Introduction
William Shakespeare's influence extends far beyond the realm of literature and theater. His plays have become deeply intertwined with American culture and politics, serving as a mirror reflecting the nation's ongoing struggles and divisions. In "Shakespeare in a Divided America," James Shapiro explores how Shakespeare's works have been interpreted, adapted, and used to address some of the most contentious issues in American history.
From the early days of the republic to the present, Shakespeare's plays have been a battleground for debates on race, gender, immigration, and political power. This book takes us on a journey through key moments in American history, showing how Shakespeare's words have been wielded by both progressives and conservatives to advance their causes and shape public opinion.
Othello and the Limits of Abolitionism
In the early 19th century, as the abolitionist movement was gaining momentum, Shakespeare's tragedy "Othello" became a focal point for discussions about race and interracial relationships in America. The story of this controversy begins with an unlikely dinner party in Boston in 1833.
Fanny Kemble, a young British actress who had become a sensation in her home country, was visiting America for the first time. At a dinner hosted by wealthy Boston physician George Parkman, Kemble found herself seated next to former president John Quincy Adams. Their conversation turned to Shakespeare, and specifically to the play "Othello."
Adams, like many educated Americans of his time, was a great admirer of Shakespeare. However, he had always had reservations about "Othello." The former president took issue with the character of Desdemona and her relationship with Othello, a dark-skinned Moor. Adams had written an unpublished essay in which he argued that "the great moral lesson of the tragedy of Othello is, that black and white blood cannot be intermingled in marriage without a gross outrage upon the law of Nature."
Two years after this dinner party, Kemble published her journals from her American tour. In them, she described her conversation with an unnamed man who, despite being a "worshipper of Shakespeare," found "Othello" to be disgusting. It didn't take long for readers to deduce that Kemble was referring to Adams, and soon reporters were pressing the former president to elaborate on his views.
This pressure led to the publication of Adams' essay, making his distaste for the relationship between Othello and Desdemona public knowledge. The controversy surrounding Adams' views on "Othello" revealed the complex and often contradictory attitudes towards race even among those who considered themselves progressive.
At the same time, pro-slavery politicians like James Henry Hammond of South Carolina were also invoking "Othello" in their arguments. Hammond spoke before Congress, painting a dire picture of a future in which someone like Othello might be considered a fellow congressman.
The debate surrounding "Othello" highlighted the limitations of even the most progressive minds of the time when it came to racial equality. John Quincy Adams, who in his later years became a vocal opponent of slavery, still couldn't reconcile himself to the idea of interracial love. This mental divide – supporting the end of slavery while still being uncomfortable with intimate relationships between people of different races – illustrates how far America still had to go to truly embrace the ideals of equality.
Masculinity and Militarism in Shakespeare's Plays
In 1845, as tensions between the United States and Mexico were escalating, Shakespeare's plays became a lens through which Americans examined ideas of masculinity and militarism. At this time, over half of the U.S. Army was camped near Corpus Christi on the Gulf of Mexico, in a show of force meant to intimidate Mexico and pave the way for westward expansion.
This aggressive stance was not universally popular, particularly among abolitionists who saw westward expansion as a means to create more slave-owning states. However, for those in favor of war, a new ideology was taking hold – Manifest Destiny. This concept suggested that America's expansion across the continent was divinely ordained and tied closely to ideas of masculinity and national strength.
President James K. Polk exemplified this mindset when he wrote about Mexico, saying, "we shall never be able to treat with her . . . until she has been taught to respect us." This aggressive, domineering attitude towards other nations was seen as a quintessentially masculine trait.
However, ideas about masculinity in America were far from uniform. On one side was the frontier ideal, which celebrated physical strength, aggression, and a certain roughness of character. On the other was a more restrained vision of masculinity that valued sobriety, moderation, and moral uprightness.
These competing visions of manhood were reflected in the popular Shakespearean performances of the day. Edwin Forrest, a barrel-chested, square-jawed actor, embodied the hypermasculine ideal. His popularity coincided with a decline in performances of "Romeo and Juliet," a play that presents a less conventionally masculine hero.
Romeo, despite his skill with a sword, is portrayed as deeply in touch with his emotions and his feminine side. Lines like "O sweet Juliet, thy beauty hath made me effeminate" were challenging for actors like Forrest to deliver convincingly.
Interestingly, it was a woman who revived interest in the character of Romeo. Charlotte Cushman's portrayal of Romeo at Boston's Haymarket Theater in December 1845 was a sensation, earning standing ovations and glowing reviews. However, not everyone was comfortable with a woman taking on this male role. Forrest belittled Cushman in the press, and some critics, like British writer George Fletcher, described it as a "disgustingly monstrous . . . perversion."
