Translated by Nathan J. Stoltzfus, June 2025
Translator’s note: Lu Xun was the pen name of Zhou Shuren, an early 20th century Chinese thinker and writer whose works were notably irreverent and satirical, yet are still read in schools to this day.
China was, in recent times, “isolationist”—we did not go, and others needed not come. From the time we let the cannons bust down the front door—and then walked into a strip of nails—until now, everything has been about “Send-ism.” To ignore other things for now and speak only of the skilled arts: Recently, a collection of antiques was sent to Paris for exhibition, but, in the end, “the results were unknown.” Several “masters” also there were; they cradled several paintings, both new and ancient, and hung them in every European country along their way; it was called “Forwarding the Nation’s Luster.” I’ve heard that Dr. Mei Lanfang will soon be sent to the Soviet Union to press for Symbolism, afterwards swinging by Europe to proselytize. I don’t want to discuss the connection between Dr. Mei’s acting and Symbolism here; in brief, live people replacing antiques can, I daresay, be considered as showing a step in the right direction.
But we haven’t anyone saying in accord with the etiquette of “courtesy demands reciprocity,” “Take!”
Of course, if all that can be done is Send, this cannot be considered evil; it appears plentiful to one and magnanimous to the other. Nietzche himself bragged that he was a sun having inexhaustible light and warmth, only giving and never wanting to take. But when Nietzche became exhausted and was not, in fact, a sun, he went crazy. China is also not a sun; though there are people who say digging up the coal underneath the ground is enough for the entire world to use for hundreds of years, what about after those hundreds of years? After several hundred years, we will, of course, have been reduced to souls, or ascended to heaven, or descended to hell, but our descendants will be here, so we yet ought to leave behind some gifts. If not, then on festivals and ceremonies, they’ll have nothing to proffer, being only able to kowtow and offer congratulations, and to beg for some leftover scraps as their reward. Don’t mistake this kind of reward as “thrown with,” for it is “thrown to”; said in a statelier manner, it might be called Given. I don’t want to provide real-life examples here.
I do not want to say any more on Sending here; it would be too “un-modern.” I want only to drum up our miserliness; apart from Sending, we also have to Take, that is: Take-ism.
But the things we have been Sent are frightening. First was England’s opium and Germany’s rubbish firearms, then France’s face powder, America’s movies, and Japan’s collection of little things all imprinted with “Wholly Domestic [Chinese] Product.” Hence, even clear-headed young people feel terrified towards foreign goods. In reality, this is exactly for the reason that those things are Given and not Taken.
Thus, we need to use our brains, open our eyes, and come Take for ourselves!
For instance, a poor youth among us who, because of the good deeds of his forebears (allow me to say it in this way for the moment) received a large house, and at the time did not ask if it was inherited by scheme, theft, or by legal means, or whether it was an exchange for his becoming a son-in-law. So, then, what should be done? I believe it is not to squabble over trivialities, but to Take! Though, if he opposes the previous owner of the house, is afraid it will get his things dirty, and dithers on the doorstep, he is a weakling. He who flies into a rage and sets a fire to burn it clean, counting it as a keeping his purity, is a fool. But if, because he was originally an admirer of the house’s owner, he accepts it all, happily limping into the bedroom and inhaling deeply the remaining opium, he is, of course, even more worthless. Takers would do none of these things.
He possesses choice. Seeing shark’s fin, he would certainly not throw it onto the street to manifest “democratization”; as long as it’s got nutrients, he’d eat it with friends just as he eats carrots and cabbage, though he’d not use it to feed esteemed guests. Seeing opium, he would not pitch it into the latrine for all to see, but, seeing this, would revolutionize it, only giving it to the pharmacies for use in treating the sick, and would not ply such deceits as “Selling shelf-stable creams! We’re almost out of stock!” It is only those opium pipes and lamps, though not in the same shape as opium paraphernalia from India, Persia, or Arabia, that can still be considered an essence of Chinese culture; in the event that these were carried around the world, there would certainly be people who’d look at them, but I think, excepting a few for the museums, the others should largely be destroyed. Also, there’s a group of concubines—I strongly believe it right to ask them to disperse of their own accord; otherwise, I worry Take-ism would be not without a little danger.
In short, we need to Take. We need to either use, store, or destroy. In this way, the owner will be the new owner, and the house shall become a new house. Furthermore, this person will first need composure, fierce bravery, a discriminating eye, and unselfishness. Have they not Taken, they cannot themselves become new people; have they not Taken, the arts cannot themselves become new arts.
June 4th.
NJS Translation 
Leave a comment