What do you think?
Rate this book
Tolstoy on Shakespeare: A Critical Essay on Shakespeare
Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910) commonly referred to in English as Leo Tolstoy, was a Russian writer - novelist, essayist, dramatist and philosopher - as well as pacifist Christian anarchist and educational reformer. He was the most influential member of the aristocratic Tolstoy family. His first publications were three autobiographical novels, Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth (1852-1856). They tell of a rich landowner's son and his slow realization of the differences between him and his peasants. As a fiction writer Tolstoy is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all novelists, particularly noted for his masterpieces War and Peace (1869) and Anna Karenina (1877). In their scope, breadth and realistic depiction of 19th-century Russian life, the two books stand at the peak of realist fiction. As a moral philosopher Tolstoy was notable for his ideas on nonviolent resistance through works such as The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). During his life, Tolstoy came to the conclusion that William Shakespeare is a bad dramatist and not a true artist at all. Tolstoy explained his views in a critical essay on Shakespeare written in 1903.
110 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1906
50 people are currently reading
261 people want to read
About the author
Leo Tolstoy
7,958 books28.5k followersLev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; most appropriately used Liev Tolstoy; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider Tolstoy to have been one of the world's greatest novelists. Tolstoy is equally known for his complicated and paradoxical persona and for his extreme moralistic and ascetic views, which he adopted after a moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870s, after which he also became noted as a moral thinker and social reformer.
His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
January 17, 2016
I. Leo Tolstoy
Tolstoy believes that good art should shape morality of the public. And by moral, I mean it is the Christian way. So his essay may be a little disappointing because of that, but it is still a good essay.
He does have a point. Whether or not he thought about it when he wrote the plays, Shakespeare has had a huge influence on Western society, on the way it views itself. The characters explored here offer an interesting insight into madness, love, lust and so on, but no comfort or a possible resolution other than relying on/submitting to Fate. Also Shakespeare fictionalized some historical characters to the point that now, when we think of some of the kings or queens mentioned in the play, popular culture remembers the way the play describes them vs actual historical fact.
There are other complaints Tolstoy presents. The supernatural aspect work well in ancient Greek plays because of the circumstances in which they were written and the ancients blamed unusual behavior on the Gods which they feared and respected. But Shakespeare is closer to us in time than the ancient Greeks so we do feel the need to judge him by a different standards. Shakespeare does tend sacrifice believability of a story if it means exploring a theme is a memorable way. You really need to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy Shakespeare. Tolstoy does put emphasis on the idea of being natural as a character, which is not Shakespeare's forte.
II. Ernest Crosby
I really liked his essay. I will probably come back to it in the future because it deals with something that bothers me about Shakespeare's work: it was made for nobility. We seem to forget that and it's understandable. In this age of technology and way better living conditions for us common folk, we have time to wonder about the themes Shakespeare explores in a way we would not had we been born during English Renaissance. Also our problems nowadays have more in common with those of Shakespeare's nobility. Sometimes our beloved Bard can be really unfeeling towards his lower class brethren. I won't say any more because you really need to read it. End of story.
III. George Bernard Shaw
His letter was interesting, but brought nothing new to the table.
All have perfectly good reasons for not liking Shakespeare, but I still think that the author may have had a more complicated relationship with his art.
Tolstoy believes that good art should shape morality of the public. And by moral, I mean it is the Christian way. So his essay may be a little disappointing because of that, but it is still a good essay.
He does have a point. Whether or not he thought about it when he wrote the plays, Shakespeare has had a huge influence on Western society, on the way it views itself. The characters explored here offer an interesting insight into madness, love, lust and so on, but no comfort or a possible resolution other than relying on/submitting to Fate. Also Shakespeare fictionalized some historical characters to the point that now, when we think of some of the kings or queens mentioned in the play, popular culture remembers the way the play describes them vs actual historical fact.
There are other complaints Tolstoy presents. The supernatural aspect work well in ancient Greek plays because of the circumstances in which they were written and the ancients blamed unusual behavior on the Gods which they feared and respected. But Shakespeare is closer to us in time than the ancient Greeks so we do feel the need to judge him by a different standards. Shakespeare does tend sacrifice believability of a story if it means exploring a theme is a memorable way. You really need to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy Shakespeare. Tolstoy does put emphasis on the idea of being natural as a character, which is not Shakespeare's forte.
II. Ernest Crosby
I really liked his essay. I will probably come back to it in the future because it deals with something that bothers me about Shakespeare's work: it was made for nobility. We seem to forget that and it's understandable. In this age of technology and way better living conditions for us common folk, we have time to wonder about the themes Shakespeare explores in a way we would not had we been born during English Renaissance. Also our problems nowadays have more in common with those of Shakespeare's nobility. Sometimes our beloved Bard can be really unfeeling towards his lower class brethren. I won't say any more because you really need to read it. End of story.
III. George Bernard Shaw
His letter was interesting, but brought nothing new to the table.
All have perfectly good reasons for not liking Shakespeare, but I still think that the author may have had a more complicated relationship with his art.
September 20, 2019
Μια διαφορετική προσέγγιση του Shakespeare από τον Tolstoy όπου σίγουρα θα θορυβήσει τους αναγνώστες του πρώτου.
Η έκδοση περιλαμβάνει και το δοκίμιο "Ο Ληρ, ο Τολστόι και ο Τρελός" του George Orwell που αποτελεί έναν σχολιασμό του συγκεκριμένου κειμένου.
Η έκδοση περιλαμβάνει και το δοκίμιο "Ο Ληρ, ο Τολστόι και ο Τρελός" του George Orwell που αποτελεί έναν σχολιασμό του συγκεκριμένου κειμένου.
June 1, 2017
It was eye opening reading this. I tend to love books that take you in a completely different angle to things that you thought were previously irrefutable. I didn’t know that anyone had challenged the legend of Shakespeare before reading this. The book is essentially Tolstoy’s diatribe against what he believes to be the cultish sycophancy of Shakespeare that has been enjoyed and like a rolling ball of snow has been built up over the years by most of the English speaking and I dare say non-English speaking world. Who hasn’t heard of and respects Shakespeare? I am reading his complete works and in lots of places his brilliance shines out immaculately. His angles of insight on the foibles of certain characters are akin to a skilled boxer picking holes in his opponent. There is also lots and lots that i simply don’t understand and the challenge after having read this short book by Tolstoy is that Tolstoy also makes a lot of sense in what he says against Shakespeare. Hugely recommended if you are a fan of Shakespeare or not. Here are some of my best bits:
• “This is the reason why, not to speak of the wonderfully distinct, lifelike, and beautiful characters of Achilles, Hector, Priam, Odysseus, and the eternally touching scenes of Hector's leave-taking, of Priam's embassy, of Odysseus's return, and others—the whole of the "Iliad" and still more the "Odyssey" are so humanly near to us that we feel as if we ourselves had lived, and are living, among its gods and heroes. Not so with Shakespeare. From his first words, exaggeration is seen: the exaggeration of events, the exaggeration of emotion, and the exaggeration of effects. One sees at once that he does not believe in what he says, that it is of no necessity to him, that he invents the events he describes, and is indifferent to his characters—that he has conceived them only for the stage and therefore makes them do and say only what may strike his public; and therefore we do not believe either in the events, or in the actions, or in the sufferings of the characters”
• “And happiness and success, according to Shakespeare, are attained by individuals possessing this active character, not at all owing to the superiority of their nature; on the contrary, notwithstanding their inferior gifts, the capacity of activity itself always gives them the advantage over inactivity, quite independent of any consideration whether the inactivity of some persons flows from excellent impulses and the activity of others from bad ones.” – Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism?
• “Thereupon, because of the clever development of scenes which constituted Shakespeare's peculiarity, they chose Shakespeare's dramas in preference to all other English dramas, excluding those which were not in the least inferior, but were even superior, to Shakespeare. At the head of the group stood Goethe, who was then the dictator of public opinion in aesthetic questions. He it was who, partly owing to a desire to destroy the fascination of the false French art, partly owing to his desire to give a greater scope to his own dramatic writing, but chiefly through the agreement of his view of life with Shakespeare's, declared Shakespeare a great poet.”
• “So that the first cause of Shakespeare's fame was that the Germans wished to oppose to the cold French drama, of which they had grown weary, and which, no doubt, was tedious enough, a livelier and freer one. The second cause was that the young German writers required a model for writing their own dramas. The third and principal cause was the activity of the learned and zealous esthetic German critics without esthetic feeling, who invented the theory of objective art, deliberately rejecting the religious essence of the drama.”
• “This is the reason why, not to speak of the wonderfully distinct, lifelike, and beautiful characters of Achilles, Hector, Priam, Odysseus, and the eternally touching scenes of Hector's leave-taking, of Priam's embassy, of Odysseus's return, and others—the whole of the "Iliad" and still more the "Odyssey" are so humanly near to us that we feel as if we ourselves had lived, and are living, among its gods and heroes. Not so with Shakespeare. From his first words, exaggeration is seen: the exaggeration of events, the exaggeration of emotion, and the exaggeration of effects. One sees at once that he does not believe in what he says, that it is of no necessity to him, that he invents the events he describes, and is indifferent to his characters—that he has conceived them only for the stage and therefore makes them do and say only what may strike his public; and therefore we do not believe either in the events, or in the actions, or in the sufferings of the characters”
• “And happiness and success, according to Shakespeare, are attained by individuals possessing this active character, not at all owing to the superiority of their nature; on the contrary, notwithstanding their inferior gifts, the capacity of activity itself always gives them the advantage over inactivity, quite independent of any consideration whether the inactivity of some persons flows from excellent impulses and the activity of others from bad ones.” – Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism?
• “Thereupon, because of the clever development of scenes which constituted Shakespeare's peculiarity, they chose Shakespeare's dramas in preference to all other English dramas, excluding those which were not in the least inferior, but were even superior, to Shakespeare. At the head of the group stood Goethe, who was then the dictator of public opinion in aesthetic questions. He it was who, partly owing to a desire to destroy the fascination of the false French art, partly owing to his desire to give a greater scope to his own dramatic writing, but chiefly through the agreement of his view of life with Shakespeare's, declared Shakespeare a great poet.”
• “So that the first cause of Shakespeare's fame was that the Germans wished to oppose to the cold French drama, of which they had grown weary, and which, no doubt, was tedious enough, a livelier and freer one. The second cause was that the young German writers required a model for writing their own dramas. The third and principal cause was the activity of the learned and zealous esthetic German critics without esthetic feeling, who invented the theory of objective art, deliberately rejecting the religious essence of the drama.”
February 4, 2017
Generations of young people have had to study and read Shakespeare through the prism of their English teachers. I believe they are taught appreciation rather than encouraged to think for themselves. I certainly felt outcast as I never enjoyed Shakespeare-even when I got my A in English Literature. If there are any lost and befuddled young people out there, demoralised by Shakespeare then Take Heart! I wouldn't advise actually using Tolstoy's line of forceful argument - it's most likely your teachers won't like it - but it would certainly make you feel less of an outsider. We might not be able individually to take on the Shakespearean industry single handed but Tolstoy can cast a light on the issues for sure. Don't give up on English Literature because of Shakespeare!
October 7, 2025
Did y'all know that Tolstoy comes from a family of Lithuanians who fled the Duchy of Lithuania that was, at that time, in conflict with the State of the Teutonic Order?
Anywaaay..... regarding this essay.... I dunno, either he read some badly translated Shakespeare or there was something about the grapes being particularly sour that day?
Later edit: clearly it was the grapes, as I've discovered he could speak English, German and French. Or at least read.
Anywaaay..... regarding this essay.... I dunno, either he read some badly translated Shakespeare or there was something about the grapes being particularly sour that day?
Later edit: clearly it was the grapes, as I've discovered he could speak English, German and French. Or at least read.
January 20, 2012
As an eBook, it was already a frustrating experience getting to the right page each time something happened to the screen, but what made reading what amounts to a thesis-length opinion-piece even more difficult were the rambling thoughts of Tolstoy himself. One of his last literary efforts undoes so much of what is considered literature. Even though it was written in the 20th century, so much his interpretation relies on outdated 19th century ideals of autobiography and the purpose of art. Taking repeated stabs at King Lear, claiming that the writing isn't so great, nobody ever spoke like his characters speak, the unnaturalness of depicted events, and so on. To spend so much time nitpicking, and then claim that every other play suffers from exactly the same faults says a lot more about the fussy Count than anything for which Shakespeare could possibly be accountable. Then to surmise that the world fascination with the supposed fraudulent artist rests upon the shoulders of the esthetic "dictator" Goethe makes me wonder how close to the brink of WWI translations of this essay starting appearing in Europe. HIs essay is followed by two other screeds on Shakespeare, one by Ernest Crosby (which inspired Tolstoy to get on his high-horse) about the absence of positive sentiment towards the working class, without showing any understanding of the role the Dromio twins play in Comedy of Errors; the other a pompous letter from George Bernard Shaw in support of Tolstoy's view.
