Reception of Rabindranath Tagore by Chinese Literary Circles

Exеcutеd by:

Kirill Khоlоdеnkо Studеnt ID:

Prоfеssоr: 119090990026

Dr. Han Lei

Course:

Sino-Foreign Literary Relations

Kholodenko 2

Table of contents

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................3
The “Tagore Wave” in the Years Preceding His Arrival.......................................................................4
Chinese Reaction to Tagore’s Upcoming Visit......................................................................................7
Scholarly Explanations of Tagore’s Polarizing Reception.....................................................................9
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................15
Works Cited.........................................................................................................................................17

2
Kholodenko 3

Introduction

This paper focuses on the influence of Rabindranath Tagore, an Indian intellectual,

poet, and artist, who entered the Chinese public discourse in 1910s and 1920s, which was

followed by his fateful and polarizing arrival in person in 1924.

The main body of the paper is devoted to describing the history of Rabindranath

Tagore’s initial entry into the Chinese public discourse that took place in the years preceding

his arrival. Translations of Tagore’s works are mentioned, along with the assessment of the

influence that his ideas and style had on Chinese literary elites.

Then, the focus of inquiry shifts to the reaction of different member of Chinese

intellectual elites to the news of poet’s visit to China in 1923, as well as the impact that this

historic trip had on Chinese literary circles in 1924. Groups and individuals that at the time

happened to be the most receptive to Indian poet’s ideas are determined, along with their

counterparts - the vocal Chinese critics of Tagore’s poetry.

A research problem at the core of this inquiry will be a descriptive one, that is to say,

the goal will be to analyze and to describe a certain phenomenon – reaction of Chinese

literary elites to Tagore’s ideas and his 1924 visit – using a number of academic sources.

Different opinions of various scholars and their attempts to explain the divisive role Tagore’s

works played in China will be compiled and summarized, which could help to form a general

picture of this complex topic.

It is hoped that the end result of this research will be a coherent picture of not only

Tagore’s relatively brief encounter with China, but also of the internal dynamics that

characterized the Chinese intellectual circles before and during the time of his arrival.

3
Kholodenko 4

The “Tagore Wave” in the Years Preceding His Arrival

In order to better understand the background of Tagore’s visit to China in 1924, we

need to look at the preceding decade to find out when and how his works found their way to

the Chinese audience. The very first publication of Rabindranath’s poems took place in 1915

in the “Youth Magazine”, which was later renamed as the “New Youth” (新靑年).

Four poems from “Geetanjali”, Tagore’s most widely recognized collection that

brought him world fame and the Nobel Prize in Literature, were translated by Chen Duxiu

(1879–1942), a key Chinese intellectual and a co-founder of the Chinese Communist Party.

Chen’s translation also included basic information about the author, which acknowledged his

achievements and portrayed him as a “contemporary Indian poet who hailed the spiritual

civilization of the East” (Dutta, 243).

Then, in 1916, Tagore’s lecture that he delivered in Japan got translated and published

in one of the most well-established Chinese journals – the “Eastern Miscellany”. The content

of this lecture portrayed Tagore’s views as those critical of Western materialism in favor of

spirituality. Next publication of Tagore’s works in China took place in 1917 in the “Women’s

Magazine” (issues 6-9). Tian Feng and Wu Wo translated 3 shorts stories of his, including

“Home Coming”, “Kabuliwala”, and “Vision”.

According to an Indian literary scholar Kamal Dutta, two of these short stories were

subsequently republished a number of times before 1924, which could testify for the growing

popularity and awareness of Rabindranath Tagore in China (Dutta, 243). A year later, in

1918, Liu Bannong’s translations of several other Tagore’s poems emerged on the pages of

the “New Youth”.

This wide and dynamic flow of translations helped to acquaint Chinese readership

with Tagore’s views on nationalism, patriotism, univеrsаl lоve, frееdоm, his own version of

4
Kholodenko 5

modernity based on a unified Orient characterized by spiritualism, as well as his оppоsitiоn to

Westеrn impеriаlism and materialism.

Tagore’s poetry was deep in emotion and had a philosophical-religious orientation,

which made it fit well with the principles of the Literary Revolution, formulated by Hu Shi

(Uberoi, 105). All of this has helped to bring to Chinese soil a surge of immense popularity of

Rabindranath’s works and ideas, which Kamal Dutta labeled “the Tagore wave” (Dutta 244).

This phenomenon had its origins in early XX-century Europe after Tagore received

his Nobel Prize, and it continued to spread to new countries in the following years. Many

Chinese intellectuals got acquainted with Tagore even before the Chinese translations

allowed for the “Tagore wave” to fully enter China: Xu Zhimо, Hu Shi, Guо Moruо and Wen

Yiduо first read poet’s works in English during their stays abroad.

So fruitful were the pre-1924 translation efforts that even critics of Tagore in the face

of Wen Yiduо had to admit that by 1923 practically every word of the Bengali poet had been

translated into Chinese. Knowledge and stylistic influence of Rabindranath was so wide that

according to Xu Zhimo, 8-9 out of 10 poems “bore the distinct imprint of Tagore” (Dutta,

244, 246).

As Patricia Uberoi argues, Tagore’s style of verse gained a great deal of popularity in

no small part thanks to the fact that in the eyes of the Chinese he was also a fellow Easterner,

who successfully managed to win acclaim of the West. However, by April 1924, the time of

Tagore’s arrival in China, this era of imitation of Tagorian style was almost over, but left

after it “personal respect” among some young Chinese intellectuals (Uberoi, 103-104) and

growing opposition among others.

Xu Zhimo (1897-1931) was a key Chinese poet and intellectual, one of the pioneering

activists who advocated for wide use of vernacular Chinese in literature. Bringing knowledge

5
Kholodenko 6

of Tagore with him from Cambridge, in 1923 he established the “Crescent Moon Society”

(新月社) named after one of his key poems. Members of this society included himself, poets

Wen Yiduo and Chen Mengjia, writers Liang Shiqiu and Shen Congwen, sociologist Pan

Guangdan, and others. Later, in 1927, Xu Zhimo and Wen Yiduo began publishing a monthly

literary journal “Crescent Moon”, which fеаturеd liberаl idеаs and Wеstеrn literаture.

Xu Zhimo’s and Rabindranath Tagore’s poems had come to share a great deal of

topics, concepts, as well as visual imagery. As influence of this magnitude normally takes

place over an extended period of time, while other factors obviously come into play, some

scholars might find it easier to believe that Xu Zhimo was instead inspired by Western

writers, such as Percy Shelley or Lord Byron, rather than by a fellow Easterner in the face of

Tagore.

To combat such claims and to further illustrate the argument about the profound

influence Bengali thinker must have had on a Chinese poet, Indian historian Tan Chung

draws on similarities between many poems of Xu Zhimo and Rabindranath Tagor. According

to Tan, all of the following poems share a great deal of conceptual, as well as stylistic

resemblance: Xu Zhimo’s “Quba” (I’m going) and Tagore’s “The End”, “Yanermen” (The

Swans) and “Balaka”, “Ouran” (Not by design) and “Clouds and Waves”, “Qiuyue” (The

Autumn Moon) and “On the Sea Shore”, etc. (Tan, 325-327).

“Crescent Moon Society” was an integral part of the larger New Culture Movement,

and it clashed with another one – the League of the Left-Wing Writers – in a pivotal debate

on whether “art for art’s sake” was justified in modern China. Finally, the “Chinese Lecture

Association” (讲学社) was established by writer and Xu Zhimo’s friend Liang Qichao (1873-

1929). It organized public lectures by key foreign intellectuals, including John Dewey,

Bertrand Russell, Paul Monroe, and Hans Driesch.

6
Kholodenko 7

After completing his European and American tours, Rabindranath Tagore began to

ponder over an opportunity to organize his lectures in China. In 1923 he sent his

representative to Peking University to find out about the possibility of coordinating his

potential visit. This was picked up by Xu Zhimo, who notified Liang Qichao, thus initiating

the lengthy process of preparation (Qiao, 75).

Chinese Reaction to Tagore’s Upcoming Visit

The news of the upcoming hit China like a storm, sparking renewed interest in his

works and acting as an invitation to reassess Tagore’s influence from new perspectives. Two

issues of “Short Story Monthly” (小说月报), a popular literary magazine edited by Mao Dun

(1896-1981) and associated by Zhou Zuoren (1885–1967), were dedicated to trаnslаtiоn and

discussiоn of Tagore’s work in fall 1923. These works, however, did not attempt to provide

any new critical angles (Uberoi, 106).

In 1923, in the weeks before the official announcement of Tagore's journey to China,

heated debates on whether thinker’s visit was desirable or not emerged among Chinese

intellectuals. Chinese intellectuals of various ideological backgrounds began to openly

criticize Tagore, labeling him as a threat to Chinese youth. Criticism by these branches of the

intellectual elite was so serious that one would think that Rabindranath's influence on the

Chinese required immediate termination of any ties with him (Choudhuri 155).

First shot was fired by a poet Wen Yiduo (1899–1946) in December 1923, when his

essаy “Criticism of Tagore” was published in Shishi Xinbao ( 时事新报). Writing from the

United States, he was nevertheless distressed by the prospect of Tagore’s visit to China. Wen

strove to restore “orderly poetic structure against the tide of free verse” and due to distortions

in translations viewed Tagore’s influence as that similar to free verse poets like Walt

Whitman (Thampi, 133).

7
Kholodenko 8

He described Tagore’s poetry as monotonous and formless, and criticized the Indian

author for losing grip of reality in favor of metaphysics (Thampi, 134). Wen argued that

philosophy and poetry should not go hand-in-hand, and “feeling” should not be sacrificed for

“intellectuality” (Uberoi, 108-109). The critic stood with those Chinese poets who preferred

concrete images from real life to fantasies and “elaborate metaphors” of Tagore’s poems.

Wen Yiduo’s reaction was a harbinger of the return of some aspects of Classical

Chinese poetry that were suppressed and fought against since the outbreak of the Literary

Revolution. This letter of criticism was directed not just at Rabindranath himself, but even

more at Chinese poetry of the so-called “Tagore wave”. Future founding father of the

formalist literary school, Wen believed that free verse poetry was a dead end for Chinese

literature, and that it was time to “consciously counter its influence” (Uberoi, 112).

Another intellectual that came out with criticism of Tagore’s visit was Guo Moruo

(1892–1978), a poet, writer, and scholar, who later became one of the key revolutionary

figures. Incidentally, in his early years Guo was one of the first wave of Chinese to get

acquainted with and fall under the influence of Tagore’s poetry. This happened in 1915 when

Guo Moruo was studying abroad in Japan, where Tagore had already enjoyed wide

popularity. According to multiple sources, it was Tagore’s poetry that purportedly helped to

bring Guo back from the verge of suicide (Tan, 180; Dutta, 203).

Along with so many other poets, Guo Moruo then went through a creative phase

marked by translations of Tagore’s works into Chinese and composition of original Chinese

poems that imitated the style of the Bengali thinker. However, by 1924 he experienced an

ideological change, becoming a devoted Marxist-Leninist writer, while his attitude towards

Rabindranath shifted to criticаl and еvеn аntаgоnistic.

8
Kholodenko 9

When that year his leftist friends asked him to voice his opposition to Tagore’s visit,

he wrote an article titled “My opinion about Tagore’s China visit” (泰戈尔来华的我见), in

which he reminisced on his days of being influenced by the thinker’s works, but also urged

Tagore to refrain from forming strong ties with Chinese intellectuals and instead to use this

trip as a pleasant sightseeing opportunity (Tan, 180).

Scholarly Explanations of Tagore’s Polarizing Reception

In April 12th, 1924, Tagore arrived in Shanghai upon an invitation from the Chinese

Lecture Association” (讲学社). Embarking on a 6-week tour of China, he was accompanied

by his interpreter and a Chinese intellectual he later formed strongest personal ties with –

none other than Xu Zhimo himself, who had recently returned from the UK (Yeh, 295).

Throughout Tagore’s six week stay in China, Xu acted as his personal guide and interpreter.

According to Qian Suoqiao, during this time they have formed a “loving father-son-like

relationship” (Qian, 75).

Geography of Tagore’s 1924 visit to China covered Shanghai, Hangzhou, Nanjing,

Jinan, Beijing, Taiyuan, and Wuhan. The high point of his journey occurred on May 8 th, when

Rabindranath celebrated his 64th birthday in the Chinese capital. Hu Shi and Liang Qichao

prepared speeches for the occasion, with the latter presenting an honorable Chinese name for

the guest – Zhu Zhendan (竺震旦), a combination of the traditional Chinese word for India

( 竺 ) and the traditional Indian term for China ( 震 旦 ). The celebration concluded with a

performance of Tagore’s play in English, produced by the “Crescent Moon Society” and

featuring Xu Zhimo and Lin Huiyin (Qian, 75).

