Tolstoy Shakespeare – Leo Tolstoy calls Shakespeare “insignificant” and “inartistic.” George Orwell argues the fight isn’t about craft—it’s about competing ways of living.
Leo Tolstoy didn’t just critique Shakespeare—he tried to unseat a cultural idol.
Tolstoy’s assault on a literary monument
Misryoum readers may recognize how familiar the rhetoric sounds today.. Tolstoy describes Shakespeare worship as a kind of social inoculation—an “epidemic suggestion” spreading through scholarship and education until people absorb the belief that the Bard is genius by default.. In his view, that cultural mechanism replaces real aesthetic judgment with received permission.. He treats the practice of adoring Shakespeare as an unasked-for vaccination: free-minded individuals. he says. are no longer to be found.
What Tolstoy gets wrong—or what he can’t forgive
Orwell’s 1947 response supplies a sharp answer.. In “Lear. Tolstoy and the Fool. ” he suggests that Tolstoy’s quarrel is not only with Shakespeare’s dramatic choices—the raggedness. the “incredible plots. ” the exaggerated language—but with Shakespeare’s emotional approach to life.. Orwell frames the disagreement as a collision between the “religious” and the “humanist” attitudes toward existence.
This is where the debate becomes cultural, not merely critical.. Tolstoy. Orwell argues. can’t tolerate the earthy. generous vitality that Shakespeare’s plays keep unleashing—what Orwell calls Shakespeare’s “exuberance” and even. with psychoanalytic relish. his “jouissance.” Under Tolstoy’s lens. that zest looks like indulgence; under Shakespeare’s. it’s part of what it means to be human.. Their disagreement is therefore about pleasure and struggle, heaven and earth, salvation and sensation.
Orwell’s counterattack: a fight inside Tolstoy
Orwell draws attention to the resemblance between Lear renouncing his throne and Tolstoy renouncing his privileges.. Late in life, Tolstoy renounced his estate, title, and copyrights, attempting—sincerely, though unsuccessfully—to live closer to the peasantry.. Orwell argues that this resemblance isn’t just thematic.. It’s diagnostic: Tolstoy acted from motives that. in hindsight. were “mistaken. ” aiming at happiness through self-denial—then finding that he was not. in fact. happy.
Here the cultural implication bites.. Tolstoy’s standards for art. Orwell writes. become “other-worldly.” Shakespeare’s worldliness—his refusal to treat life as merely a waiting room for eternity—collides with Tolstoy’s need for literature to measure up to a spiritual timetable.. Orwell is explicit that Tolstoy couldn’t stomach Shakespeare’s “ordinary. belly-to-earth selfishness. ” partly because it was self-recognition in an uncomfortable key.
Why the Tolstoy–Orwell clash still feels current
In today’s media environment. Shakespeare is still a kind of default value: quoted. referenced. adapted. and treated as a universal certificate of seriousness.. Tolstoy’s essay attacks the prestige system behind that certainty.. Orwell, meanwhile, warns against confusing a critic’s spiritual program with the work itself.
Misryoum’s editorial lens might summarize the tension like this: Tolstoy attacks the worship; Orwell attacks the worshipper.. And in both cases, the controversy stops being only about *King Lear*.. It becomes about how readers decide what counts as “good” feeling, legitimate attention, or ethical imagination.
The choice that shapes artistic identity
The result is a debate that functions like a cultural stress test.. When an audience praises or dismisses art. it often smuggles in a worldview—about what human beings owe to the body. to society. to God. to pleasure. and to pain.. Tolstoy’s Shakespeare essay is therefore less a literature review than a declaration of identity.. Orwell’s rebuttal, meanwhile, is a reminder that even the most principled critique can reveal its author’s unresolved struggle.
And perhaps that’s the lasting lesson of their argument: the loudest disagreements in culture are rarely only about the text. They’re about what kind of life the text is allowed to bless.
Against the Machine review: Paul Kingsnorth and the cost of control
Raphael’s “Unicorn” Portrait: The 16th-Century Mask Behind the Art