Abstract
The 1964 Shakespeare anniversary provided an opportunity for the USSR to contribute to worldwide celebrations while simultaneously insisting upon Soviet supremacy and Western deficiency. Like other Soviet cultural events, the Shakespeare jubilee served multivalent internal purposes: ideological, political, and social. In analysing a range of Shakespeare anniversary activities, three major strategies are isolated and examined: double-voicing, claims of ownership and superiority, and the strategy of excess. Employing theories of space and focussing on the quatercentenary gala event held at the Bolshoi Theatre as part of a system of Soviet rituals (prazdniki), this paper argues for a complex use of Shakespeare made possible by his deep embeddedness in Soviet (especially Russian) culture.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The modified Library of Congress Transliteration System, omitting hard and soft signs, is followed with two exceptions: the commonly accepted spelling of some names (e.g. Gorky, Khrushchev) and of those authors published in English (e.g. Boyadzhiev). All translations from Russian and Ukrainian are the author’s.
- 2.
For a detailed view of Shakespeare’s reputation and his position in the cultural debates of the 1920s see Irena R. Makaryk (2004).
- 3.
Grigorii Kozintsev’s film of Hamlet is one of the best-known products of that celebratory year. Among the many publications of 1964 were substantial works by respected Russian scholars such as Mikhail Morozov, Alexander Anikst, Israil Vertsman, Mikhail and Dmitry Urnov, and Roman Samarin. M.P. Alekseev edited a brick of a book about Shakespeare and Russian culture, while I.M. Levidova compiled a massive bibliography of Russian translations and critical works encompassing the time-period 1748–1962. Other Soviet cities and republics also followed suit (and followed the dictates of Moscow), though not with the same level of activity. For an overview of the some of the print material, see Mark Sokolyansky (2005).
- 4.
The adjective Stakhanovite refers to Alexei Stakhanov, a miner, who was glorified by the Communist Party for having exceeded all records of productivity, and thus served both as a model for Soviet workers, as well as an indicator of the superiority of the Soviet system. Awarded various honours and medals, he was also named a Hero of Socialist Labour.
- 5.
‘у дусі благородних гуманістичних ідей, якими пройнята творчість геніального англійця.’
- 6.
‘Доктор Дікамп, взявши собі на допомогу якогось адвоката Шульца, спробував здійснити […] щось на зразок “державного перевороту” в цьому товаристві.’ Valakh misspells the name of this ‘certain lawyer’, possibly as an intended insult—he is referring to Werner Schütz, the politician and lawyer who became the president of the German Shakespeare-Society in 1962, a choice which, the year after, led to the split of the society into a section East, based in Weimar, and West, based in Bochum. Valakh also downplays the status of Bochum: since the early twentieth century, Bochum had established itself as an important centre of Shakespeare-Pflege in Germany. This development owed much to the work of Saladin Schmitt, one of the most important directors of Shakespeare plays in inter-war Germany, as well as to other factors. For a detailed account of the split of the Deutsche Shakespeare Gesellschaft and German as well as some international reactions to it, see Isabel Karremann’s chapter in this volume.
- 7.
‘Человек для Шекспира—деятельный учасник жизни общества, а не жалкий раб божий, не червь, пресмыкающийся во прахе земном.’
- 8.
‘Наша близость к Шекспиру сближает представителей различных наций друг с другом. За это чувство единения во имя великих ценностей человеческой культуры мы сегодня должны благодарить Шекспира.’
- 9.
‘Мы не отдаем Шекспира ни средневековъю, ни тем его толконаваниям, которые—в духе модных эстетических и психологических теорий—приписывают людям Шекспира “комплексы” [….].’
- 10.
‘Эсли английский театр Питера Брука пленил нас чувством правды, строгой простоты, верным пониманием принципов шекспировского театра, то ведь это и наши принципы!’
- 11.
‘Этот титан Возрождения никогда не был у нас почитаемой классической реликвией—он всегда был наши современником, участником той великой борьбы зa светлоe будущеe человечества, которoю ведет советский народ.’
- 12.
For the vast range of rituals created in this period, see Christel Lane (1981).
- 13.
On the educative role of the positive hero according to the Communist Party, see the L.F. Ilyichev’s report of 18 June 1963, in Johnson and Labedz (1964). For an analysis of the literary uses see Rufus W. Mathewson (1975); on the exemplary biography, Katerina Clark (esp. pp. 114–16) as well as Christel Lane (pp. 207–11), who argues that three heroic traditions—the revolutionary, the patriotic, and the labour traditions—come together in Soviet hero worship (p. 207).
- 14.
For an overview of Shakespeare in Russia and in the Soviet Union, see Makaryk (2015).
References
Anisimov, I. (1964). К 400-летию со дня рождения Шекспира. Жизнеутверждающий гуманизм, Pravda, CXIV, 4.
Boyadzhiev, G. (1964). Shakespeare on the Soviet stage. The Anglo-Soviet Journal (Autumn), 3–13.
Clark, K. (2011). Moscow, the Fourth Rome. Stalinism, cosmopolitanism, and the evolution of soviet culture, 1931–1941. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ilyichev, L. F. (1964). Current tasks of the party’s ideological work. In P. Johnson & L. Labedz (Eds.), Khrushchev and the arts: The politics of soviet culture, 1962–1964. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 227–236.
Johnson, P., & Labedz, L. (1964). Khrushchev and the arts: The politics of Soviet culture, 1962–1964. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Khrushchev, N. (1964). Marxism is our banner, our fighting weapon. In P. Johnson & L. Labedz (Eds.), Khrushchev and the arts: The politics of Soviet culture, 1962–1964. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 216–227.
Kozlov, D. (2013). Introduction. In D. Kozlov & E. Gilburd (Eds.), The thaw: Soviet society and culture in the 1950s and 1960s. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 3–17.
Lane, C. (1981). The rites of rulers: Ritual in industrial society – The Soviet Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makaryk, I. R. (2001). Russia and the USSR. In M. Dobson & S. Wells (Eds.), The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 404–406.
Makaryk, I. R. (2004). Shakespeare in the undiscovered bourn: Les Kurbas, Ukrainian modernism, and early Soviet cultural politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Malte, R. (2006). Soviet mass festivals, 1917–1991 (C. Klohr, Trans.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Masey, J., & Morgan, C. L. (2008). Cold War confrontations: US exhibitions and their role in the cultural Cold War. Baden: Lars Mueller.
Mathewson, R. W. (1975). The positive hero in Russian literature. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
McAuley, G. (1999). Space in performance: Making meaning in the theatre. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Myerhoff, B. G. (1984). A death in due time: Construction of self and culture in ritual drama. In J. J. MacAloon (Ed.), Rite, drama, festival, spectacle: Rehearsals toward a theory of cultural performance. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, pp. 149–178.
Nimvitskaia, L. (1964). ‘Шекспир! Еще Шекспир!’. Teatralnaia zhizn, XIV, 14–15.
Richmond, Y. (2003). Cultural exchange and the Cold War. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Samarin, R. (1964). Наша близость к Шекспиру’. In R. Samarin (Ed.), Вильям шекспир к четырехсотлетию со дня рождения 1564–1964. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 5–15.
Samarin, R. (1966). Preface. In R. Samarin, & Nikolyukin, A. (Eds.), Shakespeare in the Soviet union: A collection of articles (Pyman, A. Trans.). Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp. 7–14.
Schwarte, L. (2013). Equality and theatre architecture: Voltaire’s private theatre. In E. Fischer-Lichte & B. Wihstutz (Eds.), Performance and the politics of space: Theatre and topology. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 129–141.
Sokolyansky, M. (2005). The main trends in Russian Shakespeare criticism: 1960–1980s. Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation, and Performance, II, 75–84.
Turgenev, I. (1964). William Shakespeare. The Anglo-Soviet Journal, Spring, 2–4. http://www.unz.org/Pub/AngloSovietJ-1964q1. Accessed 29 Sept 2015.
Valakh, I. A. (1964). Шекспір і…холодна війна. Literaturna Ukraina, XXXI (3), n.p.
Wihstutz, B. (2013). Introduction. In E. Fischer-Lichte & B. Wihstutz (Eds.), Performance and the politics of space: Theatre and topology. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 1–12.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Makaryk, I.R. (2016). ‘Here is my Space’: The 1964 Shakespeare Celebrations in the USSR. In: Sheen, E., Karremann, I. (eds) Shakespeare in Cold War Europe. Global Shakespeares. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51974-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51974-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-51973-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51974-0
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)