The Russian Review/Volume 1/April 1916/Shakespeare in Russia
Shakespeare in Russia.
By Oscar M. Kartoschinsky.
It is often said in Europe, half in earnest, half in jest, that it was Germany that discovered Shakespeare for the English. There is an element of truth in this statement, for nowhere has Shakespeare been studied so zealously as in Germany, and no other country has such a tremendous number of Shakespearophiles. Shakespearean Vereins are scattered all over the country, and it would be difficult to find a German town, however small, in which there is no such Verein. All this shows clearly enough to what degree Germany has "monopolized" Shakespeare. It is significant that in Germany, where, with the beginning of the present War, a campaign was started against all foreign elements of the national culture, no attempt has been made to part with Shakespeare; his dramas are still being played in German theatres, particularly in Max Reinhardt's playhouse in Berlin. In commenting upon this fact, the German press pointed out that Shakespeare is almost as much a German writer, as an English one, thus emphasizing the universal importance of the great poet.
In Russia, Shakespeare has not yet been studied as thoroughly as in Germany. But he is loved, truly and sincerely, in Russia perhaps even more than in Germany. To study, to systematize, to motivate,—this is the German's business. But when it is a matter of love, it is hard to vie with the Russian. Truly, Shakespeare is loved in Russia. This is proved by the fact that Shakespeare's works never disappear from the boards. Not only in Petrograd and Moscow, but in every town where there is a theatre, Shakespeare's dramas are staged every theatrical season, and attract large audiences. It is difficult to find, in Russia, a man of even limited education, who is not familiar with Shakespeare's work. Nor is this familiarity based upon mere reading of the plays; it is strengthened by the frequent opportunities afforded to see them on the stage. There is scarcely an actor of any prominence in Russia who has not attempted Shakespearean roles. As to the great actors, the Shakespearean repertoire was the beginning and the end of their histrionic art. Until recently the fame of almost all the best Russian actors was created almost exclusively by their Shakespearean roles.
Shakespeare's "career" in Russia began in the next to the last decade of the eighteenth century. Catherine the Great was an enthusiastic admirer of Shakespeare. Well read in his works, she wrote a drama in 1786 about an early Russian prince, Ryurik, and called this work not an original play, but "An Imitation of Shakespeare." Her next play, dealing with the life of Prince Oleg, bears the same subtitle. Of course, there was little of Shakespeare in these dramas, but the very fact that they were characterized as imitations of Shapespeare indicates that even in the time of Catherine the Great all theatrical art was connected with Shakespeare's name.
In 1787 the first translation from Shakespeare appeared in Russia. It was Julius Caesar, done into Russian by the noted writer, Karamzin. From that time on, those of the higher society began to familiarize themselves with Shakespeare, at first in the original, and, later on, in translations. But these renderings were at first of an accidental character. They were printed now and then in the periodicals of the time. It was only at the beginning of the nineteenth century that these translations began to appear in separate editions. It was at this period, too, that there commenced the efflorescence of Russian literature. Original geniuses, full of freshness and spontaneity, such as Pushkin, and later Gogol, and others, came to replace the older, mainly imitative talents, like Benediktov, Derzhavin, Viasemsky, who followed in the footsteps of French, and especially German pseudo-classical literature. The cause of Shakespeare in Russia owes much to these great writers: they really appreciated Shakespeare's grandeur and depth.
In the decades that followed, almost all of Shakespeare's plays were translated into Russian, but the complete edition of his works appeared only in the sixties. It was edited by N. A. Nekrasov, at that time the greatest national poet. This edition comprised translations by one of the best of the Russian Shakespearophiles, A. A. Sokolovsky, also by the poets P. Veinberg, F. Miller, A. Rizhov. P. I. Polevoy, the author of a very detailed biography of Shakespeare, which opens the edition, wrote: "In undertaking this edition we neither had, nor could have in view to give Russian literature such a translation of Shakespeare, that after it nothing could be left to do in the way of making the Russian public more intimately acquainted with the greatest poet of all ages and nations."
Later on it was A. P. Ostrovsky, the glory of Russian dramatic literature, who translated Shakespeare, also the noted Russian philologist, P. A. Kozlov, and the dramatist Gnedich. Together with the number of translations grew the body of interpretative literature. The most enthusiastic interpreter of Shakespeare was the first Russian literary critic, Vissarion Belinsky.
"Only Shakespeare," wrote he, "the divine, the great, the inaccessible, has comprehended Hell, and Earth, and Heaven. Nature's king, he levied an equal tribute on the good and the evil; and inspired seer, he spied out the throbbing pulse of the universe. Every drama of his is the world in miniature. A new Proteus, he was able to endow dead reality with a living soul. A profound analyser, he was able to find the clue to the solution of the highest psychological problems of man's moral nature, in what appears the most insignificant circumstances of his life and will. Never does he have recourse to springs or props in the arrangement of his dramatic action. The actions of his dramas unfold freely, naturally, from their own essence, according to the immutable laws of necessity." It is the opinion of all those who write about Shakespeare in Russia that Belinsky has seized most deeply upon the beauty and the grandeur of Shakespeare, despite the fact that he had only a piecemeal acquaintance with the work of the great dramatist.
Among Shakespeare's works the most popular and the best loved in Russia are Hamlet, Othello, Romeo and Juliet. To these works a great body of critical literature has been devoted, a large share of it, to Hamlet.
It was Hamlet that won the deepest sympathy of the Russians. His passivity, his constant reflection, his everlasting pensiveness,—are these not typically Russian traits? We can almost say that in Russia alone Hamlet is sincerely loved and deeply understood. The critic I have already quoted, Vissarion Belinsky, characterizes Shakespeare's Prince of Denmark in the following way: "Hamlet's nature is purely inward, contemplative, subjective, born for feeling and thought. But circumstances demand from him action, instead of feeling and thought; they call him from the ideal into the practical world, into the world of action. Naturally, this situation gives rise to a terrible struggle in Hamlet, to an inward conflict, which forms the very essence of the whole drama. Hamlet is a strong personality by nature. His caustic irony, his sudden fits of anger, his passionate sallies in the conversation with his mother, the proud contempt and open hatred he shows to his uncle,—all this bears witness to the energy and the greatness of his soul. As to his lack of resolution, it is the result of his inward discord and of the fact that he is dominated by his tendency to reflection and contemplation. A man of such a nature cannot go further than the first start, so much so, that the role of a hangman was not in Hamlet's nature." It is difficult to find in critical literature a more earnest and passionate plea for Hamlet.
Hamlet was also Turgeniev's favorite Shakespearean hero. He even wrote a story, Hamlet of the Shchigrov District, in which he humorously depicted the Russian Hamlet. Other characters in Turgeniev's novels are typical Hamlets: Rudin (in the novel of the same name), Sanin (Spring Waters), and others.
And what superb Hamlets the Russian stage has seen! We owe wonderful histrionic incarnations of Hamlet to the greatest Russian actors of former times, such as Shchepkin and Mochalov, who played in the fifties of the last century, and Kachalov, the pride of the Moscow Art Theatre, which is the best theatre in Russia, and, perhaps, not in Russia alone. Nor do these names exhaust the list, for many other less known actors played Hamlet to perfection. To what degree Hamlet is popular in Russia may be seen also from the fact that many phrases from Hamlet's monologues have become a part of the conversational language of the Russian educated class.
Other plays of Shakespeare, notably Othello, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, were received in Russia with equal warmth. In late years Russian theatres began to stage such dramas as Winter's Tale, Much Ado About Nothing, Macbeth. The Moscow Art Theatre included in its repertory Julius Caesar, in addition to Hamlet, and its staging has been recognized by connoisseurs of the dramatic art, in general, and of Shakespeare in particular, as one of the best in the world.