October 22, 2012
Best argument ever written explaining the Shakespeare phenomena.
December 7, 2025
3.5
I’m not saying I agree but as a piece of refutation it is good.
Tolstoy did not like Shakespeare though. WOW. Tell us how you really feel Leo.
I’m not saying I agree but as a piece of refutation it is good.
Tolstoy did not like Shakespeare though. WOW. Tell us how you really feel Leo.
January 28, 2013
Yikes.
December 5, 2013
This argument totally makes sense to me!!! It was always hard for me to swallow the complexity of Shakespeare's characters, which ,what I suppose now, was nothing but the confusion between what the mind really sees as something ordinary and the propaganda surrounding it, bumping lies about its greatness that don't really exist.
February 3, 2013
Great read for anyone interested in Shakespeare or literary criticism in general. George Orwell's subsequent essay and reponse was more memorable though, and such a short piece as well.
June 3, 2024
5 stars for making me double over laughing. Tolstoy is not your typical “haha” writer (nor are any of the 19th Century Russian classics to be honest), but this essay was the exception. His outraged annihilation of Othello and Hamlet, in particular, were easily this book’s apex. He also provides a strong critique of how most of us love Shakespeare just because everyone tells us to love him - and I think even Emma Smith would partially agree with that.
I agree with him that Shakespeare’s language can be pompous, incontinent and entirely unrealistic, and that often in his inspiration material the story makes far more sense than in the final play. By contrast, Tolstoy’s assertion that critical adulation of Shakespeare is part of a wider cultural decline where drama has strayed away from God has aged less well and makes him today sound like a crusty old fuddy-duddy. Bless him.
But honestly, for sheer humour and free-thinking audacity - forget War and Peace, this is the best thing Tolstoy ever wrote.
I agree with him that Shakespeare’s language can be pompous, incontinent and entirely unrealistic, and that often in his inspiration material the story makes far more sense than in the final play. By contrast, Tolstoy’s assertion that critical adulation of Shakespeare is part of a wider cultural decline where drama has strayed away from God has aged less well and makes him today sound like a crusty old fuddy-duddy. Bless him.
But honestly, for sheer humour and free-thinking audacity - forget War and Peace, this is the best thing Tolstoy ever wrote.
March 30, 2019
Basically, Tolstoy hates Shakespeare and, per Occam's razor, believes that the character inconsistencies and lower class caricatures make for bad--rather than complex--writing. However, Tolstoy's argument that he won't provide examples (because too many readers worship Shakespeare and won't be able to see the examples for what they are: bad writing) undermines his argument: Shakespeare is a bad writer because of his bad writing that I won't be going over. Hmm... Yes, there are problems in Shakespeare's writing, but automatically assuming that every critic through history is a brainwashed fool who can't think for himself and Tolstoy alone sees the truth is a bit pompous. Consequently, the first analysis of Lear to its original text was thorough, but it seems like Tolstoy got really angry and started ranting, rather than finding more proof for his point.
March 4, 2021
Πετσόκομμα... όπως ακριβώς τα παϊδάκια σήμερα :p
https://pepperlines.blogspot.com/2021...
https://pepperlines.blogspot.com/2021...
April 15, 2016
This book (I read the Kindle version) contains Tolstoy's famous essay on Shakespeare, the article by Ernest Crosby which inspired it, and a letter by George Bernard Shaw commenting on Shakespeare and Tolstoy. (I also read a short reply to Tolstoy's article by George Orwell, which is not in this book.) Apparently, Browning (I assume Robert, the poet) listed a group of famous writers whom he considered as politically liberal, and included Shakespeare; Crosby's article replied to this, giving quotations (mostly out of context) to show what no one should ever have doubted anyway, that Shakespeare was politically conservative and supported the monarchy and aristocracy of his time. Count Leo Tolstoy decided to write an introduction to this -- much longer than Crosby's article itself -- which he then published as this essay (1903). Shaw wrote the letter which is included here in support of Tolstoy's position, before having read the essay. All three are very anti-Shakespeare.
Tolstoy does not actually talk about the political aspects of Shakespeare; instead, he gives two other, separate arguments; first, he tries to show that Shakespeare was a poor writer who simply ruined the stories he used as sources, and secondly, he attacks him for not writing Christian religious plays, which according to Tolstoy are the only worthwhile form of drama. It is obvious from the latter statement that this is the late Tolstoy who judged all literature from a religious and moral standpoint, and condemned most of it (including much of his own writing.) I won't bother with that, beyond noting that Shakespeare is in fact a very Christian writer (see any of Paul Siegel's books, for example) and that morality (or politics for that matter) is not the only or even primary consideration in aesthetic criticism in any case. Tolstoy says, however, that he has always considered Shakespeare a bad writer, and it is the first argument that became famous and that I will review.
The essay reminds me of many reviews of serious, particularly non-realist literature I have read on Amazon.com by people who don't understand a book and therefore think the five star reviews must be by pretentious people who are putting them on. In the same way, this essay basically assumes that because Tolstoy does not see what is great about Shakespeare, there must be a conspiracy (in this case a conspiracy of German critics initiated by Goethe) to convince people that he was a great author, which people then follow by "suggestion" because they are incapable of making their own judgements (otherwise they would of course agree with Tolstoy.)
It's actually easy, of course, to see why Tolstoy does not appreciate Shakespeare. Tolstoy was among the greatest writers of realistic fiction, and it is understandable that a great artist (as he was) should consider his own way of writing to be the only true kind of art. (An ordinary person can enjoy say the music of both Brahms and Wagner, but they can't possibly accept each other's music as worthwhile art.) Throughout the essay, Tolstoy simply makes fun of Shakespeare's King Lear because the plot is not realistic, the language is not the way people would naturally speak, etc. and he continually sets up as the ideal that a play must create an "illusion of reality", that it is a fault if we perceive the author's invention rather than believing the action is really happening the way it would in real life. However, despite what some critics write about his "truth to nature", Shakespeare is not a realist writer in that sense; his plays are all conventional. (Not in the sense of being unoriginal, but in the literal sense of based on conventions.) His drama is a drama of ideas, not simple mimesis, and presents ideas and character through a kind of symbolic representation that requires the spectator or reader to interpret through those conventions. This is what Tolstoy does not understand or appreciate.
As for Shaw, I think he agrees with Tolstoy (if he does agree, given that he hadn't actually read Tolstoy's essay when he wrote agreeing with it) out of contrarianism (which is his leading character) and in reaction to the Shakespeare-olatry of many of the critics of the time.
Tolstoy does not actually talk about the political aspects of Shakespeare; instead, he gives two other, separate arguments; first, he tries to show that Shakespeare was a poor writer who simply ruined the stories he used as sources, and secondly, he attacks him for not writing Christian religious plays, which according to Tolstoy are the only worthwhile form of drama. It is obvious from the latter statement that this is the late Tolstoy who judged all literature from a religious and moral standpoint, and condemned most of it (including much of his own writing.) I won't bother with that, beyond noting that Shakespeare is in fact a very Christian writer (see any of Paul Siegel's books, for example) and that morality (or politics for that matter) is not the only or even primary consideration in aesthetic criticism in any case. Tolstoy says, however, that he has always considered Shakespeare a bad writer, and it is the first argument that became famous and that I will review.
The essay reminds me of many reviews of serious, particularly non-realist literature I have read on Amazon.com by people who don't understand a book and therefore think the five star reviews must be by pretentious people who are putting them on. In the same way, this essay basically assumes that because Tolstoy does not see what is great about Shakespeare, there must be a conspiracy (in this case a conspiracy of German critics initiated by Goethe) to convince people that he was a great author, which people then follow by "suggestion" because they are incapable of making their own judgements (otherwise they would of course agree with Tolstoy.)
It's actually easy, of course, to see why Tolstoy does not appreciate Shakespeare. Tolstoy was among the greatest writers of realistic fiction, and it is understandable that a great artist (as he was) should consider his own way of writing to be the only true kind of art. (An ordinary person can enjoy say the music of both Brahms and Wagner, but they can't possibly accept each other's music as worthwhile art.) Throughout the essay, Tolstoy simply makes fun of Shakespeare's King Lear because the plot is not realistic, the language is not the way people would naturally speak, etc. and he continually sets up as the ideal that a play must create an "illusion of reality", that it is a fault if we perceive the author's invention rather than believing the action is really happening the way it would in real life. However, despite what some critics write about his "truth to nature", Shakespeare is not a realist writer in that sense; his plays are all conventional. (Not in the sense of being unoriginal, but in the literal sense of based on conventions.) His drama is a drama of ideas, not simple mimesis, and presents ideas and character through a kind of symbolic representation that requires the spectator or reader to interpret through those conventions. This is what Tolstoy does not understand or appreciate.
As for Shaw, I think he agrees with Tolstoy (if he does agree, given that he hadn't actually read Tolstoy's essay when he wrote agreeing with it) out of contrarianism (which is his leading character) and in reaction to the Shakespeare-olatry of many of the critics of the time.
November 11, 2018
More important than Shakespeare's identity is his work. Tolstoy points out that Shakespeare lacks the ability to give his characters each a distinct voice, nor a voice appropriate to who they are supposed to be. Every Shakespearean character speaks in the same pretentious, Shakespearean voice. Moreover Shakespeare oozes contempt for the common person, fawning for whoever occupies a position of authority. Shakespeare’s plays are tedious, his politics vile. Shakespeare is good at one thing: playing with words. Nor was Shakespeare widely acclaimed until some 200 years later when Goethe began the fandom—there being no German playwrights of note, and disliking the French. /Tolstoy on Shakespeare/ online at:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27726
J. Thomas Looney in /Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford/, 1920, identifies many characteristics the author of Shakespeare's works must have had. Looney tells us that only Edward deVere, earl of Oxford, possessed all of them. A taste of it here:
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
and
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
Mark Twain came away from Stratford (where he learned that the man named Shakespeare didn’t leave a single book in his will) saying he didn’t know who wrote the plays, but it wasn’t the man from Stratford. More:
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
Games Magazine did a wonderful summary of Looney's book, maybe 1998. Doesn’t seem to exist anywhere anymore.
“I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium . . . . Shakespeare can not be recognized either as a great genius, or even as an average author. . . . far from being the height of perfection, [King Lear] is a very bad, carelessly composed production, . . . can not evoke among us anything but aversion and weariness. . . . All his characters speak, not their own, but always one and the same Shakespearian, pretentious, and unnatural language . . . .”
― Leo Tolstoy, “Tolstoy on Shakespeare: A Critical Essay on Shakespeare”
Permalink:
https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/Tom...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/Tom...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27726
J. Thomas Looney in /Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford/, 1920, identifies many characteristics the author of Shakespeare's works must have had. Looney tells us that only Edward deVere, earl of Oxford, possessed all of them. A taste of it here:
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
and
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
Mark Twain came away from Stratford (where he learned that the man named Shakespeare didn’t leave a single book in his will) saying he didn’t know who wrote the plays, but it wasn’t the man from Stratford. More:
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.o...
Games Magazine did a wonderful summary of Looney's book, maybe 1998. Doesn’t seem to exist anywhere anymore.
“I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium . . . . Shakespeare can not be recognized either as a great genius, or even as an average author. . . . far from being the height of perfection, [King Lear] is a very bad, carelessly composed production, . . . can not evoke among us anything but aversion and weariness. . . . All his characters speak, not their own, but always one and the same Shakespearian, pretentious, and unnatural language . . . .”
― Leo Tolstoy, “Tolstoy on Shakespeare: A Critical Essay on Shakespeare”
Permalink:
https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/Tom...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/Tom...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
July 28, 2015
I went to the book because I had found the word play in Love's Labour's Lost tedious and annoying and hoped that Tolstoy could articulate what I did not like. He does very well, pointing out how often Shakespeare digresses from the plot and the expression of feeling to frolic in word play. There are some other points in the book with which I agree. His attack on the many improbabilities of Lear, his assessment of Homer's virtues, his attack on the exalting of Shakespeare as the greatest of all artists. But I found his arguments of a lack of artistry in Shakespeare quite unconvincing. It seemed to me that he was using Shakespeare as a straw dog to beat for the fact that Western European art, at least after the Middle Ages, did not come up to his standard of religious sincerity and depth. I found it quite odd to say that Shakespeare lacked a religious sense. Whenever I see a performance of one of his plays (with some exceptions, including LLL) I am struck by the love he shows for mercy and forgiveness, surely two key Christian values.
George Orwell wrote two essays on this essay of Tolstoy's and I can't help ending with a quote from one of them: " It appears, therefore, that though Tolstoy can explain away nearly everything about Shakespeare, there is one thing that he cannot explain away, and that is his popularity."
