In literary studies, Dostoevsky is known and studied as a Shakespeare lover, but until now there has been no monograph in English that deals with the connections between his work and "Hamlet", points out in an interview with "Vijesti" Petar Bjelic, thanks to whom the situation in that field has changed.
Her book "Dostoevsky's Hamlet in Nineteenth-Century Russia" was published by the world-renowned British publishing house "Bloomsberry". The work was published in May this year, in the edition "Global Shakespeare Inverted" which, Bjelica explains to "Vijesti", deals with the criticism of reading Shakespeare from the so-called (Anglophone) center as opposed to the "peripheries" and offers new methodologies for questioning the "global" perspective in interpreting the English author.
"This is research based on my doctoral thesis, which shows the influence of Shakespeare's Hamlet on 'The Evil Spirits', while for the needs of the book I expanded my research to include other novels. This topic has preoccupied me since my undergraduate studies in general literature, when I sensed a connection between Hamlet and Stavrogin, and for the needs of the book I tried to answer the question of what is new about Dostoevsky's Hamlet, which calls into question Western European postulates of subjectivity, religion and literature," Bjelica says in an interview.
She points out that she has come to the conclusion that almost all of Dostoevsky's main characters are in some way related to Hamlet, and she talks more about her book, Shakespeare and Dostoevsky in general, their correlation and position today for "Vijesti".
The correlation and connection between Dostoevsky and Shakespeare that you talk about is interesting. How would you describe the relationship between Dostoevsky and Shakespeare and what connects them besides literature itself? How would you explain to readers what it means that Dostoevsky “read” and “used” Shakespeare and what Hamlet symbolizes in the very title of the work?
Shakespeare was one of Dostoevsky's main role models, but also one of the most popular foreign writers in 19th-century Russia. They are connected by a similar sensibility, a paradoxical experience of the human psyche, carnivalism, a complex relationship to philosophy, religion and spirituality, tragedy with a touch of strong comedy and irony, heroes with complex and contradictory psychologies, and a questioning of the effects of beauty and art on man. I would especially highlight a deep sense of the theatricality of life, i.e. the paradoxical interweaving of reality and illusion, as well as the inability to cope with this ambivalence.
Dostoevsky did not read “Hamlet” in the original, but only in translations at a time when this hero had a separate life in Russian culture without a necessary connection to Shakespeare’s tragedy. My goal was to find traces of his reading of these different “Hamlets” through multiple layers of his work (subtextual, textual, intertextual and interdiscursive). I came to the conclusion that almost all of Dostoevsky’s main characters have some connection to Hamlet. Hence, it was important to understand how Dostoevsky “read” Shakespeare’s work, and then how he “woven” the themes related to “Hamlet” and Russian Hamletism into his novels; in what way he reworked them. Hence, the main theme of my book is Dostoevsky’s “Hamlet”, not Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”.
What would you say “Hamlet” represents for Dostoevsky, and beyond that, to what extent is he a figure of existential crisis, political subversion, or both, and where do we read and see him today?
The short answer is that Hamlet is for Dostoevsky the hero after whom he modeled his most important characters. However, Dostoevsky is neither a one-sided nor a simple writer in that way. He did not simply copy Shakespeare's work or use it as a model. In his polyphonic work, the inspiration from "Hamlet" and Russian Hamletism becomes an occasion for obsessive contemplation on the meaning of life, freedom of choice in the construction of the self, and the existence of God. Hamlet's heroes include: the man from the underworld ("Notes from the Underworld"), Raskolnikov ("Crime and Punishment"), Hippolytus, Prince Myshkin, but also Nastasya Filipovna ("The Idiot"), Stavrogin ("Evil Souls"), Arkady and Versilov ("The Young Man"), Mitya, Ivan, and Alyosha Karamazov ("The Brothers Karamazov") - in other words, almost all the main characters. Some of them are characterized by the following characteristics: they are characters of high ideals and noble aspirations, who, because they have separated themselves from the people and their roots, fail to find a foundation for their own lives and decisions. Hence, suffering at the same time from complexes of higher and lower values, they become resentful, proud and cynical, all of which indicate deep sensitivity and hurt. The obsession with themselves and their self-image occupies them to such an extent that the other is completely ignored or perceived as a concept, an idea and not as a living person. Similar to Hamlet's monologues, we encounter the performativity of the self and voluptuous enjoyment in the denunciation of the heart and prostitution of the soul. Dostoevsky's "Hamlet" is therefore radicalized in comparison to Shakespeare's. Using the example of a reworking/parody of the Hamlet hero, Dostoevsky shows what happens when the assumptions of modern Western subjectivity and rationality are taken to their extremes - hence his "Hamlet" is a nihilist, atheist and immoral hero, and the main thesis of my book is that Hamlet is the bearer of the demonic in Dostoevsky's world. Dostoevsky's critique of Hamlet can today serve as a model for resistance to hyper-individuality, violence towards the other and different, and the ethical openness of the self, and as such can be a figure of existential crisis, but also of political subversion.
On the other hand, today Hamlet represents an empty space into which we can project our fantasies - the structure of Shakespeare's work is such that by solving the mystery of the hero, readers load their unconscious, hence its popularity and so-called universality. Every era, every reader projects their desires, ideas and fantasies into the enigma of Hamlet's character.
In the book you deal with the concept of “Russian Hamletism”... What do you mean by that and how did the concept form in the cultural landscape of the 19th century? In addition, in what way did Shakespeare, as an English playwright, become relevant in Russian literature and social thought of that time, and what was the reception of Shakespeare in Russia during Dostoevsky's time?
Russian Hamletism is a psychological and/or philosophical phenomenon that denotes an individual characterized by indecision, doubt, excessive and unhealthy introspection, and paralysis due to moral dilemmas. It refers to a personality type, and is not a literary but a discursive and cultural phenomenon. Hamlet has, so to speak, transcended the boundaries of literature, extracted from the plot of a tragedy, and begins his life in the culture of an era as a symbol of the Russian intellectual in opposition to an unjust world that transforms its own political impotence into moral superiority. He is the so-called superfluous man - part of the aristocracy that is dying out, with no place or meaning in the newly emerging order. For many writers, from Pushkin, Turgenev, Chernyshevsky, Tolstoy, and Belinsky, Russian Hamletism becomes a concept of criticism of the impotence of the Russian intelligentsia. This is preceded and parallel to the development of the reception of Shakespeare. As in many other cultures of the 19th century, Shakespeare's work is a model for the creation of national literature. In many ways, the emergence of modern Russian literature is intertwined with Shakespeare's work. Hence, in the era of realism, the question arises to what extent a foreign Renaissance writer can meet the needs (aesthetic, political, and ideological) of a contemporary audience, all the way back to Tolstoy, who to this day remains one of the fiercest critics of Shakespeare as an immoral writer of meaningless content.
Dostoevsky is ambivalent towards Shakespeare - he treats him both as a model of the greatest civilizational achievement and an educational model for shaping consciousness and self-awareness, but also as a bearer of negative foreign influences that, despite their immanent values, contribute to the destruction of Russian society because they are not organically related to its postulates. For example, in the novel “Evil Souls” Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky, a former professor and author of a never-finished book, is a liberal who hides behind lofty ideals while in practice he is the main bearer of self-deception and a social parasite. This hero states that Shakespeare is an aesthetic ideal more valuable than any nation, only to be reminded with masterful irony by an anonymous voice from the audience that the convict he recently lost at cards has just committed murder in that small town. This episode shows the subtle, but deadly, irony of Dostoevsky, who takes into account the value of Shakespeare, but also confronts them with the ethics of their relationship to every other human being.
The book connects literature, ideology, and even geopolitics. Did you have the feeling while writing that you were not just writing about literature, but also about the way culture shapes history and vice versa?
Yes, it is necessary to take into account how a literary, but also theoretical, work belongs to broader structures of power and meaning. I consciously tried to discover how, in a given historical context, literature expressed dominant ideologies or “unconsciously” manifested ideological conflicts. This is especially important for the Russian Hamlet because this hero was used as a psychological role model and as such shaped generations of young readers, including Dostoevsky. And I would leave it to the readers to think about how Dostoevsky can be relevant today in this sense.
Can you elaborate on the phrase “Russian Hamletism” and how does this phenomenon differ from, say, the universal “Hamlet” that we know from Shakespeare's tradition?
Russian Hamletism is a response to the specific circumstances of Russian culture in the 19th century. Hamletism as a phenomenon of comparison with Hamlet arises somewhat earlier in Coleridge, Goethe, Schlegel, etc. However, I would not agree that there is a universal Hamlet, we have Hamlet from Shakespeare's tragedy, but also a series of interpretations over the last 400 years - there is almost no writer who has not given his own interpretation of this hero. Every understanding of Hamlet is conditioned by the culture from which it is read and does not exist in some fictitious universal vacuum.
Is there, perhaps, a “Montenegrin” or “Balkan” Hamletism and how would you define it?
It might be interesting to read Njegoš's "Mountain Wreath" and the character of Bishop Danilo from this perspective, especially if the answer to the question "To be or not to be" is the verse: "Let the struggle be constant/Let what cannot be be be."
How do we read Dostoevsky and Shakespeare today? How universal, present, real, and (un)surpassed are they?
To surrender to the eros of reading. To read openly and with as few prejudices as possible, following one's own fears, fantasies, and loves, without being disgusted by their magnitudes.
I don't know how to answer the second question, but what I can attest to from experience is that these works can broaden spiritual horizons and provide a foothold for meaning, and provide a deeply transforming, aesthetic, and spiritual experience.
Considering that you come from academic circles, but also from an environment and time distant from the legacy of these writers, how did your personal and educational context influence the choice of the topic you dealt with?
“Hamlet” and “Evil Spirits” were formative books that have marked me since high school. I was lucky that the above-mentioned topics were insufficiently explored, at least from an angle that was interesting to me. On the other hand, education provided me with the tools to shape my experience and share it with others. In that sense, the choice of topic had nothing to do with academic circles - I often experienced those circles as obstacles to engaging with literature in a personal and profound way. It was important to me to preserve that initial impulse in my work.
Are you currently working on something and would you like to add something?
As part of the project on “Balkan” adaptations of Shakespeare, I will also offer my theatrical production of “Othello”. It will be a kind of continuation of “Hamlet”, when I tried to present on stage what the Russian Hamlet is and how it can be relevant today. “Othello” will deal with internalized racism, the Balkanization of Shakespeare and aspects of our culture that can offer interesting answers to the questions that this tragedy raises, playing around with why Shakespeare would still be relevant to us today.
Witnesses of the Great Russophobia
You work in the field of comparative literature... Where do you currently see room for dialogue between East and West through literary studies?
It seems to me that the first thing that is needed is the decolonization of literary studies themselves so that the dialogue can be conducted from equal positions. Both “East” and “West” are heterogeneous and dynamic constructs that will indicate the positions of the speakers rather than reflect the reality they claim to represent, and they need to be reconsidered. Therefore, through the exposure of prejudices, a more thorough study of historical circumstances and theoretical assumptions, with awareness of dominant ideological positions within scientific frameworks, the cleansing of all forms of racism and xenophobia in the approach to another culture in order to read texts responsibly. Without this, dialogue is most often an empty form. Today, there is a lot of talk about dialogue, and little about what is actually needed for dialogue to happen. Dostoevsky’s work seems to me to be the best model for essential openness towards the other and the different. He warns, especially in “Evil Souls”, about the deceptions and self-deceptions of good intentions: about the destructive influence of the “civilized” West, the hypocrisy of liberalism and the shortsightedness of criticism, which are not based on respect and ethical relations towards others. We are witnesses of great Russophobia today - Dostoevsky’s work can serve as an example of the practice of decolonization of epistemology and ethics that are in conjunction with the postulates of Western hegemony.
Autoracism in the understanding of identity in the Balkans
In addition to comparative literary studies, you are involved in performance theory, adaptations and remediations of Shakespeare's works, research into the reception and performance of Shakespeare in the Balkans, as well as the use of digital media in theatre. What is the perception of Shakespeare in our country, given his almost omnipresence in theatre houses?
I am currently working on a book whose basic hypothesis is that there is a kind of autoracism in the understanding of one's own identity in the Balkans in relation to the "West", and that Shakespeare is often approached as a classic (most often unconsciously) in order to bring us closer to that and such a West to which we want to belong. I am investigating how the settings of Shakespeare in Serbia and Montenegro over the last 25 years reflect this hypothesis, whether they question it or completely deny it. Shakespeare is definitely still one of the most performed authors and it seems to me that it is important to be aware of the extent to which the reasons for this are often economic - simply put, Shakespeare always sells well.
To what extent is it possible to perceive and/or describe the world and man through Shakespeare, and has he perhaps already done so?
I'm not sure I have the answer to that question, but I would turn it around - reading Shakespeare through modernity can help us better understand our own positions and examine circumstances with confidence and brutal honesty.
Explores the reception and performances of Shakespeare in the Balkans
Petra Bjelica holds a PhD in comparative literature, is a literary critic, a Shakespearean scholar... She completed her undergraduate and master's studies at the Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade, majoring in General Literature and Literary Theory, and as a Marie-Curie scholarship holder within the INVITE project, she completed her PhD at the University of Verona on the influence of Shakespeare's Hamlet on Dostoevsky's literary work.
In addition to comparative literary studies, he deals with performance theory, adaptations and remediations of Shakespeare's works, research into the reception and performance of Shakespeare in the Balkans, as well as the use of digital media in theater.
She is the author and performer of the project "Gamlet", a so-called lecture performance, a new hybrid form that unites elements of classical lecturing with elements and methodologies of artistic creativity in directing, dramaturgy, music, visual arts...
She is a permanent associate at the Skene Research Centre: Interdisciplinary Theatre and Drama Studies at the Department of English in Verona, where she worked as a lecturer and organizer of the Shakespeare summer school and the Verona Shakespeare Fringe Festival.
Bonus video:
