1. Zdenek Stríbrný's Shakespeare in Eastern Europe flashes its ambitious title on the cover of a slim volume. The reader though, is in for a pleasant surprise at the extent to which the book offers compact, comprehensive and readable information on a variety of aspects of the appropriation of Shakespeare. Starting with a chapter on the early dissemination of the plays by troupes of English players during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Stríbrný moves on to give a major overview of the early Russian appropriation of the English author, retraces the same period from the point of view of several national revivals, most notably in the Czech lands, Hungary and Poland, then returns to Russia, to examine the impact of the Bolshevik Revolution on the fortunes of Shakespeare. The titles of the last two chapters, 'Shakespeare behind the Iron Curtain' and 'Post-Communist Shakespeare' faithfully describe their subject matter.

2. Stríbrný's scholarship is careful and balanced, working its way through a vast body of information coming from a variety of sources in different languages. To anyone who has done work in this field, the problems faced by such an undertaking are apparent. First, there is an obvious unevenness of primary research, both in terms of quantity and quality. Some countries have much better documented and richly studied histories than others, so that the boundaries of eastern Europe tend to be delineated by those who have had a relatively luckier historical development or achieved earlier political autonomy. In this study though, the parts which have been left out, are so, not due to an oversight or the pursuing of an agenda, but a consequence of the lack of, or the inaccessibility of local material.

3. Second, the question of language in any such undertaking looms large. Studies, written in smaller national languages, remain closed even to scholars, like Zdenek Stríbrný, who can read in more than three foreign languages. Thus the history of Shakespeare's transformations inevitably requires the mediation of some 'major' language. Lately, east European scholars have started publishing their work directly in English, a growing trend, which will help the emergence of a more structured cross-national narrative.

4. In reconstructing histories, Stríbrný has used many such publications with a sense of good judgement, though sometimes the choice of sources is a bit puzzling. His decision to base some of his presentation of the fortunes of Hamlet in Russia on Eleanor Rowe's Hamlet: A Window on Russia (New York: New York University Press, 1976), given the existence of Yuri Levin's and other seminal publications in the field, presents, to my mind, a problem. Rowe's work is heavily indebted to that of other critics, who are duly recognised, but the scope and subtlety of her own interpretations are rather limited. The reason for foregrounding this publication, instead of authoritative Russian studies, might perhaps be explained by the target readership – mostly an English-speaking audience, but it would have been helpful to warn future readers of some of the limitations of the source.

5. Having said that, we should not lose sight of the fact that Professor Stríbrný finds his way through an uneven and sometimes explosive territory with a good sense of direction. Clearly, his approach is nation based – he uses his sources to tell in some detail national histories of Shakespearean appropriation as they have been told (in most of the cases) from within, by scholars from the respective countries. As a result, the book splits into a series of parallel narratives, which often tackle different aspects. Thus, depending on the available sources, we hear more about Shakespeare in the theatre in some countries, while in other instances, we get richer information on his appropriation by literature and music. Again, the Russian narrative looms largest. In places, the preference for one type of detail instead of another also raises certain doubts. In Chapter 2 'Shakespeare under the Tsars' much space is given to Catherine the Great's insubstantial renderings of Shakespeare's plays into Russian as opposed to the few lines dedicated to a most important critic like Vissarion Belinsky, whose writings had a profound influence on Russian ideas and theatrical practice. There are also cases of misreading the information found in the sources, a fault almost inevitable, given the extent and variety of the material. All in all though, Professor Stríbrný stands out as a reliable collector and narrator, whose choice is based on sound judgement.

6. An obvious counterpoint to his approach, producing fragmentation of the exposition along national and genre lines, would be to write the history of Shakespeare in eastern Europe 'from without', as a narrative structured around cultural tendencies, trends, influences and interactions. Instances of such handling of the material are not completely missing from the book. Chapter 1, presenting the continental transmigrations of the travelling players during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, finds a unifying focus in the comic character of Pickleherring. There is little of this in the later chapters, though Stríbrný makes gestures of recognition to possible influences. As a result, the book reads as an album of fascinating snapshots related to the subject of Shakespeare's appropriation in a number of countries in a large section of Europe, without trying to isolate the specificity (if any) of an 'eastern' appropriation. Not surprisingly, Shakespeare in Eastern Europe strikes its most vibrant moments in telling the history of Shakespeare in the Czech lands and neighbouring territories, where the author's knowledge and experience are at their first-hand best.

7. Zdenek Stríbrný's book is sound, informative and valuable. For the student, it outlines the perimeter of the subject and offers basic bibliography. For the scholar, it contains suggestions for further scrutiny, like the work of Soviet Shakespeare director Sergei Radlov, or careful reminders of deficiencies in Jan Kott's approach to Shakespeare, sometimes overlooked in the context of the well-deserved praise the Polish critic has received. The book alerts us to the need to expand the subject, and the already real possibility of working along lines which cut across national barriers to discover the commonness of cultural patterns under the masses of specific national examples. Shakespeare in Eastern Europe is informative, rich in detail, and well written, a must for a beginner in the field and a good place for cross reference for scholars. Ironically, it shows that the integrated study of Shakespeare in Europe will be achieved by way of sublimating the knowledge gained through linguistic difference into narratives in the language in which Shakespeare wrote.

BOIKA SOKOLOVA
ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON