What do you think?
Rate this book
Hamlet And Don Quixote: An Essay
English, French, Russian (translation)
31 pages
First published January 1, 1860
6 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
About the author
Ivan Turgenev
1,817 books2,728 followersIvan Sergeyevich Turgenev (Cyrillic: Иван Сергеевич Тургенев) was a novelist, poet, and dramatist, and now ranks as one of the towering figures of Russian literature. His major works include the short-story collection A Sportsman’s Sketches (1852) and the novels Rudin (1856), Home of the Gentry (1859), On the Eve (1860), and Fathers and Sons (1862).
These works offer realistic, affectionate portrayals of the Russian peasantry and penetrating studies of the Russian intelligentsia who were attempting to move the country into a new age. His masterpiece, Fathers and Sons, is considered one of the greatest novels of the nineteenth century.
Turgenev was a contemporary with Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy. While these wrote about church and religion, Turgenev was more concerned with the movement toward social reform in Russia.
These works offer realistic, affectionate portrayals of the Russian peasantry and penetrating studies of the Russian intelligentsia who were attempting to move the country into a new age. His masterpiece, Fathers and Sons, is considered one of the greatest novels of the nineteenth century.
Turgenev was a contemporary with Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy. While these wrote about church and religion, Turgenev was more concerned with the movement toward social reform in Russia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 13, 2012
There is something too true here, so simple and illustrative as to be like a literary and psychological, maybe cosmological, legend for the world. We have past and future, upward and downward. Why not another dimension for ‘hamlet-ward’ and ‘quix-ward’?
Perhaps I should take the time to re-read Hamlet and Don Quixote, before making such an opinion about Turgenev’s analysis. But they are so familiar, and so much more archetypes than individuals; and this essay purports to say something more general about our world than specific about their novels. So, despite the shame of sensing the depth of my own hamlet-ness, I have to applaud this distinction and Turgenev’s eminently clear description.
Hamlets aren’t negative because of bad circumstances or inner despair. Melancholy is simply the natural reaction to their over-thought, over-wrought analysis of the world. We Hamlets live in agony for all that is wrong in life, and agonize over why so few are concerned. That sort of intellectual superiority is only tempered to the degree by which we realize we are part of the world too, that there are plenty of things wrong with us too… Meanwhile, Quixotes so blindly accept the values surrounding them, that they never stop to think whether their beliefs and commitments have any reasonable basis. The extreme cases are “thoroughly ridiculous”, but at least they have the “unmitigated enthusiasm” to believe something and do something and the fortitude to keep the world from doing many of the things it shouldn’t. Hamlets make good book critics and annoying quality control managers. Quixotes are entrepreneurial, moral prigs that can be made more sophisticated but not much more cultivated—pigs with lipstick, comes to mind. They are stable socially and psychologically, and Hamlets hate them for it.
Perhaps I should take the time to re-read Hamlet and Don Quixote, before making such an opinion about Turgenev’s analysis. But they are so familiar, and so much more archetypes than individuals; and this essay purports to say something more general about our world than specific about their novels. So, despite the shame of sensing the depth of my own hamlet-ness, I have to applaud this distinction and Turgenev’s eminently clear description.
Hamlets aren’t negative because of bad circumstances or inner despair. Melancholy is simply the natural reaction to their over-thought, over-wrought analysis of the world. We Hamlets live in agony for all that is wrong in life, and agonize over why so few are concerned. That sort of intellectual superiority is only tempered to the degree by which we realize we are part of the world too, that there are plenty of things wrong with us too… Meanwhile, Quixotes so blindly accept the values surrounding them, that they never stop to think whether their beliefs and commitments have any reasonable basis. The extreme cases are “thoroughly ridiculous”, but at least they have the “unmitigated enthusiasm” to believe something and do something and the fortitude to keep the world from doing many of the things it shouldn’t. Hamlets make good book critics and annoying quality control managers. Quixotes are entrepreneurial, moral prigs that can be made more sophisticated but not much more cultivated—pigs with lipstick, comes to mind. They are stable socially and psychologically, and Hamlets hate them for it.
March 21, 2021
This was a very original and well-crafted essay delivered by Turgenev at a public reading in 1860. My source was the Chicago Review, Vol. 17, No. 4 (1965), pp. 92-109.
Turgenev begins by noting that Hamlet and the first part of Don Quixote came into the world in the same year, and he goes on to establish the premise that the tendencies of all men can be designated into two categories typified by the two polar characters: Hamlet and Don Quixote.
He maintains that Don Quixote characterizes undeviating faith; belief in a truth eternal and beyond the comprehension of the individual human being, which he pursues unquestioningly to the point of complete self-abnegation. Don Quixote exists "outside himself; he lives for others, for his brethren, in the hope of neutralizing evil and outwitting those sinister figures--sorcerers and giants--whom he regards as the enemies of mankind." He is devoid of all vestiges of egotism. Hamlet, in contrast, typifies analysis, scrutiny, and egotism as well as consequential disbelief. He is a skeptic to the point of paralysis.
Turgenev contrasts the two characters, the relation of the mob (or the human race) to each character, and also the two authors (Shakespeare and Cervantes). The comparisons are insightful and worth reading. I especially valued his treatment of Don Quixote, so often dismissed as being ridiculous.
We laugh at Don Quixote. But, my dear sirs, who of us can positively affirm with certainty that he will always and under all circumstances know the difference between a brass wash basin and an enchanted golden helmet? Let everyone conscientiously examine his convictions, past and present, and let him then determine how far he may be certain of knowing one from the other.
Turgenev is careful to not overreach, and readily acknowledges that "these are simply extreme expressions of the two opposite tendencies. Life steers toward one or the other of these extremes, but never reaches either of them." He also astutely acknowledges that while this is a form of dualism, "life consists in reality of perpetual reconciliation of two perpetually contending forces, two unremitting opposites." It is not at all a strict "either/or".
Turgenev's essay brought to my mind Yeats' similarly noted dualism in human nature (men of thought and men of action) in addition to his observation that neither the soul of man nor of nature can be expressed without conflict.
Final thoughts: https://youtu.be/LJB0nCv0qxk
Turgenev begins by noting that Hamlet and the first part of Don Quixote came into the world in the same year, and he goes on to establish the premise that the tendencies of all men can be designated into two categories typified by the two polar characters: Hamlet and Don Quixote.
He maintains that Don Quixote characterizes undeviating faith; belief in a truth eternal and beyond the comprehension of the individual human being, which he pursues unquestioningly to the point of complete self-abnegation. Don Quixote exists "outside himself; he lives for others, for his brethren, in the hope of neutralizing evil and outwitting those sinister figures--sorcerers and giants--whom he regards as the enemies of mankind." He is devoid of all vestiges of egotism. Hamlet, in contrast, typifies analysis, scrutiny, and egotism as well as consequential disbelief. He is a skeptic to the point of paralysis.
Turgenev contrasts the two characters, the relation of the mob (or the human race) to each character, and also the two authors (Shakespeare and Cervantes). The comparisons are insightful and worth reading. I especially valued his treatment of Don Quixote, so often dismissed as being ridiculous.
We laugh at Don Quixote. But, my dear sirs, who of us can positively affirm with certainty that he will always and under all circumstances know the difference between a brass wash basin and an enchanted golden helmet? Let everyone conscientiously examine his convictions, past and present, and let him then determine how far he may be certain of knowing one from the other.
Turgenev is careful to not overreach, and readily acknowledges that "these are simply extreme expressions of the two opposite tendencies. Life steers toward one or the other of these extremes, but never reaches either of them." He also astutely acknowledges that while this is a form of dualism, "life consists in reality of perpetual reconciliation of two perpetually contending forces, two unremitting opposites." It is not at all a strict "either/or".
Turgenev's essay brought to my mind Yeats' similarly noted dualism in human nature (men of thought and men of action) in addition to his observation that neither the soul of man nor of nature can be expressed without conflict.
Final thoughts: https://youtu.be/LJB0nCv0qxk
August 25, 2018
*Read for class.
Well, this was interesting. Sometimes even more interesting than some of his fictional works. Glad I've read this.
Well, this was interesting. Sometimes even more interesting than some of his fictional works. Glad I've read this.
Read
March 6, 2022"The special power of great artistic works lies in the fact that the interpretations of them, like those of life in general, can be endlessly varied, even diametrically opposed - and at the same time equally correct."
Ivan Turgenev opens his essay on Hamlet and Don Quixote by stating that they were published in the same year which completely threw me and I had to put the book down for a second to let this sink in. Shakespeare feels medieval - Cervantes feels more modern. Alas, in fact, they even died on the very same day!
This is an essay about how, in general, people and their ideals fit into two archetypes: the Hamlet and the Don Quixote. The "Hamlet" ideal is found within oneself (individual ego). The Hamlet lives for themselves and makes decisions based on their own needs and ego. They do not love - they cannot love. I can definitely see Turgenev basing Bazarov from Fathers and Sons and Rudin from his novel of the same name on Hamlet. The "Don Quixote" ideal is found outside themselves - in something we acknowledge to be higher than ourselves. The Don Quixote is someone who lives for truth (which demands sacrifice) and justice. They make decisions based on the good of the whole instead of the good of the one. They love purely and without expecting anything in return.
Turgenev explores each character archetype with incredible skill and insight. He argues that you cannot have one archetype without the other. Both have their own role in the world and to each other: "Without those comic Don Quixotes, without those eccentric explorers, humanity would not move forward - and Hamlets would have nothing to contemplate - Don Quixotes explore - Hamlet's exploit."
It's a great essay of around 30 pages that explores humanity, personality archetypes, Shakespeare and Cervantes skill and the characters of Don Quixote and Hamlet themselves. I don't think I will ever read either text the same again.
Ivan Turgenev opens his essay on Hamlet and Don Quixote by stating that they were published in the same year which completely threw me and I had to put the book down for a second to let this sink in. Shakespeare feels medieval - Cervantes feels more modern. Alas, in fact, they even died on the very same day!
This is an essay about how, in general, people and their ideals fit into two archetypes: the Hamlet and the Don Quixote. The "Hamlet" ideal is found within oneself (individual ego). The Hamlet lives for themselves and makes decisions based on their own needs and ego. They do not love - they cannot love. I can definitely see Turgenev basing Bazarov from Fathers and Sons and Rudin from his novel of the same name on Hamlet. The "Don Quixote" ideal is found outside themselves - in something we acknowledge to be higher than ourselves. The Don Quixote is someone who lives for truth (which demands sacrifice) and justice. They make decisions based on the good of the whole instead of the good of the one. They love purely and without expecting anything in return.
Turgenev explores each character archetype with incredible skill and insight. He argues that you cannot have one archetype without the other. Both have their own role in the world and to each other: "Without those comic Don Quixotes, without those eccentric explorers, humanity would not move forward - and Hamlets would have nothing to contemplate - Don Quixotes explore - Hamlet's exploit."
It's a great essay of around 30 pages that explores humanity, personality archetypes, Shakespeare and Cervantes skill and the characters of Don Quixote and Hamlet themselves. I don't think I will ever read either text the same again.
October 3, 2021
Ένα εκπληκτικό βιβλίο, πραματεία για βασικούς ανθρώπινους χαρακτήρες που δεν υπάρχουν μόνο στη λογοτεχνία αλλά και στην καθημερινότητά μας.
August 29, 2022
Хорошее эссе. до сих пор понравилось больше, чем его художественная проза.
July 9, 2024
A brief essay depicting self-sacrifice as the supreme ideal over self-preoccupation.
June 27, 2021
Gets to the heart of what it means to live a good life with surprising clarity. It's as if Turgenev reached out with a handshake of truth from the ether. In a year that has already exposed me to previously unknown greats, this is the ~best thing I've read and I keep sharing it with folks via text so we can parse through its meanings together.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews