Hi, everyone. Please post your comments here. I’m going to hold off responding to them until Sunday’s post, in which I will quote your responses and add my own.
An oversimplified explanation may be that Tolstoy had a bad case of “I-don’t-think-it-because-it’s-popular-itis”
It’s a disappointing trap for such a figure to fall for, but it is also very human. When we see something everyone loves, it’s the perfect opportunity to feel special. All you have to do is go the other way and turn your nose up at the generally liked.
Critique of popular work is fine and even good, and his point about the characters being a mouthpiece for Shakespeare himself is interesting. But the fact that Tolstoy won’t concede any goodness or skill or talent in Shakespeare makes his argument weaker. It makes him seem stubborn, not thoughtful.
Tolstoy believed in taking the Sermon on the Mount literally. The ethic of turning the other cheek.
Shakespeare's plays are full of violence, sin, and bawdiness, i.e., human nature. So I think Tolstoy the critic, as opposed to Tolstoy the author, was offended by the Shakespearean "mirror" of what people are like.
There's not a lot of saintliness in Tolstoy's writing so maybe Tolstoy recognized in Shakespeare the same disconnect in his own writing: a disconnect between the ethic of turning the other cheek and what people really do.
Oct 18, 2023·edited Oct 18, 2023Liked by John Halbrooks
My response lies in Shakespeare's Sonnet 55: They both (Tolstoy and Shakespeare) live on in words worth reading and discussing, despite the arrogance in Tolstoy's essay and the arrogance in this not oft-quoted sonnet.
Sonnet 55: Not marble nor the gilded monuments
BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
Not marble nor the gilded monuments
Of princes shall outlive this powerful rhyme,
But you shall shine more bright in these contents
Than unswept stone besmeared with sluttish time.
When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
And broils root out the work of masonry,
Nor Mars his sword nor war’s quick fire shall burn
The living record of your memory.
’Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity
Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room
You’ve led me to re-read Orwell’s essay “Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool”:
“It is a mistake to write Tolstoy off as a moralist attacking an artist. He never said that art, as such, is wicked or meaningless, nor did he even say that technical virtuosity is unimportant. But his main aim, in his later years, was to narrow the range of human consciousness. One’s interests, one’s points of attachment to the physical world and the day-to-day struggle, must be as few and not as many as possible. Literature must consist of parables, stripped of detail and almost independent of language. The parables - this is where Tolstoy differs from the average vulgar puritan - must themselves be works of art, but pleasure and curiosity must be excluded from them.”
Isn’t every character a mouthpiece for the author that made them? It seems like a critique that applies to every writer including Tolstoy. Every author uses their character to express their worldview. Great writers can express many, different worldviews. Regardless, that doesn’t make them more or less worthy of our attention and consideration.
Secondly, most of Tolstoy’s critiques come from the inside of the writer’s room. He seems to not agree with Shakespeare’s artistic choices and methods which do not bear on WS aesthetics or the validity of his writing.
My understanding of Tolstoy’s deep ambivelance towards Shakespeare was partially personal. Did not Tolstoy, like Lear ,give away his fortune to his children? This in order to unshackle himself from worldly matters? In the end his life only mirrored Lear. Can imagine that ywould be somewhat annoying….
This was also furthered in Berlins essay the Fox and the Hedgehog whereby he set out that Tolstoy was both (and in that regard quite unique) but that this caused him much philosophical discomfort in later life.
Oct 19, 2023·edited Oct 19, 2023Liked by John Halbrooks
Some thoughts on Shakespeare's characters "all speak in the same style" and "Shakespeare’s characters are simply mouthpieces for Shakespeare himself." About the latter, if so, they are the mouthpieces of the broadest vision any writer ever offered of the range of human nature and experience, which would tend to nullify the contrary point of the criticism.
About the style, I think Tolstoy neglects consideration both of writerly and period style. Do all Beckett's characters sound alike? Pinter's? Mamet's? Tennesse Williams? Eugene O'Neill? Maybe a bit or much more. Four hundred years from now (I hope) when the American realist dramas of mid and late 20th century are read, will there seem a plain language common to all? I think maybe.
I adore Shakespeare and Tolstoy both. I’d have to concede one charge: that the “voice” of the characters in many plays is indeed a general one, Shakespeare’s, rather than a highly individuated one. But neither are Tolstoy’s characters wildly distinct in speech style, and Tolstoy *literally* intersperses his own voice throughout *War and Peace* in those (controversial) essays! Maybe he feels that being explicit about the distinction is virtuous.
To the specific point that Hamlet seems to love Ophelia, then tease her: lol. Maybe Tolstoy had forgotten how love works? (I shouldn’t even joke, he was a genius beyond measure, but really!).
I was going to guess maybe it was a translation issue, when a quick search tells me he had a library in 39 languages and was fluent in English. Definitely not the issue!
In terms of the speeches standing in separation from the characters -- to me, these speeches are also art in themselves (poems if you like). Although the context of the play and the character gives them more meaning, I don't think this unnatural quality takes away from the plays. It seems that Tolstoy doesn't like the whole genre of Renaissance drama. When I read Shakespeare, it's also a very different experience from watching it performed. Both enjoyable in different ways.
Hi, everyone. Please post your comments here. I’m going to hold off responding to them until Sunday’s post, in which I will quote your responses and add my own.
An oversimplified explanation may be that Tolstoy had a bad case of “I-don’t-think-it-because-it’s-popular-itis”
It’s a disappointing trap for such a figure to fall for, but it is also very human. When we see something everyone loves, it’s the perfect opportunity to feel special. All you have to do is go the other way and turn your nose up at the generally liked.
Critique of popular work is fine and even good, and his point about the characters being a mouthpiece for Shakespeare himself is interesting. But the fact that Tolstoy won’t concede any goodness or skill or talent in Shakespeare makes his argument weaker. It makes him seem stubborn, not thoughtful.
Just in case anyone would like to read Tolstoy's essay, here's a link to it: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726/27726-h/27726-h.htm.
Tolstoy believed in taking the Sermon on the Mount literally. The ethic of turning the other cheek.
Shakespeare's plays are full of violence, sin, and bawdiness, i.e., human nature. So I think Tolstoy the critic, as opposed to Tolstoy the author, was offended by the Shakespearean "mirror" of what people are like.
There's not a lot of saintliness in Tolstoy's writing so maybe Tolstoy recognized in Shakespeare the same disconnect in his own writing: a disconnect between the ethic of turning the other cheek and what people really do.
robertsdavidn.subsyack.com/about (No paywall)
My response lies in Shakespeare's Sonnet 55: They both (Tolstoy and Shakespeare) live on in words worth reading and discussing, despite the arrogance in Tolstoy's essay and the arrogance in this not oft-quoted sonnet.
Sonnet 55: Not marble nor the gilded monuments
BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
Not marble nor the gilded monuments
Of princes shall outlive this powerful rhyme,
But you shall shine more bright in these contents
Than unswept stone besmeared with sluttish time.
When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
And broils root out the work of masonry,
Nor Mars his sword nor war’s quick fire shall burn
The living record of your memory.
’Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity
Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room
Even in the eyes of all posterity
That wear this world out to the ending doom.
So, till the Judgement that yourself arise,
You live in this, and dwell in lovers’ eyes.
You’ve led me to re-read Orwell’s essay “Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool”:
“It is a mistake to write Tolstoy off as a moralist attacking an artist. He never said that art, as such, is wicked or meaningless, nor did he even say that technical virtuosity is unimportant. But his main aim, in his later years, was to narrow the range of human consciousness. One’s interests, one’s points of attachment to the physical world and the day-to-day struggle, must be as few and not as many as possible. Literature must consist of parables, stripped of detail and almost independent of language. The parables - this is where Tolstoy differs from the average vulgar puritan - must themselves be works of art, but pleasure and curiosity must be excluded from them.”
Isn’t every character a mouthpiece for the author that made them? It seems like a critique that applies to every writer including Tolstoy. Every author uses their character to express their worldview. Great writers can express many, different worldviews. Regardless, that doesn’t make them more or less worthy of our attention and consideration.
Secondly, most of Tolstoy’s critiques come from the inside of the writer’s room. He seems to not agree with Shakespeare’s artistic choices and methods which do not bear on WS aesthetics or the validity of his writing.
I’m not convinced.
Great post!!
Thanks! I agree. I give my own response to Tolstoy here: https://open.substack.com/pub/johnhalbrooks/p/the-species-and-the-individual-in?r=kyg3a&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
My understanding of Tolstoy’s deep ambivelance towards Shakespeare was partially personal. Did not Tolstoy, like Lear ,give away his fortune to his children? This in order to unshackle himself from worldly matters? In the end his life only mirrored Lear. Can imagine that ywould be somewhat annoying….
This was also furthered in Berlins essay the Fox and the Hedgehog whereby he set out that Tolstoy was both (and in that regard quite unique) but that this caused him much philosophical discomfort in later life.
Some thoughts on Shakespeare's characters "all speak in the same style" and "Shakespeare’s characters are simply mouthpieces for Shakespeare himself." About the latter, if so, they are the mouthpieces of the broadest vision any writer ever offered of the range of human nature and experience, which would tend to nullify the contrary point of the criticism.
About the style, I think Tolstoy neglects consideration both of writerly and period style. Do all Beckett's characters sound alike? Pinter's? Mamet's? Tennesse Williams? Eugene O'Neill? Maybe a bit or much more. Four hundred years from now (I hope) when the American realist dramas of mid and late 20th century are read, will there seem a plain language common to all? I think maybe.
I adore Shakespeare and Tolstoy both. I’d have to concede one charge: that the “voice” of the characters in many plays is indeed a general one, Shakespeare’s, rather than a highly individuated one. But neither are Tolstoy’s characters wildly distinct in speech style, and Tolstoy *literally* intersperses his own voice throughout *War and Peace* in those (controversial) essays! Maybe he feels that being explicit about the distinction is virtuous.
To the specific point that Hamlet seems to love Ophelia, then tease her: lol. Maybe Tolstoy had forgotten how love works? (I shouldn’t even joke, he was a genius beyond measure, but really!).
I was going to guess maybe it was a translation issue, when a quick search tells me he had a library in 39 languages and was fluent in English. Definitely not the issue!
In terms of the speeches standing in separation from the characters -- to me, these speeches are also art in themselves (poems if you like). Although the context of the play and the character gives them more meaning, I don't think this unnatural quality takes away from the plays. It seems that Tolstoy doesn't like the whole genre of Renaissance drama. When I read Shakespeare, it's also a very different experience from watching it performed. Both enjoyable in different ways.
I don't have a conclusion. I'm just surprised!
Interesting--and in later photos he looks like Lear as well!