A group of left-wing writers represented by Guo Moruo, Mao Dun, Zhou Zuoren, and

other politically oriented writers strongly opposed the arrival of an Indian thinker. Xu Zhimo,

9
Kholodenko 10

Liang Qichao, Hu Shi, and others affiliated with the “Crescent Moon Society” united to

oppose the Marxists (Wei 26).

Chen Duxiu, whom we know as the co-founder of Chinese Communist Party and the

original translator of Tagore’s “Gitanjali”, also turned to criticizing thinker’s visit to China.

In the weeks while Tagore conducted his lectures at Chinese universities, Chen Duxiu and Qu

Qiubai published critical articles about their contents in journals like “Chinese Youths” (中国

青年), “The Guide Weekly” (嚮導), and “Verbal Threads” (语丝).

According to Wei Liming, Tagore and his supporters might have not seen these

publications at the time due to their limited circulation. Yet some of the efforts of Tagore’s

critics did yield results, as leaflets that were handed out at venues of thinker’s lectures

attracted his notice and made an incorrect impression of grassroots youth activity against him.

In fact, those leaflets entitled “Why We Oppose Tagore” were also the initiative of Chen

Duxiu and the other critics (Tan, Dev, Wei, et al., 23).

Initially, Tagore planned to deliver seven lectures in Beijing, but the atmosphere of

criticism made him cancel the rest of the speeches after the fourth one. He went on to travel

to Taiyuan in Shanxi province, and Wuhan in Hubei, before finishing his journey on May 30 th

when he left China for Japan, with loyal Xu Zhimo still accompanying him.

If Rabindranath Tagore had been so popular among the Chinese readers for nearly a

decade, how could have his visit become so polarizing and even provocative? What was the

motivation behind the vocal opposition that the thinker faced over the course of his visit? In

almost a century that has passed since the fateful events of 1924, many scholars from

different countries and backgrounds have attempted to offer their vision of the reasons behind

polarizing reception of Tagore in China.

10
Kholodenko 11

For Tan Chung, an Indian historian of Chinese descent, the real underlying debate that

polarized the Chinese intellectual circles that year was the one concerned with what course

should China take in its modernization. Should it follow the Soviet model of parting ways

with tradition in favor of scientism and material development? For those that favored such a

path, Tagore’s emphasis on spirituality and his appreciation of traditional Chinese culture

would unsurprisingly present a direct threat (Tan, 113).

Tan also references another Chinese scholar, Zheng Dahua, who states that Liang

Qichao and Zhang Junmai attempted to make use of Tagore’s visit to “revitalize Chinese

cultural tradition”, for which they were labeled “metaphysicians” ( 玄 学 派 ) and “Eastern

culturists” (东方文化派). He makes an argument that this was a part of the debate on whether

China should follow the Marxist Russian path or pursue libеrаl wеstеrnization. This made

them, along with Xu Zhimo and Hu Shi, “natural targets of the leftist attacks” (Tan, 113).

Interestingly, as we know from the previous section of this paper, most of those who

voiced their opposition to Tagore’s activity in China were precisely the people who had

previously admired his work and were directly affected by the “Tagore wave” (Tan, 114).

This list includes Chen Duxiu, Guo Moruo, Mao Dun, and Wen Yiduo.

Chen Duxiu and Qu Qiubai might have turned to criticizing Tagore as they feared that

thinker’s visit could reignite the Tagore wave and “hamper the leftist mobilization of Chinese

youths to break up with the tradition” (Tan, Dev, Wei, et al., 24).

Even though they were in the minority, they expressed vocal concern that Tagore’s

anti-Western sentiment would sway the balance to the side that they perceived as wrong for

China at the time. In other words, opposition that came from left-wing intellectuals and

Marxists was a manifestation of an ongoing battle of “science vs metaphysics” that swept

over China right around the time of Tagore’s arrival (Qian, 76).

11
Kholodenko 12

In 1970 Stephen Hay from Harvard University published a doctoral dissertation which

contained an analysis of the reasons of the opposition that Tagore faced upon his arrival to

China. In this monograph, Hay placed the core weight of responsibility for the “failure” of

the trip on the thinker himself. In brief, his primary argument was that Tagore’s idea of a

unified Orient based on spiritualism was to blame for the harsh reaction by some Chinese

intellectuals. For Hay, Tagore tried to “play the role of a prophet rather than a poet”, which

did not play well with еmеrging Chinеsе nationalism (Hay, 184).

Jana S. Rošker from the University of Slovenia disagrees with Hay’s evaluation,

citing Tagore’s as having directly stated that “he was first and foremost a poet; that he was

not a philosopher or a prophet” (Rosker, 49). Another prominent scholar of Tagore, Sun

Yixue from Tongji University tried to tackle this issue, seeing the core problem in mutual

misunderstanding. For Sun, both Tagore’s supporters and critics failed to fully understand his

system of thought and his message, seeing it as messianic and ill-timed (Ren, 115)

Modern literary historian Chao Ren expressed the view that is similar to one

expressed by Qian Suoqiao mentioned earlier in this paper. For Chao Ren, the real cause of

the crisis that Tagore’s visit brought to Chinese intellectual circles centered around

conceptually different attitudes towards tradition that characterized India and China at the

time (Ren, 128).

In general, early XX century Chinese intellectuals strove to rid the country of

Confucian traditions in order to embrace westernization. On the other hand, their Indian

counterparts, including Tagore, favored an opposite approach, aiming to find the answer to

national salvation in Hindu traditions, which they tried to employ in their resistance to

Western domination. For the Chinese, national survival was an utmost priority. The key to

12
Kholodenko 13

that was in modernizing the country. For the Indians whose state was still under British

control, preservation of the national essence was the most pressing task.

Actions of Tagore’s critics were at least in part a manifestation of their attempt to

defend the course that China was taking towards Western materialism, which was seen as the

only viable alternative to detested traditionalism. For them, the goal of national salvation

dictated the need to maintain a belief in scientific progress.

Therefore, Chao Ren concluded, the real cause of the failure of Tagore’s visit to China

was the difference in attitudes towards tradition, rather than the responsibility of Tagore’s

own ideas or the misunderstanding of Tagore by the Chinese (Ren, 128). Even though this

evaluation is worded differently, it still bears some resemblance to other works that view the

above-mentioned “science vs metaphysics” debate as a primary cause for the polarization of

Tagore’s reception.

Patricia Uberoi proposes another explanation for the emergence of opposition to

Tagore, which focuses on stylistic as well as thematic discrepancies between translations of

thinker’s works and their original versions in Bengali. She argues that many English

translations of Tagore’s poems were “confined to to the mystical, devotional, wistful and

philosophical poetic themes”, whereas his “political, social, patriotic and narrative poems

were more or less unknown”.

This led to a skewed and one-sided perception of Tagore, which initially resulted in

his extreme popularity in China during the “Tagore wave”, but then backfired as Chinese

intellectuals began to see these aspects as undesirable, failing to see other dimensions of his

works (Uberoi, 106).

In her article about Tagore, Harsha Dutt cites a 1941 poem that the thinker wrote

while reminiscing over his experience in China and the connection he felt to this country. I

13
Kholodenko 14

believe that it does a great job of encapsulating the special place that was reserved in

Tagore’s heart for China, regardless of the effects the critical reception might have had on his

feelings in 1924:

“Once I went to China

Those whom I had not met

Put the mark of friendship

On my forehead

Calling me their own.

I took a Chinese name

Dressed in Chinese clothes,

This I know in my mind.

Wherever I find my friend,

There I am born anew.”

(Poem No. 30)

(Dutt, 216, 217)

14
Kholodenko 15

Conclusion

The story of Rabindranath Tagore’s effects on Chinese literary circles of the 1910s

and 1920s is rather convoluted and can be broken down into two distinct periods. First came

the time of his initial entry into Chinese intellectual discourse. After Chen Duxiu published

the very first translation of Tagore’s poem in vernacular Chinese in 1915, Pandora’s box was

open and numerous other translations followed, paving the wave for the so-called “Tagore

wave” in China – a phenomenon characterized by extreme popularity of Tagore’s poetry.

His style fit well with the principles of the literary revolution that was taking place in

China, and many Chinese poets and writers began to emulate it. Works of Xu Zhimo, Hu Shi,

Guo Moruo, Wen Yiduo, and numerous other Chinese intellectuals of that time were heavily

influenced by Rabindranath Tagore. However, by the time the talks of his visit came to be in

1923, this wave was reaching its decline, and new critical voices began to be heard, calling to

reassess whether the influence of Tagore on Chinese literature and society was indeed a

benevolent one.

A group of left-wing intellectuals, which included Wen Yiduo, Guo Moruo, Liang

Qichao, Mao Dun, and others, strongly opposed thinker’s visit to China. Articles criticizing

him for various ideological reasons began to appear in journals even before Tagore’s arrival,

and provocative leaflets were dispersed among visitors who came to his lectures. Despite the

loyal support from the members of the “Crescent Moon Society” and positive reception from

the majority of his listeners, the damage was done and the number of Tagore’s lectures in

China was shortened.

Numerous literary scholars and historians have proposed various versions of the

causes of the split that Tagore’s visit had caused among Chinese intellectuals of that time.

Some of them involve a heated debate between proponents of scientism and metaphysics, as

15
Kholodenko 16

well as the fear that any additional growth of Tagore’s influence in China could hamper the

process of leftist mobilization of Chinese youth. Others emphasize the misunderstanding that

emerged from different attitudes towards tradition that China and India had at the time. One

more explanation centers around Tagore messianic ambitions and the idea that China of 1924

just was not a fertile ground for such preaching. Yet another version underscores the possible

lack of full understanding of Tagore due to discrepancies in English and Chinese translations

of original Bengali texts.

Whichever explanation is closer to the truth is up to future scholars to decide.

However, what we are left with is a historical voyage of one incredibly influential thinker,

whose works stirred up the Chinese society and allowed the Chinese intellectuals to use it as

a basis to reflect upon themselves and the path modern China should take. Tagore was one of

the first modern Indian thinkers to realize the benefits of mutual understanding and good

relations between the two civilizations. Tagore’s visit to China was a precious opportunity for

India and China to engage in creative dialogue and exchange of ideas. And in that, I believe,

it has unequivocally succeeded.

16
Kholodenko 17

Works Cited

Choudhuri, Indra Nath. “The Conflict Between the Other Asia and the New Asia:

RabindranathTagore, Liang Qichao and Kakuzo (Tenshin) Okakura and the Politics of

Friendship and a Love Story.” Indian Literature, vol. 60, no. 3 (293) (2016): 154–164.

Dutt, Harsha. “Rabindranath Tagore and China.” Indian Literature, vol. 55, no. 3 (263).

(2011): 216–222.

Dutta, Kamal. “The Tagore Wave in China: A Perspective.” East Asian Literatures

(Japanese, Chinese and Korean): An Interface with India. Ed. P. A. George. New

Delhi. Northern Book Centre. (2006): 242–252.

Guo, Moruo. “The Collected Words of Moruo”. Vol. 11. Peking: People’s Publishing

House. (1959): 144-147.

Hay, Stephen. Asian Ideas of East and West, Tagore and his critics in Japan, China and

India. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. (1970): 80-200.

Qian, Suoqiao. Lin Yutang and China's search for modern rebirth. Singapore. Palgrave

Macmillan. (2017): 75-76.

Ren, Chao. “Revisiting Tagore’s Visit to China: Nation, Tradition, and Modernity in

China and India in the Early Twentieth Century.” ASIANetwork Exchange: A Journal

for Asian Studies in the Liberal Arts, vol. 18, no. 2. (2011): 112-133.

Tagore, Rabindranath, Devadatta Joardar, and Joe Winter. Of myself = Atmaparichay.

London: Anvil Press Poetry. (2006): 30-128.

Tan, Chung, Dev, Amiya, Wang, Bangwei, and Wei, Liming. Tagore and China.

Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. (2011): 51-160.

17
Kholodenko 18

Thampi, Madhavi. India and China in the Colonial World. New Delhi. Social Science

Press. (2017): 120-135.

Uberoi, Patricia. Tagore in China: A Chinese Poet's View. Indian Literature, Vol. 16, No.

1/2 (January-June). (1973): 103-112.

Wei, Liming. Grand Visit to China: Historical Significance of Tagore's China Visit.

Forum for World Literature Studies, vol. 2 (3). (2010): 396-426.

Yeh, Michelle. “Xu Zhimo and Chinese Romanticism.” A New Literary History of

Modern China. Ed. Wang Dewei. Cambridge, MA. The Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press. (2017): 295-301.

18