The AccidentalFacilitator：Xiao San’s Outsized Role in Sino-Soviet Literary Exchanges*#

Katerina Clark

Abstract：The language barrier was a recurrent impediment to realizing any literary international.In addition to this，there was also the problem of the lack of a common language in the more extended sense，of a lack of mutual cultural referents and tropes.Further obstacles to amalgamation were the very different writing systems in Asian countries，and widespread illiteracy，especially in Asia，which made it less realistic that throughout Eurasia leftists would be generating and reading common literary texts，let alone the masses.Despite these problems，in Europe and Soviet Russia many intellectuals strove to overcome language differences in the name of establishing a common culture.In the Soviet Union，in the initial and more internationalist post-revolutionary years，Soviet bodies and many intellectuals promoted what they called an“international language.”Among the Soviet avant-garde，leading enthusiasts for internationalism were mostly also distinctly Euro-centric，although some of its members sought to include Asian languages in their messianic scenarios for a world literature.Nevertheless，during the interwar years something like a litintern did emerge，if in faltering fashion.It was most in evidence in the 1930s，when the need to unite the cultural forces of the left gained a new urgency.After the Nazi takeover in Germany in 1933，followed by the Spanish Civil War in 1936-39 and the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945，writers all over the world were moved to join literary organizations linked with the Comintern.The author points out that China was obviously a particularly problematic case for melding its literatures with the Euro-Russian in a single literature，given the very different literary traditions of the two.A further complication is that the Chinese hieroglyphic writing system proved an impediment to spreading literacy，which was essential if the Chinese masses were to participate in the literary commons.Yet within Asia—and actually，as compared with European literatures as well—Chinese leftist literature came closest to fusing with the Russian Soviet.The article looks at the career of the figure who played an outsized role in bringing together the Soviet and Chinese leftist literatures，the Chinese poet and translator Xiao San 萧三（Xiao Zizhang 萧子暲，1896-1983）.It argues that—as is indicated in the name he adopted for himself in the early 1920s and used in the Soviet Union，Emi Xiao—Xiao identified with Émile Zola and sought to project for himself an identity as a writer and political activist；but even more consequential than his role as a writer per se proved to be the part he played as a broker between the Soviet and Chinese literary worlds.

Keywords：Xiao San；Sino-Soviet；literary exchanges

Virtually from the very beginning of the Soviet Union，starting around 1919，there were moves to create a Moscow-based world culture of the left. Initially，the initiative was largely taken up by the avant-garde and the Comintern（the Communist International）.Vsevolod Evgen’evich Bagno，Dzhon Ė Malmstad，and Mariia Ėmmanuilovna Malikova，“Khlebnikovi neosushchestvlennyi zhurnal‘Internatsional iskusstva’（1919）”（Khlebnikov and the Non-material Journal），in（At the Turn of Two Centuries：Collection in Honor of Alexander Lavrova’s 60th Birthday）（Moscow：NLO，2009），530-57.Later that cause was also pursued by a Soviet state body，the All-Union Organization for Cultural Links with abroad，known by its Russian acronym VOKS. But probably the literary arm of the Comintern was the most fervent about creating what some of its members called a“litintern”（literary international）.In their speeches to various conferences and groups they provided extravagant accounts of what a truly international literature would look like，sometimes proposing that the Asian literatures be melded with the Russo-European into one literary commons.

Clearly，it would have been easier to set up a Euro-Soviet litintern than a Euro-Asian one.The various messianic and utopian calls for forming a pan-Eurasian，Moscow-centered literature of the left blithely ignored such obvious problems as the lack of a common language and the very different literary traditions both between Asian countries and between Asia and Europe，not to mention the tyranny of distance and widespread illiteracy. How，then，could such an amalgamation be effected？Would it be organized in a top-down pattern with instructions，examples and so on emanating from Moscow？Karl Schmitt，，trans.G.L.Ulmen（New York：Telos Press Publishing，2003），175，177.Or could it develop more organically？

In practice，the lack of a common language was a recurrent impediment to realizing any literary international. Potential members spoke different languages.There was a greater chance the Europeans could form a literary commons because their languages were related and educated Europeans learned other European languages at school. But close links between writers schooled in the Euro-Russian tradition and Asian writers were harder to bring about.There was also the problem of the lack of a common language in the more extended sense，of a lack of mutual cultural referents and tropes.Further impediments to amalgamation were the very different writing systems in Asian countries，and widespread illiteracy，especially in Asia，which made it less realistic that throughout Eurasia leftists would be generating and reading common literary texts，let alone the masses.

Despite these problems，in Europe and Soviet Russia many intellectuals strove to overcome language differences in the name of establishing a common culture. In the Soviet Union，in the initial and more internationalist post-revolutionary years Soviet bodies and many intellectuals promoted what they called an“international language，”that was in fact a modified version of Esperanto（invented by Dr.Ludwig L.Zamenhof in 1887 in the city of Bialystok，Poland）. Agents of the Soviet state wanted to make it a lingua franca for the printed word both within the Soviet Union and in the outside world，but enthusiasm waned together with the early internationalist fervor and the movement petered out.Esperanto is in any case largely based on the main European languages and would scarcely qualify as a world language.Among the Soviet avant-garde，analogously，leading enthusiasts for internationalism were mostly distinctly Euro-centric as well.However，some of its members sought to include Asian languages in their messianic scenarios for a world literature.Prominent among them was the visionary poet Velemir Khlebnikov who，in an article of 1919 that he wrote for a projected journal，（），proposed a“common written language”for the entire world，pointing to the example of China and Japan，where all the various languages and dialects were mutually intelligible，on paper，thanks to a“hieroglyphic”systemof writing.Velimir Khlebnikov，“Artists of the World！”（Khudozhniki mira！），in，vol.I，trans.Paul Schmidt，ed.Charlotte Douglas（Cambridge，Mass.：Harvard University Press，1987），364-69.

Neither Khlebnikov’s utopian schemes for an international language nor the campaign to adopt Esperanto took off. Nevertheless，during the interwar years something like a litintern did emerge，if in faltering fashion. It was most in evidence in the 1930s，when the need to unite the cultural forces of the left gained a new urgency.After the Nazi take-over in Germany in 1933，followed by the Spanish Civil War in 1936-39 and the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945，writers all over the world were moved to join literary organizations linked with the Comintern.

China was（pace Khlebnikov）obviously a particularly problematic case for melding its literatures with the Euro-Russian in a single literature，given the very different literary traditions of the two.To further complicate matters，the Chinese hieroglyphic writing system proved an impediment to spreading literacy，which was essential if the Chinese masses were to participate in the literary commons. Yet within Asia，and，in fact，as compared with European literatures as well，Chinese leftist literature came closest to fusing with the Russian Soviet.

Here I will look at the career of the figure who played an outsized role in bringing together the Soviet and Chinese leftist literatures，the Chinese poet and translator Xiao San（Xiao Zizhang，1896-1983）.Amazingly，Xiao is rarely mentioned in histories of Chinese leftist literature，but in the 1930s he was a key player.As is indicated in the name he adopted for himself in the early 1920s and used in the Soviet Union，Emi Xiao（Siao in Russian and sometimes rendered as Emil Evgen’evich Siao），Xiao identified with Émile Zola and sought to project for himself an identity as a writer and political activist. But even more consequential than his role as a writer per se proved to be the part he played as a broker between the Soviet and Chinese literary worlds.

Xiao’s dual role as cultural broker and writer was not one he assumed in the 1920s，when he operated largely in the political sphere.During that decade the Soviet Union had become deeply involved in fomenting revolution in China，which became the focus of its efforts to spread revolution after the failed attempts in Germany of 1918-1919 and 1923.But in the Soviet revolutionary effort in China the cause of a unified leftist literature took a back seat.An indicator of literature’s minor status then，the most active Soviet body in this sphere during the 1920s was VOKS，a state as distinct from Party or Comintern institution.They supplied the Chinese left with consignments of Russian and Soviet texts，including literary texts.

This privileging of the political over the literary in the Soviet effort in China is reflected in Xiao’s career.After training at the Moscow-based Communist University for Toilers of the East（KUTV）from 1922 to 1924，in a section that trained foreign communists for Party and Comintern work，Xiao held a series of political posts in China，largely in the Komsomol leadership. This phase of his career culminated in the fateful spring of 1927 when the forces of Chiang Kaishek 蒋介石（1887-1975）crushed a communist uprising in Shanghai in what is called the Shanghai debacle.Xiao participated in the uprising by leading insurgents in the city’s workers’suburb of Chapei. In the aftermath of the defeat many communists were executed while others fled to the Soviet Union，among them Xiao.王政明：《萧三传》，成都：四川文艺出版社，1992年，第222页。［WANG，Zhengming，（Biography of Xiao San），Chengdu：Sichuan Arts and Literature Press，1992，222.］Cited in LI Weijia，（China and China Experience in the Life and Work of Anna Seghers）（Bern：Peter Lang，2010），70-71.

One reason why the Comintern did not invest heavily in the literary effort in China was because，within Asian literature，the Comintern favored the Japanese.Symptomatically，a Japanese，but not a Chinese，was on the editorial board of（），the main literary journal of the 1920s where translations of foreign literature were publishedSimilarly，at the various international literary conferences of the 1920s Japanese writers and Japanese literature were always accorded preeminence over the Chinese.E.g. Sekretariat MBRL（International Union of Revolutionary Writers），“Plenum MBRL-20oktiabria”（Plenum of IURW—October 20），and“Pered mezhdunarodnym plenumom revoliutsionnykh pisatelei”（Before the International Plenum of Revolutionary Writers），both in（）on August 15，1930.There were several reasons for this，including the fact that at the time Tokyo served as the hub of leftist intellectual life in East Asia.Many major leftist writers from China，including Lu Xun 鲁迅（1881-1936）and Mao Dun 茅盾（1896-1981），spent time there，and typically Russian and Soviet literary and theoretical texts were translated into Chinese not directly but from Japanese translations.In addition，the most prominent East Asian in the Comintern was the Japanese Sen Katayama（1859-1933），who also played a leading role in its literary arm.Katayama was selected for these positions in part because of his command of an international lingua franca（English），acquired during extensive stays in the anglophone world and its universities（including at Yale’s Divinity School）.

This dominance of the Japanese in the Soviet-led international literary movement largely ended after the Japanese occupied Manchuria in 1931.The increasing nationalism in the country imperiled its leftist organizations，making any links with Soviet bodies extremely fraught and tenuous.Its full name was the Chinese League of Left-Wing Writers，though Xiao sometimes referred to it as a Federation or a Bloc.See Ė.Siao，“Zadachi kitaiskoi revoliutsionnoi literatury. Kplenumu Mezhdunarodnogo biuro revoliutsionoi literatury”（Tasks of Chinese revolutionary literature.To the plenum of the International Bureau of Revolutionary Literature，）， 19，no.48（October 1930）：1.Xiao assumed his new role as a cultural intermediary in 1930，before the situation in Japan had deteriorated to that extent，but his status in international literature was enhanced by default as the Japanese became less prominent in the movement.

1930，the year Xiao assumed the role of a cultural intermediary，was a watershed moment in the history of Soviet-oriented international literature.That year the Second International Congress of Revolutionary Writers was held in Kharkov from November 6-15. Much larger and more consequential than the first such congress，which was held in Moscow in 1927 and largely attended by Soviet and Central European writers，the second congress attracted writers from many parts of the world. At it，a newinternational literary body was formed，MORP（the International Union of Revolutionary Writers），and over the next five years one after the other organizations of“progressive”writers from different countries elected to join MORP. One of the first was the Chinese League of Leftist Writers，founded earlier that year.

Asecond critical outcome of the Kharkov Congress was the establishment of a cluster of international literary journals each of which was based in Moscow but came out in a different language（Russian，English，French，German，for a time Spanish and for a time Chinese）and was titled in that language’s version ofUntil 1932 the journals were called versions of.As far as is known，only two issues of the Chinese version appeared，in January and August 1935，and a third，which was a reissue of number 2，came out in 1939（email communication with Yazhe Yang 杨雅哲of December 13，2020）.Collectively these journals provided models for the evolution of a leftist“world literature，”mitigating to some extent the language problem that plagued that cause. They gave members a sense of what Benedict Anderson has called an“imagined community，”or at least potentially so.Benedict Anderson，，revised edition（New York：Verso，2006）.The appearance of the new journals，together with allied publishing outlets abroad，facilitated the increasing coherence of the international left within literature.Beginning around the time of Kharkov，something closer to the“literary international，”that idealists had tried to establish in the 1920s，finally began to emerge.

Xiao attended the Congress as a delegate from the League of Leftist Writers. His participation was fortuitous in that he had been asked to convey an invitation to Lu Xun to attend the Congress，but when Lu Xun declined Xiao served as a substitute.This was not the only time when Xiao assumed an important role in leftist literature by chance.Such fortuitous outcomes marked his Soviet career.Another such accidental promotions of Xiao can be seen in 1934.That year the Union of Soviet Writers（formed in 1932）held its first congress at which canonical definitions of socialist realism were promulgated.Many leading foreign writers（such as André Malraux from France），were invited to attend，but the invitees from China proved unable to make it so Xiao served a substitute again.

The Kharkov congress was to prove the most decisive event in Xiao’s career.It instigated his switch from a primarily political activist to a literary activist.Xiao was not at the time considered a writer（though he had published some verse earlier）but he effectively emerged from Kharkov as one.The congress also marks the beginning of his ascent to prominence in the literary world.After it，he went on to assume major roles as an intermediary between Chinese and Soviet leftist literature，operating largely in MORPand the Russian version of，’Xiao also edited the Chinese edition of（though only two numbers appeared）.

It was largely，then，by default that Xiao，a mediocre poet and penner of largely agitational verse，but who was conveniently located in Moscow，became the chief broker of Chinese-Soviet literary interactions.He had，however，excellent non-literary credentials for the role.He was a graduate of KUTV.Moreover，while there he had acquired Russian.Xiao also knew another and more serviceable lingua franca for literary internationalism，French，which he had begun studying as a student in China but mastered during a stint in Paris from 1920-1922.（He had gone there on a work/study program for Chinese that had been largely set up to recruit workers to supplement the French labor force，depleted by the war）.Another of Xiao’s credentials，which became more important as the 1930s progressed，was that for about 10 years of his youth he had studied in the same institutions as Mao Zedong 毛泽东（1893-1976）who，though three years older，had become a friend and mentor.Xiao had joined several of Mao’s organizational and journalistic initiatives and it was in one of them that in 1919 Xiao launched himself as a writer.Despite these credentials，Xiao，whose Russian was far from perfect，was considered by Comintern officialdom to be not yet ready to undertake the role they had already assigned him；he was sent to study at Moscow’s Institute of Red Professors（Institut krasnykh professorov），seeking to acquire better Russian and more theoretical sophistication.

Although he was not fully prepared for the major role he was to play in international literature，already after Kharkov Xiao served as the chief liaison between Soviet bodies and the Chinese League of Leftist Writers.In that capacity，for instance，he published in its clandestine organ an extended account of the Kharkov congress in a Chinese journal and included an account of MORP protests against the execution of five revolutionary writers in Shanghai.E.Siao，“Kitai. Liga levykh pisatelei”（China：The League of Leftist Authors），（）3（1932）：125.At the same time，he also played a prominent role in the Comintern literary hierarchy.By late 1933（with the Japanese leftists fading from view）he had been elevated to the Secretariat of MORP，and become its leading Asian member.But his main activity in the 1930s was as an editor and contributor to the Russian mothership of thejournals，’In it he placed many works by himself and by other Chinese leftists in translation，often with accompanying prefatory remarks or articles by him.Also，thanks to his efforts，virtually every issue of’contained reports on cultural activities in China，especially of the League of Leftist Writers，with which he was in correspondence.

Most of the literary texts from China that Xiao published in’and in Soviet anthologies were short pieces—short stories or poems—and heavily agitational.Ėmi Siao，“krovavoe pis’mo”（Bloody Letter），（）1（1932）：70-74，6（1932）：29-30.The fact that they were short，while the European and American texts published there in translation were much longer，primarily serialized novels，suggests a hierarchy in literatures，with the Asian the lesser.Such novels on China as appeared，for instance the American writer Pearl Buck’s，were written by non-Asians.Furthermore，the short stories were often published in clusters by assorted authors so that the individual authors stood out less.Many of them were about the effort to combat Japanese incursions，but there is little sign in them of the conventions of socialist realism.In other words，the coming together of the two literatures，the Chinese leftist and the Soviet，was in the thirties more of an organizational and affective phenomenon，not yet of the kind of literary amalgamation that visionaries in the initial post-revolutionary years had sought.

Xiao also published his own verse，both in periodicals，such as’，and in book collections.His poems appeared in Russian translation and，as was standard for a non-Russian writer whose works recurrently appeared in Russian，he had his own translator，Alexander Romm（1898-1943）.Romm，who translated poetry written in other languages as well，knew no Chinese but worked from line translations.Xiao helped him.In the correspondence with Romm housed in the RGALI archive in Moscow（the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art），Xiao often provides his own translation into Russian of one of his poems to help Romm make his.For more details see Katerina Clark，“Translation and Transnationalism：Non-European Writers and Soviet Power in the 1920s and 1930s，”in，eds.Brian James Baer and Susanna Witt（New York and London：Routledge，2018），139-58.This process was not without its problems，given the major differences between the two languages and cultures.Romm often complained that he found a particular poem fiendishly difficult to translate and tried to recruit other Soviet translators to take over，but they too would drag their feet.Critics often lambasted the translations from Xiao as inadequate，but this was in a sense inevitable.As Xiao himself pointed out，there were huge differences between the Chinese and Russian languages and systems of prosody；Chinese meter，rhythm and rhyme often could not be reproduced in Russian，let alone its metaphors and symbols.

That Xiao would favor short，agitational texts was consistent with his commitment to a mass literature，which he promoted throughout the 1930s.Arguably，though he had been interested in mass literature before，his commitment to it crystallized when he arrived in Moscow from Vladivostok at the height of the transformation of Soviet culture，another instance in his career when the timing was crucial.The transformation of culture had been launched in tandem with Stalin’s policies for rapid industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture，and the three together were intended to bring about a“great breakthrough”（），to propel the country to a qualitatively different state，economically，socially and culturally. At the time，one of the main slogans for literature was“Turn Attention to the Masses！”（！）Under that rubric was conducted the greatest campaign in Soviet history for the radical democratization of literature.Workers and peasants became privileged as writers and readers over professional writers and intellectuals.

Xiao was fervently committed to producing a literature intended primarily for the masses rather than the intellectual elite and this position was largely shared by Qu Qiubai瞿秋白（1899-1935），a more prominent Chinese communist leader，who was also in Moscow during the Cultural Revolution.Xiao had probably known Qu from his KUTV days（1922-1924），during Qu’s first visit to the Soviet Union（1921-1923），when Qu inter alia lectured at KUTV，but he definitely knew Qu during his second visit of April 1928 to August 1930 when they overlapped in Moscow towards the end of Qu’s stay.Qu had，like Xiao，been primarily active in politics during the 1920s and even headed the PRC for a while.After entering the Soviet Union illegally in April 1928，he was elected to the presidium and Executive Committee of the Comintern.But he lost out in Chinese Communist Party sectarian battles，and began to increasingly play a role in the literary sphere—like Xiao a little later，he switched.After the League of Leftist Writers was founded he played a major role in the formulation of its policies，though he was never formally a member.XIAJi’an，（Berkeley，California：Center for Chinese Studies，Institute for International Studies，University of California，1966），202.

Astumbling block for realizing a literature by or for the Chinese masses，which both Xiao and Qu sought，was that the overwhelming majority were illiterate and so could not read literary texts，let alone write them.In consequence，quite early in the history of the PRC some communist activists became involved in a movement to replace the hieroglyphic system of Chinese writing with a modified version of the Latin alphabet，what came to be called拉丁化新文字.The Soviet Union became particularly interested in this cause，both for its potential for fostering literary internationalism and for using internally among the Soviet Chinese. Latinization had been adopted in the late 1920s for many languages，including the Turkic languages of Azerbaijan and Central Asia.To latinize Chinese，the language of another minority people，would be an obvious next step.

Qu Qiubai had been interested in the possibility of latinizing the Chinese writing system since at least 1921，but after returning to Moscow in 1928 he began to play a key role in the Soviet project for the Latinization of Chinese.That year he joined a Moscow research institute on China.Until he left Moscow in 1930，he focused his efforts there on the project，enlisting the help of the Soviet sinologist V.S.Kolokov.Together they worked out a phonetically-based system of latinization，which they presented to the Institute for discussion on 23 May.The upshot was that a commission was appointed to work further on the project and comprised the two of them plus A.A.Dragunov.In 1929 Qu also put out a brochure（Proekt kitaiskogo al’favita na latinskoi osnove）.He had been put on the editorial board of the institute’s journal（），and began to publish articles on Latinization there.Qu returned to China in August 1930.Afterwards，in December 1932，he published an account of the scheme for Latinization，“The Project of a New Chinese Writing System”（’in Russian），though to his disappointment the response there was lukewarm.Paul Gene Pickowicz，“Ch’ü Ch’iu-Pai and the Origins of Marxist literary Criticism in China，”PhD diss.，University of Wisconsin，1973，49-50，310；Jong Tsu，（New York：Riverhead Books，2022），191-97.

At the same time as Qu and his team were working on latinization in Moscow，a group of orientalists and Party activists were working on a latinized system of transcription in the Soviet Far East where there was a sizeable Chinese population，especially in Khabarovsk and Vladivostok.Pickowicz，“Ch’ü Ch’iu-Pai and the Origins of Marxist literary Criticism in China，”310；Ė.Siao，“Latinizatsiia Kitaiskoi pis’mennosti”（The Latinization of the Chinese Script），（Literature of World Revolution）11-12（1931）：144-47.Xiao happened to be in Vladivostok at the time.His second wife，Vassa Starodubova，was from there and after the Shanghai debacle he had fled to the city and become involved in the project.When he subsequently moved to Moscow，summoned by the Comintern’s Pavel Mif to help with translation，Xiao continued to work actively in the cause，nowas part of Qu’s team.

After Qu left for China in the fall of 1930，Xiao was made one of the leaders of the project，together with Wu Yuzhang吴玉章（1878-1966）.In other words，he once again assumed a critical role in Chinese-Soviet cultural interactions，but by default.The two presided over the First Conference on the Latinization of Chinese Writing（Pervaia konferentsiia po latinizatsiiu kitaiskogo pis’ma），held in Vladivostok in 1931.Starting that year a state-sponsored scheme oversaw the conversion of Chinese texts to the latinized system，and a year later，in 1932，Xiao compiled an

Xiao became a passionate public advocate for the new writing system，defending it against inevitable opposition.There were obvious problems with trying to adopt a latinized writing system for Chinese，as the detractors liked to point out.It was one thing to substitute one alphabet（Latin）for another，as had been done in many other Soviet programs for latinization，but quite another to convert a pictographic，“hieroglyphic”system to an alphabetic one. In the case of Chinese，many of its monosyllabic words（logosyllabic）were identical，distinguished only by the tones used in pronunciation. Additionally，since the writing system of glyphs had its visual dimension，only marginally present in an alphabetical system，certain characters had over time acquired a penumbra of associations，derived partly from their visual characteristics，and that would be lost with alphabetization. Moreover，having a common set of characters overcame the problem that there were several Chinese languages，and enabled Chinese who spoke different languages to read the same text.

Unlike such Modernists as Pound，Fenollosa and Khlebnikov，who idealized the Chinese hieroglyphic system，Xiao in his many polemical contributions to the Chinese debate on latinization denigrated it.He contended that the system was a“huge impediment to raising the political and cultural level of China’s workers and peasants.”The almost universal illiteracy among them made it hard to find enough Party cadres who could be effective administrators.“Diskussiia o‘Literature na iazyke mass’”（Discussion about“Literature in the Language of the Mass”），（）12（1935）；Ė.Siao，“Latinizatsiia kitaiskoi pis’mennosti”（Latinization of the Chinese Script），（）11-12（1931）：144-47；Paul Gene Pickowicz，“Ch’ü Ch’iu-Pai and the Origins of Marxist literary Criticism in China，”PhD diss.，University of Wisconsin，1973，310.The hieroglyphic system took a lot of time to learn and the workers did not have the luxury of spare time to master it.

Xiao buttressed his advocacy of latinization by claiming a class basis for the Chinese glyphs.“Diskussiia o‘Literature na iazyke mass’”（Discussion about“Literature in the Language of the Mass”），（）12（1935）；Ė.Siao，“Latinizatsiia kitaiskoi pis’mennosti”（Latinization of the Chinese Script），（）11-12（1931）：144-47.His 1931 article on the“Latinization of Chinese Writing System”opens with the subheading“The Class Essence of the Hieroglyph，”and calls it no more than a“survival of the ancient feudal order，a symbol of age-long enslavement，a weapon for enslaving the worker masses by the dominant class.”Ė.Siao，“Latinizatsiia kitaiskoi pis’mennosti”（Latinization of the Chinese Script），（）11-12（1931）：147；Paul Gene Pickowicz，“Ch’ü Ch’iu-Pai and the Origins of Marxist literary Criticism in China，”PhD diss.，University of Wisconsin，1973，310.He stipulated that the League of Leftist Writers should become the“pioneering leader”（）of the movement to latinize the Chinese script，but virtually none of the Chinese radical writers of the time showed any interest in it，aside from an occasional appearance of a latinized text on the cover of a periodical.

Interest in latinization was effectively an aspect of a broader concern—making literature accessible to the masses.To this end，both Qu and Xiao campaigned against using the special elevated language of Chinese literature that the uneducated could not understand，recommending instead vernacular forms.Actually，a broad range of Chinese intellectuals contended at the time that the literary language should be vernacularized，but it became an issue as to whether there should still be a single，standard literary language（as the Nationalists advocated）or whether works should appear in the variegated patois of the populace.

Both Qu and Xiao advocated shifting emphasis from high literature to popular genres，which would be more accessible and would help counteract the popularity of pulp illustrated books and American popular culture.A.Ivin，“Kitaiskii iazyk i kitaiskaia literatura”（Chinese Language and Chinese Literature），（）16-17（1926）：216-17.Both argued，also，that imposing a single standardized Chinese on the entire country would amount to a kind of linguistic totalitarianism of the elite.Xiao further pointed out in his writings on the subject that a standardized literary language would exclude the workers from literature because they likely spoke a dialect and would not be able to read literature or even comprehend it in oral renditions，and so culture would become even more the property of the bourgeoisie.Ė.Siao，“Latinizatsiia kitaiskoi pis’mennosti”（Latinization of the Chinese Script），（）11-12（1931）：147；A.Ivin，“Kitaiskii iazyk i kitaiskaia literatura”（Chinese Language and Chinese Literature），（）16-17（1927）：311-12.It is the“landlords and the bourgeoisie，”he maintained，who were arguing for a single literary language while the masses were struggling for the right to read and write in their own，native language.E.Siao，“Kitai. Liga levykh pisatelei”（China：The League of Leftist Writers），（）3（1932）：125.In the cause of linguistic pluralism Qu and Xiao promoted a long poem“Against the Seizure of Manchuria by Japan，”which appeared in two versions，one in colloquial Shanghainese，and another in a northern language.Stalin was also against imposing a single language on minority peoples.In his 1925 speech at KUTV，“the Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East”while elaborating his canonical formula for the non-Russian literatures of the Soviet Union that they should be“proletarian in content but national in form”（modified in 1930 to“socialist in content…”），he insisted that literature not converge around a single language but rather around many.I.Stalin，“Politicheskie zadachi Universiteta narodov Vostoka”（The Political Tasks of the University of Eastern Peoples），，May 22，1925.Xiao invoked the speech in his writings in arguing that Chinese should be free to read and write in，as he put it，the“living，”colloquial languages.Ė.Siao，“Latinizatsiia kitaiskoi pis’mennosti”（Latinization of the Chinese Script），（）11-12（1931）：147.

Xiao’s promotion of“living”languages suggests that he was paying due diligence to theories of language of Nikolai Marr，who at the time was the installed，absolute authority within Soviet linguistics.This is but one of many signs that Xiao had absorbed the discourse of Stalinism.This implication in Stalinism was also amply evident in the role Xiao played in the purges.For example，he made a speech，in his capacity as a member of the Soviet Writers’Union，at a large Moscow meeting of March 1936 called to denounce“formalism”（effectively modernism），by which was meant the work of such leading intellectuals as the theater director Vsevolod Meyerhold.In his denunciation，he even went so far as to maintain anachronistically that it was formalism that had held Chinese literature back for many years.Later，in 1937，at the height of the purges，he was sent to Vladivostok and Khabarovsk for 5 months to investigate the loyalties of Chinese in the local branches of the Writers’Union.In his reports，Xiao accused several writers of Trotskyism and other sins，effectively condemning them to being purged.

In these instances，Xiao was acting in his capacity as a leading member of the Union of Soviet Writers.For most of the 1930s he also belonged to other Soviet as distinct from Chinese or émigré Chinese institutions，notably the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.To some extent he became integrated into the Soviet literary world where he hobnobbed with figures like Isaak Babel.A.N.Pirozhkova，，trans.Ann Frydman and Robert L.Busch（South Royalton，Vt.：Steerforth Press，1996）.He also intermingled with the foreign internationalists in Moscow，in particular with Friedrich Wolf’s wife Erika who helped manage his affairs when he was out of the country；his third wife was the German Jewish communist Eva Sandberg，whom he married in 1935.In his Soviet incarnation Xiao was，however，functionally like the many members of the Writers’Union who represented Soviet ethnic minorities.In his case，he was officially the representative to the Writers’Union of the sizeable group of Chinese writers living in the Soviet Far East，mostly around Vladivostok.

As the leading spokesperson for the Chinese minority in the Soviet Union，Xiao also had jurisdiction over Dungan writers.The Dungans were an enclave of Muslim Chinese centered in an area of Kirghizia.Their leading writer，Iasyr Shivaza，had played a major role in the early efforts at Latinization among his people，which particularly disposed Xiao to him and the Dungans in general. In the fall of 1938，at Xiao’s request，the Secretariat of the Writers’Union dispatched Xiao to Frunze，as the capital of Kirghizia was then called，to visit their collective farms.Aided by Shivaza，the two，together with the farmers there，composed a long poem in support of the embattled Chinese who were trying to repel the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese War.

Yet Xiao was at the same time officially considered a writer from China associated with its League of Leftist Writers，and he wrote primarily in Chinese.This dual identity was particularly apparent when，at the First Writers’Congress in 1934，before Xiao gave his speech he was introduced as a delegate from the（Soviet）Far East，but he opened by saying he would be talking about the literary situation in China.（First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers，1934：Stenographic Report）（Moscow，Khudozhestvennaia literatura 1934），365.

Xiao’s dual identity，his self-identification with both China and the Soviet Union，was challenged by the Sino-Japanese War，which broke out in 1937.As city after city fell to the Japanese，he became extremely distraught as is reflected in the long poem he co-authored with the Dungans.Xiao increasingly felt drawn to return to his home country，but was able to persuade the Comintern only in late 1938 to release him for the trip（the order for his return was signed by no less than Dmitrov，head of the Comintern，in a“highly secret”memo of 29 December 1938，stipulating that Xiao was to go to China and work at the disposal of the CPC Central Committee）.He left Moscow for the communist enclave in Yan’an on February 5，1939，travelling via Kazakhstan to the Chinese border.

In Yan’an Xiao continued to serve as a liaison between Soviet and Chinese literature and as a purveyor of Soviet culture.He was initially attached to Luyi 鲁艺（the Lu Xun Academy of Art），which was founded in April 1938 in an abandoned Catholic monastery.The Academy’s primary purpose was to produce propagandists for work at the front and in the villages.Given the widespread illiteracy，early activities tended to focus on the visual and performing arts and at first there were only three teaching departments：Drama，Music and Fine Art，though Literature was added in August 1938.Harrison Forman，（New York：H.Holt and Company，1945），85；David Holm，（Oxford：Clarendon Press，1991），45.

Xiao was attached to the Literature Department，but also established and headed within it the Translation Bureau，where he fostered translations of a large number of contemporary Soviet works，often undertaking them himself.As before when he was in the Soviet Union，he brokered the publication of Chinese literature in Soviet books and in periodicals，such as’，where he also，as before，published many items informing Soviet readers of cultural activities in Yan’an.In addition，as the main representative for Soviet culture in the border region，he frequently sent to VOKS reports on Chinese literature and on what had been translated into Chinese from Soviet literature.He relayed to the Foreign Section of the Writers’Union and to VOKS requests that they send specific Soviet texts，and received instructions from them as to which texts he should promote in China.Additionally，he headed a“Society of International Information，”that published multiple foreign works in translation.［unsigned］，“Kitai，”，1942，no.11，163.He also continued to publish his own literary works there，again using Rommas his translator.

Xiao，by his account，became sick of the many intrigues at the Academy，so after a year he left.He began to periodically spend time at the front，which offered him opportunities to work directly with the masses.While there，he wrote a number of sketches about life at the front，which he sent to the Soviet Union to publish in translation.When not at the front but in Yan’an，he shifted his center of operations and became head of the Cultural Society and also the Central Culture Club，which put on numerous plays，mass poetry recitals，and song fests.GAO Hua，-，trans. Stacey Mosher and Guo Jian（New York：Columbia University Press，2019），224.He also edited several journals，including《新诗歌》（）and the Culture Club’s journal《大众文艺》（）.朱子奇：《在诗的圣地》，见艾克恩编：《延安文艺回忆录》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，1992年，第153-156页。［ZHU Ziqi，“Zai shi de shengdi”（In a Holy Land for Poetry），in（Recollections of Yan’an Literature and Art），ed.Ai Ke’en，Beijing：China Social Sciences Press，1992，152-56.］For this source I am indebted to Yang Hua.

As the latter title suggests，Xiao in Yan’an was particularly concerned with fostering a mass literature，the cause which，as mentioned，had been central to the Soviet cultural revolution of 1928-31，for much of which Xiao and Qu were in Moscow.Qu on his return to China had been ousted from the Communist Party leadership but had become an influential spokesman and theorist for the leftist arm of the Communist literary world，especially in the Communists’Central Revolutionary Base Area in Ruijin，Jiangxi province，where they were headquartered before the Long March.Qu had not joined the Long March，was arrested in 1934 by the Nationalists，and was executed in 1935，but his earlier writings continued to resonate among leftist literary circles in Yan’an.

In Yan’an，given the widespread illiteracy among the masses，work with them inevitably centered around oral forms and dramatic performances.The genres most promoted in the Communist areas were now those that did not require literacy or elaborate equipment：short agitational dramas and sketches that could be staged in the open air by troops who wandered around the villages or on city streets，propaganda posters and art，wall newspapers and songs.Nym Wales（Helen Foster Snow），（New York：Modern Age Books，1941），466.Another practice for promoting agitation despite the lack of literacy was to have entire newspapers read aloud to an assembled village，often by its journalists themselves.LIU Bai-Sin，“Kitaiskaia frontovaia gazeta”（Chinese Gazette on the Front），（）7-8（1940）：332.

In Xiao’s case，he tapped into the enthusiasm for poetry among those in Yan’an.In Yan’an poetry had become predominantly a matter for the streets and for oral performances；texts were daubed on the sides of buildings and mass public recitals were organized.In late 1940 Xiao organized a“Society for the New Poetry”and became its president，presiding over its organ“Sin’Shigo”新诗歌（New Poems and Songs）.There and elsewhere he published extensively on Mayakovsky，the popular Soviet poet.Xiao assiduously placed texts by Mayakovsky in Chinese literary journals，and translated several major agitational poems by him，including“Left March”and“Conversation with Lenin.”Mayakovsky，a popular poet in both the Soviet Union and in communist circles in China，was known for the compelling oral renderings of his verse. In fact he had claimed that sound was for him prior to the actual words in a poem.Vl.Maiakovskii，（How to Do Poetry）.Biblioteka“Ogonёk”No.273（The Library of Ogonek No.273）（Moscow：“Ogonёk”，1927），30.In Yan’an circles，imitations of Mayakovsky became fashionable in poetry，in part due to the emphasis there on performance and nonwritten cultural genres.

In Yan’an Xiao also revived his efforts at latinization.Alatinized writing system had been promoted in Chinese communist circles since at least 1934.But with the advent of the war，communist leaders initiated a massive campaign for literacy in the Red Army with compulsory participation.Edgar Snow，（London：V.Gollancz，1937），280.The system for the latinization of Chinese writing developed in Vladivostok was widely adopted because it made it possible for the illiterate to gain some literacy fairly quickly.Xiao served on the committee for Latinization and became head of the Lu Xun Academy’s Faculty Support Committee for Literacy.He also wrote to his contact in VOKS requesting that he send him a textbook on Latinization for use in Yan’an.

In Yan’an at the time there were intense and at times bitter debates about what should be the appropriate models for progressive culture in China.David Holm，（Oxford：Clarendon Press，1991），52-53.Xiao entered the fray，but took a minority position.He advocated that Chinese literature use“old forms，”by which he did not mean the Chinese classics as much as a selection of genres from the repertoire of traditional mass literature and culture，such as chap books，ballads with drum accompaniment，folk songs accompanied by bamboo pipes，and弹词（story telling），all of them characteristically written by“anonymous‘poets’and‘singers’”and，he contended，were“what the common people were pleased to hear and delighted to see.”David Holm，“National Form and the Popularization of Literature in Yenan，”inColloque internationale organisé par la Fondation Singer-Polignac en juin 1980（Chinese Literature at the Time of the War of Resistance against Japan（1937 to 1945），International Symposium organized by the Singer-Polignac Foundation in June 1980）（Paris：Éditions de la Fondation Singer-Polignac，1982），228.It might seem counterintuitive that Moscow’s intermediary in Yan’an was advocating old-style Chinese vernacular genres，but much of his attachment to them could be seen as a re-inflection of the official Soviet position of the late 1920s and early 1930s，one shared by Xiao and Qu Qiubai，that communist culture should be a mass culture，not one derived from high culture.

Though Xiao advocated the use of popular genres for the new culture，he did not advocate complete abandonment of traditional literary forms.In his writings on poetry，he contended that，on the one hand，“contemporary poets，if they imitate the classics，are using an old and dead literary language which is not accessible to the broad masses.［But on］the other hand，after the literary revolution of 1917-1920，poets who began to write［…］in what was close to colloquial language tended to another extreme：in throwing out the entire，valuable structure of a 2，500 year poetic heritage，they write poems which are poorly understood because they have almost no form and system of rhythm；they are just rhymed prose.”So now，he concluded，when literature must be mobilized to have a large impact，poets must think about that.Emi Siao，“Literatura i isskustvo Kitaia v bor’be za natsional’nuiu nezavisimost’”（Literature and Art of China in the Struggle for National Independence），in（China，History of Economy，Culture，Heroic Struggle for the National Independence）（Moscow-Leningrad：Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk，1940），319.

Xiao，in his stress on popular forms，was at cross purposes with many in the literary establishment in Yan’an，especially at the Lu Xun Academy.Its director，Zhou Yang 周扬（1907-1989），his nemesis in Yan’an，essentially advocated that Chinese writers learn from Euro-Russian literature rather than indigenous models，on the grounds that it was superior both in ideological content and aesthetically.It is perhaps no accident that under Zhou Yang’s directorship Xiao was replaced as head of the Translation Bureau at the Academy by a figure more oriented towards European culture，the novelist Zhou Libo 周立波（1908-1979），a translator of many classics of Russian and European literature.Zhou Libo arrived in December 1939 and from 1940-1942 ran a lecture series in the Academy entitled“Select Readings of Literary Masters in Western Literature.”WANG Ban，“1940-1942：Chinese Revolution and Western Literature，”in，ed.David Der-Wei Wang（Cambridge，Massachusetts：The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press，2017），473.

The leading writers and critics in Yan’an were，then，divided on the issue of whether to model the new communist literature on national and peasant culture，or on a more cosmopolitan culture of the educated.The debate was in a sense resolved from on high when in 1942，Mao gave his two canonical addresses to the“Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art，”which had been convened by the Central Propaganda Department of the Communist Party and held at its Yan’an headquarters with more than 100 participants.Mao’s two speeches to the Forum，his Talks as they are generally referred to in English，were to become the canonical account of Chinese communist literature，functionally the equivalent of Gorky and Zhdanov’s addresses to the First Writers Congress in 1934.It was first published in《解放日报》（）on October 19，1943Bonnie McDougal，in her published translation of the Talks，provides an appendix which lists the changes in the later edition and another which lists the major editions of the Talks.See Bonnie S.McDougal，，Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies，no.39（Ann Arbor：University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies，1980），87-107.They remained canonical until Xi Jinping at the Beijing Forum on Literature and Art of October 2014 delivered an address intended to supersede them，though they still carry a lot of weight.

One might have expected Xiao to have played a role in formulating Mao’s ideas for the Talks.Thanks to their closeness in Xiao’s youth，he and Mao had spent many an evening in Yan’an drinking and reminiscing.But by 1942，when the Rectification campaign was in full swing，everyone associated with the Soviet Union came under suspicion and relations cooled.P［Petr］P.Vladimirov，-（Special Region of China 1942-1945）（Moscow：Izdatel’stvo Agenstva pechati Novosti，1973），23，25.Xiao’s German wife，Eva，was effectively driven out of Yan’an as a foreigner.Xiao divorced her and married a Chinese woman，his fourth wife.And，allegedly，Xiao was even heckled when he spoke at the Forum.

Although，then，Xiao was unable to play a major role in formulating Mao’s addresses to the Talks，the positions Mao took there reflect a measure of influence from Soviet literary theory，right down to an unacknowledged citation about the necessity for literature to function as a“cog and a screw”in Party operations；this famous formulation had been originated by Lenin in his article“Party Organization and Party Literature”（，1905），which became a canonical source for socialist realist theory.But show did play some role，if indirectly.In 1940 Zhou Yang，known to have been one of Mao’s advisors，published a collection of articles by Marx，Engels and Lenin on art.Xiao，who had sent a request to Moscow for the relevant materials，also contributed to the volume，which was a source for some of the stipulations in Mao’s Talks.“Kitai”（China），in（Collected Essays of Marx，Engels，and Lenin on Art in the Chinese Language），（）11-12（1940）：340.Gao Hua has a slightly different account，but also stresses the importance of Zhou Yang in the formulation of the positions taken in Mao’s Talks.See GAO Hua，，374-87.

In addition to Xiao’s deteriorating relations with authority figures in Yan’an，an additional setback for him came with the shutting down of the Comintern in 1943 followed by the closure of the cluster ofjournals，including’（），his main Soviet literary outlet.He，however，continued to liaise with two other Soviet organizations which were not closed down，the Foreign Commission of the Writers’Union and VOKS.Also，in the leftist literary world，the role assumed by the Comintern was to some extent taken up by the Moscow-sponsored Peace movement，and writers attended its congresses as they had the successive anti-fascist talk fests（in Paris，and then Madrid）in the 1930s.

By the time the PRC was founded in 1949，however，the Soviet Union had become a critical source of support，once again，and Xiao with his command of Russian and his extensive Soviet connections played a major role in the cultural life of its earliest years.He was initially given high posts as deputy head of the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Central Committee and head of Organization Department of the Komsomol.Xiao was also sent as a delegate to a congress of the World Peace Council held in Paris and Prague in 1949（doubtless his knowledge of French again came in handy），and was chosen as one of seven secretaries to the body.On the way back Xiao passed through the Soviet Union and renewed his relationship with Eva.On his return，he divorced his Chinese wife and remarried Eva，but paid a stiff price for his actions.He lost all his high positions，including his role in the Peace Movement.

After Khrushchev came to power Xiao’s position in China improved.He was，for example，sent as a delegate from China to an international literary conference of Asian writers held in Delhi in 1956，a landmark in the history of postcolonial literature that was held in the wake of the 1955 Bandung conference of non-aligned nations.In a fiery speech to the conference Xiao talked about how the colonizers tried to humiliate the East in the eyes of the rest of the world and how the peoples of Asia refuted the ideas of their enslavers.Prof.I Reisner，“Posle konferentsii pisatelei Azii”（After the Conference of Asian Writers），（）7（1956）：241.

Xiao had not abandoned his position as an intermediary between Soviet and Chinese culture，however.In 1955，after Khrushchev came to power，a new journal was launched in Moscow，（）which within the country effectively replaced’as a window on the literary world beyond the Soviet borders，if a left-oriented one.Xiao periodically published their reports on Chinese communist literature，as he had in’until it was closed down in 1943.Emi Siao，“Nash uchitel’Iidrug”（Our Mentorand Friend），（）10（1958）：166-67.However，his position in China worsened further in 1961 after the Sino-Soviet split，when he was seen as tainted by his association with the Soviet Union.Xiao was labeled a“spy of Soviet revisionism”and put on a blacklist.Later，·during the 1960s-1970s，he plummeted further from grace.In June 1967 he and Eva were arrested and spent more than seven years in Qincheng Prison before being released in October 1974.Xiao was politically rehabilitated in 1979 by Hu Yaobang 胡耀邦（1915-1989）and was subsequently awarded a spacious apartment in a new building in central Beijing erected to house former victims of social instability.He died in Beijing on February 4，1983.

Today Xiao is all but forgotten in Russia.He is remembered in China，but not for his work of the 1930s towards a Sino-Soviet literary rapprochement.Rather，it is for the books he published there about Mao，drawing on his own acquaintance with him in the early years.To a large degree，then，it could be said that his“accidentally”acquired prominence in international literature did not outlast that cause’s petering out under the impact of the Cold War and the Sino-Soviet split.