Alexander Larionov. L.N. Tolstoy and China (1945) Introductory article, text preparation, and notes by D.V. Zabotin

Alexander Larionov’s Leo Tolstoy and China is a review article that represents one of the first serious attempts to understand “the problem of a detailed study of relations between China and Tolstoy and the interaction between Tolstoy’s work and Chinese culture” in post-war literary criticism. (Its autograph and incomplete typescript were found in the collection of the Press Department of the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries, located in the State Archive of the Russian Federation.) Compared to his predecessors, such as Paul Biryukov, a Russian publicist (Tolstoi und der Orient, 1925), and Romain Rolland, a French writer (La Réponse de l’Asie à Tolstoï, 1928), Alexander Larionov broke new ground by selecting and systematically presenting a large amount of “factual material” (in his own words, “more than one copyright sheet”). In fact, for the first time, he established an ideological sequence that would later be reached by professional scholars, Derk Bodde, an American historian and sinologist (Tolstoy and China, 1950), and Alexander Shifman, a Soviet literary critic (Leo Tolstoy and the Orient, 1960 and 1971). The main research plot is structured as follows: “Tolstoy’s Writings and Publications on China” (the Chinese Wisdom, the Water Flow, the Coffee-House of Surat, the Circle of Reading, the Epistle to the Chinese, etc.); “Tolstoy’s Readings on China” (the study of popular science books about China in English, Russian, French, and German, as well as the philosophical heritage of Confucius, Laozi, Mozi, and Mencius); “Tolstoy’s Contacts with the Orient” (the correspondence with Zhang Qingtong and Gu Hongming); and finally, “The Meaning of Tolstoy to the Orient” (a translation of some of his works and critical responses to them). As Alexander Larionov’s manuscript was neglected for too long, this publication includes all the necessary comments, additions, and clarifications in its footnotes which significantly exceed the volume of the author’s text that has “already a historical character.”