928—1929年间,鲁迅虽然公开回答马克思主义批评者对他的批评,但他私下重新评价自己过去的个人主义立场。他阅读马克思著作和苏联文学的日文译本。鲁迅对辩证法的掌握始终是不稳固,但在1929年底,鲁迅和中国共产党已准备密切合作了。1930年2月,他加入了自由运动大同盟,这是反对限制言论、新闻、集会、出版自由的一个团体。1930年3月,他全力投身于筹建左翼作家联盟的工作,他与设在莫斯科的革命作家国际联盟取得联系。1933年初,他任中国民权保障同盟执行委员,这是一个并非由共产党组成的反对国民党的团体。是年秋,在上海秘密召开的属共产党阵营的世界反对帝国主义战争委员会远东反战会议,他被推为会议的主席团成员,但因危险太大并未参加。他与当时在上海的中国共产党前总书记瞿秋白来往密切。瞿秋白为躲避逮捕,鲁迅曾三次将瞿隐藏起来。鲁迅还和李立三、陈毅联系。1935年,方志敏在南昌狱中写的遗书,经鲁迅之手转达给中国共产党的中央委员会。还有,1936年初从北平派来的交通员带来共产党的有关华北工作的秘密报告,也是经鲁迅之手转达中共中央的。
鲁迅并未热衷于学习辩证唯物主义,对抱住马列主义的教条不放也持有怀疑,因此他始终没有成为一名共产党员。他之所以同情共产党,主要是因为他长时期地痛恨中国旧的社会制度中的不公平,他的热情奔放的民族主义爱国主义和对列强在中国的特权的憎恨,以及对蒋介石国民党当局施行的专横、迫害和审查制度的激烈反感。他是一个独立的、不受约束的、不尚空论的共产党的支持者,他认为共产党是唯一能起作用的反对国民党的政党,在当时的环境下能在中国生存下来的可使民族新生的仅有的力量。他不尚空论的情况,在许多方面和他的朋友宋庆龄、茅盾很有相似之处,而与左翼作家联盟的年青的总干事周扬的严厉的发号施令引起冲突,在1936年的有关两个口号的论争中他和周扬发生冲突。
从中国共产党的立场来看,鲁迅所进行的社会批评的主要目标是非正统主义的,因为他的最终分析将造成中国的耻辱的原因归罪于中国的自身,而并不是“帝国主义敌人”。鲁迅到上海之后,作为一名作家的创作生活已经过去了。因为他认为文学的根本使命是批评社会、促使其改进。因此他集中精力评论当时的社会、政治和文学现象。他用他称之为“金钱无法买得的”笔杆,写出一篇又一篇的评论,痛斥国民党的愈来愈严酷的审查制度、对共产党和其他反对者滥用恐怖手段、对日本侵略采取不抵抗政策。他怒斥国民政府叛卖中国的民族利益和剥削中国人民。他说,中国处于十分不幸和虚伪的境地,人民是屈从于命运的无权申诉的奴隶。他说:“我们在中国生活像浑水里的鱼,活得糊里糊涂,莫名其妙,不死不活。”他对那些麻痹人民的伦理道德,并不减弱他的笔锋,他认为除了阿Q的自以为一切都好的弱点之外,还有那些自欺欺人、残暴虚伪、听天由命、只求外表不求实际的弱点。他说:“在中国往往招牌一挂,就算万事大吉……中国确是太不认真了”。鲁迅对于未来,并非是一个悲观主义者,而是现实主义者。中国是一只“黑染缸”,一碰到它就被污染,民族复兴的道路是既长而又艰苦的。但是鲁迅深信:“要说二十世纪的舞台上没有我们的地位,那是胡说”。
鲁迅反对国民党,使他成为一个引人注意的人物。特别自1930年之后,他常常有被捕的危险。他的声誉是对他最有力的保护;只有少数亲信朋友知道他在上海的住处,他在外边看望朋友,他常在他的日本朋友内山完造的书店里。
