AN UNPUBLISHED LETTER BY

GEORG LUKACS*
Budapest, Aug. 15, 1964
Dear Kott,
I thank you very much, even belatedly, for sending me your book
about Shakespeare. I did not want to write before I had studied the
book. After having looked at it carefully, I can only say: it is a very
interesting and an absolutely necessary study of Shakespeare, It is
to your great credit that you have destroyed so radically the
romantic myth about his dramas. Already in my youth I was
appalled when his Midsummer Night's Dream was performed with the
music of Mendelssohn and in its spirit. And indeed your study about
this particular drama and about The Tempest I like best. In addition
to this I like the analysis of Antony and Cleopatra, Even though I
consider the pessimistic controversies of your frst analyses
somewhat exaggerated, these studies have stimulated me greatly
and have given me new perspectives with which I can agree in many
ways.
But you will understand when I immediately turn to the aspect
where our opinions difer. There is foremost your fundamental
theory of mechanism, which dominates the whole social historical
situation. This is a subjective, justifable and objectivein parta
right perspective of the historical development since the First World
Wara period whose basic mood Kafka expressed most suggestively.
Today this period is of course already in decline, and moves to a
period of a more or less mild manipulation. Therefore I consider
writers such as Beckett or Ionescu as epigones. The change becomes
obvious in the appearance of writers everywhere, who refect and
express the period of fear of fatal mechanism in a very diferent way.
So Solzhenitsyn in his A Day in the Life of Ivan D., so in the West
Semprun in The Great Trip.
Where I disagree with you most deeply is the fact that you
interpret the Shakespearean understanding of history from an
historical perspective of the Kafka Frame of reference of our time. As
far as I understand Shakespeare, his central historical problem was
the dissolution of feudalism in the form of a self-destruction in the
War of the Roses. But he already understood the Tudor period as a
separation from these battles. On the basis of your theory of the
irresistible mechanism, a fgure such as Henry V can not be
understood in the Shakespearean sense; he is for Shakespeare the
forerunner of the great solution, the problematic of which does not
escape Shakespeare, however. This understanding runs through all
the later dramas in which moral-ideological problems of the feudal
period are dealt with. When you think of the objective and subjective
tie which Othello has to the Venice of the Renaissance, which is
verbalized explicitly in the last monologue, you will understand what
I mean. It follows that from your picture of the dissolution of
feudalism, not only the fgure of Henry V is missing, but also the
true representatives of the feudal morality, such as the Bastard in
King John, such as Percy in Henry IV, Kent in King Lear, etc,
Falstaf [who] goes along with the fgure of Percy as an historical
fgure of contrast, is for Shakespeare a matter of course just as the
fgure of Crown Prince Henry difers from both extremes of the self-
dissolving feudalism.
In addition to this, in your analysis the newthe new ethic
and the new image of man of the Renaissanceis also missing
completely. It is certainly no accident that you have been able to give
a spirited, even though slanted analysis or Hamlet without even
mentioning Horatio. But in my opinion Hamlet can only be
understood in light of the quartet of contrasting types: Hamlet,
Horatio, Fortinbras, Laertes. In the same way it is not accidental
that in your analysis of the Roman dramas, Julius Caesar is
completely missing, for the fgure of Brutus is the key to
Shakespeare's understanding of the Renaissance, in politics as in
friendship and love.
Also completely missing in your analysis is the development of
Shakespeare's attitude to the people, toward the lower classes. This
is expressed in Lear, both in the revenge of the servant because of
Gloucester's blinding, and in the catharsis of Lear himself in the
storm scene. It is also found in Timon of Athens, a play which you
also bypassed.
Pardon me for having dwelt at greater length on the issues on
which we have disagreement than on the positive aspects of your
book. I would not think of denying these, but consider it my duty to
tell you frankly where we do not agree.
Again, thank you so much for the stimulating and interesting
book.
With cordial greetings,
Yours,
GEORGE LUKACS
Budapest, Hungary
*The comments by the most distinguished Marxist literary
critic of the mid-twentieth century were occasioned by the
publication of Shakespeare Our Contemporary, by Jan Kott
(1963). Professor Kott gave permission to have the letter read
at the Shakespeare Conference. The translation from the
German is by Christopher Schmauch.