Why did tolstoy hate shakespeare

Princesses spoke delicately and had rich vocabularies, while drunken peasants slurred and mumbled. Tolstoy became interested in Shakespeare not because he wanted to understand his own dislike of the man, but because he was surprised by and suspicious of the readiness with which other people rushed to his aid.

In the second half of the essay, Tolstoy speculates about how this religion around Shakespeare may have come about. Disillusioned by the French dramas that had once inspired them, German intellectuals settled on Shakespeare, whose emphasis on emotions over thoughts and ideas made him a suitable bedrock upon which to build their new school of romantic storytelling.

It was a school that Tolstoy, who believed art should not just be aesthetically pleasing but serve a social purpose, did not think highly of. It is an argument that we have heard many times over, but one worth hearing again if only for its especially relevant conclusion. Most egregiously, thought Orwell, was that Tolstoy judged Shakespeare by the principles of a prose writer instead of what he was: a poet. This was in stark contrast to Tolstoy, who treated every character as an extension or reflection of himself and used them as mouthpieces for his own beliefs.

The conflict between Leo Tolstoy and William Shakespeare was about more than taste; it was a clash between two different ways of looking at life and art. Orwell brought this discussion into focus. Perhaps his greatest contribution to it, though, was pointing out the similarities between Tolstoy and the Shakespearean creation he hated most: King Lear. Both old men renounced their titles, estates, and family members thinking it would make them happy.

Disillusioned by the French dramas that had once inspired them, German intellectuals settled on Shakespeare, whose emphasis on emotions over thoughts and ideas made him a suitable bedrock upon which to build their new school of romantic storytelling. It was a school that Tolstoy, who believed art should not just be aesthetically pleasing but serve a social purpose, did not think highly of. It is an argument that we have heard many times over, but one worth hearing again if only for its especially relevant conclusion.

Most egregiously, thought Orwell, was that Tolstoy judged Shakespeare by the principles of a prose writer instead of what he was: a poet. This was in stark contrast to Tolstoy, who treated every character as an extension or reflection of himself and used them as mouthpieces for his own beliefs. The conflict between Leo Tolstoy and William Shakespeare was about more than taste; it was a clash between two different ways of looking at life and art.

Orwell brought this discussion into focus. Perhaps his greatest contribution to it, though, was pointing out the similarities between Tolstoy and the Shakespearean creation he hated most: King Lear. It came to pass that the drama, which formerly had such a lofty and religious significance, and which can, on this condition alone, occupy an important place in human life, became, as in the time of Rome, a spectacle, an amusement, a recreation— only with this difference, that in Rome the spectacles existed for the whole people, whereas in the Christian world of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries they were principally meant for depraved kings and the higher classes.

Such was the case with the Spanish, English, Italian, and French drama. If you want to plow through the entire essay, you can read it online here. But it will make you think. As a practical matter we must assume a great many things simply to get through the day — but what are the bases of our assumptions? Nurture your dramatic diet. Healthier food makes for healthier bodies and a healthier ecosystem.

The same applies to the art we consume. If we paid as much attention to our cultural diet as we do to our bodily diet, can you imagine how much healthier our souls would, and by extension, how much healthier our cultures would be? Entertainment does more than entertain, it shapes our beliefs. In shaping our beliefs, it sets us on a road of action that could be constructive or destructive.

This is the warning Tolstoy gives us in his essay on Shakespeare.