George Orwell wrote two essays on this essay of Tolstoy's and I can't help ending with a quote from one of them: " It appears, therefore, that though Tolstoy can explain away nearly everything about Shakespeare, there is one thing that he cannot explain away, and that is his popularity."
April 23, 2014
Completely new oplnion
Although I have read the complete works of Shakespeare, I have never thought of them critically. I have been impressed by the word flows and I have enjoyed the straightforward plots. Reading Tolstoy's criticism has opened a new channel of thought about these plays. He makes very strong arguments for his views even if one does not agree with all of his basic premises. In total, this is an excellent essay.
Although I have read the complete works of Shakespeare, I have never thought of them critically. I have been impressed by the word flows and I have enjoyed the straightforward plots. Reading Tolstoy's criticism has opened a new channel of thought about these plays. He makes very strong arguments for his views even if one does not agree with all of his basic premises. In total, this is an excellent essay.
July 1, 2015
Great essay, but I can't say that I agree with the majority of what he says. I still regard Shakespeare as one of the best poets in all of humanity
January 30, 2020
Com certeza, um ensaio muito "polêmico", especialmente por fazer parte da fase final, "pregadora" e "panfletária" do grande leão russo.
Nada que Tolstoy escreveu, nem seus mais panfletários textos sobre religião, pode ser simplesmente ignorado, porque o homem era um GRANDE escritor, o melhor de todos, na minha humilde opinião. Podemos, claro, discutir a postura moralista que ele assumira no ocaso de sua vida, dizendo que toda obra literária deveria ter um cunho moral para ser válida como arte (e condenando, no processo, sua própria obra anterior), mas duvidar de sua capacidade de escrever e de colocar seu ponto de vista de forma clara como água, é absolutamente impossível.
Antes de parecer que eu dei cinco estrelas para esse ensaio simplesmente porque foi escrito por Tolstoy, na verdade eu realmente gostei do texto, achei uma postura bem atrevida, para um intelectual da envergadura de Leão Tolstoy escrever um texto abertamente condenando o famosíssimo William Shakespeare.
Em um período anterior, claro, Tolstoy nunca teria escrito um tal opúsculo. Fê-lo em uma época em que já se sentia livre para condenar a arte ocidental em geral como anti-cristã e, portanto, indigna de ser lida ou apreciada.
Seus argumentos contra Shakespeare se centram no fato de que os textos do bardo inglês carecem de qualquer profundidade ou ponto de contato com a realidade, utilizando uma linguagem inteiramente artificial, sem que os diferentes personagens apresentem um linguajar apropriado, e, também, no desprezo absoluto com que Shakespeare utiliza os personagens mais humildes, das classes inferiores da sociedade.
Obviamente, Tolstoy peca ao utilizar, no julgamento da obra de Shakespeare, os critérios em que se avaliaria a literatura no século XIX (quatro séculos depois). Usa como exemplo da mendicidade literária de Shakespeare o texto do "Rei Lear", uma das obras shakespereanas mais famosas.
Como dito acima, pode-se questionar os critérios adotados por Tolstoy em sua crítica. E, com certeza, argumentar que ele simplesmente não tinha a capacidade, naquele estágio da vida, para apreciar ou entender um escritor tão distante, no tempo e no estilo, de si próprio.
As cinco estrelas se referem ao estilo de Tolstoy, que permanecia perfeito mesmo após sua ruptura com a própria obra e com a "arte européia" em geral, e ao fato de construir seu argumento de maneira sólida, além de ser muito interessante ler uma opinião tão "contra a corrente" acerca de um escritor tão aclamado universalmente, e vinda de outro escritor tão grande quanto ou até maior.
Nada que Tolstoy escreveu, nem seus mais panfletários textos sobre religião, pode ser simplesmente ignorado, porque o homem era um GRANDE escritor, o melhor de todos, na minha humilde opinião. Podemos, claro, discutir a postura moralista que ele assumira no ocaso de sua vida, dizendo que toda obra literária deveria ter um cunho moral para ser válida como arte (e condenando, no processo, sua própria obra anterior), mas duvidar de sua capacidade de escrever e de colocar seu ponto de vista de forma clara como água, é absolutamente impossível.
Antes de parecer que eu dei cinco estrelas para esse ensaio simplesmente porque foi escrito por Tolstoy, na verdade eu realmente gostei do texto, achei uma postura bem atrevida, para um intelectual da envergadura de Leão Tolstoy escrever um texto abertamente condenando o famosíssimo William Shakespeare.
Em um período anterior, claro, Tolstoy nunca teria escrito um tal opúsculo. Fê-lo em uma época em que já se sentia livre para condenar a arte ocidental em geral como anti-cristã e, portanto, indigna de ser lida ou apreciada.
Seus argumentos contra Shakespeare se centram no fato de que os textos do bardo inglês carecem de qualquer profundidade ou ponto de contato com a realidade, utilizando uma linguagem inteiramente artificial, sem que os diferentes personagens apresentem um linguajar apropriado, e, também, no desprezo absoluto com que Shakespeare utiliza os personagens mais humildes, das classes inferiores da sociedade.
Obviamente, Tolstoy peca ao utilizar, no julgamento da obra de Shakespeare, os critérios em que se avaliaria a literatura no século XIX (quatro séculos depois). Usa como exemplo da mendicidade literária de Shakespeare o texto do "Rei Lear", uma das obras shakespereanas mais famosas.
Como dito acima, pode-se questionar os critérios adotados por Tolstoy em sua crítica. E, com certeza, argumentar que ele simplesmente não tinha a capacidade, naquele estágio da vida, para apreciar ou entender um escritor tão distante, no tempo e no estilo, de si próprio.
As cinco estrelas se referem ao estilo de Tolstoy, que permanecia perfeito mesmo após sua ruptura com a própria obra e com a "arte européia" em geral, e ao fato de construir seu argumento de maneira sólida, além de ser muito interessante ler uma opinião tão "contra a corrente" acerca de um escritor tão aclamado universalmente, e vinda de outro escritor tão grande quanto ou até maior.
August 19, 2022
Esse ensaio/resenha foi escrito perto do fim da vida de Tolstói, durante aquele momento que ele odiava tudo. A vítima dessa vez foi Shakespeare! Só posso dizer como eu dei risada de como ele odiava as obras do autor inglês e simplesmente decidiu destilar todo o veneno nesse texto. A ironia quando citava o autor, a incredulidade com Lear nunca ter reconhecido Kent(toda vez que ele menciona Kent, ele fala inconformado que o cara ainda não havia sido reconhecido). Eu não concordo com as coisas que ele disse no geral, mas a ousadia dele é de aplaudir; aliás, suas críticas não beiram o absurdo, são bem coesas. Além disso, ele fala que leu e releu as obras de Shakespeare e em línguas diferentes para procurar essa tal genialidade que falavam e tudo que ele sentiu foi aversão, incredulidade e tédio. Aaaaaa
Reclamou da falta de naturalidade das tramas, da falta de profundidade das personagens, da falta de originalidade enfim, da falta de tudo.
Por fim, Tolstói chamou Shakespeare de imoral e “não cristão”, tirou sarro dos admiradores do inglês e também teve um ensaio de Ernest Crosby dizendo que Shakespeare era elitista e, em termos simples, que odiava pobres; para fechar, uma carta de G. B. Shaw falando que Shakespeare era pretensioso e é isso.
Reclamou da falta de naturalidade das tramas, da falta de profundidade das personagens, da falta de originalidade enfim, da falta de tudo.
Por fim, Tolstói chamou Shakespeare de imoral e “não cristão”, tirou sarro dos admiradores do inglês e também teve um ensaio de Ernest Crosby dizendo que Shakespeare era elitista e, em termos simples, que odiava pobres; para fechar, uma carta de G. B. Shaw falando que Shakespeare era pretensioso e é isso.
May 3, 2023
Three writers gathering together in 1906 to hate on The Bard for a pamphlet. Tolstoy is the most universally critical, seeing little at all to celebrate in Shakespeare’s work. He focuses on King Lear but generally finds the storylines implausible, the character motivation unbelievable and the language pretentious. The original tales made more sense to him before they were pilfered and given a Stretfordian spin. Ultimately he bemoans the lack of religious morality.
Next a Tolstoy disciple called Ernest Crosby pops up trying to get him cancelled, saying he was a reactionary who lacked a class analysis and pushed an unfavourable portrayal of the peasantry. He doesn’t deny Shakespeare’s talents however.
George Bernard Shaw then contributes a letter where he affirms the point about the lack of social and political conscience. Otherwise, Shaw is a fan.
George Orwell assessed this booklet as yellowing and unread, only notable because the author wrote War and Peace and Anna Karenina. Who knows, with the modern trend for deconstructing the past, this could yet be dug up as a key educational text on why we should forego William Shakespeare.
Next a Tolstoy disciple called Ernest Crosby pops up trying to get him cancelled, saying he was a reactionary who lacked a class analysis and pushed an unfavourable portrayal of the peasantry. He doesn’t deny Shakespeare’s talents however.
George Bernard Shaw then contributes a letter where he affirms the point about the lack of social and political conscience. Otherwise, Shaw is a fan.
George Orwell assessed this booklet as yellowing and unread, only notable because the author wrote War and Peace and Anna Karenina. Who knows, with the modern trend for deconstructing the past, this could yet be dug up as a key educational text on why we should forego William Shakespeare.
March 7, 2020
So Tolstoy didn’t like Shakespeare. He sounds annoyed, at times, in this essay :)
Tolstoy gives 4 reasons (among others):
~ Shakespeare’s characters are false, they do not have the feel of believable characters.
~ Shakespeare’s plays are devoid of a moral center/foundation, they are amoral. Art, says Tolstoy, is meant to speak to our “religious consciousness,” but Shakespeare’s doesn’t.
~ Everyone fawns over & worships Shakespeare, when at best he was okay and good/competent in some areas. The power of suggestion, of the media, has propelled his reputation.
~ Exaggeration, exaggeration, exaggeration. This is all that Shakespeare is.
Tolstoy may have some good points, but I need to read more Shakespeare to see how much validity Tolstoy’s criticisms have.
Tolstoy gives 4 reasons (among others):
~ Shakespeare’s characters are false, they do not have the feel of believable characters.
~ Shakespeare’s plays are devoid of a moral center/foundation, they are amoral. Art, says Tolstoy, is meant to speak to our “religious consciousness,” but Shakespeare’s doesn’t.
~ Everyone fawns over & worships Shakespeare, when at best he was okay and good/competent in some areas. The power of suggestion, of the media, has propelled his reputation.
~ Exaggeration, exaggeration, exaggeration. This is all that Shakespeare is.
Tolstoy may have some good points, but I need to read more Shakespeare to see how much validity Tolstoy’s criticisms have.
September 2, 2022
I have resented the worship of Shakespeare since college. This is likely due to my having to slog through Harold Bloom's sacred tome of Bardolatry. The maxim among the ultraliterate regarding Shakespeare seems boil down to "When in doubt, assume Shakespeare was operating on a level of genius that you'll never fathom." I have to admire Tolstoy and G.B. Shaw for highlighting the fact that while Shakespeare is an unquestionable master of the written word, he is philosophically pedestrian and slavishly subscribes to a lazy breed of conservatism.
August 26, 2022
Eu não consegui achar a versão em português desse livro no goodreads. Em português é: “Shakespeare e o Drama”
Eu amei que esse livro é só uma treta unilateral entre Tolstoi e Shakespeare. Tolstoi basicamente escreveu para falar “eu acho shakespeare um bosta e esse é o porquê de eu achar isso”. Você consegue sentir a raiva do autor.
Eu adoro Shakespeare, mas Tolstoi realmente teve seus pontos
May 29, 2025
Δεν του το έχεις του Τολστόι να γράφει με απροκάλυπτη εμπάθεια (ασχέτως αν κατά τόπους βρίσκεις σημεία συμφωνίας). Το πιο συναρπαστικό ομως κομμάτι του μικρου βιβλίου είναι η ολιγοσελιδη απάντηση (ας πουμε) του Όργουελ, ο οποίος κάνει ογκρατεν τα επιχειρήματα του Ρώσου και αποθεώνει με ήπιο τρόπο τον Βάρδο. Ωραία φάση.
November 9, 2025
A hilarious yet insightful essay in which Leo Tolstoy mercilessly roasted Shakespeare and his works, with a particular focus on King Lear. I can't help but think this piece is a precursor to Spoony or The Angry Video Game Nerd. Is it a bit nitpicky? Maybe a little bit. But as someone who has felt something is a bit off with "the Dark Bard" and his "bardolatry", I appreciate this bit of pushback.
December 28, 2025
Ενδιαφέρον, κρυπτοθρησκοληπτικο rant ενός κακογερασμενου Τολστόι απέναντι στον μεγαλύτερο ποιητή όλων των εποχών.
Πολύ καλύτερο το ξεφωνητο που του ρίχνει (του Τολστόι) ο Όργουελ στο επίμετρο.
Δύο αστεράκια για την ιστορική πλευρά του πράγματος.
Πολύ καλύτερο το ξεφωνητο που του ρίχνει (του Τολστόι) ο Όργουελ στο επίμετρο.
Δύο αστεράκια για την ιστορική πλευρά του πράγματος.
Read
June 7, 2024Ovo je prvi moj prikaz na Goodreads-u i moj izbor je morao biti Tostojev esej o Šekspiru. Prikaz će biti na mom maternjem jeziku jer je jedini kojim savršeno vladam.
Problem koji se na ovom mestu javlja jeste što je nemoguće (kako je i Fraj jednom istakao) pričati o književnosti a ne biti u književnoj kritici i obrnuto. Pisati o Tolstojevom eseju nemoguće je bez izricanja stava o Šekspiru, potom i o samoj Tolstojevoj argumentaciji. SVEČANO OBZNANJUJEM: SAGLASAN SAM S CENTRALNIM SUDOM- ŠEKSPIR JE LOŠ PISAC, DAKLE NAJPRECENJENIJI NA SVETU (na internetu postoji naznaka da je i Borhes isto mislio). S druge strane, nisam saglasan s osnovnim Tolstojevim argumentom. To čini nemogućim oceniti ovu knjigu samo jednom lestvicom. Razgraničimo područja, za početak.
TOLSTOJEV ESEJ
Brodski je jednom izjavio da je Tolstoj devizu o umetnosti kao podražavanju stvarnosti shvatio "malo suviše ozbiljno". Tragajući za razlogom Tolstojevog animoziteta, ispostavlja se da je dotični spadao u onu grupu (opet Fraj) čitalaca koja u književnosti nema šta da traži jer ne prihvata njene konvencije npr. da likovi pozorišnog komada mogu govoriti u stihovima. Iz Tolstojeve mimetične vizure Šekspirov idiom ne odgovara jeziku upotrebljenom u stvarnosti (nema individue koja se njim služi) i, pored toga, on je jedini kojim se služe svi Bardovi likovi bez izuzetka (brišući razliku izmedju njihovih individualnosti). Ovakav stav svakako diskredituje Tolstoja kao kritičara ali ne i njegove dalje zaljučke, istinu ka kojoj mu je otvorio put upravo jedan (paradoksalno ali moguće) pogrešan metod. Šekspirovi likovi, nadalje, ne slede logiku psihologije i, konsekventno, unutrašnje karakterizacije već potrebe autora (apsolutno!).
Ilustraciju ovih zaključaka Tolstoj sprovodi u najdužem odeljku eseja, onom o Šekspirovom Kralju Liru. Tumačenje je ovde svedeno na prepričavanje i komentarisanje, ali ovo je blisko close reading-u i pokazuje da s Šekspirovim komadom nije moguće ni činiti više mada to ne zadovoljava bardolatore. Na ovom mestu, udaljujem se od teksta da bih ga ispravno sagledao, i približavam se drugom tekstu, onom Šekspirovom i svom ličnom susretu s njim. Kralj Lir bio je četvrta drama superkanonskog autora koju sam čitao. Utisak- sem naslovnog lika, ostali su strogo crno-beli, uključujući jednog od antiheroja koji se transformiše u pokajnika. Likovi koji to nisu ako podrazumevamo da ne smeju biti projekcije nečije stereotipima uslovljenje percepcije realnosti kao i književne stvarnosti.
Drugi zadatak koji je postavio ruski klasik pred sebe jeste objašnjenje fenomena kanonizacije estetski nezadovoljavaljućeg materijala. "Indoktrinacija" je termin kojim bih zamenio "masovnu hipnozu" i "epidemiju sugestije", ne iz razloga što mi se potonji ne čine validnim već baš zato što su jednaki s prvim koji pripada modernom dobu i potvrdjuje emipirijski, iskustveno njihovu autentičnost. Primere indoktrinacije Tolstoj pronalazi kako u istoriji (verovanje u veštice i masovna ubistva koja su proistekla iz njega) tako i u svojoj savremenosti, preseljenju i preživljavanju fanatizma stanovišta u mehanizme štampe (danas bismo rekli: medija)- Drajfusova afera- beznačajan slučaj koji je pokrenuo lavinu antisemitizma i zauzimanja neodstupnih pozicija pro i contra (mada se sam autor ne bi složio, možda je najbolji primer religija). Geneza Šekspirove slave jeste sticaj sledećih okolnosti: Gete kao vrhovni estetski arbitar koji kruniše čoveka iz Stratforda imenom genija kako bi oslobodio nemačku književnost uticaja francuskog neoklasicizma. Teza je zanimljiva, iako postoji još nekoliko teorija koje se pored Tolstojeve mogu naći na internetu. Orvelovo pitanje o Šekspirovoj popularnosti 150 godina pre same kanonizacije? Kako Fraj ističe, popularnost Barda nije imala veze s kvalitetom, sem toga, njegov opus pripada cifri od 600 elizabetanskih drama koje su sačuvane do danas (!).
Moralni imperativi grofovi jednako su mi strani kao i Šekspirovi ili njegovih ideoloških oponenata savremenog doba. Oni mogu imati vrednost onda kada autorova kreativnost dolazi u sukob s onom najelementarnijom vezom književnosti s istinom, ne moralom, ma kako ga shvatali. Dostojevski više nije tvorac Raskoljnikova kada prezentuje Poljake u svom delu. "Najveći pisac sveta svih vremena" samo je jedan od produkata društveno-kulturnog inženjeringa, svakako najpoznatiji i najnepravedniji; deo mehanizma o kome ću još pisati.
Problem koji se na ovom mestu javlja jeste što je nemoguće (kako je i Fraj jednom istakao) pričati o književnosti a ne biti u književnoj kritici i obrnuto. Pisati o Tolstojevom eseju nemoguće je bez izricanja stava o Šekspiru, potom i o samoj Tolstojevoj argumentaciji. SVEČANO OBZNANJUJEM: SAGLASAN SAM S CENTRALNIM SUDOM- ŠEKSPIR JE LOŠ PISAC, DAKLE NAJPRECENJENIJI NA SVETU (na internetu postoji naznaka da je i Borhes isto mislio). S druge strane, nisam saglasan s osnovnim Tolstojevim argumentom. To čini nemogućim oceniti ovu knjigu samo jednom lestvicom. Razgraničimo područja, za početak.
TOLSTOJEV ESEJ
Brodski je jednom izjavio da je Tolstoj devizu o umetnosti kao podražavanju stvarnosti shvatio "malo suviše ozbiljno". Tragajući za razlogom Tolstojevog animoziteta, ispostavlja se da je dotični spadao u onu grupu (opet Fraj) čitalaca koja u književnosti nema šta da traži jer ne prihvata njene konvencije npr. da likovi pozorišnog komada mogu govoriti u stihovima. Iz Tolstojeve mimetične vizure Šekspirov idiom ne odgovara jeziku upotrebljenom u stvarnosti (nema individue koja se njim služi) i, pored toga, on je jedini kojim se služe svi Bardovi likovi bez izuzetka (brišući razliku izmedju njihovih individualnosti). Ovakav stav svakako diskredituje Tolstoja kao kritičara ali ne i njegove dalje zaljučke, istinu ka kojoj mu je otvorio put upravo jedan (paradoksalno ali moguće) pogrešan metod. Šekspirovi likovi, nadalje, ne slede logiku psihologije i, konsekventno, unutrašnje karakterizacije već potrebe autora (apsolutno!).
Ilustraciju ovih zaključaka Tolstoj sprovodi u najdužem odeljku eseja, onom o Šekspirovom Kralju Liru. Tumačenje je ovde svedeno na prepričavanje i komentarisanje, ali ovo je blisko close reading-u i pokazuje da s Šekspirovim komadom nije moguće ni činiti više mada to ne zadovoljava bardolatore. Na ovom mestu, udaljujem se od teksta da bih ga ispravno sagledao, i približavam se drugom tekstu, onom Šekspirovom i svom ličnom susretu s njim. Kralj Lir bio je četvrta drama superkanonskog autora koju sam čitao. Utisak- sem naslovnog lika, ostali su strogo crno-beli, uključujući jednog od antiheroja koji se transformiše u pokajnika. Likovi koji to nisu ako podrazumevamo da ne smeju biti projekcije nečije stereotipima uslovljenje percepcije realnosti kao i književne stvarnosti.
Drugi zadatak koji je postavio ruski klasik pred sebe jeste objašnjenje fenomena kanonizacije estetski nezadovoljavaljućeg materijala. "Indoktrinacija" je termin kojim bih zamenio "masovnu hipnozu" i "epidemiju sugestije", ne iz razloga što mi se potonji ne čine validnim već baš zato što su jednaki s prvim koji pripada modernom dobu i potvrdjuje emipirijski, iskustveno njihovu autentičnost. Primere indoktrinacije Tolstoj pronalazi kako u istoriji (verovanje u veštice i masovna ubistva koja su proistekla iz njega) tako i u svojoj savremenosti, preseljenju i preživljavanju fanatizma stanovišta u mehanizme štampe (danas bismo rekli: medija)- Drajfusova afera- beznačajan slučaj koji je pokrenuo lavinu antisemitizma i zauzimanja neodstupnih pozicija pro i contra (mada se sam autor ne bi složio, možda je najbolji primer religija). Geneza Šekspirove slave jeste sticaj sledećih okolnosti: Gete kao vrhovni estetski arbitar koji kruniše čoveka iz Stratforda imenom genija kako bi oslobodio nemačku književnost uticaja francuskog neoklasicizma. Teza je zanimljiva, iako postoji još nekoliko teorija koje se pored Tolstojeve mogu naći na internetu. Orvelovo pitanje o Šekspirovoj popularnosti 150 godina pre same kanonizacije? Kako Fraj ističe, popularnost Barda nije imala veze s kvalitetom, sem toga, njegov opus pripada cifri od 600 elizabetanskih drama koje su sačuvane do danas (!).
Moralni imperativi grofovi jednako su mi strani kao i Šekspirovi ili njegovih ideoloških oponenata savremenog doba. Oni mogu imati vrednost onda kada autorova kreativnost dolazi u sukob s onom najelementarnijom vezom književnosti s istinom, ne moralom, ma kako ga shvatali. Dostojevski više nije tvorac Raskoljnikova kada prezentuje Poljake u svom delu. "Najveći pisac sveta svih vremena" samo je jedan od produkata društveno-kulturnog inženjeringa, svakako najpoznatiji i najnepravedniji; deo mehanizma o kome ću još pisati.
August 26, 2017
The authorship recommends itself and the topic is nicely controversial, more so for the respective gravitas of those in question.
How shallow of me.
I plead an appetite for pleasant prose.
Tolstoy here is so intransigent, that this reads like a diary entry. I believe that educated people would be able to find both fault and value with Shakespeare, were they not outraged, as Tolstoy seems to be, from being banned in sharing the pleasure of his... equals.
Consequently, the eponymous essay, the first of the book, is uncompromising. The introduction is weak. The author's first arguments seldom stray from introspection and bewilderment at his differing feelings. He does not so much as attempt to introduce or explain the spectrum of reactions to Shakespeare and his position on it. He then goes on to prove his... perseverence in having attemted to read Shakespeare at many times in his life. There are a few choice words for this type of perseverence. If he still cared to bow to public pressure enough to test something that didn't appeal to him, he could have attempted a minimum of literary analysis, which is still conspicuously absent from this essay in general.
Furthermore, despite his claims to reveal Shakespeare as a below-average author, he decides to focus "King Lear", regardless of the change in style in the comedies, the poems or the sonnets. Nonetheless, he takes issue with the style of the language, which is fairly distinctive.
How shallow of me.
I plead an appetite for pleasant prose.
Tolstoy here is so intransigent, that this reads like a diary entry. I believe that educated people would be able to find both fault and value with Shakespeare, were they not outraged, as Tolstoy seems to be, from being banned in sharing the pleasure of his... equals.
Consequently, the eponymous essay, the first of the book, is uncompromising. The introduction is weak. The author's first arguments seldom stray from introspection and bewilderment at his differing feelings. He does not so much as attempt to introduce or explain the spectrum of reactions to Shakespeare and his position on it. He then goes on to prove his... perseverence in having attemted to read Shakespeare at many times in his life. There are a few choice words for this type of perseverence. If he still cared to bow to public pressure enough to test something that didn't appeal to him, he could have attempted a minimum of literary analysis, which is still conspicuously absent from this essay in general.
Furthermore, despite his claims to reveal Shakespeare as a below-average author, he decides to focus "King Lear", regardless of the change in style in the comedies, the poems or the sonnets. Nonetheless, he takes issue with the style of the language, which is fairly distinctive.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews