Politics of Time as Poetics of Being：A Critical Analysis of Lu Xun’s Style*#

ZHANG Xudong New York University

Abstract：This article examines the politics of time in Lu Xun’s 鲁迅（1881-1936）essays.The author argues that the binary of memory and forgetting provides an entry point into interpreting and reconstructing the temporal configuration pertain‐ing to Lu Xun’s concept of being.From this point onwards，as the article seeks to show，the politics of time serves as the narrative and critical energy that propels and inspires Lu Xun’s writing，enabling it to engage in a radical nihilism that both refutes and redeems historical time by making it full，more stressful and more produc‐tive.The politics of time in Lu Xun is divided into three domains in this analy‐sis.First，the author examines the cosmic politics of time in Lu Xun’s appropriation of evolutionary theory viaYan Fu’s 严复（1854-1921）translation of Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics.In this domain，the key factor is not Lu Xun’s second-hand and ap‐proximate understanding of Darwin’s notion of evolution，but rather his early expo‐sure to Western experimental and mathematical science，his training in geology，mining，engineering，and，eventually，in biology and Western medicine in Japan.This scientific worldview is intertwined with the natural law of evolution as a cosmic orderin Lu Xun’sliterary representation，narrative，and politics，whichretainameta‐physical，thus apolitical，ahistorical，and indeed atemporal stance vis-a-vis concrete social politics as something to be negated and superseded in“the chain of evolution”constituted solely by the“intermediate form”or“what is in-between.”Based on this atemporal politics of time，Lu Xun develops the second aspect of his politics of time as a necessity，urgency，and primacy of existence，of life blazing its own path no mat‐ter what，pu mie 扑灭（wiping out or breaking down）everything and anything in the way.The third and the innermost aspect of Lu Xun’s politics of time lies within his es‐sayistic style as a writing of writing，a self-consciousness of the writerly conscious‐ness，which is symbolically made possible by a strategic and deliberate“mixed styles”approach（a central feature of his essay production，as the author argues）；and by a secondarily constructed form exemplified by his numerous prefaces and afterwords to his collections of es‐says.The author points out that it is in these moments that we can identify the“second birth”or“second coming”of Lu Xun’s work，that is，after the May-Fourth-era fiction and propaganda pieces under the rubric of Enlightenment.It is through this narrow strait between the first，more“natural”birth of Lu Xun’s fiction work and the second，more politicized，self-conscious，mixed，and secondarily constructed style that we can critically locate and analyze Lu Xun’s literary production as the true origin of modern Chinese literature，its historicity，aesthetic ambition，and its existential politics，which is ultimately a politics by which to work out the dialectical relationship between the past，present，andfuture.

Keywords：LuXun；essayistic style；the poetics of Being；the politics of time

Bifurcated Politics

The concept of time in Lu Xun is intensely and entirely political，although this politics is ultimatelymediated by the style of his writing.The reverse is also true：the politics of Lu Xun’swriting is always mediated by his poetics and politics of being，which has at its core a unique conceptualand artistic construction of time.We can therefore assume that a critical analysis of this politicsof time holds the key to unpacking LuXun’s politics ofwriting，which in turn retainswithin itsstylistic structure the aesthetic and historical energy，aspiration，and possibilities of modern Chineseliterature at its original and formative moment.

To call this politics of time in Lu Xun’s writing unique is not to suggest that it stands outsidethe shared experience of modern China，its collectivity and historicity，or its general moral andemotional constitution.Rather，it was in every aspect conditioned and shaped by this experience，including the hopeful prospects and the suffocating limitations it had brought to bear on the nationand its writers and intellectuals.In other words，this uniqueness is drawn more from the particularexpression and style of Lu Xun’s writing than in terms of its historical and political substance.It istherefore useful to make a conceptual differentiation，at the outset of our discussion，between，onone hand，the politics ofLuXun as a concrete social being—i.e.，his specific political positions，behavior，and activities as they existed andwere expressed in real historical time and vis-à-vis specifichistorical events，social groups，and political parties and discourses—and，on the other hand，the politics of LuXun’swriting，whichmust be analyzed，interpreted and critically re-situated andreconstructed according to its own stylistic logic of form，subjectivity，and historicity.

It suffices to say thatwhile the former（Politics I）returnsLuXun to his own historical environmentand collective social being，rendering himpart and parcel of the general social politics and its own internal periodization，the latter（Politics II）constitutes the productive tension，ironical distance，and sarcastic defiance thewriter held toward his time，his country，its people，and theirmoralstate of being.This article focuses nearly exclusively on Politics II，leaving Politics I largely tothe existing assumptions and understandings established by mainstream Lu Xun scholarship bothwithin and outside China.The internal and ongoing debateswithin the international scholarship onLu Xun notwithstanding，the basic parameters of the image and legacy of Lu Xun as an Enlightenmentintellectual and a critical，progressive writer have appeared relatively stable for the past century.It is against this relatively stable and unchanging interpretative background that an ever newand self-renewing re-reading of Politics II must be attempted and achieved from time to time for adynamic，subversive，and productive reinvention ofLuXun for the here and now.

Cosmic Time，or，Lu Xun’s Biological Determinism as the“Content”of His Radical Nihilism

Onemay choose to cut through Politics I to reach Politics II bymeans of conventional historicaland literary historical analysis.Or，one could confront it immediately—that is，on and withinthe aesthetic surface and textual-stylistic fabric，even the politico-ontological construct ofLuXun’swriting—by means of theoretically informed literary criticism.And one may suspect that if doneproperly，both approaches would sooner or later arrive at the same observations and conclusions.This，however，is not because the historical and literary-historical approach and the analytical-criticalapproach can be easily and readily bridged as though they belong to the same unified field andspace or system of cultural production.Rather，as I would like to argue，it is because Lu Xun’s socio-politics and literary-aesthetic politics share an ideological and discursive point of departure.This point of departure is what has been generally and popularly known as Lu Xun’s early belief inevolution as a scientific and socio-historical law，indeed as a philosophical principle governing allrealms of life in both cosmic and civilizational domains.

Yet Lu Xun’s notion of evolution plays a rather complex role in informing，defining and reinforcinghis politics，simultaneously uniting and separating Politics I and Politics II.It unites thembecause evolution serves as the scientific andmoral foundation in LuXun’s life andwork throughouthis career and down to his last breath.The lingering conventional view，populated in official LuXun literature up to the late 1980s，that evolution was superseded by the higher，more scientificdoctrine of historicalmaterialismafter the author’s turn to proletarian revolutionary literature after1928 now looks more superimposed from without rather than worked out from within Lu Xun’swriting，including its political dimensions in addition to its stylistic ones.However，to insist thatevolution remains a scientific and moral point of departure and an ultimate historical horizon constantlyand throughout Lu Xun’s writing career would require us to take a closer look at the actualuse of evolution in his literary production and politics，which goes beyond a literal，factual，or historicistreception and application of evolution theory as it reached China from Europe bymeans ofYan Fu’s translation of ThomasH.Huxley’s 1893in1898.

To show that the politics of time in Lu Xun provides a metaphysical foundation for his politics of writing，one needs to point out the actual starting point of this politics of time within an atempo‐ral，ahistorical，and even apolitical notion of time based on the author’s peculiar biological deter‐minism.This biological determinism is based loosely on Lu Xun’s early reception of Darwin’s evolutionarytheory through Fu’s translation.

Lu Xun first read（translated byYan Fu as 天演论）in 1901 when he was stillastudentat矿路学堂（theSchoolofMiningandRailways）inNanjing，acom‐ponentof江南陆师学堂（theImperialJiangnanMilitaryAcademy）.In《朝花夕拾》（Morning Flowers Plucked At Dusk），a collection ofreminiscences，Lu Xun offers fond memories of his exhilarating initial encounter with the book and the brand new intellec‐tual world it opened up before him. 鲁迅：《琐记》，见《朝花夕拾》，《鲁迅全集》第2卷，北京：人民文学出版社，2005年。［Lu Xun，“Suo ji”（Miscellaneous Recollections），in（Morning Flowers Plucked at Dusk），in or（Collected Works of Lu Xun），Beijing：People’s Literature Publishing House，2005.］All translations are my own unless otherwise noted.In early 1902，Zhou Zuoren 周作人（1885-1967），Lu Xun’s younger brother，recorded it in his diary when Lu Xun introduced the book to him，praising the lit‐erary quality of the translation. See Zhou Zuoren，Diary entry 02-02-1902.In his《鲁迅的青年时代》（），Zhou Zuoren further notes that“the lecture notes on mining and railway building accumulated during the two years［at the School］benefited Lu Xun a great deal；it was no matters of technicality，but having to do with the foundational knowledge in natural science.This，plus a bit reading of，laid down the foundation of his materialist thinking.”周作人：《鲁迅的青年时代》，北京：北京十月文艺出版社，2013年，第32 页。［ZHOU Zuoren，（The Young Lu Xun），Beijing：Beijing Shiyue Literature and Art Press，2013，32.］Zhou Zuoren lists such“basic science”as mathematics（in particular algebra and geometry），physics，and chemistry in addition to geology and mineralogy as prerequi‐sites for Lu Xun’s synthetic construction of his own science-based worldview while reading which，as Zhou Zuoren points out，was tantamount to《神灭论》（A Refutation of All Gods）by the 5th century atheist and materialist thinker Fan Zhen 范缜（450-510）.See Zhou，ibid.，45.Indeed，Lu Xun was so enamored withYan Fu’s translation that he could still recite whole chapters in front of friends over the following years as they studied overseas in Japan.It is important to note that according to Lu Xun’s biographical，autobiographical and tex‐tual materials，his first exposure to evolutionary theory was through Yan Fu’s translation of Hux‐ley，not Darwin himself；in fact，there was no evidence that Lu Xun ever read Charles Darwin’s，，oranyo the rworksby the author，eitherintheEng‐lish original or in Japanese or German translations.Moreover，Yan Fu’s translation was itself se‐lective and organized mainly around his own interest in promoting the concept of natural selection and the survival of the fittest，not in the terms as intended by Darwin or interpreted by Huxley，but，rather as a sort of universally bio-and socio-historical evolution，which ultimately underpins the notion of自强保种（self-strengthening and the preservation of the Chinese race）.Yan Fu’s translation omitted the sections in which Huxley stresses the necessary boundary between the biological and social realms and cautions against the Spencerian Social-Darwinian inclination toward relentless existential rivalry and competition.Lu Xun not only absorbed the sociopolitical message of Yan Fu but did so exuberantly by celebrating the latter’s poetic and essayistic style steeped in theclassicalcanon.To thisextent，wecan concludethatLu Xun’sreception ofevolution‐ary theory in his early years falls within the domain of Politics I；that is，in terms of its sociohistori‐cal substance，it was driven by a shared sense of national humiliation，admiration of Western achievements tinged with resentment of Western imperialist domination，and，ultimately，an ur‐gent，passionate search for the path toward“wealth and power”whichwould liftChina fromitsmiseryand helplessness. For a useful account of Yan Fu’s influence by and departure from Huxley，see Benjamin Schwartz，（Cambridge，MA：Harvard University Press，1964）.See in particular Chapter IV，“Western Wisdom at Its Source，”91-112.This moral，psychological，and emotional commonality with his fellow countrymen is not trivial or tantamount to reducing Lu Xun to the crowd mentality，but，rather，contributes to the actual making of Lu Xun’s sense of historical time as it is filled with concrete per‐sonal and collective experiences and sentiments.We may call this kind of time Lu Xun’s sociohis‐torical time.It is an integral part of the poetic and philosophical space of Lu Xun’s politics of time as a totality.

Above and beyond this historical time undergirded by his reception of a more-or-less Social-Darwinian appropriation of Darwin’s evolutionary theory lies Lu Xun’s biological determinism as a personal philosophy of truth and life，which is more deeply seated in his general worldview and more intimately connected to his literary style.To regard this bio-determinism as both his philoso‐phy of truth and philosophy of life is by no means hyperbolic，but plainly speaks to the fact that it was informed and supported by Lu Xun’s early formal training in natural science，engineering，bi‐ology，and medical science；his belief in the fundamental value of empirical，positivistic observa‐tion and evidence-based argument；and his concurrent passion for literature as something that is为人生（for the purpose of life）.In the structuralunity between science—above allbi‐ology as a unified theory of cosmic and species evolution—and life，the latter is no longer a human‐ist，anthropocentric，and sentimental concept pertaining to the vicissitudes of civilized society and its internal periodization and politics，but rather an impersonal，ahistorical，apolitical，even de-hu‐manized space of eternal evolutionary change，transformation，and overcoming.In his postscript to his collection of essays，Lu Xun famously states that in the chain of evolution，everything is just中间物（something in-between），a vanishing mediation temporarily holding the place of imminent and constant transition，connecting a certain past to a certain future，eventually and fitfully perishing into oblivion to make way for the next moment of in-betweenness. 鲁迅：《写在坟后面》，见《鲁迅全集》第1卷，第302页。［LU Xun，“Xie zai Fen houmian”（Postscript to），in，vol.1，302.］The im‐mediatecontexthereisLu Xun reflecting on mixing hisearly classicalChineseessaysand vernacu‐lar ones within the space of a single volume，spanning 18 years of his writing career up until late 1926，at the conjuncture of his heightened self-consciousness as a writer of杂文（miscella‐neous essays）or杂感（miscellaneous commentary）.But what matters here is the revelation of a latent temporal-political structure which provides meaning for one’s existence as well as one’s writing.Lu Xun writes：

There are intermediate forms between plant and animal life，and between invertebrates and vertebrates；actually，one can simply say that along the evolutionary chain，everything is an intermediate form.As writing begins to be reformed there will inevitably be three or four writers of dubious status—it can only be so and must necessarily be so.Their mission is to call out in a new voice once they achieve some awareness；in addition，because they come from the old fortress and see the situation relatively clearly，they can turn their weap‐ons against their own side to more easily slay a powerful enemy.But they should still pass away like time itself，gradually wither away，to be at most a piece of timber or a stone that is part of a bridge，not some goal or model for the future. Lu Xun，“Postscript to Graves，”trans.Theodore Huters，in，eds.Eileen J.Cheng and Kirk A.Denton（Cambridge，MA：Harvard University Press，2017），34.

动植之间，无脊椎和脊椎动物之间，都有中间物；或者简直可以说，在进化的链子上，一切都是中间物。当开首改革文章的时候，有几个不三不四的作者，是当然的，只能这样，也需要这样。他的任务，是在有些警觉之后，喊出一种新声；又因为从旧垒中来，情形看得较为分明，反戈一击，易制强敌的死命。但仍应该和光阴偕逝，逐渐消亡，至多不过是桥梁中的一木一石，并非什么前途的目标，范本。

The politics of time in this context clearly belongs to the domain of Politics II，whose ontological structure of difference and repetition borders on the radically ahistorical and apolitical for its cos‐mic scale and nihilistic intensity.Such an“intermediate form”made metaphysical is but a radical confirmation of change，provisionality，and self-transcendence vis-à-vis reality as a potentially hardened shell of the movement of time，while revolving around one’s own given historical speci‐ficity and thus“backwardness”as the true presence and substance of the forever new.Thus，in this essayistic reflection on one’s politics of language and style，Lu Xun manages to turn an otherwise apologetic note on including his own classical essays in a collection of essays by a pioneer of the vernacular revolution into a radical politics of time in the form of collapsing Politics I and II into an ontology of time based on the principle of evolution.It is through this nihilistic ontology of transformationand overcoming that thewriter allows himself to engage and intervenewith concrete socialreality and social politics as a critic and satirist while at the same time moving ahead，backwards，beyond，or beneath this actual or“real（ist）”literary layer of engagement and intervention by means of a stylistically and allegorically re-ordered plane of meaning and its own cancellation.This plane of meaning and its negation can only be constructed and interpreted within the intense and often tragic self-consciousness of the essayist，who embracessimultaneously as the death of proper or“great”literature（European-style fiction，lyrical poetry，modern drama，etc.）and the rebirth of his own form and，by extension，of modern Chinese literature，which must re‐main true to its own origin，genealogy，politics，and aesthetic subtlety to be counted among literaturesof the modern world.

The breaking of form（genre，style，aesthetic autonomy，the creative individual as“writer，”etc.）in Lu Xun，however，does not lead to the dispersal of formal intensity and writerly self-con‐sciousness，but rather activates an intense stylistic regrouping in the fashion of the author’s middleand late-career essays or（杂文）.As a form of formlessness and a style that encompasses all styles in a heightened and variegated“mixed style，” I take my cue from Erich Auerbach in his treatment of early European vernacular literature，especially The Old Testa‐ment and Dante’s.See Erich Auerbach，（Princ‐eton，NJ：Princeton University Press，1968）.Lu Xun’s essays bring his evolution-based concept of time one step further and into the social-historical realm of naming and identifying with truth（the flip side of which is the debunking and exposing untruth）；of representing reality as histo‐ry in its totality，that is，as constant change/movement and the eternally here and now all at once.Though not the immediate focus of this paper，“the principle ofmixed style”as it is laid out byAuerbach nevertheless provides a key conceptual reference for understanding the moral and political imperatives as well as the poetic organization of Lu Xun’s writing.Auerbach identifies the historic transition upon which“［the］age of separate realms of style is over”in early Christianity.His majes‐tically erudite and eloquent statements as a Latin philologist of Jewish background make the followingobservations virtually irrefutable：

The true heart of the Christian doctrine—Incarnation and Passion—was，as we have previously noted，totally incompatible with the principle of the separation of styles.Christ had not come as a hero and king but as a human being of the lowest social station.His first disciples were fishermen and artisans；he moved in the everyday milieu of the humble folk of Palestine；he talked with publicans and fallen women，the poor and the sick and children.Nevertheless，all that he did and said was of the highest and deepest dignity，more signifi‐cant than anything else in the world.The style in which it was presented possessed little if any rhetorical culture in the antique sense；it wasand yet it was extremely moving and much more impressive than the most sublime rhetorico-tragical literary work. Erich Auerbach and Edward W.Said，，trans.Willard R.Trask，new and expanded ed.（Princeton，NJ：Princeton University Press，2013），72.Lu Xun’s literary style as the spearhead of the Chinese New Culture shares with this earlier Europe‐an literary tradition the vernacular mode of writing as a（the speech of simple people）but with the utmost seriousness and significance.As a speech act and as a figure of speech，the vernacular-revolutionary literature of the Chinese New Culture must address and appeal to its implied readers from all walks of the earthly world.In doing so，the New Culture as a literary style must be in hot and earnest pursuit of a universal medium not only accessible to all but further capa‐ble of bringing about a symbolic and allegorical world of meaning that points to the equality，digni‐ty，meaning，and redemption of all on the Judgment Day.Only in Lu Xun and his fellow veterans of the Chinese Vernacular Revolution，the higher realm as the end of history is understood in secular，evolutionary（“scientific”），andsocio-revolutionar yterms.

The need to invent a modern vernacular culture as a new universal high culture in the serviceof the yet-to-be-definedmasses（members of the“Chinese race”or the“（cultural）species”；the nation；the People，the Proletarian Class，etc.）thus constitutes a perennial internal pressure on themultiplicity，flexibility，and durability of the new style as a politics and poetics of writing.In thissense，Lu Xun’s style，particularly hismixture of hitherto separated genres and styles（fiction，poetry，and the essay，the last of which further andmore radically blurs the boundaries between“Literature”and“non-Literature”）can be understood as a privilegedmode ofwriting in that it uniquelycame upwith amethod bywhich to answer the epochal callwithin a given and limited cultural-sociologicalspace.The poetic/essayistic capture of change and non-change，the transient and the eternal，and the dialectical tension within every passing moment can retroactively shed light on LuXun’s earlier and more foundational acceptance of the Darwinian evolutionary theory via Huxley.In addition to his intuitively grasping the originalDarwinian thesis of natural selection as a processwithin the cosmic order，Lu Xun seizes the Social-Darwinian implications in the air despite Huxley’sstrenuous effort at keeping Darwin’s teachings away from excessive appropriation in the ageofEuropean colonial and imperial domination of the globe.

The nearly impossible balance between these two versions of evolution was achieved by LuXun not by the thoroughness of his study of the foundational works of evolution in their originalform，but，rather，by means of a poetic affinity between the scientific understanding of natural selectionarticulated by its European proponents such asHuxley and the literary expectation and aspirationof the Chinese writer at the origin of the modern reinvention of Chinese literature.One onlyneeds to revisit this paragraph into appreciate the possible ways in which the former strikes a creative and imaginative chord in the latter：

As no man fording a swift stream can dip his foot twice into the same water，so no man can，with exactness，affirm of anything in the sensible world that it is.As he utters the words，nay，as he thinks them，the predicate ceases to be applicable；the present has be‐come the past；the“is”should be“was.”And the more we learn of the nature of things，the more evident is it that what we call rest is only unperceived activity；that seeming peace is si‐lent but strenuous battle.In every part，at every moment，the state of the cosmos is the ex‐pression of a transitory adjustment of contending forces；a scene of strife，in which all the combatants fall in turn.What is true of each part，is true of the whole.Natural knowledge tends more and more to the conclusion that“all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth”are the transitory forms of parcels of cosmic substance wending along the road of evo‐lution，from nebulous potentiality，through endless growths of sun and planet and satellite；through all varieties of matter；through infinite diversities of life and thought；possibly，through modes of being of which we neither have a conception，nor are competent to form any，back to the undefinable latency from which they arose.Thus the most obvious attribute of the cosmos is its impermanence.It assumes the aspect not so much of a permanent entity as of a changeful process，in which nought endures save the flow of energy and the rational order which pervades it. Thomas Henry Huxley，（Delivered in the Sheldonian Theater，May 18，1893）（London&New York：University of Cambridge Press，2009），4-5.Yan Fu’s loose translation in classical Chinese as Lu Xun first read it：“额拉吉赖图（周时希腊人）曰：‘世无所谓今也。有过去有未来，而无见在。譬之濯足长流者，抽足再入，已非前水。何则？是混混者未尝待也。方云一事为今，其今已古。且精而言之，岂仅言之之时已哉！当其涉思，所谓今者，固已往矣。今然后知静者未觉之动也，平者不喧之争也。当其发见，目击道存，要皆群力交推，屈伸相报，万流汇激，胜负相乘，大宇长宙之间，常此摩荡运行而已矣……’”（清）严复：《严复全集》卷1，福州：福建教育出版社，2014年，第35页。［YAN Fu，（The Collected Works of Yan Fu），vol.1，Fuzhou：Fujian Education Press，2014，35.］

The“rest”as“unperceived activity”and the silent peace seen as“strenuous battle”resonate with the intrinsic rhythm of destruction as self-overcoming in Lu Xun，which again is anchored in process‐es of natural selection as a cosmic structure of atemporal time and ahistorical historicity.In terms of its inner quality and constitution，the style of Lu Xun’s literary production shares the“nebulous po‐tentiality”；the“endless growths”of mineral，biological，and animated beings as“all varieties of matter”；and the“infinite diversities of life and thought，”all of which is human history itself under‐stood as Nature and Life as a will to itself.In terms of its formal and aesthetic organization，this style vibrates from within the temporal architecture and politics of time derived from evolution，which perceives everything（including its literary and poetic）as“impermanence”and a“changeful process”of the“flow of energy”—only the constancy of change is kept unchanging，which again points to the activity，battle，multiplicity and contradictions pervading and permeatingin all domains of the struggle for existence as its only“rational order.”

Cyclical Time，Dialectical Standstill，and the Transvaluation of the Old and the New

The cosmic，hence transhistorical，scale of temporality implicit in Lu Xun’s biological deter‐minismsimultaneously situates his politics of writing and cultural politics in the socio-historicallyconcrete here and now and de-territorializes his writing—as a poetics and a philosophy of life—fromthe historical domain through its vanishing into oblivion as an“intermediate form.”This duality and dialectic self-negation is sometimes prefigured in LuXun’s reference to his own early training in geology andmining，and especially in his broadened notion of“natural selection，”including minerals as the sedimentation of decayed bio-forms such as vegetation and forestry.The latter，as shown in the quote below，are themselves figures of bio-perishable forms of history，including peoples，their cultures，politics，and civilizational states.The“selection，”then，is neither in the strictlyDarwinian sense of the evolution of species in natural history，nor in the strictly Spencerian sense of racial，societal and cultural competition and rivalry in the age of imperialismand colonialism.Rather，this selection process pertains to a severe and ruthless political strugglewithin historical time，whose ultimate result andmeaning，however，is to be harvested and interpreted in a radically ahistorical，“natural，”and indeed cosmic framework of time as something impersonal，ahistorical，and amoral.The following paragraph fromLuXun，therefore，can be regarded asmoreNietzschean than Darwinian；better still，as a uniquemix of a Nietzschean stance toward transvaluation and Darwin’s notion of evolution as natural selection：

Time flows on swiftly as always，and the streets and cities are peaceful once more.The loss of a few lives doesn’t matter much in China；at most they supply fodder for the aftermeal chatter of idlers who have no ill will，or they give those idlers with malicious inten‐tions seeds for rumormongering.As for any other deeper significance，I feel that there is lit‐tle，because this is really nothing more than a case of some innocent people filing a petition.The ongoing history of human bloodbaths is similar to the process of coal formation—large quantities of wood are used up to produce just a small piece of coal.But the petition no lon‐ger exists，nor the lives of the innocent. 鲁迅：《纪念刘和珍君》，见《鲁迅全集》第3卷，第293页。［Lu Xun，“Jinian Liu Hezhen jun”（In Memory of Liu He‐zhen），in，vol.3，293.］See also LU Xun，“In Memory of Liu Hezhen，”trans.Eileen J.Cheng，in，78.

时间永是流驶，街市依旧太平，有限的几个生命，在中国是不算什么的，至多，不过供无恶意的闲人以饭后的谈资，或者给有恶意的闲人作“流言”的种子。至于此外的深的意义，我总觉得很寥寥，因为这实在不过是徒手的请愿。人类的血战前行的历史，正如煤的形成，当时用大量的木材，结果却只是一小块，但请愿是不在其中的，更何况是徒手。

We can see that even within the immediate context of political protest against shooting at students（i.e.，the March 18 Massacre of 1926）and the social critique of national characteristics，Lu Xun holds on to a refutation of historicist“deeper significance”of particular events or words.This is be‐cause his resistance to the now is both concretely here and now，as part of the“ongoing history of human［progressandstrugglesthrough］bloodbaths”；existinginthemetaphysicalregis‐ter of an amoral，ahistorical natural historical process of coal formation by consuming and trans‐forming“large quantities of wood.”This natural-historical process is as subterranean and subject to climate and geological movement as it is wholly de-subjectified，thus above（or shall we say be‐neath）and beyond the human（ist）domain.Rather，it can be more properly understood in spatial rather than temporalterms，whose temporalimplication stems notfrom change per se as from a nat‐uralandmoralselection.

Here，in addition to the Darwinian，Spencerian，and Nietzschean embrace of the stressful，the competitive，and the critical，there is yet another vein of thought being woven into the fabric of Lu Xun’s biological determinism and its implied politics of time.This，to be sure，is the Hegelian dialectics between quantity and quality，which contains a point of intensity at which a quantum leap from quantity into a new quality is to be reached.In the natural-historical transformation from“large quantities of wood”into“a smallpiece of coal，”the concrete，realpersonaland collective ex‐periences belong to the category of mere quantity，to which Lu Xun’s actual social being，above all his physical existence，belongs.Meanwhile，the small piece of coal to be excavated at the other end of the natural-historical process is where Lu Xun’s own writing and its ethics must aspire to join，al‐beit with the tragic and triumphant self-consciousness that the only way to this redemption，as a fu‐ture usefulness，is through decaying and vanishing.The“large quantities of wood”might also be translated into temporality，that is，as large quantities of time which encompass any historical mo‐ments and events indifferently within its vastness；and yet retains its own ahistorical and amoral te‐leology toward becoming a small piece of coal，that is，becoming a value that transcends the van‐ishing mediation of the now，even though this teleological end point will itself turn into yet another vanishingmediation in the chain of evolution.

This unique combination of Hegelian negativity and Nietzschean“eternal return of the same”marks Lu Xun’s politics of time as it is conditioned by the profound moral and political ambiva‐lence and ambiguity toward Western-induced modernity，and toward each and every stage of achieving and living through this modernity once it began and pressed forward amidst its own con‐tradictions.The“intermediate form”as vanishing mediation is then but a signifier standing for the historical experiences and moral components of this modernity as something to be refuted even be‐fore it is being passionately pursued as a goal.The ahistorical and amoral metaphor of the wood be‐coming coal and the quantity-quality dialectic within this becoming must then be regarded as an al‐legorical and narrative device by which to insist on treating modernity as both a socioeconomic and sociopolitical goal and，ultimately，a historical process；and as a value pertaining to the making of a newhumanity and a newculture.

