Topics for report

3. Shakespeare’s Birthplace

The Town of Stratford, William Shakespeare’s birthplace, is situated on the Avon. By the very Avon there towers the celebrated Stratford theatre staging plays by Shakespeare. It took no little effort to have a permanent Shakespearean theatre built in his native land. It was not until 1879 that the theatre was opened. In 1926 the building was destroyed by fire, and it was not until 6 years later that the present-day one was erected.

Time has been merciful to Stratford. There are a few memorials that date back to Shakespeare himself .

Here is Henly street. There used to be a semi-detached house here. It was here that on April 23, 1564 William Shakespeare was born. In 1847 the house was purchased by a private company to be converted into a museum upon reconstruction. The museum keeps an early Shakespeare. The small garden enclosing the house has a collection of trees, herbs and flowers referred to in the works by Shakespeare.

The house where Shakespeare used to live in in the closing years of his life has not survived. Its history, though fairly instructive, has but casual mentions in guide-books.

In the middle of the 19^th century the house used to belong to the Reverend Gastrell. He was harassed by crowds of visitors anxious to see the interior of the house as well as the mulberry tree planted by Shakespeare himself. The Reverend had the tree chopped down to later have the house pulled down, too. Gastrell was driven away by the infuriated townsfolk, but it was too late in the day. The Shakespeare museum keeps a table whose cover is made from 52 cuts of the mulbery tree (according to Shakespeare’s lifespan), that was cut down on Gastrell’s order.

7А. Russian National Character

Much has been said and written about the ‘enigma of the Russian soul’.

In point of fact, there is a distinct correlation between the Russian character and Russia’s geographical location at the crossroads between Europe and Asia, her geographical expanse and a certain isolation from Europe over the course of several centuries.

The most outstanding Russian philosophers have wrestled with this problem, among them such world –renowned names as Berdyaev, Soloviev, and Sorokin. According to Askoldov ‘the Russian soul contains within itself all the riches of nature - rage and cruelty, and at the same time, gentleness, meekness, and goodness of soul. In the Russian soul there are certain spiritual virtues and beauties of spirit not to be met anywhere else’.

To better understand a particular people, and to understand oneself as part of that people, it is necessary, as mush as possible, to impartially compare the nation in question with other nations. In the West people are conventionally thought of as much more organized and self-disciplined than Russians. Berdyaev holds that a certain ‘freedom’ in the Russians’ soul is closely associated with the fact that historically far less physical and moral effort was required of Russian people in the acquiring of living space, since the land was boundless at a time when in Europe’ intensive cultivation of the land was essential in order to support the population’.

Americans look upon Russians as people not much concerned about individual freedom, as those who would much rather depend on someone else for the organization of their lives, which results in the common way of thinking we read about in Tolstoy’s and Dostoevski’s novels.

There is no denying the fact that the centralization of power – and, consequently, a strong verticality in the flow of power from top to bottom – can’t but have its effect on various population groups, and thus on the freedom of the individual. In fact, how could the huge country be governed and preserved both in former times and now, if not with the help of a large – scale bureaucracy? Hence, historically the individual person was squashed, and he subconsciously, probably on the genetic level, had a fairly passive attitude towards individual rights. Thus, if Americans always want to know where their money goes, with Russians questions like that never or seldom arise. They are just not used to asking them. Historically, a Russian is used to relying on the collective community rather than on himself, his own initiative, or self-discipline, which brings about submissiveness and total lack of interest where the concern about the money channelled to the government goes.

According to Berdyaev, alongside these qualities, a Russian has a certain amount of anarchism. Berdyaev stresses that Russia is a country that does not easily submit to organization.

The Russian character is full of contradictions, which is salient in Dostoevski’s works where boundless love for people is permeated with senseless cruelty.

Those who are vaguely familiar with Russia’s culture, history and present day life are sure to admit that Russia is a land of contrasts. Possessing the richest deposits of natural resources in the world, the overwhelming majority of the population is confronted with huge unemployment and abject poverty. However, a Russian will live rough all life long grumbling and complaining instead of looking for a dramatic solution.

Russian tourists are never respected abroad, as they are believed to be sloppy, fussy, aggressive, vulgar and addicted to vodka. At the same time it is common knowledge that quite a few Russians are well-read, affable, disciplined and thoughtful. Why these contradictions? The clue is that Russian society tends to be very complicated structurally. There are social groups or ever classes with unique features of their own. The characteristics and modus vivendi of the members of a certain class cannot be taken as general for the whole nation.

But still there are some features typical of every Russian that nobody can deny. The most striking of them are tolerance, hospitality, candidness, kind – heartedness and constant quest for the meaning of life, as well as the overwhelming desire to be guided by heart rather than mind and to think in a collective manner, to the detriment of developing strong individual qualities in one- self, which is as strong as ever, though with Perestroika initiated in 1988, a great many things have changed drastically.

With the introduction of a market economy people have started to show more initiative; new traits of character are to be seen, specifically, personal initiative, creativity, and seeking of new possibilities. Nevertheless, that can’t be applied to the whole of Russia. In large population centres, these tendencies are very strong indeed; but in the outlying provinces, in the villages (where the economic conditions are by far more adverse), personal initiative exists on a far smaller scale. With the restructuring of the economy, a great many business enterprises shut down. The transition from a government monopoly to a market economy is painstaking and can’t be done overnight, hence, there are quite a few jobless people.

Berdyaev emphasizes that the other side of a Russian’s humility and submissiveness is his self – opinion. ‘Everything Russian is righteous, good and true’. Dostoevski, who preached ‘the family of man’ and called people for ‘a common spirit of humanity’ denied the West any right to be considered an integral part of the Christian world.

One can’t say that Russia has always rejected everything European. Take, for example, Peter the Great and the eras following his reign. One can’t deny the colossal influence of the West on Russia. All spheres of governmental power, economy and even art were not void of Western influence.

There is yet another contradiction to be found here. On the one hand, there is Russia’s acceptance of the West, on the other – she rejects everything Western. This frame of mind is to be observed currently too. In large cities people are more West – biased, since the social and economic life of this country has invariably been focused on Moscow and St. Petersburg; but the life in the boonies, in the Russian province, is not at all similar to that in megapolises. Down there in the sticks, there is a great deal more conservatism and non-acceptance of anything new, especially from western culture. Quoting Berdyaev ‘urban life and suburban life belong to two different historical epochs’.

However, one has to admit that the process of unification between city – dwellers and those living in the country and the smoothing out of cultural differences between them are pressing forward, owing to the drastic changes in social and economic life.

It is evident that the current economic development is largely connected with individual economic initiative and individual ownership free from governmental supervision. We must have every owner feel that his initiative is not limited by excessive governmental supervision and legislation is not unduly constraining.

With the new times on, the psychological make-up of Russian people is rapidly changing. There is less emotional warmth to be seen and a focus on material things rather than spiritual values is on the rise. Whether it is good or bad only time will show. In the meantime, however, not a stone must be left unturned so that Russia’s remarkable cultural heritage and traditions should not be wiped off the face of the Earth.