Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences
of the Russian Academy of Sciences
The Journal of Literary History and Theory
Peer-reviewed Academic Journal


Peshkov I.V.

Igor’ V. Peshkov, DSc in Philology, Independent Reseachser, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID:


“A tragical history of Hamlet, prince of Denmark” by William Shakespeare is an important source of modern novel’s genre. The hypothesis is formulated in the article. The literary basis of this article (besides the tragedy by Shakespeare) is the novel “Invisible” by J. Havlicheck. The novel was published approximately in the years, when concept of authorship in novel had been created by Mikhail Bakhtin. Thus the concept was realized and even explicated in the Jaroslav Havlicheck’s novel. That is one of the reasons to name it metanovel. Author’s ‘vnenahodimost’” (the term of Bakhtin) is structurally represented by the figures of narrator, hero and his antagonist (Invisible). Invisible is on the one hand a (case) of parody on omnipresent creator and on the other hand an apocryphical fatal demiurge indeed. A comparison of the novel with Shakespeare’s tragedy reveals in Hamlet the genetic roots of all the structural elements of the novel that appeared in the 1930s both in theory (Bakhtin) and in artistic practice (V.V. Nabokov, J. Havlicek and others).


authorship in fiction; novel; Mikhail Bakhtin; Jaroslav Havlicheck; Hamlet.





For citation

Peshkov, I.V. “Invisible: Hamlet and the Novel”. Literaturovedcheskii zhurnal, no. 2(64), 2024, pp. 171–196. (In Russ.)

DOI: 10.31249/litzhur/2024.64.09


1. Bakhtin, M.M. “Avtor i geroi v ehsteticheskoi deyatel’nosti” [“Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity”]. Еhstetika slovesnogo tvorchestva. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1979, pp. 7–180. (In Russ.)
2. Bakhtin, M.M. “Ehpos i roman” [“Epos and Novel”]. Voprosy literatury i ehstetiki. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura Publ., 1975, pp. 447–483. (In Russ.)
3. Bernshtein, I. “Jaroslav Gavlichek i ego Nevidimyi” [“Jaroslav Gavlichek and his Invisible”]. Gavlichek, J. Nevidimyi [Invisible]. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura Publ., 1978, pp. 5–12. (In Russ.)
4. Gavlichek, J. “Nevidimyi” [“Invisible”]. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura
Publ., 1978, 408 p. (In Russ.)
5. Dark, O. “Primechaniya” [“Commentary”]. Nabokov, V. Sobranie sochinenii
[Collected Works]: in 4 vols. Moscow, Pravda Publ, 1998, vol. 2, pp. 435–446. (In Russ.)
6. Zuseva-Ozkan, V.B. “Poehtika metaromana” [“Poetics of the Metanovel”]. Moscow, RGGU Publ., 2012, 232 p. (In Russ.)
7. Ivanov, Vyach. “Dostoevskii i roman-tragediya” [“Dostoevsky and noveltragedy”]. Vyacheslav Ivanov. Rodnoe i vselenskoe. Moscow, Respublika Publ., 1994, pp. 282–311. (In Russ.)
8. Peshkov, I.V. “Bakhtinskii podhod k avtorstvu” [“Bakhtin’s approach to authorship”]. Novyi filologicheskii vestnik, no. 1(36), 2016, pp. 22–40. (In Russ.)
9. Peshkov, I.V. “Bog – avtor ili avtor – bog?” [“The Problem of God’s Authorship”]. Mirgorod, no. 2(14), 2019, pp. 23–41. (In Russ.)
10. Peshkov, I.V. “K probleme genezisa literaturno-hudozhestvennogo avtorstva” [“To the Genesis of Authorship”]. Mirgorod, no. 1(13), 2019, pp. 19–48. (In Russ.)
11. Peshkov, I.V. “Stand and unfold yourself”. Shekspirovskie chteniya – 2004. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2006, pp. 241–251. (In Russ.)
12. Polkhovskaya, E.V., Mazina, E.N. “Sposoby realizatsii kategorii metafiktsional’nosti v dramaticheskom tekste” [“Ways to Implement the Category of Metafictionality in a Dramatic Text”]. Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federal’nogo universiteta. Filologicheskie nauki, vol. 2(68), no. 2, part 2, 2016, pp. 129–134. (In Russ.)
13. Protopopova, D. Shekspirovskie tsitaty i allyuzi v romane Dzheimsa Dzhoisa “Uliss” [Shakespeare Allusions in the Novel of James Joyce “Uliss”]. Available at: (date of access:
10.12.2023). (In Russ.)
14. Sirin. “Otchayanie” [“Desperation”]. Sovremennye zapiski, vol. 54–56, 1934. (In Russ.)
15. “Stenogramma obsuzhdeniya doklada M.M. Bakhtina ‘Roman kak literaturnyi zhanr’” [“The Shorthand Record of M.M. Bakhtin’s report ‘Novel as Literary Genre’”]. Dialog. Karnaval. Khronotop, no. 1(41), 2009, pp. 146–203. (In Russ.)
16. Tyupa, V.I. “‘Narratologicheskii povorot’ v literaturovedenii” [“‘Narratological Approach’ in Literary Criticism”]. Mirgorod, no. 2(8), 2017, pp. 43–50. (In Russ.)
17. Tyupa, V.I. “Narratsiya” [“Narration”]. Poehtika “Doktora Zhivago” v narratologicheskom prochtenii [“Doctor Givago” in Narratological Reading]. Moscow, Intrada Publ., 2014, pp. 76–155. (In Russ.)
18. Fedorov, S. “The Early Stuart Patronage Network”. Russko-britanskaya kafedra, issue 1, 1996, pp. 6–17. (In English)
19. Khatyamova, M.A. Formy literaturnoi samorefleksii v russkoi proze pervoi treti 20 veka [Forms of Literary Self-reflection in Russian Prose in the First Third of the Twentieth Century]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur Publ., 2008, 328 p. (In Russ.)
20. Shekspir, U. [Shakespear, W.] Gamlet [Hamlet], transl. and comm. I.V. Peshkov. Moscow, Labirint Publ., 2010, 399 p. (In Russ.)
21. Shelogurova, G.N., Peshkov, I.V. “O roli hora v shekspirovskom Gamlete” [“Horus in Hamlet by Shakespeare”]. Shekspirovskie chteniya – 2004. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2006, pp. 144–159. (In Russ.)
22. Shelogurova, G.N., Peshkov, I.V. “Hor ratio v Gamlete (Antichnaya tragediya geroya Vozrozhdeniya)” [“Horus of Ratio in Hamlet (An Ancient Tragedy of Renascence Hero)”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 6(94), 2008, pp. 61–84. (In Russ.)
23. Yarho, V.N. Drevnegrecheskaya literatura. Tragediya [The Literature of Ancient Greece. Tragedy]. Moscow, Labirint Publ, 2000, 351 p. (In Russ.)
24. Boehrer, B.T. Monarchy and Incest in Renaissance England: Literature, Culture,
Kinship, and Kingship. Philadelphia, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1992, 224 р. (In English)
25. Coddon, K.S. “‘Such Strange Desygns’: Madness, Subjectivity, and Treason in Elizabethan and Jacobean Tragedy and Culture”. Renaissance Drama, vol. 20, 1989, pp. 51–75. (In English)
26. Erne, L. Shakespeare as a Literary Author. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, 300 р. (In English)
27. Greenblatt, S. Hamlet in Purgatory. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2002, 322 p. (In English)
28. Greenblatt, S. Will in the World. New York, W.W. Norton, 2004, 430 р. (In English)
29. Havlícek, J. Neviditelný, Praha, Jos. R. Vilímek, 1937, 322 p. (In Czech)
30. Hooper, T. “Dangerous Doubles: Puns and Language in Shakespeare’s Hamlet”.
Chrestomathy: Annual Review of Undergraduate Research at the College of
Charleston, vol. 2, 2003, pp. 120–134. (In English)
31. Mufeed, Al-A., Ramadan, S. “Shakespeare’s Language Strategies in Hamlet”. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, vol. 2, no. 10, 2012, pp. 911–924. (In English)
32. Neill, M. Issues of Death: Mortality and Identity in English Renaissance Tragedy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997, 404 p. (In English)
33. Parker, P. “Othello and Hamlet: Dilation, Spying, and the ‘Secret Place’ of
Woman”. Representations, no. 44, 1993, pp. 60–95. (In English)
34. Peshkov, I., Shelogurova, G. “Horatio in the Structure of Hamlet (On the Role of Chorus in Drama)”. Playing Games with Shakespeare, ed. by Olga Kubinska and Ewa Nawrocka. Gdansk, 2004, pp. 15–29. (In English)
35. Peshkov, I. “Who’s there? A Case of ‘Intertextuality’ in Russian Translations of Hamlet”. Playing Games with Shakespeare, ed. by Olga Kubinska and Ewa Nawrocka. Gdansk, 2004, pp. 66–73. (In English)
36. Records of Early English Drama: Cambridge: in 2 vols, ed. by Alan H. Nelson. Toronto, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1989. (In English)
37. Tyupa, V. “Narrative strategies”. Handbook of Narratology. Berlin; New York, Walter de Gruyter, 2014, pp. 564–575. (In English)
38. Watson, R.N. The Rest Is Silence: Death as Annihilation in the English Renaissance. Berkeley; Los Angeles, Univ. of California Press, 1994, 416 p. (In English)
39. Waugh, P. Metafiction. The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction. London;
New York, Methuen, 1984, 186 p. (In English)

Download text