It is the deepest anxiety tinged with an irrepressibly utopian longing of the Chinese New Cul‐ture at its onset which finds its symbolic expression in Lu Xun’s configuration of time.As a tempo‐ral structure，narrative and politics in one，this poetic complex must hold everything to come as old while retaining everything old as at least potentially new when negotiating its own position in the present thus made political.In order to hold this unattainable position，this negotiating subject must commit itself to an unconditioned battle for life as such，because it is only in its survival as the now that one stands a chance of fighting for a better future as a future of properly vanishing and pro‐ductively perishing in the chain of evolution.To that extent，the most virulent curse Lu Xun re‐served for his fellow countrymen and their corrupt tradition is that it is not yet qualified to join the chain of evolution as perishable and vanishing“intermediate forms，”i.e.，as merely a large quanti‐ty of wood to be turned into a small piece of coal，to be both useful for and negated by future genera‐tions.They are not qualified because they have long outlived their moment in the sun；they have been living a borrowed，even stolen，life，and hence do not belong to the“ongoing human history pressing forward in bloodbaths.”

The transhistorical and transvaluating scale of time serves as a vortex of the forever now，which both confirms and negates life as meaningful and necessary energy，creativity and accomplishment，and which above all consumes and positively annihilates them in the constant chain of vanishing and mediating as a form of self-overcoming.As we have pointed out above，the critical edge of this radically productive nihilismis always pointed both to the old and the new，the past and the present.Moreover，it draws both the old and the new，the past and the present into an ongoing politics of being through a convoluted structure of cyclical timewhich gives rise to a dialectical image of historical standstill.Seen fromthe outside and fromthe simplistic perspective of linear progress and mechanical self-renewal，this standstill is nothing but stagnation and despair which，in some ways，constitute a mirror image of the historical conditions of Lu Xun’s time.The challengeof modern Chinese literature at its origin，then，would be to invent a literary style，as poetics and politics at once，which proves to be capable of imitating and representing the inner revolutionary energy，cultural potential，and philosophical negativity of and within this stagnation vis-à-vis the teleological，universal time set by European modernity.In historical hindsight，we know that this historical style of theChineseNewCulture found its image，action and practice in LuXun.However， howthisworked theoretically remains to be fully articulated and understood.

The Specters of the Past：Lu Xun Seen through the Prism of TakeuchiYoshimi’s Discourse on EastAsian Subjectivity

The most incisive critical intervention so far has been offered by the Japanese literary critic and philosopher of EastAsian modernity Takeuchi Yoshimi.In his seminal piece“What Is Moder‐nity？”Takeuchi insightfully comments on Lu Xun’s politics of writing in relation to his sociohistor‐icalconditions：

People like Lu Xun only emerge through fierce resistance.Lu［Xun］represents a type that appears only in backward societies，like the societies of“Asian stagnation”referred to by both European historians and the progressive historians of Japan（！）.This is just like Dos‐toevsky，who emerges from Russian backwardness.Such people are formed when all paths toward progress are closed and the hope of becoming new is broken.They have the lowest of living conditions，in which old things do notnew but rather are new while being old. Takeuchi Yoshimi，，ed.and trans.Richard Calichman（New York：Columbia University Press，2005），73-74.

Like Russia in the 19th century，China in the early 20th century stood as an example of backward‐ness and suffocating stagnation in terms of capitalist socioeconomic development and the forma‐tion of its attendant political and cultural institutions.Unlike Russia or China，however，Japan managed to“shake off the domination ofWestern colonialism and embarked on the national path of wealth and power，”to use the standard language of history textbooks in the People’s Republic.In the same PRC discourse of the modern world and national histories，the official，textbook version on Lu Xun as the pioneer of the Chinese New Culture follows the same conventional historicist line of progress and“becoming new，”appropriating the writer for the stock narrative of the Chinese Revolution and modernization as a matter of historical inevitability and the irreversible collective choiceofthemasses.

Takeuchi’s reading，however，departs from this linear，teleological，and historicist narrative focus on Japan’s unique moral，societal，and political failure in its singular，wonderous achieve‐ments and its own identity as a success story or，in Takeuchi’s sarcastic name-calling，as an“honor student”in the orderly，hierarchical school of world history.It must be acknowledged today that Takeuchi’scriticalinsightappliestocertain，eventhepredominant，aspectsofmodernChinesecul‐ture，particularly the intellectual culture，just as witheringly.The only difference between the mainstream modernization ideologies and philosophies of history in Japan and China，then，must be seen as conceptual，critical，even utopian in nature；that is，it is to be located in the philosophical and political space of criticism and interpretation，as a strategic expression of an ideal and a vision.Only forTakeuchi，this ideal and vision were situated within Lu Xun’s writing and his moral stand，which for Takeuchi serves as a warning to and self-critique on Japanese modernity as a historical lesson rather than a source of national pride and complacency.

We will return in a moment to a more theoretical analysis of this narratively and critically con‐structed contrast between the success story of the Japanese Honor Student Culture and Lu Xun as an allegory of stubborn resistance and ruthless self-overcoming of a backward people，which for Takeuchi would constitute the ontological substance of an idealized Oriental Modern.Here one may want to pursue the issue of the old and the new a bit further，following the intriguing verbal construct by Takeuchi.Again，Takeuchi’s unique coupling of the old and new in the context of Lu Xun starts with a comparative situational analysis of Japanese and Chinese modernities.He followshis afore-quoted passagewith the following additional observation：

People like Lu Xun do not come from European society with its limitless progress.Nei‐ther do they come from Japan，which remains within the fantasy of progress.Not only do they not come from Japan，they are not even understood there.When Japan sees Lu Xun，he is distorted（like everything else）into a thinker of progress，a superior enlightenment fig‐ure.He is distorted in mirrorlike fashion into an enlightenment figure who desperately chased after Europe in trying to improve backwardness.He becomes a Chinese Ôgai［Mo‐ri］.In fact，however，Lu［Xun］is the very opposite of this.He is an opponent of such think‐ers of progress as Hu Shi and LinYutang.As he often writes，“I am a man from the old days.”Japanese thinkers of progress see this as a sign of Lu［Xun］’s modesty.They do not consider that it has its source in the structural differences between Japanese and Chinese modernity.

Here LuXun is used allegorically by Takeuchi as China per se，in the sameway inwhichAhQ was used byLuXun symbolically asChina itself.WhileLuXun sees inAhQ’s ghostly behaviorChina’s namelessness and directionlessness resulting from its systematic breakdown as a civilizational order ofwords and things，Takeuchi，in a radical critical and self-critical reversal，sees inLuXun precisely the hope for collective redemption through revolutionary renewal，a renewal whose concrete path is not chasing the phantomof“limitless progress”defined by Europeanmodernity，but a radical turning of the collective being and thus a total reinvention of its social ontology and political identity：indeed，the most literal and high-fidelity sense of“revolution.”Here Takeuchi does not sound merely romantic，though a romantic critic he truly was to some extent，whose work must have produced a different set of questions and problems in the context of inter-war and post-war Japanese literary criticismand intellectual politics.In“What IsModernity？”he seeswithin the concrete socioeconomic and political-cultural conditions of the China of Lu Xun’s age an unthinkable degree of desperation and hopelessness by Euro-American or even Japanese standards.He is fully capable of appreciating the fact that Lu Xun’s moral character and literary style were both conditioned， shaped and tempered by the harsh，bruising environment in which no ordinary intellectual or aesthetic life formswould be able to take roots and grownormally.

The critical insight of Takeuchi’s Lu Xun interpretation lies in his grasp of an internal turning of Lu Xun’s consciousness，manifested outwardly and vividly in his writing style，which imitates the turning or revolution taking place invisibly within the collective being of modern China.The fact thatTakeuchi’s“What Is Modernity？”was written after the Japanese defeat inWorldWar II and on the eve of the Chinese Communist military victory over the Nationalist Regime means that by then he would have had valuable historical hindsight and thus been able to play，in fast forward mode，the entire histories of Japanese and Chinese modernization，with the Meiji Restoration of 1868 and the Republican Revolution of 1911 as their respective original moments.In other words，for Takeuchi，Lu Xun’s refusal tonew，i.e.，to adapt in the sense of moving along with his‐torical time also known as progress，cannot and should not be understood as a total impossibility for change but rather a deliberate rejection of a certain kind of change and in order to embrace a dif‐ferentone.

The fact that the route leading to Japanese success was never historically and factually available to China，something both LuXun andTakeuchi recognized，would thenmean that thewriter’s action and being as well as the critic’s interpretation cannot be dismissed as irrational，that is，as a mere emotional or ethnocentric resistance to something alien and external（albeit rational and universal）. Quite the contrary，LuXun andTakeuchi seemto share a basicmaterialist understanding of European modernity as universal and，moreover，as something validated by its own historically revolutionary struggle against the ancient regime to become a subject and not an object of history；both，in addition，admire the real advance of individual freedom along with tangible and marvelous achievements of European peoples in arts and science；and in creating a political systemroughly compatiblewith the newly liberated，dynamic forces of production.

Indeed，the universal value of Europeanmodernity constitutes the rational content of LuXun’s resistance much appreciated by Takeuchi，who then turns on his own national culture for a lack of true subjectivity and universality.Through the prism of Lu Xun’s resistance，Takeuchi articulates that true universalism entails in its own universality a subjectivity in concrete historical and political terms，which would have required a kind of actually existing particularity affirming itself asuniversal，rather than only accepting uncritically and apolitically what appears to be universal but only in the sense of the predominant trend.This“realist principle”seems to be at the center of Takeuchi’s self-critique of Japanese ideology ofmodernity and，conversely，his admiration for Lu Xun orDostoyevskywho rejected taking“world history”at their face value so as to be able to blend in.ForTakeuchi，the Japanese desire to fit in and qualify as a newmember of the club of the successful condemns the nationmorally as a copy-cat and practitioner of“me-too-ism”but without allowing it to probe deeper into the historical and structural contradictions with in Europeanmodernity to understand it as the heroic battle of self-negation and self-overcoming，which must take the truly universal path of resolving the painful struggle between the particular and the universal.

In short，in Lu Xun Takeuchi sees an instinctive—instinctive because it was desperate，stub‐born，and combative—resistance to a simple acceptance of the order and hierarchy of European modernity with all its metaphysical and theological，not to mention imperialist and colonialist，trappings.For Takeuchi as the critic and interpreter，this instinct precisely locates for him the kind of collective subjectivity of a backward people（who never let go a deep-seated confidence in rein‐venting a society，a civilization from scratch by revolutionary means）that he finds missing in the Japanese Honor Student Culture（or，for that matter，in many cosmopolitan liberal intellectuals in China at that time，such as Hu Shi and Lin Yutang）.Thus，Takeuchi continues his observation and argumentasfollows：

Within Chinese literature，of course，Lu［Xun］stands alone.Yet his isolated figure can be seen and thus handed down：his image is clearly recognizable，it has not been buried in the surroundings.In Japan，however，what was once distinct gradually becomes buried.New things are constantly born and become old；never do old things become new. Ibid.The Chinese translation of the last sentence is，literally：“In Japan，there can never be old things undertaking new tasks by means of their old outlook.”See（日）竹内好：《近代的超克》，李冬木、赵京华等译，北京：三联书店，2005年，第210页。［Takeuchi Yoshimi，（Overcoming Modernity），trans.LI Dongmu，ZHAO Jinghua et al.，Beijing：SDX Joint Publishing，2005，210.］

By“can be seen and thus handed down，”Takeuchimeans thatLu Xun’s figure and example，though agonizing and isolated，is nonetheless a new chapter in a long tradition of rebels，hermits，exiles，satirists，writers as historians，loyal critics，poetic martyrs，crazy metaphysicians，and utopian dreamers that peopled the long history of Chinese literature，whose very subversiveness，inven‐tiveness，and even eccentricity constitute，quite paradoxically and ironically，the classical canon oftheimperiallineageofhigh，official（orofficiated）culture.

Even at the heart of its decay and dispersal，this lineage or tradition is still capable of produc‐ing figures like Lu Xun，whose sense of the self，and of literature per se，could never be solely de‐fined by the new from without，but must always work out the new by committing the old to a new struggle of its own yet again.The hopelessness and the very hope it paradoxically generates within the abyss of its despair and nothingness is captured in Lu Xun’sas the road metaphor，a metaphor for the making of the road through collective action where there is no road on earth to be‐gin with. 鲁迅：《故乡》，见《鲁迅全集》第2卷，第510页。［Lu Xun，“Guxiang”（Hometown），in，vol.2，510.］See also Lu Xun，“Hometown，”in，trans.William Lyell（Honolulu，HI：University of Hawaii Press，1990），100：“‘Hope isn’t the kind of thing that you can say either exists or doesn’t exist，’I thought to myself.‘It’s like a path across the land—it’s not there to begin with，but when lots of people go the same way，it comes into being’.”The fact that hope and hopelessness can be united so dialectically and tragically in Lu Xun confirms，for Takeuchi and us alike，that a true road can be forged only when there is nowhere to turn；that a ready-made road，as a road traveled by others，will in the end politically and philosophicallybemerely a road of the Other.

This is not to suggest that there is such a thing as the essence of national culture which must re‐tain its purity by suspecting and rejecting anything external.This is，rather，to point to the concrete historical experience of European modernity as a universal example，but only in the sense that the European peoples，through their own social revolutions and revolutions in all productive domains，turned the particular of their own into the universal that formed and，to some extent，continues to form the ultimate historical horizon of other peoples.In doing so，the European peoples，as seen by both Lu Xun and Takeuchi，blazed their own paths and forged their own experiences and“subjectivities”（including the tendency to impose this subjectivity on other peoples and thus provoke the equally historic and epic struggles to resist it）.The true sense of becomingmodern therefore is to do what the European peoples had done but within one’s own historical conditions and national situations， and not dowhat they say ormerely try to act like thembased on a script.This iswhatTakeuchi means，at the beginning of his essay，by becoming modern through resisting modernity，as only through this resistance to the Occidental advance and in full recognition of the Oriental retreat（which was，to a great extent，embraced and celebrated by Lu Xun and Takeuchi alike）can the“backward peoples”acquire a newSubjectivity as but a necessary illusion based on a true value，indeed a newhumanity as it is produced and reproduced in socially concrete struggles.

Takeuchi goes so far as to suggest that the European peoples，by acquiring their subjectivity through their struggles against their own past，not only set themselves free but inevitably will force othersto be free orelse face extinction，which ringssimilarto Marx’sobservationson the bourgeoi‐sie as a world-historically transformative class. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels，（New York：International Publishers，1948），12-13.To quote the familiar：“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production，and thereby the relations of production，and with them the whole relations of society...All fixed，fast-frozen relations，with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions，are swept away，all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify.All that is solid melts into air，all that is holy is profaned，and man is at last compelled to face with sober sens‐es his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind...Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns，so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones，nations of peasants on nations of bourgeoisie，the East on the West.”One may hasten to add，however，the freedom in question must be earned and won through ones’own effort and experience unfolding within ones’own historical Time-Space，and never super-imposed or given as a gift from without.To that ex‐tent，Takeuchi appears to harbor a certain kind of romantic stoicism in believing that Japanese mo‐dernity is too quickly and easily，though diligently，achieved to be true in the sense of a thorough turning and reinventing of the ontological substance of a people and its culture.In contrast to Japan’s never having had a radical，bottom-up social revolution，China，in the image of Lu Xun，stands as a tragic supplement to the happy success story of modern Japan by being stuck in its own identity，fate，and destiny without ever having the option of relocating itself in the imaginary or symbolic space of“leaving Asia，joining Europe”as a clean-cut path toward“civilization and enlighten‐ment.”If China for millennia existed in the self-created daydream of egocentrism as its own frame of reference or the only civilization as such，then any change it faced would by definition mean a reopening of the old-new dialectic in civilizational and existential terms，as the turning of earth and heaven and above all as the reinvention of the very concept of Chineseness.These uncomfortably ideological ideas and fantasies do not infiltrate into either Lu Xun’s or Takeuchi’s rational think‐ing，but they did objectively belong to the historical and mental landscape in which their respective writings unfolded.

To Takeuchi’s mind，there is no question that Lu Xun belongs to this genealogy of cultural re‐invention and continuity which revolve around its own imagined center of gravity while respond‐ing to and resisting external shock，even when this time around，the latter，for the first time in Chi‐nese history，represents a higher plane of universality and internal energy，a more productive and inclusive value and moral system，and a more complex and self-conscious image of the human that the enlightened Chinese aspired to achieve and call their own.From a uniquely Japanese point of view，this presents a striking obstacle as well as an inspiring opportunity，which together form a moral and historical test.For Takeuchi，Japan failed the test by quickly becoming new by means of relocating its Subjectivity outside of its collective Selfhood，thus switching its social and cultural trajectory once and for all.This is seen by Takeuchi as the opposite of resistance，as there is no sub‐jectivity or even subject-position to be identified and located；rather，one sees only an emancipa‐tion（from backwardness and domination by others）of the slaves who accept their freedom as something pre-determined and given.It is from this standpoint that Takeuchi offers his most scath‐ing critique of Japanese modernity as a defeat rather than triumph of the Self；and Japanese culture as a culture of servitude despite itsmany fine qualities. See in particular the section on“Humanism and Despair”in Takeuchi Yoshimi，70-73.

By contrast，China，on the other hand，never seemed to have this option or opportunity to be similarly successful；it didn’t even seem to have desired it.Rather，the country proved unable and unwilling to leave its ontological and symbolic territory，as there was no“other place”to go and no other value system to join.It could only attempt to enter the modern universal as its own self and on its own terms，that is，as a“particular universal”or，to use Lucian Pye’s often quoted descriptive phrase，as“really a civilization pretending to be a nation，” Lucien Pye，“How China’s Nationalism Was Shanghaied，”in 29（January 1993）：130.nomatter how awkward，counter-productiveor frustratingly sluggish the process turns out to be.It seems tome that thismight be the concrete，rational，and even practical context in which Takeuchi’s wonderfully intuitive and succinct comment stands and retains its explanatory and interpretative power：whereas in Japan“new things are constantly born and become old，”in China，old things，by means of an impossible strug‐gle，assume the function of something new and eventually declare themselves to be new；once the last movement is complete，the old can no longer be said to have“become”new，but ratherand has always been new，because the new by now is and must be subsumed into the internal and con‐stant transformation of the old following its own rhythm of change and non-change；self-invention and self-destruction；forward and backwardmotions all at once.

Takeuchi does not dwell on national-cultural analysis，but focuses on Lu Xun as an allegorical image of this stubborn self-persistence and self-negation.In Takeuchi’s memorable language bor‐rowed from Lu Xun himself，this is the act of the fool，who refuses to be saved by the wise man with his humanist agenda and instead elects to suffer a fool’s lot，the“most painful thing in life，”which is“seeing no road ahead upon awakening from a dream”（梦醒之后无路可走）.The impossibility for an easy way out makes the slave realize that he is indeed a slave，which forTakeuchi is what it takes to activate despair and hence the only meaningful struggle for survival.In this situation，a slave can only“reject being himself at the same time that he rejects being anything else.” TakeuchiYoshimi，，71.

This might be the proper moment for us to return to the deeper theoretical assumptions and train of thought in Takeuchi Yoshimi’s critique of East Asian Modernity.His contrast between Ja‐pan and China，which takes Lu Xun as a symbol，metaphor and allegory in its latter part，provides a necessary and immediate context for our understanding such a breezy phrase as“［for Lu Xun，］old things do notnew but rather are new while being old.”We may want to ask：what does this poetic placeholder stand for in analytical and historical terms？

Examined more closely，the intriguing，though so far unexplained，temporal binary of the old and the new in Takeuchi turns out to point to something quite concrete and specific：the elusive and uncritical acceptance of the new on its face value as right and，more importantly，as real in the socio-ontological sense.Takeuchi continues：

Japanese culture is progressive and the Japanese people are diligent：this is indeed true.History has revealed it.The unconscious psychological tendency of the Japanese，in which the“new”becomes a standard of values and is seen as equivalent to what is“correct”or“right，”cannot be understood apart from the progressive nature of Japanese culture.Japa‐nese diligence manifests itself in the constant search for the new and the constant attempt to become new.

What Takeuchi considers under the rubric of national culture and“psychology”is，in fact，a funda‐mentally philosophical and political matter concerning a people’s collective will and socially en‐dowed and developed capacity to question，resist，and，at moments of historical upheaval，destroy and reinvent reality as we know it.The willpower and inventive capacity must in theory carry with them a necessary degree of nihilistic irreverence toward existing institutions and their underlying belief system；above and beyond normal and socially sanctioned skepticism and willingness to question authority，this transcendental nihilism possesses a much deeper faith in its own creative power to the extent that it intuitively knows that realities，just as history，religion，morality and truth，are not given but made—they are shaped and reshaped through concrete human activities in time.Just as they are made，they can be destroyed in order to make way for something else deemed more suitable for the survival and flourishing ofmankind.

This nihilistic ontology of the new turns a people into agencies of historical and revolutionary change，who then create and define their realities as temporary，intermediate states or results ofconstant change along what Lu Xun calls“the chain of evolution.”What Takeuchi deplores and laments in the modern Japanese context is the opposite of this nihilistic socio-ontologically concrete，self-negating and self-guiding new.It is at its philosophical core an acceptance of realities asexternally developing，given as amatter of fact，or else superimposed by superior external force as something both fatalistic and epistemologically true，that is，as an extra-territorial civilizational normthus naturalized and internalized.By“diligence”Takeuchi touches on the rational and technical excellence of the Japanese people in doingwhat is necessary to conformto andmake themost of this reality.By“culture”and“psychology，”however，he points to something political in nature， which is ultimately derived fromand contributes to a certain feebleness and fragility of Japanese society as onewhich has not the experience of one single social andmass revolution；andwhose political institutions，above all the emperor system，permeates into every domain of Japanese social life，including Japanese scholarship.

At this point it is no longer possible or desirable to distinguish a self-criticismof Japanesemodernity from a strategic and narrative detour by which to reserve and designate a temporal-spatial point of resistance and intensity in LuXun.It only becomes clear that for Takeuchi，the sincere and breathless chase of the new thatmarks the advance of Japanesemodernization reveals amore troubling philosophical and political inadequacy；that in this Honor Student of the imperial-colonialage，success sometimes means a hidden failure，which is the failure of subjectivity as the very human agency to define and transform its own history and reality from inside out，often by breaking rather than following the continuumof historical time；by subverting rather than conforming to the existing hierarchy；and by re-opening the conflict between the particular and the universal，thus repoliticizing the very category of truth rather than accepting the prevalent notion of the universal as self-evidently correct，real，or true.As a mirror held before modern Japan as a“wiseman，”Takeuchi offers an image of the fool and the slave borrowed fromLu Xun.Nonetheless，it is his concrete analysis of the innerworkings of Japanesemodernity that isworth paying closer attention to.At the end of the section on“Repetition andDevelopment，”Takeuchi observes：

But neither the idealists nor the realists attempt to pull reality back to themselves.They do not try to bridge the discord between reality and concept by pulling reality back to them‐selves.Nor do they think about whether such a project is even possible in the first place.This possibility cannot be determined without trying，but such a notion strikes them as foolish.For these idealists（including materialists），reality is something absolute and sacred，it is to be worshipped at the altar of authority.These idealists slumber within the concept that reali‐ty can be changed.For those who lack the experience of ever having changed reality，even this concept becomes a cushion for peaceful sleep.They see reality as something substan‐tial，the infinite approach to which is scientific and rational.And indeed it is scientific and rational.It is simply that this science and rationalism belong entirely to the slave.

The register on whichTakeuchi unfolds his analysis and critique is clearly political rather than epis‐temological.The failure or inability to see reality as nihilistic and plastic and thus subject to revolu‐tionary change，rather than“substantial，”“absolute and sacred”is，ultimately，not attributable to Japanese intellectuals’lack of intelligence or diligence.It is the result of a society lacking the re‐solve to“pull back reality”by delving into the“discord between reality and concept，”which re‐minds us of the second part of Hegel’s famously（or notoriously）cunning comment implying that everything and anything“rational”—reasonable，just，true，and“idealistic”in thatparticular Hege‐lian sense—will inevitably find its way to becoming actual and concrete sooner or later.It is，how‐ever，the first half of Hegel’s comment on and endorsement of reality that seems to apply more apt‐ly to the modern Japanese attitude toward reality，i.e.，as something innately and absolutely al‐ready rational，just，and true.The missing mediation of dialectical negativity，that magical“inter‐mediate form”in Lu Xun，indicates the Japanese intellectuals’acceptance not so much of reality per se as the authority governing and defining the meaning of the order and structure of this reality both within andwithoutmodern Japan.

It is within this interface that Lu Xun’s resistance and intervention strike most decisively and persistently.Takeuchi’s critique of an enfeebled concept of reality therefore reveals itself as amoral and ultimately political critique of a societal attitude which privileges conformism over resistance， andwhich equateswhoevermoves against the grain of authorized reality and“universal history” with the fool.Just as he sees in the fool’s stubbornness the possibility for“pulling back reality，”Takeuchi sees in the slave a potentially free and self-guiding human being.All this，aswe have already noted，unfolds in the context of a life-and-deathstruggle between the Orient and the Occident—a civilizational and existential duel inwhich theOrient faces the dialectical circle of self-negation and self-overcoming bymeans of the dynamic energy and creativity of theOccident in order to resist the Occident not somuch as a racial or cultural alien（neither Takeuchi nor his Lu Xun was a provincial xenophobic nationalist in the narrow，mechanical sense），but rather as a pretext and false idol for a less productive and dynamic Self，which finds its ideal type in the Honor Student Culture ofmodern Japan.ForTakeuchi，it takes a fool and a slavewho knows he is a slave towant to stay within this circle with all its agony，despair，and solitude without“wisely”taking an easy way out.And here even the specter of a culturalist notion of the Orient in Takeuchi（but not in Lu Xun）shows its concrete，though implicit，sociopolitical reference，namely，the shared collective experience of EastAsian peoples and societies as locales of backwardness and thus the object rather than subject ofmodern history.

Despite the emotional nature and occasional lyrical tone of Takeuchi’s depiction of Lu Xun’sstance，his observations fundamentally rest on a clear-eyed and politicallymature judgment that Ja‐pan，by being unable and unwilling to put up a struggle of resistance toWesternmodernity as it advances from the Occident to the Orient，took to bear thismodernity as a given，a norm，even a cult concept of the new by which to re-order reality and its undergirding values.In so doing，as Takeuchi argues，Japan neither put up a fight against an invader and colonizer，nor did it turn on its own social and value system to initiate radical transformations.This insight into Japan’s exchange of this dual resistance for a smooth transition into the newworld-historical order constitutes the historical substance ofTakeuchi’s scathing critique of Japan’s lack of national selfhood and subjectivity， which must be evidenced through such resistance.All this is summarized in Takeuchi’s seemingly self-loathing remarks that“therefore Japan is nothing.”While it can be argued that his Lu Xun is a product of this moral and historical self-critique，it is also evident that he puts his finger on the pulse ofLuXun’s style and the value systemit signifies，both symbolically and allegorically.

Natural Selection and Struggle for Existence as Social Poetics and Moral Critique Stemming from the Temporalities of Cosmic Order

This brings us back to the aforementioned politics of time at the ontological substance of Lu Xun’s writing.Lu Xun’s Darwin- and Huxley-inspired bio-determinism，as a philosophy of life， gives rise to a trans-historical，indeed trans-civilizational concept of being，which shares the Nietzschean transvaluation and genealogical critique of morality.This Darwinian-Nietzschean concept of evolution，which the cosmic tempo-spatial order of evolution“scientifically”reinforces and justifies，allows LuXun to cut deeply into the cyclical temporality，i.e.，the pendulumbetween a“well-governed world”and a chaotic one caused by the disintegration of imperial order，but only by inserting this Darwinian-Nietzschean temporal structure，namely a kind of timeless evolutionary process as Nature per se and at the same time an“eternal return of the same.”The latter is，to be sure，saturated in themodern sensibility and thewhole set of uniquely and intenselymodern experience of defeat，trauma，humiliation，and loss of fundamental identity that late Qing China had undergone， and towhich LuXunwas no stranger.What is striking is theway inwhich LuXunmanages to fuse thismodernity negatively experienced with the triumphal“eternal return”of one’s being as the self-overcoming of the old，which in its very own self-overcoming and self-affirmation bring about a new value and a higher humanity.Themodern，progressive，self-critical，and indeed revolutionary stance turns themoral decay and historical stagnation of imperialChina upside down while inheriting its abstract self-identity as the Subject rather than Object of History，as both a world and a beingwhich definewhat it is to be human.

By annihilating the value and meaning of Chinese tradition from within as that of“the preach‐ers of death”and something that“cannot co-exist with our survival，” 鲁迅：《且介亭杂文序》，见《鲁迅全集》第1卷，第302页。［Lu Xun，“Qiejieting zawen xu”（Preface to），in，vol.1，302.］Lu Xun nonetheless occu‐pies the symbolic and psychological space of this negated tradition in its totality precisely through his genealogical critique and his essayistic（zawen）production.The total and absolute identity and fusion between“reality”as an object of genealogical critique and essayistic representation renders any other literary or aesthetic concerns sentimental，even trivial.This is themoral and political，as well as the intrinsically stylistic，reason why Lu Xun chose the essay as his chief weapon，tactics， andmethod.As Hegel observes in Phenomenology of Spirit，“weapons are nothing else but the nature of the combatants themselves，”which is quoted approvingly by Carl Schmitt in his analysis of the Leviathan state theorized byThomasHobbes Carl Schmitt，，trans.George Schwab and Erna Hilfstein（West‐port，CT and London：Greenwood Press，1996），85：“But，as Hegel correctly says，weapons convey the substance of the fighter himself.”Schmitt does not provide proper reference to Hegel，but one can find this sentence in the Miller translation of，paragraph#383（Chapter V.，The Certainty And Truth of Reason，Section B.，The actualization of rational self-consciousness through its own activity，Unit.c.，Virtue and the way of the world），“For the weapons are nothing else but the of the combatants themselves，a nature which only makes its appearance for both of them reciprocally.”See Hegel，，trans.A.V.Miller（Oxford and New York：University of Oxford Press，1977），230.In LuXun，one sees the same politico-ontological truth and intensity atwork，but only in the poetic and aesthetic domain.Thismigration of autonomy and intensity fromthe ontological domain of the political to that of the aesthetic not only gives rise to the integrity，coherence，consistency，and unity of LuXun’s style across literary genres and styles，but further turns his stylistic freedom into a container and breeding ground for a politics of time made figural and vivid.The politics of Lu Xun’s style，which is at once the literary-ontological substance of his writing as a whole，ultimately stems from Lu Xun’s construction of images， symbolisms，metaphors，and allegories；above all through the construction of his unique sentence patterns which combine brevity，swiftness，and resoluteness with long，complex，and tortuous verbal windings and architectonics through self-doubt，profound solitude and sadness，radical nihilismand an equally fervent stance toward ametaphysics of hope.

What Lu Xun’s syntax conveys is a representational seriousness and an agnostic concept of the future not only as the coming dawn but，moreover，as the cyclical struggle for existence in the instantaneous here and now.This instant，often presented as the self-selected and self-celebrated passage into death（crystallized in the poetic image of the“swift decay”of wild weeds），forms the first and last line of defense in Lu Xun’s often desperate，hopeless resistance，which is his struggle for existence per se.Yet this instant，this“on-the-edge”moment of danger，is also simultaneously supported by a literary ontology that resides in the ahistorical，cyclical，subversive，and yet inventive form.As a style crystallized in the gesture of a duel with the enemy，it can be said to dwell in a value vacuum，an amoral space created by a unique political-ontological intensity.Only from this vantage point of nihilismcould LuXun’s reader properly and fully appreciate the aesthetic value in his withering attack on modern Chinese society and culture；his genealogical critique as a Nietzsche- inspired reevaluation of all values；and his essayistic satire aimed at capturing and freezing the historical moments in an allegorical judgment that provides meaning amidst meaningless‐ness；truth amidst untruth.In LuXun and only in LuXun，the political ontology ofmodernChinese literature and the past—the world and the being as Self，as tradition and as a formof life as such— is both negated and affirmed.This unconsciously cultural and cultural-political self-positioning is made personal and poetic through LuXun’s literature，above all in his essays（which also categorically includemany of his best stories）

The temporal structure inherent in Lu Xun’s poetics plays an indispensable role in making such fusion between the aesthetic and the political possible and productive.It does so by constantly absorbing the instantaneous moment of resistance，and struggle for existence，into the memory and forgetting of an entire genealogy of such resistance and struggle，extending into time immemorable— that is，into history not as time but as being.This is the formal and stylistic reason why being at a standstill，or“backward，”in LuXun is itself away ofmoving forward，though in a cyclical （thus inevitably“old-fashioned”）way：the new is accepted only as it is resisted；just as the past is vanquished while simultaneously redeemed as what constitutes the political ontological position of the residual，self-negating Self.Such subjectivity might and did stage a historic mimesis of the particularity of European universality by imitating the substance of modernity in the self-emancipation of the people，not the appearance or formal normativity of the new as what comes the next. Ultimately，Takeuchi’s Lu Xun is a metaphor and allegory of the Chinese Revolution as he understood（ and，to some extent，imagined）it.This understanding and imagination resonate with Lu Xun’s own self-image ingrained in his literary stylewhich，ultimately，deposits all the specters and dead souls fromprevious Chinese Revolutions（most immediately，the Republican Revolution）as theywere conceived and comprehended through his literature.

These revolutions are both ancient and modern as they are preserved—remembered，forgotten， and remembered again—in Lu Xun’s literature as a self-referential structure of signification， of which the cyclical and folded time or temporality is but a symbolic frame of reference to keep a living memory alive as lived experience.To call them revolutions is，no doubt，to revive the ancient connotation of the term，which points to the turning，subversion，and revolving，as well as to radical rupture and change.The explicit dialectical understanding of continuity and discontinuity in this connotation itself reflects the upheavals of the historical world in early Chinese society and indicates（once again）the unique collapse of time into space，of history into territory，of socio-political change into the state formas polity and civilization in one.The long genealogy of revolutionaries， reformers，rebels，critics，hermits，bandits，assassins，and other subversive elements，often eulogized in classical poetry，essays，and even latter-day court-sanctioned official historiography， must be regarded as a charnel house of imageries，symbols，and allegories onwhich LuXun’swriting bases itself as its building blocks and the basic semantic units of his style.

It becomes clear that Lu Xun’s genealogical critique is itself built upon and articulated through the genealogical constitution of his poetics.In other words，it is a self-critique in the fullest sense of a reevaluation of all values.The fact that Lu Xun had to wage this reevaluation within the rupture and void of the imperial Chinese socio-cultural continuity determines the fundamental dif‐ference between his andNietzsche’s nihilism，metaphysics，andmethodology.Nietzsche launched his attack on European nihilism，and yet whose proposed cultural，moral，and ultimately political overcoming was historically and politically to be maintained within a Protestant-Capitalist concept of universal history，albeit understood in a heroic，tragic，and ultimately epic sense borrowed from the Greek and Roman world.It is，in other words，tantamount to a declaration of war calling on the members of the European middle class to rejuvenate themselves in order to get ready for an existential struggle vis-à-vis emergent enemies fromwithin andwithoutEuropean civil society. Lukacs，for instance，sees in this an open and heightened hostility toward socialism and its historical agency in the pro‐letariat.Other groups may see in the Nietzschean will to power a Social-Darwinian attitude toward the under-privileged or“weak”elements of European society（workers，women，children，etc.）and toward the colonial subjects in European colo‐nies—even the latter was rarely explicitly present in Nietzsche’s text.By placing Nietzsche in the Spenglerian concern about the decline of the West as a class and thus political concept，Lukacs’s conclusive philosophical-historical view is that“it was not until Nietzsche that bourgeois irrationalism began its real defensive struggle against the ideas of socialism.”See Georg Lu‐kacs，（London：Merlin Press，1980），197.

Viewed from a distance and somewhat generally，it is still to be understood，withmixed feelings， by figures likeTakeuchi and LuXun，as the inspired and inspiring historical path alongwhich themodern European peoples set themselves free，often by waging determined and self-conscious battles against their own inherited traditions，customs，institutions，and conventions.By contrast， LuXun’s reevaluation of all valuesmust be directed at a broken and refuted genealogywhile standing on the same existential and symbolic ground delineated by this genealogy.The New Man， whose birthplace is the grave of the cannibalistic tradition，a condemnation made palpable and timeless by Lu Xun’s own writing，therefore is by definition aMadman，as the validity of his consciousness and vision is based solely on the destruction of the very cultural womb，namely his Nature per se，as he presses ahead toward a new life and a new world.Such a void，chaos，and the curse of the past renders Lu Xun fixed，immobile，neurotic，and anxious vis-à-visWorld History and theNew，embraced and internalized somiraculously—and，forTakeuchi，also so vacuously— by the Honor Student that is modern Japan.This total overlapping of space/ territory/genealogy of the old and the new in Lu Xunmanifests itself in terms of the politics of time and the allegorical organization of temporality in Lu Xun’s poetics，whose central image/narrative is the unending battle betweenmemory and forgetting.

Time Folded and Unfolded：The Poetics of Time in Lu Xun’s Essayistic Narration ofMemory and Forgetting

Through the detour of the atemporal temporality in the theory of evolution，highlighted by TakeuchiYoshimi’s insistence on the subjectivity of a tradition to be transformed by self-overcom‐ing，Lu Xun’s notion of reality shines through his style，which takes aim at an ontological truth by means of a politics of being rather than succumbing to the superficial appearance of the new with its false ideological teachings.We have shown the ways in which such a politics of being is enabled by a truly fateful，desperate，at times hopeless，collective situation in which late imperial and early re‐publican China found itself；and we have demonstrated the ways in which the concept of Nature in evolution is transformed or appropriated as a radically atemporal temporality which unfolds as the inner logic of Lu Xun’s critical genealogy of morality vis-à-vis Chinese tradition.Furthermore，and more critically，we have made explicit the ways in which Lu Xun turns this condemned past in‐to a specter，whose undead recurrence and unresolved desires，longings，and memories haunt as much as inspire a resistance to both the old and the new，as a resistance which confirms and recon‐firms a subjectivity as a will to life and a will to itself as a self-identity as a permanence of change，self-negation，andreinvention.

In the final section of this paper，Iwould like to showthat this convoluted self-positioning and self-identity，which requires a complex cultural-political analysis to explicate，is then poetically and vividly staged，thus“simplified，”in Lu Xun as a particular drama of personal and collective mourning，which folds and stretches time，molds and remolds temporality as it is registered，represented andmade palpable bymemory and forgetting.

In“Agonistic Memory，Compound Temporality and Expansion of Literary Space in Lu Xun，” Cf.ZHANG Xudong，“Agonistic Memory，Compound Temporality and Expansion of Literary Space in Lu Xun，” 13，no.2（2019）：200-261.I have argued that memory in Lu Xun is never a simple or innocent act of recollection，but isalwaysanagonisticandtragicactivitydrivenbyalife-and-deathstruggleforexistence.Thisexis‐tence is often described rather personally，indeed bodily，by Lu Xun as a necessary revolt against suffocation.However，in Lu Xun one realizes that breathing or being able to breathe finds its way through forgetting as much as through memory；that memory is at least as painful as in forgetting，if not more；that true memory is，rather，what returns from forgetting as the undead or as something that simply refuses to die.In other words，memory in Lu Xun is always a ritual of mourning the dead（memory）；while at the same time it is also a ritual of recognizing forgetting both as something that represses and obliterates memorylives within its own darker and more poignant void.To put it differently，memory is a determination and will，an existential struggle whose political ontol‐ogy is not limited by the simple task of voluntary remembrance or recollection.Rather，memory must go through forgetting as its own necessary mediation and transformation in order to reemerge at a moment of danger involuntarily.This is also to say that memory has nothing to do with truth，as it speaks to（and only to）a political reality defined by the sheer necessity of survival.This isperhapsthereason why，attheend ofLu Xun’sshortstory“Mourning theDead”（伤逝），themem‐ory of the male protagonist/narrator’s dead lover“must take falsehood and lie as［his］guide.” 鲁迅：《伤逝》，见《鲁迅全集》第2卷，第113页。［Lu Xun，“Shang shi”（Mourning the Dead），in，vol.2，113.］To quote the famous and famously confusing passage：“Since I am living，I must make a fresh start.The first step is just to de‐scribe my remorse and grief，for Tzu-chun's sake as well as for my own.All I can do is to cry.It sounds like a lilt as I mourn for Tzu-chun，burying her in oblivion.I want to forget.For my own sake I don’t want to remember the oblivion I gave Tzu-chun for her burial.I must make a fresh start in life.I must hide the truth deep in my wounded heart，and advance silently，taking oblivion and falsehood as my guide...”See Lu Xun，“Mourning the Dead，”in，trans.William Lyell，361-62.Memory in this context is，in fact，not dedicated to the dead as a martyr or sacrificial lamb（depend‐ing on one’s reading of the story from a necessarily gendered point of view），but to life as a destiny and an unknown future.Just as mourning the dead is，ultimately，a memory of the future，it shares the existential necessity with forgetting，that is，with the merciful slumber，self-delusion，and numbing and oblivion of consciousness that constitutes a break from the ongoing struggle for exis‐tence.But this is only to show that for Lu Xun，memory is something to be had as a matter of choice；it is a luxury and not a necessity（which forgetting certainly is，in both cynical and realistic senses）.Lu Xun’s poetic stance and defiance，then，lies in his admission that for him there are often moments in which the specter of memory penetrates the thick layers of forgetting to orchestrate a surprise attack that threatens to paralyze one’s consciousness as a shelter and psychological de‐fense mechanism.While forgetting maintains and stabilizes，memory intervenes and destroys；where forgetting keeps experiences and lived moments categorized，compartmentalized，and safe（to the extent that it is，well，properly forgotten），memory is capable of bringing about a short-cir‐cuit of experience that wipes out the barriers or guardrails that keep time and history going forward in their forgetful eventfulness.Simply put，memory in Lu Xun is often staged as resulting from the failure of forgetting，whereas forgetting is then turned into the true breeding ground or natural womb of memory made true—that is，as memory survived and born again.In such a simple yet as‐tonishing exchange of places，forgetting takes over the conscious control of experience and the re‐cord-keeping of history as memory devolves into the realms of shock，trauma，pain，and agony，and thus lends itself to the politicalwill to survival and self-affirmation.

As forgetting delineates the historical and mundane domain of nihilism，memory occupies the metaphysical space of hope.Only this hope hangs on a thread of skepticism，which is famously formulated as an equal skepticism about hopelessness at the end of Lu Xun’s“Gu Xiang”《故乡》（Hometown）.Thus memory，along with forgetting which gives rise to it as a memory survived and born again，becomes a praxis and action，a Sisyphean work strenuously and repeat‐edly trying to blaze a trail for survival.We know that Lu Xun ultimately brings this lone Sisyphean battle into an imagined collective struggle，first by abstractly or formalistically stating that an exis‐tentialpath only comes into being as itis blazed open by collective action and eventually by practic‐ing a more concrete cultural and representational politics in the middle of Shanghai modernity，a strategy loosely but decisively informed by his study of Marxist literary theory and the teachings of historical materialism.

Thus Lu Xun’s layered treatment of time—as it is preserved in memory，forgetting as the overcoming of memory，and memory as the overcoming of the overcoming，as something survived and born again—becomes a poetic facilitator，signifier，and configuration of livedmoments which are then collected and transformed into a temporality that runs against the grain of history，a highermorality and value which constitute the NewMan who carries within hismemory the specters of the old—“old”here can then properly be defined as thatwhich is forgotten by forgetting.The Newin LuXun is，to this extent，the very survival theOld；it is the undead，nowborn again，which seizes the breathing body of the living as its second and third birth and its birth in the ntime.Such is the poetic image of the cyclical time in Lu Xun，which folds and unfolds personal and historical experiences as they are arrested in the structure of conflicts and contradictions as a form of permanence of the great，unending，and variegated activity of evolution.

It is in this perennial and personal struggle betweenmemory and forgetting thatLuXun’s poetics of being crystallized in its formal and narrative order of time.In a constant circularmovement， Lu Xun’s writing is like a fast-turning gyro whose spinning around an invisible axis allows it to point reliably to a single direction with determined singlemindedness.The goal or telos is simple and clear enough：it is the same goal and telos shared by Lu Xun’s fellow countrymen in his own life time.Yet this shared destiny does not mean conformism in moral，aesthetic，and political terms，as the actual，minute state of being，the energy，velocity，and intensity of LuXun’s style is， in any given moment，rubbing against the linear，historicist trend.At every point of interface with reality，LuXun’s stylistic substance and intensitymark the refutation of progress；of universal principles； or“immortal”and properly aestheticized，autonomous art for art’s sake；of knowledge and altruism（公理）；even of youth and posterity.Indeed，the doctrine of速朽（swift decay）can be said to be a form of refutation of writing itself，if the latter means，as it usually does，something sufficiently reified and thus enduring.The ideal of Lu Xun’s style，by contrast，is a conscious act of clearingtheground，of de-concealmentwhose target includes the very agency of this act itself.

Onemay thus conclude that LuXun’s politics of time is so radical that it prefigures thewilling vanishing of its being into the chain of evolution in which everymoment is but a transition into the next in the timeless and amoral space of natural selection.It is thus ironic，or，more precisely，a matter of poetic justice，that this forgetting of one’s style only paves theway and keeps reactivating its revival and persistence as precisely a memory survived and born again.Indeed，the most striking and memorable image of Lu Xun as a writer and moralist is his radically nihilistic stance，his passionate，indeed selfless embrace of the nowas something empty andmeaningless.In his repeated charge against nothingness，he leaves behind a politics and poetics of being which stands as the fountainhead of modern Chinese literature as aNew Literature.

Auerbach，Erich，and Edward W.Said.：.Translated by Willard R.Trask.Princeton，NJ：Princeton University Press，2013.

Hegel，Georg Wilhelm Friedrich..Translated byA.V.Miller.Oxford and NewYork：University of Oxford Press，1977.

Huxley，Thomas Henry..London&NewYork：University of Cambridge Press，2009.

Lu Xun..Edited by Eileen J.Cheng and KirkA.Denton.Cambridge，MA：Harvard University Press，2017.

——..Translated by William Lyell.Honolulu，HI：University of Hawaii Press，1990.

Lukacs，Georg..London：Merlin Press，1980.

Marx，Karl，and Frederick Engels..NewYork：International Publishers，1948.

Pye，Lucien.“How China’s Nationalism Was Shanghaied.”29（January 1993）：107-33.

Schmitt，Carl..Translated by George Schwab and Erna Hilfstein.Westport，CT and London：Greenwood Press，1996.

TAKEUCHI，Yoshimi..Edited and translated by Richard Calichman.NewYork：Columbia University Press，2005.

ZHANG Xudong.“Agonistic Memory，Compound Temporality and Expansion of Literary Space in Lu Xun.”13，no.2（2019）：200-261.

鲁迅：《鲁迅全集》第1-3卷，北京：人民文学出版社，2005年。

［Lu Xun.or（Collected Works of Lu Xun）.Vols.1-3.Beijing：People’s Literature Publishing House，2005.］

（清）严复：《严复全集》卷1，福州：福建教育出版社，2014年。

［YAN Fu.（The Collected Works ofYan Fu）.Vol.1.Fuzhou：Fujian Education Press，2014.］

周作人：《鲁迅的青年时代》，北京：北京十月文艺出版社，2013年。

［ZHOU Zuoren，（TheYoung Lu Xun），Beijing：Beijing Shiyue Literature and Art Press，2013，32.］

（日）竹内好：《近代的超克》，李冬木、赵京华等译，北京：三联书店，2005年。

［TAKEUCHI，Yoshimi.（Overcoming Modernity）.Translated by LI Dongmu，ZHAO Jinghua et al.Beijing：SDX Joint Publishing，2005.］