At the beginning of this article, I pointed out the fact that Russia is behind Germany in her knowledge of Shakespeare. While this is true, we should not omit to mention that Russia, too, is introducing the cult of Shakespeare. Learned societies and circles founded for the purposes of a many-sided and accurate study of the dramatist, are gradually increasing in number, and enlarging the scope of their work. It is noteworthy that such societies and circles had existed in former years, thouhg they were not widely known. For instance, it was only in 1902 that we learned about a very remarkable Shakespeare Circle that existed in Moscow in the seventies of the past century. This Circle was founded by a group of students of Moscow
University, although later it had among its members learned professors, and well-known writers and actors.
About ten years ago, Mr. A. Van Kistern wrote a volume of "Recollections" dealing with this Circle. He began his account in the following manner: "Nowadays, when the life of Moscow has changed so radically, when nothing remains of that type of life which made it possible for the Shakespearean Circle to come into existence, when human passions are raging around us, when bombs are exploding in the streets (This was written during the revolution), when politics replace all other interests, nowadays one feels especially the irresistible attraction of that peaceful, distant past which will never come back." I have dwelt purposely on this sad foreword of the author of the "Recollections" about the first Russian Shakespeare Circle (in all probability, the first), because in this foreword are pointed out indirectly the causes which have hampered the study of Shakespeare in Russia.
"When passions are raging. . ." But passions will always rage in Russia, until the time comes when she will have effectively guaranteed political freedom. And if, despite all this, the cult of Shakespeare has penetrated into the consciousness of the educated class, it is because the Russians keenly feel and sincerely love everything truly beautiful, these traits being innate in them.
This article would not be complete, were I to fail to mention Tolstoy's attitude towards Shakespeare, a subject which at one time stirred up the Russian intellectual classes. The whole civilized world knows that the great Russian genius made an attempt to set at naught Shakespeare's works. "The sooner people will get rid of the false Shakespearean cult, the better," wrote Tolstoy in the conclusion of his long discussion on Shakespeare. "First, because people, having freed their minds from this falsehood, will have to understand that drama not based on the religious principle, is not only matter which is neither important nor good, but it is decidedly a most trivial and contemptible thing."
Is it not significant that, in the Shakespearean problem, Tolstoy stand alone,—Tolstoy the great, the incomparable, to whose opinions Russia listened so eagerly, no matter what was the subject, whose writings of the last years of his life constantly added new recruits to the army of his followers? Tolstoy's attitude towards Shakespeare amazed Russia. At that time I met at Petrograd the noted Shakespearean scholar, Sokolovsky, already mentioned, and he said to me: "Tolstoy is a human being, and everything human is of concern to him. Every man has his idiosyncrasies; Tolstoy has shown his in his attitude towards Shakespeare. The reverential carefulness with which Tolstoy arrived at his negative attitude towards Shakespeare is far more interesting than the denial itself."
Let us turn again to Tolstoy's own words. "My disagreement with the accepted opinion about Shakespeare," wrote Tolstoy at the beginning of his analysis, "is the outgrowth not of a casual mood, nor of a light-minded attitude towards the subject; it is the result of repeated attempts, made in the course of many years, to reconcile my outlook with the traditional opinions about Shakespeare held by all the educated people of the Christian world. I remember the amazement I experienced on first reading Shakespeare. I expected great aesthetic pleasure, but after reading consecutively those of his dramas which are reputed to be his best, viz., King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth, what I felt was not pleasure, but repugnance, boredom, perplexity."
After describing this perplexity at some length and emphasizing Shakespeare's great reputation in the entire civilized world, Tolstoy continues: "For a long time I distrusted myself, and, during fifty years, I read Shakespeare several times, to verify my state of mind. Every time my feelings were the same: boredom, repugnance, perplexity. Before writing this, I, a man of seventy-five years, read Shakespeare once more in order to be certain; the same feelings came to me with even greater force."
How eloquent are these endless verifications! For fifty years Tolstoy was checking up his impressions, and only near the eve of his death did he finally decide to utter his judgment against Shakespeare. His death itself is truly Shakespearean in its tragical grandeur. Is not this the most striking refutation of his judgment about the great Poet?