As a typical achievement of the Sinicization of Buddhism, the myth of Nezha's "taking root and settling down" in China has gone through a long process. To put it simply, it originated from India, took shape in Buddhism, and thrived in Taoism. The god Nezha entered China along with the eastward spread of Buddhism. He was the son of Vaiśravaṇa, the Heavenly King of the North. Initially, his image was merely that of an inconspicuous Dharma-protecting god. Although there were records about him as early as the Northern Liang period, his stories were not widely circulated. During the conflict of foreign cultures, Taoism took the initiative to carry out "localization" transformation on him. Consequently, Nezha gradually evolved from the fierce Hindu Yaksha god and Buddhist Dharma-protecting god into a young sea god wearing a "red bellyband" who was adored by the Chinese public. Stories such as Nezha's Adventure in the Sea, His Battle with Shi Ji, His Returning Flesh to His Mother and Bones to His Father, and His Rebirth with Lotus Roots basically took shape. Meanwhile, the fictional mythological figure Nezha was historicized by novelists in the Ming and Qing Dynasties as the vanguard officer in the campaign against King Zhou of Shang. With the body of a young child, he took on the historical mission of overthrowing the Yin Dynasty and assisting the Zhou Dynasty, becoming a significant part in historical romances. Eventually, the stories of Nezha were finalized. From Hindu and Buddhist scriptures to Taoist literature, and then to the folk literature works in the Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties, the stories of Nezha gradually became richer and more complete, and his character image also became fuller and more vivid, embodying both Buddhist and Taoist features, while also containing cultural elements such as Confucian ethics and folk beliefs. Although Nezha was initially recorded in early Buddhist literature as an attachment to Vaiśravaṇa, the mythological stories of Nezha finally completed the process of Sinicization and localization through Taoization and historicization, and the image of Nezha has also become an iconic cultural symbol of China.

Bao Daizhi Outwits by the Chalk Circle is a typical legal drama written by Li Xingfu, a writer from the Yuan Dynasty in China. In 1832, the French sinologist Stanislas Julien first translated The Chalk Circle into French.Unfortunately, the play did not gain widespread attention in European academic circles at that time. In 1876, the German writer Anton Fonseca translated Julien's French version into German. Subsequently, through the translations and introductions by German sinologists such as Wilhelm Grube and Alfred Forke, the play gradually entered the receptive horizon of German writers in the 20th century. Among them, Klabund's adaptation of The Chalk Circle is particularly notable. The successful staging of this adaptation not only brought international reputation to the writer but also played a significant role in promoting the development of drama in the Weimar Republic. It even sparked a trend of adapting Chinese dramas among German writers in the first half of the 20th century. By this point, the "Two Mothers Contending for a Son"story had truly entered the German-speaking literary world, embarking on its journey around the globe. However, current academic research on Klabund's adaptation remains relatively inadequate. This paper aims to return to the historical context, examining the reasons behind Klabund's adaptation and the initial staging process, and exploring his rewriting strategies and the implied motives behind them. Such an examination of the reception history of this particular case not only clarifies the traces of Sino-German literary and cultural exchanges but also reveals the formation process of a world literary classic.

On November 18, 2024, The New Yorker's FICTION column published a piece by Han Kang, excerpted from her novel 'We Do Not Part' and eventually rewritten into the short story 'Heavy Snow'. As one of the most important literary publications in the United States and even worldwide, The New Yorker occupies a pivotal position in contemporary world literature. The publication of Han Kang's work at this juncture aims to introduce readers in the English-speaking world to the works of the Korean Nobel Prize winner and to realize the exchange between different cultures, making the adaptation of 'We Do Not Part' worthy of further study. Han Kang's work often explores complex, multi-layered psychological and emotional dynamics, uses multiple perspectives, circular digressions, fragmented or even disjointed narrative structures, and focuses on the mood and atmosphere of the characters rather than traditional plot development. Editors unfamiliar with these traditions may attempt to make the narrative more 'linear' or 'coherent' for Western readers by selectively simplifying or removing plot points. More importantly, Han Kang uses many metaphors to depict her personal painful experiences and national traumatic memories. The heart of 'We Do Not Part' is the Jeju Island Incident on April 3, which deeply affected Koreans, and it is Han Kang's mission to record this period of history, which is also an important reason why she was awarded Nobel laureates in Literature. In the revised version of 'Heavy Snow', not only were Han Kang's distinctive personal characteristics lost, but also dilutes and weakens the historical weight of “한(a deep existential pain unique to Korean identity)” , which is the most important element of the original, and recontextualizes it in a way that conforms to the Western narrative framework. As can be seen in 'Heavy Snow', the process of adaptation is also a process of balancing readability and cultural specificity, as the editors of The New Yorker, in their efforts to make the text accessible and universal, have unintentionally culturally transposed Han Kang's work and literarily colonized it as Oriental literature - non-Western works must be reworked to fit into the established categories of Western literature.While the editors may be well-intentioned in their efforts to attract a wider audience to the Nobel Prize-winning works, the nature of the adaptation significantly undermines the richness and depth of the original, making it necessary to take a more critical look at Western adaptations of Eastern literature as well as the delicate balance between cultural specificity and wider accessibility in a globalized literary landscape.

The combination of history and literature helps people build a bridge between the past and the present, the reality and the imagination. Nowadays, historical fiction is experiencing a global renaissance. Outside the Western world, the “Oriental Memory” is also increasingly embedded in the background context of world-historical fiction. This development highlights the necessity for a holistic comprehension of the historical fiction genre within the framework of contemporary globalization. It demands a reconstruction of its evolutionary path and current look, while also reflecting on ourselves and anchoring and constructing our national identities. Despite the significant increase in both the number of studies on historical fiction and the publication of guides to this genre, most of these works remain constrained by entrenched stereotypes, demonstrating a relative insularity and a lag in addressing contemporary developments. The defectives are mainly reflected in two aspects: the deep-rooted Western centrism and the lack of a global vision to examine the development of historical fiction in different cultures by parallel comparison. Within the discourse framework established by canonical texts, the category of “World” is frequently conflated with “West” or even narrowly defined as “Europe,” while Oriental works, which have evolved along distinct historical trajectories, are often marginalized. In literary criticism, existing studies tend to operate within segregated paradigms, dividing discussions between West and East, English and non-English literatures, and among different countries and regions. This fragmented approach lacks a cohesive global perspective and a unifying methodological framework in Novel Typology, which would facilitate an integrative analysis of these diverse literary traditions. Comparative literary studies of world-historical fiction frequently remain confined to single comparisons with Western historical fiction, focusing on how Western historical fiction has influenced the emergence of “modern historical fiction” in other cultures. For example, in China, despite an intuitive recognition that many works representing the pinnacle of our literary achievement are explicitly “historical,” the concept of the “historical fiction” is one of imported goods. This dichotomy has led to “A disjuncture between modern and ancient historical fiction in China, resulting in what might be described as two distinct yet unrelated traditions of Chinese historical fiction.” This narrow perspective not only obstructs a comprehensive understanding of the diversity and complexity of world-historical fiction but also constrains the recognition and appreciation of the value embedded in historical fiction and even historical traditions within different Eastern and Western cultural contexts. Current research urgently requires more cosmopolitan approaches to transcend regional, cultural, and civilizational boundaries.

Hu Shi, as an important figure in modern Chinese intellectual and cultural history, holds profound significance in his writings and reflections on the European Renaissance. Through an in-depth study of The Diary of Hu Shi and his other works, this paper explores Hu Shi’s engagement with, understanding of, and the impact of the European Renaissance on his own intellectual and cultural practices. During his studies abroad, Hu Shi systematically interpreted the essence of the Renaissance through reading works such as Renaissance by Edith Helen Sichel, with a particular focus on the rise of vernacular languages during the Renaissance and its significance for the formation of modern nations. He believed that the Renaissance was not only a revival of literature and art but also a comprehensive transformation of thought, culture, society, and politics, a view that deeply influenced his thinking on the modernization of Chinese culture.

Hu Shi drew parallels between the European Renaissance and the Chinese New Culture Movement, proposing the concept of “China’s Renaissance” in an attempt to drive cultural change in China by learning from European experiences. His advocacy for the vernacular Chinese movement was partly inspired by the linguistic transformation during the Renaissance, emphasizing the use of language reform to popularize national culture and enhance national consciousness, thereby achieving cultural modernization. This idea is not only reflected in his literary theories but also permeates his overall planning and practice of the New Culture Movement.

However, Hu Shi’s interpretation of the Renaissance was not a direct adoption of Western experiences but was combined with the historical and contemporary context of China. He emphasized the “foresight and historical continuity” of intellectual leaders, striving to build an effective connection between modern civilization and China’s traditional civilization. Although Hu Shi’s discourse on “China’s Renaissance” has certain limitations, its role in promoting the modernization of Chinese culture cannot be ignored. By drawing analogies with the European Renaissance, Hu Shi provided important theoretical support for the New Culture Movement and influenced subsequent reflections on the path of cultural change in China.