In taking up this topic, Sukhanova makes a timely contribution to a number of different fields: modernism, Shakespeare reception, and intercultural studies. At present, the term modernism is undergoing considerable revision, analysis, and expansion, a process heightened by the fall of the Soviet Union and the consequent opening up of various archives. Sukhanova contributes to this debate by examining a period in Russian history extending the chronological boundaries of modernism and its mark well into the twentieth century, she appears to concur with the recent (though unmentioned) work of Richard Halpern. (Indeed, Sukhanova seems unaware of the numerous recent English-language studies of Shakespeare – that canonical and best traveled of writers – is useful both in highlighting the particular features of individual modernisms and in elucidating the complex interactions between cultures. Deepening merely chronological accounts of the Russian encounter with Shakespeare by being attentive to audience, historical moment, cultural traditions, and interaction, Sukhanova reveals the significance of the cumulative effect of a long-term relationship with a foreign text. Ultimately, this history permits an opening up of possibilities both for the foreign text ad its target culture. Only with repeated interaction over a period of time did Shakespeare become more than a mere text; he acquired a “cultural memory” and became an equal “conversational partner” (27) for Russian writers, and thus a catalyst for reshaping and revitalizing Russian poetry.

Sukhanova’s boldest and most controversial assertion is that Russian modernists “furthered” Shakespeare’s achievement by reconfiguring him as a lyric poet, and thus completed a process initiated by Aleksandr Pushkin, who first recognized the “see” of lyricism in Shakespeare by turning Measure for Measure into a narrative poem (Angelo). Russian modernists, claims Sukhanova, completed Pushkin’s attempt at a synthesis of western and Russian traditions, and also developed Shakespeare’s “search for the drama of an individual soul” (23).

The strength of the book lies in Sukhanova’s fine, multilayered, persuasive readings of the poetry of Anna Akhmatova, Aleksandr Blok, Tsvetaeva, Boris Pasternak, and others who recognized the bard primarily as a poet of the “inner world” (20). Their dialogue with Shakespeare, claims Sukhanova, reshaped Russian poetry while also reconnecting it with Pushkin. Thus, tradition is not rejected by Russian modernists but rather embraced for its transformative, dynamic potential.

Slavic Review