CC BY
171
AD LITTERAM
DOI: 10.17805/zpu.2015.3.35
Shakespearean Oanon in the Russian Literature at the Turn of the 18th-19th Centuries*
N. V. Zakharov (Moscow University for the Humanities)
The article is concerned with the problem of formation of the Shakespearean canon in the new Russian literature at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. We define the Shakespearean canon as a corpus of original works by the British genius and adequate interpretations of his texts in theater, criticism, cinema, art, cultures of different countries and peoples.
The author analyzes Alexander Sumarokov's adaptation of "Hamlet" (1748). It was a typical neoclassical play based on Pierre-Antoine de La Place's translation of Shakespeare ("Thuatre Anglois", 1745-1748). However, in the author's opinion, it was Sumarokov who introduced "Hamlet" to the Russian theatrical and reading public.
The earliest mention of Shakespeare reached Russia via translations and re-translations of French and German publications. Even in the early 19th century his works would frequently be translated to Russian from French Classicist adaptations by Jean-Francois Ducis (1733-1816): "Lear" by Nikolay Gnedich and "Othello" by Ivan Velyaminov were published in 1808; Stepan Viskovatov translated "Hamlet" in 1811 and Petr Korsakovadapted "Macbeth" in 1815.
The influence of Shakespeare on Mikhail Muravyov is a good example of formation of the "cult of Shakespeare" and his canon in the late 18th century. Along with historian Nikolay Karamzin, Muravyov became one of the first serious admirers of Shakespeare and popularizers of his canon in Russia. An interesting example is Vasily Zhukovsky's studies of Shakespeare's legacy; his poetic practice paved the way for Russian translators of Shakespeare's works.
From the author's point of view, Alexander Pushkin remains the most outstanding representative of Russian Shakespeareanism. Pushkin set himself a goal to create a national literature in Russia. "In the manner of our Father Shakespeare" Pushkin wrote his tragedy "Boris Godunov" (1825) and adopted Shakespeare's principles of play-writing especially when he was depicting
* Исследование выполнено в рамках проекта РГНФ № 13-04-00346а («Драматургия А. С. Пушкина: проблема сценичности»). Основные его тезисы были представлены на семинаре «Европейский шекспировский канон» в рамках VIII конференции Европейской шекспировской исследовательской ассоциации «Европа Шекспира: Шекспир(ы) Европы», которая проходила 29 июня — 2 июля 2015 г. в г. Вустере (Великобритания).
The article was written within the framework of the project "A. S. Pushkin's Dramatic Art: The Problem of Staginess" (supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities, grant No. 13-04-00346а) and presented at the seminar The European Shakespeare Canon during the 2015 European Shakespeare Research Association Conference (ESRA) Shakespeare's Europe: Europe's Shakespeare(s) that took place on June 29 — July 2 in Worcester, UK.
the history and characters. Pushkin followed Shakespeare paying much attention to the issues of authority and its influence on man. It was not an imitation, but rather evolution of his own creative approach that was evident in his poem "Angelo" (1833), an adaptation of Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure". Pushkin's Shakespearianism changed the paradigm of the evolution of the new Russian literature in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Keywords: Shakespearean canon, Russian literature, dramatic art, translations, adaptations, problem of staginess, W. Shakespeare, cult of Shakespeare, Shakespeare in Russia, Shakespearianism, A. P. Sumarokov, Catherine the Great, N. M. Karamzin, M. N. Muravyov, V. A. Zhukovsky, A. S. Pushkin.
INTRODUCTION
Unlike the British and Scottish merchants, the wandering English comedians did not reach the shores of Muscovy, as they had come to Germany in the early 17th century. Meanwhile, some of their acting features as well as some of their plays could have been brought to Russia by the Germans. At least one Russian play — Bajazed and Tamerlan (1672-1676) — could have roughly resembled the bloody plot of Marlowe's Tamburlaine the Great (for a general view, see: Simmons, 1935; Gibian, 1957; Shakespeare in Europe, 1963; Shekspir i russkaia kul'tura, 1965; Rowe, 1976; Alekseev, 1984; Levin, 1988; Russian essays on Shakespeare ... , 1998; Stribrny, 2000; O'Neil, 2003; Gorbunov, 2006; Zakharov, 2008).
Since then Shakespeare has been considered by Russians as their own national poet and there is no question that Hamlet should be mentioned among the principal Russian plays. We cannot compare any other plays from the Shakespearean canon such as Romeo and Juliet, Othello or Macbeth with Hamlet in this aspect only keeping in mind that the Prince of Denmark is one of the main iconic characters that are deeply rooted in the very core of Russian culture.
As for Russia, Shakespeare's hand is obviously seen in the works of Alexander Sumarokov, Catherine the Great, Nikolay Karamzin, Orest Somov, Alexander Griboyedov, Wilhelm Kuchelbecker, Alexander Pushkin, Mikhail Pogodin, Aleksey Khomyakov, Nikolay Gogol, Mikhail Lermontov, Ivan Turgenev, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Alexander Ostrovsky, Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Maxim Gorky, Alexander Blok, Mikhail Bulgakov, Vladimir Nabokov, Joseph Brodsky, etc.
Meanwhile, it seems that the Shakespearean canon in the Russian literature at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries existed at least in three different forms: in translations (more often in adaptations), in original works by Russian writers and in literary criticism. In this rather short article, I am not ready to consider the Shakespearean canon in other forms of Russian culture such as theater, music, fine arts etc., but I cannot treat them separately in the situations when all three should be considered altogether as the evidence of the cult of Shakespeare. One can add to the co-called Shakespearean canon list the study of the Bard's place in culture in general. Since the Bard was officially 'canonized' exactly during the time we are focused on, I think it makes no sense to talk in this article about the image of Shakespeare in Russian poetry or critical reception (Zakharov, Lukov, 2012). I will rather choose to keep my eyes on the significance of his works for the process of Europeanization of Russian national literature during this period.
EARLY RECEPTION
The names of Shakespeare's characters first appeared in the supplement to the first Russian newspaper The Vedomosti in 1731 due to a translation mistake. They were used in the phrase "excellent comedies by Hamlet and Othello" (Perevod LXI razgovora ... , 1731:
318; see, for instance: Levin, 1965). The Russian translator of German or French translation of an article from The Spectator (1711-1714) was simply unaware about the difference between the British playwright and his protagonists and even of that between comedies and tragedies.
Although it had started with an anecdote, the Russian appropriation of Shakespeare opened the way towards intensive studies of the Bard's heritage. Within a few years, Alexander Petrovich Sumarokov published his happy-ending adaptation of Hamlet in 1748 (it was banned for political reasons, as well as a few other Russian adaptations of Shakespeare in the early 19th and the first part of the 20th century). It was a typical neoclassical tragedy based on "Pierre-Antoine de La Place's French translation (Thüatre Anglois, 1745-1748) of Shakespeare; there is no evidence that he knew any English" (Gibian, 1966: 728) and cannot be taken as a real translation of an original text.
Sumarokov's play was rather successful on the theatrical stage. The first performance of the play was given in 1750, where the actors were cadets of the St. Petersburg Land-Gentry Infantry School. It was documented that on July 1, 1757, the first night opened in St. Petersburg, and the part ofHamlet was given to a well-known actor, Ivan Dmitrevsky (1734-1821). There were several performances but after the early 1760s they stopped. To all appearances, the reason for this could have been dangerous parallels with the murder of Peter III in 1762. For example, Aleksandr Bardovsky wrote: "For 34 years Russian society had been witnessing a real — not theatrical — tragedy of prince Hamlet, with Tsesarevich Paul I as its titular character" (Bardovsky, 1923: 142; cited in: Gorbunov, 1985: 8; hereinafter all translations from Russian are mine. — N. Z.). This author also distinguished Claudius in the figure of Count Grigory Orlov, and Catherine the Great in Gertrude.
The future Russian Emperor Paul I appreciated Sumarokov's work because he saw in it, not without reason, similarity with his own fate: in Europe he was referred to as Russian Hamlet.
Sumarokov showed Hamlet as a person of strong will and very determined in his actions, but like the majority of Sumarokov's characters, his Hamlet lacked in national identity. However, it was Sumarokov who introduced Hamlet to the Russian public (Sumarokov's «Gamlet» can be found in English in: Sumarokov, 1970).
CATHERINE II (CATHERINE THE GREAT)
Catherine the Great was born in Stettin, Pomerania, Prussia in 1729 and became the Empress of Russia in 1762. She was well educated, partly through self-education. Catherine II also knew French, Russian and less English, Latin and some Greek. She used to hire professional interpreters to keep up-to-date with the latest intellectual news from all corners of the globe. Her play A Pretty Basketful of Linen («Vot kakovo imet' korzinu i bel'e», 1786) is an adaptation of Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor. Although, as it also was in Sumarokov's case, her characters bear Russified names (for example Falstaff is altered into Polcadoff, or Halftun), there is nothing Russian about them culture-wise. Therefore, she could have used German, French or even English editions, but was probably using German prose translation by Christoph Martin Wieland (1733-1813) (twenty-two plays were published from 1762 to 1766).
In her play Catherine the Great freely satirized the abnormal love of Russian nobility for everything French. Since the Russian aristocracy, like Falstaff, were spending more time abroad than at home, often in companies of Parisian actresses with a tarnished reputation, the Empress tried to teach her unpatriotic citizens a lesson (see: The Dramatic Works of Catherine II, 1906).
Catherine's next Shakespearean adaptation The Spendthrift («Rastochitel'», 1786) was unfinished and written in prose. A German translation of Timon of Athens was used as a 'blueprint'. It was never staged and was printed only later, in the Empress' Collected Works. The Spendthrift is another example of Catherine's didactic texts against corruption and economic waste. The stage is set near St. Petersburg, as well as in her previous Russified adaptation of Shakespeare. She turned Timon into Tratov (Spender) and Alcibiades into Bragin (Sot), and two of his whores into three sisters. The youngest sister refuses to sell herself for gold and Tratov is to marry her in the end. Although the adaptation looks like a pale imitation of Shakespeare's tragedy, there is still a question concerning the Tsarina's choice of a marginal play such as Timon of Athens for her work. She seemed to be attached to the idea to satirize the weakness of human nature and social morality.
There are some more Shakespearean influences in Catherine's historical plays, for example in the tragedies From the Life of Rurik («Iz zhizni Riurika», 1786) and The Beginning of the Rule of Oleg («Nachal'noe upravlenie Olega», 1786). Catherine used Shakespeare's chronicles as a model for her other historical plays. But all of them are nothing more than hyper-moralistic royal guidelines by the enlightened ruler which set the rules of the classical drama and have no trace of the Bard's genius.
The influence of Shakespeare on Mikhail Muravyov is a striking example of the formation of the "cult of Shakespeare" and his canon in the late 18th century. Just at that time the English playwright's powerful influence on the Russian literary process began. Along with historian Nikolay Karamzin (translated Julius Caesar from English, 1787; banned in 1794), Muravyov (translated soliloquy To Be or Not to Be from German, 1789) became one of the first serious admirers of Shakespeare, connoisseurs and popularizers of his canon on the Russian cultural background. An interesting example is Vasily Zhukovsky's experience of Shakespeare studies. His poetic practice had a significant influence on the Russian men of letters who afterwards began translating Shakespeare's plays and poetry.
EARLY 19TH-CENTURY TRANSLATIONS
Therefore, the earliest mention of Shakespeare reached Russia via French and German publications, despite the fact that quite a lot of Scottish and British natives had been serving the Russian government as early as in Ivan the Terrible's reign as mercenaries in the army and in the navy, but also as merchants and doctors. Even in the early 19th century Shakespeare's works would frequently be translated to Russian from French Classicist adaptations by Jean-François Ducis (1733-1816): Lear by Nikolay Gnedich (1808), Othello by Ivan Velyaminov (1808), and Hamlet by Stepan Viskovatov (1811). Petr Korsakov adapted Macbeth in 1815, but only three extracts from his version were published in Northern Observer («Severnyi nabliudatel'»).
Only in the 1820s did Russian literati begin to realize the need for a genuine Shakespeare, and new translations appeared. For instance, Mikhail Vronchenko's scholarly translation of Hamlet (1828), although accurate, was nevertheless deemed unsuitable for the stage.
The Shakespearean achievements of Russian Romantic translators of Hamlet are especially noteworthy in Nikolay Polevoy's version (1837) that proved to be a turning point. His translation of Hamlet was staged both in Moscow and in Saint Petersburg. This made the tragedy a permanent part of the Russian theatrical repertoire. It was inaccurate, but understandable for the general public. For the first time ever, Shakespeare's characters spoke on stage in the everyday Russian language. Hamlet's tragic plight was close to the Russian pub-
lic of that time. Polevoy's translation expressed his generation's dissatisfaction with contemporary Russian political and cultural situation.
THE SHAKESPEAREAN CANON IN ALEXANDER S. PUSHKIN'S WRITINGS
To continue talking about the Shakespeare canon in the Golden Age ofRussian literature, we need to delineate the terms of Shakespearisation and Shakespearianism, providing an analysis of Pushkin's texts and the degree of their dependence on Shakespeare.
Alexander Pushkin remains the most outstanding representative of Russian Shakespearianism and some ofhis works are a bright confirmation of the Shakespearean canon among Russian reading public. Pushkin's Shakespearianism have been well researched in a number of comparative studies by Russian and foreign scholars (see: Timofeev, 1887; Nezelenov, 1913; Gifford, 1947; Wolff, 1952; Levin, 1974; Alekseev, 1984; Davydov, 1985; Shaw, 1991; Dinega, 1996; Sokolyansky, 2003; Perlina, 2005; Prikhod'ko, 2006; Zakharov, 2006; Lotman, 2008). Pushkin's creative development, his spiritual, philosophical and artistic growth during the years of his studies of Shakespeare, namely from the early 1820s up to his death in 1837, are strongly evident in his verses, experiments with dramatic forms. "In the manner of our Father Shakespeare" Pushkin created his tragedy Boris Godunov (1825) and adopted Shakespeare's objectivity while depicting the time and characters. Foregrounding the issues of authority and its interaction with the people, Pushkin followed Shakespeare, and results of this was not an imitation, but rather evolution of his own original creative approach. It is evident in his narrative poem Angelo (1833), which paraphrases the play Measure for Measure.
This poem was named after Shakespeare's infamous character from his so-called "problem play" Measure for Measure. Prior to writing Angelo Pushkin undertook an attempt to translate Shakespeare's play. He translated the first scene from Measure for Measure in 1833, but abandoned the project in order to create his own original literary product. Pushkin's incomplete, albeit successful (one might even venture to call it brilliant!) translation was a first step towards the composition of his poem Angelo. Many Russian and foreign researchers share the common opinion that Pushkin's remake of Measure for Measure is not only as good as the original, but even more complete than Shakespeare's play.
Pushkin changed the genre, plot, composition and the conception of Shakespeare's characters (the merciful Duke is not going to take revenge on Angelo and forgives everyone with a light heart). He changed the title of Shakespeare's creation and gave the poem a new original spirit, with a Russian accent, wherein lies the most important part or even the embryo of his creativity. Nevertheless, most of the poem's text consists of Shakespeare's words and appears to be a free translation-recreation.
Of course, Pushkin as a playwright did not have the grand theatrical experience Shakespeare had had. In this regard, their theatrical and dramatic works are in different 'weight classes'. However, being a brilliant pupil of brilliant teachers, the Russian poet easily learned the lessons of his predecessors to adapt them to his creative tasks. In this sense, the problem of dramatic interpretation of his works requires means of expression and technical capabilities that are not fully available in modern theater. The dramatic art and staging of Pushkin's works require the creation of a new theater.
Pushkin's work on the poem Angelo reflects his need for spiritual growth and creative evolution. Pushkin's main artistic aim during this period of his creative evolution was the embodiment of the national character in Russian literary tradition. Pushkin, like his prede-
cessor and mentor Shakespeare, also participated in creation of the national literary language of his native country.
The dialogue between Pushkin and Shakespeare is a significant part of the history of Russian literature and philological studies. This approach to Shakespeare's canon set a general pattern for the evolution of the new Russian literature in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Being influenced by the cult of Pushkin, which had been established by the middle of the 19th century, Fyodor Dostoevsky also represented his own interpretations of Shakespeare's images in his characters. He was most attracted by Othello, Hamlet and Falstaff, who, as he considered, had embodied the three life principles: non-acceptance of evil, skepticism bordering on despair, and parasitical exploitation of social vices. Dostoevsky used Hamlet's qualities to create literary characters of his own: Ivan Karamazov (in The Karamazov Brothers), Nikolay Stavrogin (in The Possessed), Ippolit (in The Idiot), Versilov (in A Raw Youth) and Aleksey Ivanovich (in The Gambler). But as a moral drama Measure for Measure is the most Dostoevskian play by Shakespeare (see: Martirosyan, forthcoming).
Even though Measure for Measure is considered by researchers to be marginal and blotted out from the list of the most popular plays, it is still substantial for Russian culture. There are at least ten Russian translations of the play: by Vladimir Rodislavsky (1850), P. Albert (1865), Fyodor Miller (1868), Nikolay Ketcher (1873), Pavel Kanshin (1893), Alexander Sokolovsky (1895), Elizaveta Polonskaya (1938), Tatiana Shchepkina-Kupernik (1939), Mikhail Zenkevich (1949), and Osiya Soroka (1990). The play is not staged as frequently as some of Shakespeare's more popular plays. Perhaps the very first stage production was in 1880 at the Maly Theater (the benefit event of Maria Ermolova). The real theatrical breakthrough for Measure for Measure began exactly 100 years later in the 1980s. Back in 1981 two companies staged the play at the Leningrad Theater of Drama and Comedy (dir. Andrey Andreev) and at the Parnu Drama Theater (dir. Ingo Normet). In 1982 the play was staged at the Riga Drama Theater (dir. Julijs Bebriss). Since then productions appear quite regularly staged by different theater companies: Vladimir Regional Drama Theater (dir. Yuri Kopylov, 1983), Pushkin's Angelo was staged by studio "Theater" of Aleksey Levinskiy (dir. Aleksey Levinskiy, 1999), the Theater of Screen Actor (dir. Igor Yatsko, 2005), the Lensoviet Academic Theatre (dir. Vasily Senin, 2006), the Vakhtangov State Academic Theatre (dir. Yuri Butusov, 2010, it was a part of the Globe to Globe project in London, 2012). The most recent production by the Moscow Pushkin Drama Theatre (dir. Declan Donnellan, 2013) received positive reviews during its two-week run in London in April 2015.
One may say that Measure for Measure is quite essential for Russian culture.
OTHELLO AS A TRAGIC HERO
Although Othello has never gained popularity of Hamlet, it is still considered to be one of the most significant Shakespeare's tragedies in Russian culture. Pushkin's "teacher" and predecessor Vasily Zhukovsky (1783-1852) apparently planned to translate Shakespeare's Othello. In 1808 it was translated from French adaptation by Ivan Velyaminov. Othello's blind passion was well depicted by Pushkin's contemporary Romantic actor Pavel Mochalov in Othello (1828).
Pushkin perceived the tragedy of the Moor very personally. This may have been related to the family rumor that his great-grandfather Abram Petrovich Gannibal had also suffered from the pangs of jealousy (the love of an old Moor for a young white woman provided the subject for Pushkin's story mentioned in his descendant's unfinished story The Blackamoor
of Peter the Great, 1827-1829). Bearing in mind Pushkin's own jealous and fiery nature, we may well suppose what he suffered when observing the way Tsar Nicholas I showed benevolence towards Natalya Pushkina, or the glances of high-society lions. Subsequently, Pushkin's own intense perception of honour led him to his untimely death. The most famous contemporary response in verse put it like this: "The Bard is killed! The honour's striver..." (Lermontov, 1989: 7).
Larissa Volpert also mentions a fragment from 1824, When Tsar Peter's Arab Wished to Marry, and sees Othello as the clue to the character of Gannibal: "When creating Othello Shakespeare seemed to foresee his distant Russian double. Surprisingly, the life of this fictitious character was destined, in a way, to be re-lived by Abram Gannibal. Both Othello and Gannibal are black-skinned, both are of royal origin, each serves as a general in a strange and distant land, and goes through tragic breakdowns, each marries a white woman and is exposed to acute pangs of jealousy" (Volpert, 1986: 214).
The Moor's image haunted Pushkin. Boris Modzalevsky, going through Pushkin's library, found Ivan Panaev's translation of Othello (1836) (Modzalevsky, 1910: 115), inscribed by the translator. This translation was performed on Yakov Bryansky's benefit evening on December 21, 1836, and the musical accompaniment was provided by Vladimir Odoevsky, thinly disguised as Abbot Irineus (see: Odoevsky, 1956: 556-557), but recognisable to Pushkin.
Pushkin's deep observation on Othello is the poet's key to Othello's riddle: "Othello is not jealous by nature — on the contrary: he is trusting" (Pushkin, 1949: 157). Pushkin's remarks on Othello, Shylock, Angelo and Falstaff were first published in Sovremennik (Pushkin, 1837: 226; 234-236).
Consequently, Pushkin's understanding of Shakespeare's tragic hero contributed to Shakespeare studies in Russia and was quite influential. His outlook was later developed in research efforts and on stage helping to set the Shakespearean canon for Russian Othello.
THE HAMLET CANON IN RUSSIAN CRITICISM
Until the mid-1830s Hamlet was considered a strong and single-minded man by the Russian people. In 1837 Vissarion Belinsky wrote: "Hamlet! ... He is man himself, you and me, every one of us ..." (Belinsky, 1953: 254). Pavel Annenkov mentioned a contradiction between the aspirations of the progressive youth and political bondage, calling this phenomenon "Russian Hamletism".
If in the 1830s Hamletism was interpreted as "woe from wit", then in the 1840s-1860s it was linked with the image of a "superfluous man". Although in that new Hamlet good points were noticeable, on the whole, he was an object of pity and repulsively unpleasant. In his essay Hamlet and Don Quixote (1860), Ivan Turgenev expressed a negative attitude towards the "philistine Hamlet" who was philosophizing in vain. His interpretation of Hamlet can also be discovered in Hamlet of the Shchigrov Uyezd (1849) and Virgin Soil (1876).
One of the most outstanding experts on the theory and history ofRussian theatre, Alexey Bartoshevich, said in his article that post-Soviet productions of Shakespeare's tragedies, including performances of Hamlet, were "a history of attempts to convert tragedy into an ironical tragifarce" (see: Bartoshevich, 2010: 210).
EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE'S DRAMATIC WORKS
The 1840s-1860s saw many new translations of Shakespeare (Nikolay Ketcher, Alexander Druzhinin, Nikolay Satin, Apollon Grigoryev, Pyotr Veinberg and others), whe-
re the goal was realism and adequacy in the rendering of style. In 1865-1868 the Complete Works came out: Shakespeare's Dramatic Works, Translated by Russian Authors, later reprinted more than once (since then more than a dozen editions of Complete Works saw the light of a day). However, in the political heat of the 1860s Shakespeare lost topicality and was shelved with the other classics, ousted by more urgent literary debates. Some Russian writers also attempted to dethrone Shakespeare. Thus, Nikolay Chernyshevsky called on his readers to "leave off all fake reverence for Shakespeare" and claimed "half of any drama of his to be unfit for aesthetic enjoyment nowadays" (Chernyshevsky, 1949: 283, 50). In the last third of the 19th century academic scholarship of Shakespeare began, its founder being Nikolay Storozhenko, whose first works on Shakespeare appeared as early as in the 1860s. His historical and cultural works about Shakespeare, his predecessors and successors gained respect abroad as well. In 1902-1904 Semyon Vengerov with a team of scholars, critics and translators produced Shakespeare's Complete Works (with commentary) in 5 volumes, thus concluding 19th-century Shakespearean scholarship in Russia.
CONCLUSIONS
The history of Shakespearean canon in Russia shows a remarkable flexibility to the needs of any epoch. For example, the Shakespeare canon in Russia back in 1764 consisted of one unit only — extensive quotations from Henry IV in translation from English. It can be found in A Letter to a Friend, wherein It is Declared that Indecent People Often Called Their Actions Their Rank and Position [journal "Dobroe namerenie" (A Good Intention), Moscow, 1764, June, pp. 267-268].
By comparison, one hundred years later, in 1864, there were 68 bibliographic records such as: translations of excerpts from Shakespeare's works and complete plays (Timon of Athens, King Henry VIII and Othello, the Moor of Venice by Pyotr Veinberg, Romeo and Juliet by Apollon Grigoryev, King Lear by Vasily Lazarevsky, Julius Caesar by Dmitry Mikhailovsky), as well as pieces from Shakespeare's plays (Act I from The Tempest by Lev Mei, an excerpt from the Act I, sc. 4 of King Henry VI by Dmitry Averkiev, Soliloquies of Lavinia and Tamora by Fyodor Ustryalov; The Soliloquy of King Richard II before His Death in Prison by Dmitry Minayev, Sonnet 60 by Ivan Mamuna et al.), translations of essays by Victor Hugo and Nathaniel Hawthorne, reviews on Ira Aldridge's and Vasily Samoilov's stage interpretations of King Lear, article A Performance of "Othello" in America; reviews of translations, reports on the celebration of the 300th anniversary of Shakespeare's birth {The Shakespeare Jubilee in St. Petersburg, Nikolay Tikhonravov's address Shakespeare. A Speech at the Public Meeting in the Imperial University on April 23, 1864); biographical sketches about the life of Shakespeare and his times by Dmitry Aver-kiev, Alexey Galakhov's articles The Prototype of Hamlet, Descendants of Shakespeare, The Name of Shakespeare, Shakespeare in Russia and on the importance of the research by Georg Gervinus, and other publications.
Later on, the Shakespeare's anniversary celebrations were always a catalyst for the emergence of a large number of books, monographs, research papers, publications of new translations and so on. In 1964 the Russian Shakespeare Bibliography included 465 entries. It would be interesting to update the numbers as of the recent anniversary of Shakespeare's birth in 2014.
In the 21st century, Russian literature continues to explore Shakespeare's works as an inspiration for cultural self-searching and spiritual evolution.
REFERENCES
Alekseev, M. P. (1984) Pushkin i Shekspir [Pushkin and Shakespeare]. In: Pushkin. Sravnitel'no-istoricheskie issledovaniia [Pushkin. Comparative studies in history]. Leningrad, Nauka Publ. 478 p. Pp. 253-292. (In Russ.).
Bardovsky, A. A. (1923) Russkii Gamlet [Russian Hamlet]. Russkoe proshloe. Istoricheskie sborni-ki [Russian past. Historical collections]. Bk. 4 / ed. by S. F. Platonov, A. E. Presniakov and Ju. Gessen. Petrograd ; Moscow, Petrograd Publ. Pp. 135-145. (In Russ.).
Bartoshevich, A. V. (2010) Gamlety nashikh dnei [Hamlets of our times]. In: Shekspirovskie chte-niia [Shakespeare readings] / ed. by A. V. Bartoshevich. Moscow, Moscow University for the Humanities Publ. 404 p. Pp. 209-216. (In Russ.).
Belinsky, V. G. (1953) «Gamlet», drama Shekspira. Mochalov v roli Gamleta ["Hamlet", Shakespeare's drama. Mochalov as Hamlet]. In: Belinsky, V. G. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete works] : in 13 vols. Moscow, Publ. House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Vol. 2. 767 p. Pp. 253-345. (In Russ.).
Chernyshevsky, N. G. (1949) Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete works] : in 15 vols. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury [State Publishing House of Fiction Literature]. Vol. 2. 944 p. (In Russ.).
Davydov, S. (1985) Pushkin's merry undertaking and "The Coffinmaker". Slavic Review, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 30-48. DOI: 10.2307/2498247
Dinega, A. W. (1996) Ambiguity as agent in Pushkin's and Shakespeare's historic tragedies. Slavic Review, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 525-551. DOI: 10.2307/2501999
Gibian, G. (1957) Tolstoj and Shakespeare. 's-Gravenhage, Mouton. 47 p.
Gibian, G. (1966) Russia. In: A Shakespeare encyclopaedia / ed. by O.J.Campbell and E. G. Quinn. London ; New York, Methuen & Co LTD. 1014 p. P. 728.
Gifford, H. (1947) Shakespearean elements in "Boris Godunov". The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 26, no. 66, pp. 152-160.
Gorbunov, A. N. (1985) K istorii russkogo «Gamleta» [On the history of Russian "Hamlet"]. In: Shakespeare, W. Gamlet [Hamlet] : Selected translations. Moscow, Raduga Publ. 640 p. Pp. 7-26. (In Russ.).
Gorbunov, A. N. (2006) Shekspirovskie konteksty [Shakespeare's contexts]. Moscow, MediaMir Publ. 364 p. (In Russ.).
Lermontov, M. Yu. (1989) Smert' poeta («Pogib poet! — nevol'nik chesti...») [Death of the poet ("The poet's dead! — a slave to honour...")]. In: Lermontov, M. Yu. Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii [Complete verses] : in 2 vols. Leningrad, Sovetskii pisatel' Publ., Leningrad branch. Vol. 2: Stik-hotvoreniia i poemy [Verses and poems]. 686 p. Pp. 7-9. (In Russ.).
Levin, Yu. D. (1965) O pervom upominanii p'es Shekspira v russkoi pechati [On the first mention of Shakespeare's plays in the Russian press]. Russkaia literatura, no. 1, pp. 196-198. (In Russ.).
Levin, Yu. D. (1974) Nekotorye voprosy shekspirizma Pushkina [Some issues of Pushkin's Shakespearianism]. In: Pushkin: Issledovaniia i materially [Pushkin: Studies and materials], vol. 7: Pushkin i mirovaia literatura [Pushkin and world literature]. Leningrad, Nauka Publ. 276 p. Pp. 58-85. (In Russ.).
Levin, Yu. D. (1988) Shekspir i russkaia literatura XIX veka [Shakespeare and 19th century Russian literature]. Leningrad, Nauka Publ. 327 p. (In Russ.).
Lotman, L. M. (2008) Literaturnyi fon tragedii «Boris Godunov» [Literary background of the tragedy "Boris Godunov"]. In: Pushkin, A. S. Sochineniia: Kommentirovannoe izdanie [Works. Commented edition] / ed. by D. M. Betea. Issue 2: Boris Godunov. Moscow, Novoe izdatel'stvo Publ. 4+150+422 p. Pp. 168-191. (In Russ.).
Martirosyan, A. (forthcoming) "Measure for Measure" — a play by Shakespeare and Dostoevsky (Globe, 2012).
Modzalevsky, B. L. (1910) Katalog biblioteki <A. S. Pushkina> [Catalogue of <A.S. Pushkin's> library]. In: Pushkin i ego sovremenniki [Pushkin and his contemporaries] : Materials and studies. St. Petersburg, Printing House of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Issue IX-X. 441 p. Pp. 1-370. (In Russ.).
Nezelenov, A. N. (1913) Pushkin i Shekspir [Pushkin and Shakespeare]. In: «Boris Godunov» Push-kina [Pushkin's "Boris Goduniv"] / ed. by A. Polinkovskii. Odessa, Nauka Publ. 71 p. Pp. 59-67. (In Russ.).
O'Neil, C. (2003) With Shakespeare's eyes: Pushkin's creative appropriation of Shakespeare. Newark, University of Delaware Press. 190 p.
Odoevsky, V. F. (1956) Muzykal'no-literaturnoe nasledie [Musical and literary heritage]. Moscow, Muzgiz Publ. 723 p. (In Russ.).
Perevod LXI razgovora iz I chasti Spektatora [Translation of the 61st conversation from the 1st part of The Spectator]. (1731) In: Mesiachnye istoricheskie, genealogicheskie i geograficheskie primechaniia v «Vedomostiakh» [Monthly historical, genealogical and geographical notes to "The Vedomosty"]. St. Petersburg, Printing House of the Academy of Sciences. Pt. XXVIII. P. 318. (In Russ.).
Perlina, N. (2005) "Boris Godunov" i "Antonii i Kleopatra": "byvaiut strannye sblizheniia" ["Boris Godunov" and "Antony and Cleopatra": "strange affinities take place"]. Russkaia literatura, no. 2, pp. 109-127. (In Russ.).
Prikhod'ko, I. S. (2006) "Othello" and the medieval mystery-play. In: RuBriCa's Shakespeare studies : A collection of essays / ed. by I. S. Prikhod'ko. Moscow, Polygraph-Inform Publ. 360 p. Pp. 45-56.
Pushkin, A. S. (1837) Anekdoty i zamechaniia [Anecdotes and remarks]. Sovremennik, vol. VIII, pp. 219-246. (In Russ.).
Pushkin, A. S. (1949) Table-talk. In: Pushkin, A. S. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete works] : in 16 vols. Moscow ; Leningrad, Publ. House ofthe Academy ofSciences ofthe USSR. Vol. 12: Kritika. Avtobiografiia [Criticism. Autobiography]. 576 p. Pp. 156-177. (In Russ.).
Rowe, E. (1976) Hamlet: A window on Russia. New York, New York University Press. 186 p.
Russian essays on Shakespeare and his contemporaries (1998) / ed. by A. T. Parfenov and J. G. Price. Newark, University of Delaware Press ; London, Associated University Presses. 209 p.
Shakespeare in Europe (1963) / ed. by O. LeWinter. Cleveland, The World Publishing Company. 382 p.
Shaw, J. T. (1991) "Romeo and Juliet", local color, and "Mniszek's sonnet" in "Boris Godunov". The Slavic and East European Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1-35. DOI: 10.2307/309031
Shekspir i russkaia kul'tura (1965) / ed. by M. P. Alekseev. Moscow, Nauka Publ. 823 p. (In Russ.).
Simmons, E. J. (1935) English literature and culture in Russia (1553-1840). Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. 357 p.
Sokolyansky, M. (2003) "Boris Godunov": Russian "Macbeth" or a chronicle play? In: The globalization of Shakespeare in the nineteenth century. Lewiston, N. Y., Edwin Mellen Press. 248 p. Pp. 199-215.
Stribrny, Z. (2000) Shakespeare and Eastern Europe. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press. 161 p.
Sumarokov, A. P. (1970) Selected tragedies of A. P. Sumarokov / transl. by Richard and Raymond Fortune ; introd. by J. Fizer. Evanston, Northwestern University Press. 229 p.
The dramatic works of Catherine II. (1906) In: The drama: Its history, literature and influence on civilization / ed. by A. Bates. London ; New York, Historical Publishing Company. Vol. 18: Russian drama. Pp. 46-54.
Timofeev, S. (1887) Vliianie Shekspira na russkuiu dramu [Shakespeare's influence on Russian drama]. Moscow, Izd. tip. A. A. Kartseva [A. A. Kartsev's Printing House]. 150 p. (In Russ.).
Volpert, L. I. (1986) Pushkin i Stendal'. K probleme tipologicheskoi obshchnosti [Pushkin and Stendhal. On the issue of typological community]. In: Pushkin: Issledovaniia i materialy [Pushkin: Studies and materials]. Leningrad, Nauka Publ. Vol. 12. 416 p. Pp. 200-223. (In Russ.).
Wolff, T. A. (1952) Shakespeare's influence on Pushkin's dramatic work. Shakespeare Survey, vol. 5, pp. 93-105.
Zakharov, N. V. (2006) Kontseptsiia obraza Otello u Pushkina [Pushkin's conception of the character of Othello]. In: Shekspirovskie shtudii III: Linii issledovaniia [Shakespeare studies III: Lines
of the research] : Collection of research articles. Proceedings of academic seminar, November 14, 2006 / ed. by N. V. Zakharov and Vl. A. Lukov. Moscow, Moscow University for the Humanities Publ. Pp. 56-65. (In Russ.).
Zakharov, N. V. (2008) Shekspirizm russkoi klassicheskoi literatury: tezaurusnyi analiz [Shakes-pearianism of Russian classical literature: The thesaurus analysis] / ed. by Vl. A. Lukov. Moscow, Moscow University for the Humanities Publ. 320 p. (In Russ.).
Zakharov, N. V. and Lukov, Vl. A. (2012) Genii na veka: Shekspir v evropeiskoi kul'ture [A Genius for centuries: Shakespeare in European culture]. Moscow, Humanities Institute of TV & Radio Broadcasting Publ. 504 p. (In Russ.).
Submission date: 09.06. 2015.
ШЕКСПИРОВСКИЙ КАНОН В РУССКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЕ НА РУБЕЖЕ XVIII-XIX ВЕКОВ Н. В. Захаров (Московский гуманитарный университет)
Настоящая статья посвящена проблеме формирования шекспировского канона новой русской литературы на рубеже XVIII—XIX вв. Под шекспировским каноном автор понимает корпус оригинальных сочинений британского гения и адекватных интерпретаций его текстов в театре, критике, кино, искусстве, культурах разных стран и народов.
В 1748 г. А. П. Сумароков впервые представил«Гамлета» русской театральной и читающей публике, опубликовав свою адаптацию «Гамлета» со счастливым концом (вскоре пьеса была запрещена цензурой по политическим причинам). Это была типичная неоклассическая трагедия, основанная на французском переводе Шекспира, выполненном Пьером Антуаном де Лапласом («Английский театр», 1745-1748).
Самые ранние сведения о Шекспире пришли в Россию из французских и немецких изданий. Даже в начале XIX в. его произведения зачастую переводились на русский с французских классицистических переделок Ж. Ф. Дюси (1733-1816): например, в 1808 г. были опубликованы «Леар» в переводе Н. И. Гнедича и «Отелло» И. А. Вельяминова, в 1811 г. — «Гамлет» С. И. Ви-сковатова; в 1815 г. П.А.Корсаков перевел «Макбета» (перевод не был опубликован полностью).
Влияние Шекспира на M. Н. Муравьева — яркий пример формирования «культа Шекспира» и «шекспировского канона» в конце XVIII в. Именно в это время началось мощное воздействие английского драматурга на российский литературный процесс. И одним из первых поклонников Шекспира был M. Н. Муравьев, который перевел с немецкого языка монолог «Быть или не быть» (1789). В 1787 г. писатель и историк Н. М. Карамзин перевел с английского на русский трагедию «Юлий Цезарь» (запрещена в 1794г.). Интересен переводческий опыт В. А. Жуковского, который подготовил русскую публику к восприятию переводов Шекспира.
Выдающимся адептом русского шекспиризма был А. С. Пушкин. Поставив целью создание русской национальной литературы «по системе отца нашего — Шекспира», Пушкин создал драму «Борис Годунов» (1825), в которой выразил шекспировские принципы в изображении истории и характеров героев, выдвинул на первый план проблему власти и человека. Пушкинское следование Шекспиру было не подражанием, а эволюцией его собственного оригинального творчества. Это явление очевидно в поэме «Анджело» (1833), переделке шекспировской пьесы «Мера за меру». Пушкинский шекспиризм изменил парадигму эволюции новой русской литературы XIX-XX вв.
Ключевые слова: шекспировский канон, русская литература, драматическое искусство, переводы, адаптации, проблема сценичности, У. Шекспир, культ Шекспира, Шекспир в России, шекспиризм, А. П. Сумароков, Екатерина Великая, Н. М. Карамзин, М. Н. Муравьев, В. А. Жуковский, А. С. Пушкин.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
Алексеев, М. П. (1984) Пушкин и Шекспир // Пушкин. Сравнительно-исторические исследования. Л. : Наука. 478 с. С. 253-292.
Бардовский, А. А. (1923) Русский Гамлет // Русское прошлое. Исторические сборники. Кн. 4 / под ред. С.Ф.Платонова, А.Е.Преснякова, Ю. Гессена. Пг.; М.: Изд-во «Петроград». С. 135-145.
Бартошевич, А. В. (2010) Гамлеты наших дней // Шекспировские чтения. Науч. совет РАН «История мировой культуры» / гл. ред. А. В. Бартошевич. М. : Изд-во Моск. гуманит. ун-та. 404 с. С. 209-216.
Белинский, В. Г. (1953) «Гамлет», драма Шекспира. Мочалов в роли Гамлета // Белинский, В. Г. Полн. собр. соч. : в 13 т. М. : Изд-во АН СССР. Т. 2. 767 с. С. 253-345.
Вольперт, Л. И. (1986) Пушкин и Стендаль. К проблеме типологической общности // Пушкин. Исследования и материалы. Л. : Наука. Т. 12. 416 с. С. 200-223.
Горбунов, А. Н. (1985) К истории русского «Гамлета» // Шекспир, У. Гамлет : Избр. переводы. М. : Радуга. 640 с. С. 7-26.
Горбунов, А. Н. (2006) Шекспировские контексты. М. : МедиаМир. 364 с.
Захаров, Н. В. (2006) Концепция образа Отелло у Пушкина // Шекспировские штудии III: Линии исследования : сб. науч. трудов. Материалы научного семинара, 14 ноября 2006 года / Моск. гуманит. ун-т. Ин-т гуманит. исследований ; отв. ред. Н. В. Захаров, Вл. А. Луков. М. : Изд-во Моск. гуманит. ун-та. 95 с. С. 56-65.
Захаров, Н. В. (2008) Шекспиризм русской классической литературы: тезаурусный анализ / отв. ред. Вл. А. Луков. М. : Изд-во Моск. гуманит. ун-та. 320 с.
Захаров, Н. В., Луков Вл. А. (2012) Гений на века: Шекспир в европейской культуре : монография. М. : ГИТР. 504 с.
Левин, Ю. Д. (1965) О первом упоминании пьес Шекспира в русской печати // Русская литература. №1. С. 196-198.
Левин, Ю. Д. (1974) Некоторые вопросы шекспиризма Пушкина // Пушкин: Исследования и материалы. Л. : Наука. Т. 7: Пушкин и мировая литература. 276 с. С. 58-85.
Левин, Ю. Д. (1988) Шекспир и русская литература XIX века. Л. : Наука. 327 с.
Лермонтов, М. Ю. (1989) Смерть поэта («Погиб поэт! — невольник чести...») // Лермонтов, М. Ю. Полн. собр. стихотворений : в 2 т. Л. : Сов. писатель. Ленингр. отд-ние. Т. 2: Стихотворения и поэмы. 686 с. С. 7-9.
Лотман, Л. М. (2008) Литературный фон трагедии «Борис Годунов» // Пушкин, А. С. Сочинения: Комментированное издание / под общ. ред. Д. М. Бетеа. Вып. 2: Борис Годунов. М. : Новое издательство. 4+150+422 с. С. 168-191.
Модзалевский, Б. Л. (1910) Каталог библиотеки <А. С. Пушкина> // Пушкин и его современники : материалы и исследования. СПб. : Тип. Императорской академии наук. Вып. IX-X. XIX, 441 с. С. 1-370.
Незеленов, А. И. (1913) Пушкин и Шекспир // «Борис Годунов» Пушкина / под ред. А. По-линковского. Одесса : Наука. 71 c. С. 59-67.
Одоевский, В. Ф. (1956) Музыкально-литературное наследие. М. : Музгиз. 723 с.
Перевод LXI разговора из I части Спектатора (1731) // Месячные исторические, генеалогические и географические примечания в «Ведомостях». СПб. : Тип. Академии наук. Ч. XXVIII. С. 318.
Перлина, Н. (2005) «Борис Годунов» и «Антоний и Клеопатра»: «бывают странные сближения» // Русская литература : историко-литературный журнал. № 2. С. 109-127.
Пушкин, А. С. (1837) Анекдоты и замечания // Современник. Т. VIII. С. 219-246.
Пушкин, А. С. (1949) Table-talk // Пушкин, А. С. Полн. собр. соч. : в 16 т. М. ; Л. : Изд-во АН СССР. Т. 12: Критика. Автобиография. 576 с. С. 156-177.
Тимофеев, С. (1887) Влияние Шекспира на русскую драму: Историко-критический этюд. М. : Изд. тип. А. А. Карцева. 150 с.
Чернышевский, Н. Г. (1949) Полн. собр. соч. : в 15 т. М. : Гос. изд-во худ. лит. Т. 2. 944 с.
Шекспир и русская культура (1965) / под ред. М. П. Алексеева. М. ; Л. : Наука. 823 с.
Davydov, S. (1985) Pushkin's merry undertaking and "The Coffinmaker" // Slavic Review. Vol. 44. No. 1. P. 30-48. DOI: 10.2307/2498247
Dinega, A. W. (1996) Ambiguity as agent in Pushkin's and Shakespeare's historic tragedies // Slavic Review. Vol. 55. No. 3. P. 525-551. DOI: 10.2307/2501999
Gibian, G. (1957) Tolstoj and Shakespeare. 's-Gravenhage : Mouton. 47 p.
Gibian, G. (1966) Russia // A Shakespeare encyclopaedia / ed. by O. J. Campbell, E. G. Quinn. L. ; N. Y. : Methuen & Co LTD. 1014 p. P. 728.
Gifford, H. (1947) Shakespearean elements in "Boris Godunov" // The Slavonic and East European Review. Vol. 26. No. 66. P. 152-160.
Martirosyan, A. (forthcoming) "Measure for Measure" — a play by Shakespeare and Dostoevsky (Globe, 2012).
O'Neil, C. (2003) With Shakespeare's eyes: Pushkin's creative appropriation of Shakespeare. Newark : University of Delaware Press. 190 p.
Prikhod'ko, I. S. (2006) "Othello" and the medieval mystery-play // RuBriCa's Shakespeare studies : A collection of essays / ed. by I. S. Prikhod'ko. M. : Polygraph-Inform Publ. 360 p. P. 45-56.
Rowe, E. (1976) Hamlet: A window on Russia. N. Y. : New York University Press. 186 p.
Russian essays on Shakespeare and his contemporaries (1998) / ed. by A. T. Parfenov, J. G. Price. Newark : University of Delaware Press ; L. : Associated University Presses. 209 p.
Shakespeare in Europe (1963) / ed. by O. LeWinter. Cleveland : The World Publishing Company. 382 p.
Shaw, J. T. (1991) "Romeo and Juliet", local color, and "Mniszek's sonnet" in "Boris Godunov" // The Slavic and East European Journal. Vol. 35. No. 1. P. 1-35. DOI: 10.2307/309031
Simmons, E. J. (1935) English literature and culture in Russia (1553-1840). Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. 357 p.
Sokolyansky, M. (2003) "Boris Godunov": Russian "Macbeth" or a chronicle play? // The globalization of Shakespeare in the nineteenth century. Lewiston, N. Y. : Edwin Mellen Press. 248 p. P. 199-215.
Stribrny, Z. (2000) Shakespeare and Eastern Europe. Oxford ; N. Y. : Oxford University Press. 161 p.
Sumarokov, A. P. (1970) Selected tragedies of A. P. Sumarokov / transl. by Richard and Raymond Fortune ; introd. by J. Fizer. Evanston : Northwestern University Press. 229 p.
The dramatic works of Catherine II. (1906) // The drama: Its history, literature and influence on civilization / ed. by A. Bates. L. ; N. Y. : Historical Publishing Company. Vol. 18: Russian drama. P. 46-54.
Wolff, T. A. (1952) Shakespeare's influence on Pushkin's dramatic work // Shakespeare Survey. Vol. 5. P. 93-105.
Дата поступления: 09.06.2015 г.
Захаров Николай Владимирович — доктор философии (PhD), кандидат филологических наук, директор Центра теории и истории культуры Института фундаментальных и прикладных исследований Московского гуманитарного университета, ученый секретарь Шекспировской комиссии РАН. Адрес: 111395, Россия, г. Москва, ул. Юности, д. 5, корп. 6. Тел.: +7 (499) 374-75-95. Эл. адрес: [email protected]
Zakharov Nikolay Vladimirovich, Candidate of Philology, PhD, Director, Center for the Theory and History ofCulture, Institute of Fundamental and Applied Studies, Moscow University for the Humanities; Academic Secretary, Shakespeare Committee of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Postal address: B. 6, 5 Yunosti St., 111395 Moscow, Russian Federation. Tel.: +7 (499) 374-75-95. E-mail: [email protected]
