In recent years, Russian scholars have shown increasing interest in the culture and literature of the Ewenki people of China. As an important component of Chinese ethnic minority literature, Ewenki literature first began to emerge in written form during the new historical era of socialist construction. The literary works of authors such as Ureltu (b. 1952), Tu Zhiyong (b. 1952), Anna (b. 1954), Qing Sheng (b. 1956), and Du Mei (b. 1963) have played a significant role in the development of Ewenki literature. Although only a few works by Ureltu and Qing Sheng have been translated into Russian, Ureltu remains the only author whose works have truly captured the attention and scholarly analysis of Russian academia. The first Russian translation of Ureltu's works can be traced back to the 1980s. Yet, it is only in the past five years that Russian scholars have begun to conduct academic research on his literary works. This phenomenon raises several questions: Why have Ureltu's works suddenly attracted the attention of Russian academia nearly forty years after their initial translation? How do Russian scholars understand and accept Ureltu’s literary creation? Are their interpretations of his works accurate? Are there instances of misinterpretation or omission in their readings of the texts? If so, what are the causes of such misreadings or omissions? By exploring these issues, we can gain a deeper understanding of the academic reception and dissemination of Ureltu’s works in Russia, and provide valuable insights for the cross-cultural transmission of Chinese Ewenki literature.

Prosaics is a new term proposed by American scholar Morson in 1988 during the study of Bakhtin's philosophy and literary ideas, as well as Tolstoy's novels. If Bakhtin proposed the polyphonic theory based on Dostoevsky's novels, then the prose nature of prosaic life in Bakhtin's theory is in line with Tolstoy's creative and philosophical aesthetics. This is a worldview prospect based on Bakhtin's Metalingustics or special prosaic disordered self-consciousness, by which to rethink the philosophy of life or creative philosophy. From Bakhtin's Literary theory to philosophical aesthetics, Bakhtin attempted to connect ethics with every moment of life, believing that all current perspectives on ethics are rigid, ignoring the most essential factors that deviate from the norm. Reflected in the following aspects. From a philosophical perspective, prosaics, It is a way of thinking, a way of viewing the essence of existence, the essence of the world and life, and a philosophy that is anti-ideologoical, emphasizing the importance of plain daily life.From the literary perspective: Russian literature has always had a systematic tradition of reflection, Tolstoy believed that "art only begins in the slightest." If poetry reflects moments of passion, prose often begins in a mundane and everyday way. In literary thought, it is related to poetics A relative term that includes novel，Putting it above the genre of poetry is Bakhtin's unique idea, as opposed to formalism poetic. For a long time, prose has been neglected by formalists, as well as strucruralism. Bakhtin did not simply replace poetics with prose studies, but completely changed the concept of literary genres. Bakhtin proposed new insights into literary form, which means that theories from Aristotle to Russian formalism need to be reassessed. and Bakhtin attempted to connect ethics with every moment of life, believing that all current perspectives on ethics are rigid, ignoring the most essential factors that deviate from the norm. The idea is precisely driven by the need for a correct understanding of the attributes of novels.

At the ethical level, both Bakhtin and Tolstoy have found unique ways to solve ethical problems. Bakhtin attempted to connect ethics with every moment of life, believing that all current perspectives on ethics are rigid, ignoring the most essential factors that deviate from the norm.

Lu Xun, one of the most influential figures in modern Chinese literature and intellectual history, made substantial contributions to the introduction of Western literature into China. As both a translator and editor, Lu Xun regarded translation not as a mere linguistic endeavor but as a profound instrument for expanding intellectual horizons and facilitating cultural transformation. He positioned literature as a medium through which to challenge entrenched traditions and provoke critical thought, particularly during a period of profound national crisis and social upheaval.

A Collection of Foreign Novels (Yuwai Xiaoshuo Ji), an important project edited and partially translated by Lu Xun in the early 20th century, serves as a notable example of his efforts to introduce Western literary works to Chinese audiences. The collection sought to reflect Lu Xun’s broader cultural and ideological aspirations by featuring translations of short stories and novellas from a diverse array of authors and languages.

Lu Xun’s approach to translation illustrates his conviction that literature should function as a tool for cultural critique and social transformation. His methodology combined fidelity to the original text with carefully considered adaptations that aligned with the linguistic and cultural sensibilities of Chinese readers.

In addition to the translated texts, the visual design of the collection—encompassing elements such as cover art and formatting—embodied a synthesis of Eastern and Western artistic traditions. This design approach symbolized the cross-cultural dialogue that Lu Xun sought to cultivate through his work.

As a whole, A Collection of Foreign Novels remains a paradigmatic example of Lu Xun’s contribution to modern Chinese literary and cultural history. It exemplifies his use of translation as a means to foster intellectual engagement and cultural renewal. This study investigates Lu Xun’s translation work within the collection, focusing on its historical context, source materials, and the strengths and limitations of his translation strategies, as well as the dynamic interactions between the translations and other paratextual elements of the collection. By doing so, it situates Lu Xun’s efforts within the broader cultural and intellectual transformations of early 20th-century China.

Karel Slavíček, S.J. (Yan Jiale, 1678-1735), born in the village of Imlamov in Moravia, joined the Society of Jesus in 1694. Skilled in music, mathematics, and astronomy, Slavíček's broad knowledge made him an ideal candidate for a mission to China. During his time there, he diligently learned Chinese and studied ancient Chinese texts, earning him the distinction of being the first Sinologist of the Czech Lands. In the 1930s, the Czech Jesuit Josef Vraštil compiled and translated Slavíček's letters into Czech from their original Latin. These letters were later edited and annotated by Czech Sinologist Josef Kolmaš, gathered and supplemented the correspondence between Slavíček and European astronomers. These letters are divided into two parts. The first consists of personal letters in which Slavíček shares his experiences as a missionary in China, including his initial impressions of the unfamiliar land, reflections on Chinese culture and morality, and the circumstances of his missionary work. As a missionary, Slavíček was a firsthand witness to the 18th-century debates on Chinese rituals, leaving invaluable documentation of this historical period.The second part comprises academic correspondence with European scholars. Slavíček made several significant cartographic and astronomical observations in China and sent his findings to Europe. His main correspondents were Teofil Sigfrid Bayer in St. Petersburg and Étienne Souciet in Paris. These letters, which cover a wide range of topics, delve into Chinese classical culture and hold substantial historical value for understanding European perspectives on Chinese advancements, particularly in mathematics and astronomy. This body of correspondence provides compelling evidence of Europe's profound interest in Chinese intellectual achievements during this period and stands as a significant record of the historical exchange of knowledge and culture between East and West. Moreover, it played a pivotal role in popularizing Oriental correspondence in 18th-century Europe, sparking widespread fascination with Chinese thought, customs, and scientific innovations.

This article explores Dostoevsky’s views on the “Eastern Question” as expressed in his journalistic and literary works, shedding light on how his perspective both mirrored and influenced Russian intellectual thought during the 19th century.

The “Eastern Question” which emerged in the early 18th century alongside the gradual decline of Ottoman power, evolved into a critical issue in international politics by the 19th century. As the Ottoman Empire weakened, European powers vied for control over political and economic interests in the Middle East, intensifying geopolitical competition.

In this context, the Russian Empire played a central role. Beginning with Peter the Great’s reign, Russia pursued the strategic goal of gaining access to the Black Sea. Over the course of nearly a century, this ambition became not only a defining feature of Russian foreign policy but also a key issue that resonated across all layers of Russian society, from the political elite to the common people, shaping both public discourse and national identity.

Dostoevsky viewed Russia’s actions as just, framing them as both a religious duty to protect Orthodox Christians and a historical mission to support Slavic peoples. In A Writer’s Diary, he depicted the “Eastern Question” not merely as a political challenge, but as a spiritual and cultural calling for Russia. He believed that resolving this issue could unite the Russian people in much the same way the Patriotic War of 1812 had, offering a solution to the social divisions that had deepened in the wake of Peter the Great’s reforms.

Dostoevsky’s perspective on the “Eastern Question” reflects broader currents in Russian nationalism and Pan-Slavism, positioning Russia as both the protector of Orthodox Christianity and a unifier of Slavic nations against European encroachment. His views underscore the complex interplay between geopolitics, religion, and national identity that defined Russia’s political landscape during this era.