1933年5月后,他不能继续用鲁迅的名字发表文章,他的文笔也不得不更加隐晦。他的文集被禁,但在1934—1935年间,他的文集通过非法渠道出版,秘密发行。
虽然鲁迅在上海并没有写出像以前那样的创作,但仍被尊为中国文学界领袖人物。1928年,他创办一重要月刊《奔流》,当年,又和一些年轻友人组成了《朝华社》。1930年后和左翼作家联盟有联系,但并非领导人。1934年时,他是《译文》的创办人之一。
这一时期鲁迅对中国文学的最重要贡献是他的杂文,体裁简洁而多样。鲁迅善于表达他的寓意,他能运用惊人的语句、深刻的隐语、巧妙的比喻以及简洁的文字,这一切在他生命的最后十年中达到了最完美的程度,他的许多仿效者是无法比拟的。
鲁迅又是多产的翻译家和不少翻译团体和刊物的主持者,他介绍了他认为对于中国和近代中国文学的发展有用处的小说作品和文学理论。他的很多译作转译自日文和德文,因为他仅懂日、德两种外文。直至1926年他在北京期间所翻译的俄国和日本的作品,注重于探讨文学的社会道德和社会作用的问题。1928—1930年,他在上海研究马克思主义的文艺理论时,翻译了卢那察尔斯基和普列哈诺夫的有关文艺理论的著作,以及翻译了日本片上伸所著的简要而系统的著作《无产阶级文学诸问题》。为了使中国读者了解俄国文学界最新的发展情况,他翻译了1924—1925年苏联有关文艺政策争论的基本材料,以及翻译了俄国无产阶级作家的作品(如法捷耶夫的《毁灭》)和同路人的作品(如耶可维利夫的《十月》)。他在世最后两年里还翻译了契诃夫的小说选集、高尔基的《俄罗斯童话》及果戈理的《死魂灵》。鲁迅还写过一些诗,有文言文的、也有白话的。他的白话诗很平常,但他的古体诗,恰如评论家夏志清所说:“至少可以和他最好的白话散文媲美,简洁、辛辣、幽默,‘有凝住了的火焰’的美,纵横交错的红丝组成的诗体像澄清洁白的冰层下的珊瑚”。鲁迅的诗收集在《死火》(原文如此)集中。
鲁迅对版画艺术有长期的兴趣,虽然他自己并不是一个制图者,他熟知中国传统的木刻技巧,并广为收集汉魏六朝唐人拓本。由于他对中国的木版印刷很感兴趣,因此重视西方艺术家的现代木刻。他认为这在中国样一个机器印刷还不普遍的条件下,是一种普及社会教育的经济实惠的好办法。1929年,他首先编印了一本英国艺术家的木刻集后,又编了第二本包括法、美、俄、日艺术家的木刻集。当时,几个中国年轻艺术家开始学习西方木刻,杭州的“木铃社”出版了这一木刻流派的早期作品。
杭州的社团于1929年被封,于是就在上海出现了“上海一八艺社”,他们的口号是“走出沙龙,奔向街头”。以鲁迅关于真正的大众艺术的思想为其宗旨,1931年初夏,在上海青年会举办了第一次展览会,该展览会的小引是鲁迅写的。鲁迅为了鼓励更多的人从事木刻,在1931年秋季举办一个木刻讲习班,请日本美术教员讲授木刻技法,鲁迅自任翻译。1932年,这个木刻讲习班发展成为一个新的艺术社,在鲁迅赞助下又在上海青年会举办了该艺术社的第一次展览会。鲁迅收集了这些青年木刻家的代表作妥善保存,并选编成一本《木刻纪程》,于1934年出版。
鲁迅除出版不少西方现代美术家的作品为中国青年木刻家作参考外,又努力让他们了解中国原有的传统,为此,他和郑振铎合编出版了两册印有淡墨木刻的传统信笺的集子,一册是十七世纪胡曰从的《十竹斋笺谱》,按原作重刻后印刷,于1936年鲁迅逝世前出版;一册是《北平笺谱》,系现代作品的选编,依原样印刷,于1938年出版。
起初,鲁迅欣赏欧洲木刻家的技巧,特别对盛极一时的英国流派,后来他深为爱慕俄罗斯木刻家和欧洲的社会主义美术家,特别是德国的凯绥·珂勒惠支。1931年,他对登载在《版画》杂志上的俄国小说《铁流》的木刻插图十分赞赏,这些对工业文明的强有力的描绘,促使鲁迅设想用木刻来反映当代现实。他认为这种描绘手法应是现代中国艺术家的方向。他设想向中国青年提出要求创立一种新的民族艺术,那就是采用西方艺术家的高超技巧,又保持中国的精神气概。
鲁迅的文学声誉,是树立在已出版的少量著作上:两册短篇小说集、《故事新编》、数量不多但评价很高的散文诗集《野草》。他的更大的声誉,则是由于他作为社会评论家,尤其是他在上海时生命的最后几年。
鲁迅对中国传统性格的控诉,给二十年代、三十年代的中国青年知识分子极大影响。他们公认鲁迅所讲的是真理,他们共享鲁迅怀有的为建立美好中国的强烈愿望,他们尊崇鲁迅一贯地毫无保留地为五四运动争取基本自由的目标而献身的精神。自1927年以后,由于鲁迅毫不屈服于官方对他的压力,又由于鲁迅明确表达了中国青年知识分子抗议国民党的政治迫害、检查制度以及对日本侵略的屈让妥协,因而中国青年知识分子对他更为敬仰了。由于鲁迅在政治上同情左派,因而使他成为左翼反对派反对蒋介石国民党的全国旗帜。但是鲁迅的根本主张要广泛得多,他最为关切的是在中国发展自尊自信的新精神,这种精神将作为国家复兴的基础。他的杂文大都是针对当时的局势而作,因此以后的读者不易读懂,而成为后来的专门家的研究课题,但是鲁迅的名字作为追求一个真正现代化的中国的象征,那将是永存的。
在有关文学的问题上,鲁迅虽然和共产党有过争论,但是他逝世后,共产党立即推崇他是文学界的爱国者。毛泽东在1940年1月写的文章中称崇鲁迅是“中国文化革命的巨人”。在毛泽东所著的有影响的文章《新民主主义论》的文化部分中,将鲁迅当作一位几乎是传奇式人物,描绘成是1919年五四运动涌现出的最有力、最有影响的社会评论家,“而鲁迅,就是这个新文化新军的最伟大最英勇的旗手。鲁迅是中国文化革命的主将,他不但是伟大的文学家,而且是伟大的思想家和伟大的革命家。鲁迅的骨头是最硬的,他有没丝毫的奴颜和媚骨,这是殖民地半殖民地人民最可宝贵的性格。”
1936年鲁迅逝世后,立刻在上海组织了一个特别委员会筹备出版他的著作的全集,委员有郑振铎、胡愈之、许广平等。由于他们的辛勤工作,终于在1938年在上海出版了二十卷本的《鲁迅全集》,蔡元培为全集作序言。1949年以后,发表了无数的有关鲁迅的回忆、传记、研究和称颂的文章。1946年和1953年由唐弢主编先后出版了《鲁迅全集补遗》两卷。由许广平主编的《鲁迅书信集》分两卷发行(第二版1952年在北京出版)。1959年又出版了《鲁迅日记》。北京的外文出版社出版了几卷鲁迅著作的英文译本,除《阿Q正传》外,1954年出版了十八篇早期写的小说《鲁迅小说选》,1961年出版了有八篇小说的《故事新编》。北京出版的英译本的《鲁迅选集》共有四卷。第一卷是短篇小说、散文诗和回忆录,附有冯雪峰写的介绍鲁迅生平和评述的序言,出版于1956年。此后三卷,按年编选了他的杂文;第二卷(1957年出版),选有1918—1927年期间的杂文;第三卷(1959年出版),选有1928—1933年期间的杂文;第四卷(1960年出版),选有1934—1936年最后时期的杂文,并附有鲁迅生平和著作年谱。他的《中国小说史略》的译本,附有影印的古代木刻的复制件和一些珍本摹本,1959年在北京在版。