Despite these criticisms, Cushman's success as Romeo highlighted the complexity of gender roles and expectations in mid-19th century America. It showed that there was an appetite for a different kind of masculine hero, one who could express deep emotions and vulnerability.
The Civil War would later expose the dark side of aggressive masculinity, leading to a shift in public sentiment. In the war's aftermath, Americans once again embraced a more nuanced view of manhood, allowing male actors to successfully portray Romeo without sacrificing their perceived masculinity.
This evolution in the portrayal and reception of Shakespearean characters reflects broader changes in American society's understanding of gender roles and the nature of heroism. It demonstrates how Shakespeare's works have served as a canvas onto which each generation projects its own values and anxieties.
The Astor Place Riot: Shakespeare and Class Conflict
The malleability of Shakespeare's work, open to various interpretations, sometimes led to unexpected consequences. A seemingly innocuous acting choice in an 1846 Edinburgh performance of "Hamlet" set off a chain of events that would culminate in a deadly riot in New York City.
The controversy centered around the line "I must be idle," spoken by Hamlet to Horatio. Scholars have long debated the meaning of this phrase. Some interpret it as Hamlet's intention to appear passive and disinterested to avoid his uncle's suspicion. Others believe it refers to Hamlet's plan to act mad, suggesting he should pace around aimlessly.
William Macready, a prominent British actor, chose the latter interpretation for his Edinburgh performance. His portrayal involved wandering aimlessly, tossing his head back, skipping, and swinging a handkerchief. This unconventional approach was met with disapproval from the audience, including American actor Edwin Forrest, who shouted, "Throw him out," before leaving the theater.
This incident sparked a rivalry between Macready and Forrest, representing two different acting styles and, more broadly, two different cultural approaches. When Macready toured America a few years later, Forrest staged competing performances on the same nights, often of the same plays.
The tension between these two actors became a proxy for larger social and cultural conflicts in America. Theaters had traditionally been considered democratic spaces where people from all walks of life could mingle. However, the newly built Astor Opera House in New York broke with this tradition. Funded by wealthy patrons, it enforced strict policies, including a fancy dress code that effectively excluded the working class.
When Macready was scheduled to perform "Macbeth" at the Astor Opera House on May 10, 1849, the stage was set for conflict. Macready, associated with the British aristocratic tradition, performing in an exclusive venue, became a symbol of elitism. In contrast, Forrest, with his more physical and emotional acting style, was seen as representing American values and the common man.
Activists organized a protest against Macready's performance, which quickly escalated into a full-scale riot. Protesters threw cobblestones at the theater, and the situation became so dire that a militia was called in to protect those inside. In the ensuing confrontation, over 20 people lost their lives in what became known as the Astor Place Riot.
This tragic event highlighted the deep class divisions in American society and the unexpected ways in which Shakespeare's works could become flashpoints for these tensions. The Astor Opera House, unable to shake off its association with this bloody conflict, was dismantled four years later.
The Astor Place Riot serves as a stark reminder of how cultural symbols, even those as seemingly benign as different interpretations of Shakespeare, can become powerful catalysts for social unrest when they intersect with existing class tensions and cultural anxieties.
Shakespeare and the Assassination of Lincoln
The influence of Shakespeare's works extended beyond the stage and into the realm of politics, sometimes with tragic consequences. This is perhaps most starkly illustrated in the case of John Wilkes Booth, the man who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln himself was a great admirer of Shakespeare. He often memorized soliloquies and turned to plays like "Macbeth" to help process his own personal tragedies and difficult decisions. For Lincoln, Shakespeare was a tool for introspection and understanding. He enjoyed reciting lines to others and discussing their interpretations, using the Bard's words as a means of exploring complex ideas and emotions.
John Wilkes Booth, on the other hand, saw Shakespeare's works as a call to action. Coming from a family of actors (his father, Junius Brutus Booth, was a renowned British actor), Booth was immersed in Shakespeare from an early age. He and his brothers followed in their father's footsteps, becoming actors themselves.
Booth's approach to Shakespeare was markedly different from Lincoln's. While Lincoln used the plays for reflection, Booth seemed to draw inspiration for action from them. He was particularly drawn to bold, dark characters like Richard III and Macbeth. Booth was known for his intense, almost method-like approach to acting, once telling a friend that he would forget himself completely while portraying a character.
Of particular significance was Booth's fondness for the character of Brutus from "Julius Caesar." He once remarked to a friend, "Of all Shakespeare's characters I like Brutus the best, excepting only Lear." This preference for Brutus, the assassin of Julius Caesar, takes on a chilling significance in light of Booth's later actions.
Booth's radicalization accelerated in the aftermath of the Civil War. In 1864, as he toured the occupied South, his anger at the Union victory likely intensified. During a visit to Montreal in October of that year, he met with Confederate officials who provided funding for what was initially a plot to kidnap Lincoln. When this plan fell through, it evolved into an assassination plot.
In November 1864, Booth performed alongside his brothers in a New York City production of "Julius Caesar," playing the role of Mark Antony. It was reported that during this production, Booth ad-libbed the phrase "sic semper tyrannis" ("thus always to tyrants") following Caesar's assassination. Chillingly, these were the same words Booth reportedly shouted after shooting President Lincoln the following April.
The parallels between Booth's fascination with Brutus and his own actions are striking. Like Brutus, Booth saw himself as a patriot taking drastic action to save his country from a perceived tyrant. He seemed to have internalized the narrative of "Julius Caesar," casting himself in the role of the tragic hero.
This dark chapter in American history illustrates the potential danger when Shakespeare's works are not just appreciated for their artistic merit or used for personal reflection, but are instead used to justify or inspire real-world violence. It serves as a cautionary tale about the power of narrative and the importance of critical thinking when engaging with even the most revered cultural works.
The Tempest and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment
In the early 20th century, as anti-immigrant sentiment was on the rise in America, Shakespeare's "The Tempest" became an unexpected focal point for debates about national identity and the assimilation of newcomers.
During this period, some scholars and writers began to promote the idea of Shakespeare as an "American" writer, despite the fact that he never set foot in the New World. This effort to claim Shakespeare for America coincided with a surge in nativist attitudes and restrictive immigration policies.
"The Tempest," which begins with a shipwreck off the shore of a magical island, was reinterpreted by some as a play about the discovery of America. The island was seen as a representation of the New World, and the characters who arrive there were likened to European settlers.
More troublingly, the character of Caliban, a native of the island often described as a "savage" or "monster," began to be interpreted as a stand-in for indigenous people or, more broadly, for immigrants who were seen as unable to fully assimilate into American culture.
This interpretation gained prominence with Percy MacKaye's adaptation, "Caliban by the Yellow Sands," which was staged in 1916 as part of a nationwide celebration of the 300th anniversary of Shakespeare's death. In MacKaye's version, the focus was on Prospero's attempts to educate and "civilize" Caliban, who was portrayed as a subhuman creature in need of enlightenment.
MacKaye claimed that Caliban represented all of humanity, with Prospero serving as a stand-in for Shakespeare himself. The central theme, according to MacKaye, was how we can all be enlightened by great art and literature. However, the subtext of the play aligned closely with prevailing attitudes towards immigrants and indigenous people.
The 19th century had seen a steady increase in nativist sentiments and anti-immigrant politics in America, much of it racially motivated. There was a clear preference for white immigrants from Northern Europe, while others were often viewed as polluting America's cultural heritage.
In MacKaye's play, Caliban ultimately fails to achieve enlightenment, unable to rise above his "savage" nature. This narrative echoed contemporary arguments suggesting that people from certain cultures would never be able to fully assimilate and become "true" Americans.
The popularity of this interpretation of "The Tempest" coincided with the implementation of some of the strictest immigration laws in U.S. history. The play, and the discussions surrounding it, reflected and reinforced the xenophobic attitudes of the time.
This episode in American cultural history demonstrates how even centuries-old works of literature can be reinterpreted and weaponized to support contemporary political agendas. It shows the malleability of Shakespeare's works, which can be twisted to support various ideologies, sometimes in ways that run counter to principles of equality and inclusion.
The use of "The Tempest" to justify anti-immigrant sentiment serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of using art and literature to promote exclusionary ideologies. It reminds us of the importance of approaching classic works with a critical eye, considering the context in which they were written and the motivations behind various interpretations.
The Taming of the Shrew and Changing Gender Roles
The end of World War II marked a significant shift in American society, particularly in terms of gender roles and expectations. As men returned from the war, there was pressure for women to leave the workforce and return to traditional domestic roles. However, this transition was far from smooth, as evidenced by skyrocketing divorce rates and an increase in domestic violence.
Against this backdrop of social upheaval, American theater turned to one of Shakespeare's most controversial comedies: "The Taming of the Shrew." The play's treatment of gender roles and marital dynamics made it a perfect vehicle for exploring the changing attitudes of post-war America.
In 1947, producer Arnold Saint Subber had the idea to turn "The Taming of the Shrew" into a Broadway musical. He approached Bella Spewack, one of the few female playwrights working at the time, to adapt the play. Spewack was initially reluctant, describing "The Taming of the Shrew" as "one of the worst Shakespeare wrote."
Her hesitation was understandable. The original play tells the story of Katherina, a strong-willed woman who is "tamed" into an obedient wife by her suitor, Petruchio. For a modern audience, especially in the context of changing gender dynamics, this plot was potentially problematic.
However, Spewack eventually agreed to take on the project, seeing an opportunity to address contemporary issues through the lens of Shakespeare's work. The result was "Kiss Me, Kate," which went on to become one of the most successful Broadway productions of all time.
Spewack's adaptation cleverly used a play-within-a-play structure to present two parallel stories: one involving actors performing Shakespeare's play onstage, and another dealing with the actors' modern-day, backstage lives. This structure allowed her to present two competing visions of marriage: the traditional idea of women's obedience to men in the Shakespearean scenes, and a more modern concept of independence and equality in the contemporary scenes.
While Spewack is co-credited with her husband, Samuel Spewack, for the adaptation, there's evidence to suggest that his name was added primarily to satisfy the producers. This itself is a telling detail about the gender dynamics in the theater world of the time.
"Kiss Me, Kate" became a hit, resonating with audiences who were grappling with changing social norms. The musical's success demonstrated that it was possible to engage with Shakespeare's more problematic works in a way that acknowledged their historical context while also speaking to contemporary concerns.
The adaptation of "The Taming of the Shrew" into "Kiss Me, Kate" illustrates how Shakespeare's works can be reinterpreted to reflect changing social values. By presenting both the original story and a modern counterpart, Spewack's adaptation invited audiences to consider how attitudes towards gender and marriage had evolved, and perhaps how much further they still needed to go.
This episode in the history of Shakespeare in America shows how his plays can serve as a starting point for discussions about contemporary issues. It also highlights the role of adaptations in keeping Shakespeare's works relevant to new generations, allowing them to engage with these classic texts in ways that resonate with their own experiences and values.
Shakespeare in Love: Adapting the Bard for Modern American Audiences
The 1998 film "Shakespeare in Love," which won seven Academy Awards including Best Picture, offers a fascinating case study in how Shakespeare's life and works are adapted for modern American audiences. The film's journey from script to screen reveals much about the cultural sensibilities of late 20th-century America and the challenges of bringing Shakespeare to a mainstream movie audience.
The original screenplay, written by Marc Norman in 1988, told a fictional story about a young William Shakespeare struggling as a playwright. In this version, Shakespeare finds his muse in Belinda, a sexually adventurous and independent woman who helps him tap into his feminine side, transforming him from a mediocre writer into the genius who would create "Romeo and Juliet."
Norman's original script included some daring elements. In one scene, Shakespeare falls in love with Belinda while she's disguised as a young man. After some soul-searching, he works up the courage to profess his love and kiss the "young man," only to discover afterward that it's actually Belinda. The script also featured unconventional sexual encounters as part of Shakespeare's journey to find "the very soul of love."
However, as the project developed and moved closer to production, significant changes were made to accommodate what were perceived to be American sensibilities. British playwright Tom Stoppard was brought in to do rewrites, and many of the more controversial elements were toned down or removed entirely.
The scene where Shakespeare believes he's kissing a man was revised so that the heroine (now renamed Viola) reveals her true identity before any romantic encounters. Much of the character's original boldness and sexual independence was also removed.
Another significant change addressed Shakespeare's marital status. To avoid offending American audiences' sensibilities about adultery, scenes were added to establish that Shakespeare's marriage was essentially loveless before he met Viola.
These changes reflect the producers' concerns about what mainstream American audiences would accept in a romantic comedy, even one set in Elizabethan England. The decision to soften the more daring aspects of the original script raises questions about whether a more challenging version of the story might have been possible, or whether it would have achieved the same commercial and critical success.
The evolution of "Shakespeare in Love" from its original concept to the final film illustrates the complex process of adapting historical and literary material for a modern audience. It shows how cultural norms and expectations shape the way stories are told, even when those stories are set in a different time and place.
The success of "Shakespeare in Love" demonstrated that there was a significant audience for Shakespeare-related content in mainstream American cinema. However, the changes made during its development also suggest that there were limits to how far filmmakers felt they could push boundaries, even when dealing with a historical figure known for his complex and often controversial portrayals of love, sexuality, and gender roles.
This episode in the history of Shakespeare's influence on American culture highlights the ongoing negotiation between artistic vision and commercial considerations, between challenging audiences and meeting their expectations. It also underscores the enduring appeal of Shakespeare's life and works as a source of inspiration for new creative endeavors, even as the way his story is told continues to evolve with changing social norms and audience preferences.
The Politicization of Shakespeare in Contemporary America
In recent years, Shakespeare's plays have continued to be a battleground for political and cultural debates in America. However, a significant shift has occurred in how different political factions engage with and interpret these works.
This shift is exemplified by the contrasting reactions to two productions of "Julius Caesar" staged five years apart. In 2012, a production featuring a tall, thin Black man as Caesar – an obvious allusion to then-President Barack Obama – toured the United States without causing significant controversy. However, when New York City's Delacorte Theater in Central Park staged a production in 2017 with a Trump-like figure as Caesar, it sparked intense backlash and threats of violence.
The 2017 production wasn't intended as a call to assassinate the president. In fact, it emphasized the uncertainty and regret of the conspirators following Caesar's death, making the point that political violence, even against a perceived tyrant, doesn't lead to peace and democracy. However, these nuances were lost in the ensuing controversy.
Right-wing media outlets like Breitbart and Fox News largely ignored the fact that this was Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," instead focusing on the image of a Trump-like figure being stabbed on stage. The fact that one of the actors was Black seemed to further inflame the outrage.
The response was swift and severe. Social media was flooded with death threats against anyone associated with the production. There were calls for the play to be shut down immediately, with no room for discussion about its meaning or artistic merit.
This incident marked a significant departure from how Shakespeare's works have traditionally been engaged with in American political discourse. Throughout much of American history, both conservatives and progressives have used Shakespeare's plays to advance their causes, finding in them reflections of their own values and criticisms of their opponents.
However, the reaction to the 2017 "Julius Caesar" suggests that at least some on the political right are now more inclined to reject Shakespeare outright rather than attempt to interpret his works in ways that align with their views. This represents a break from a long tradition of conservative engagement with Shakespeare's plays.
The controversy also highlighted the fragility of democratic institutions like public theater in the face of coordinated outrage. Despite threats and protests, the remaining performances of "Julius Caesar" were held as scheduled, protected by security and police presence. However, the atmosphere of fear and tension surrounding the production was far from what its creators had intended.
This episode serves as a stark reminder of how Shakespeare's works continue to be relevant and provocative in modern America. It also illustrates how the interpretation and reception of these plays can serve as a barometer for the state of public discourse and political polarization in the country.
The differing reactions to the Obama-inspired and Trump-inspired productions of "Julius Caesar" highlight the increasing asymmetry in how different political factions engage with cultural works. While one side continues to see Shakespeare as a valuable source of political commentary and debate, the other appears increasingly willing to denounce any interpretation they disagree with as illegitimate or even dangerous.
This shift poses challenges for artists and educators seeking to use Shakespeare's works as a means of exploring contemporary issues. It also raises questions about the future of Shakespeare in American public life. Will his plays continue to be a shared cultural touchstone that can bridge political divides, or will they become another casualty of increasing polarization?
Conclusion
James Shapiro's exploration of Shakespeare's role in American cultural and political life reveals a complex and often contradictory relationship. Throughout the nation's history, Shakespeare's works have been interpreted, adapted, and used to address some of the most pressing issues facing American society.
From debates about racial equality and interracial relationships sparked by "Othello," to discussions of gender roles and marriage prompted by "The Taming of the Shrew," Shakespeare's plays have provided a framework for Americans to grapple with challenging social issues. They have been used to explore concepts of masculinity and national identity, to justify both progressive and conservative ideologies, and even to inspire political violence.
The malleability of Shakespeare's works has allowed them to remain relevant across centuries of American history. Each generation has found in these plays reflections of their own concerns and values, reinterpreting them to suit the needs of their time.
However, as Shapiro's book demonstrates, this flexibility has also made Shakespeare's works a battleground for competing visions of America. The way these plays are interpreted and received can tell us much about the state of American society at any given time, revealing deep-seated anxieties, prejudices, and aspirations.
The recent controversy surrounding the Trump-inspired production of "Julius Caesar" suggests that we may be entering a new phase in America's relationship with Shakespeare. As political polarization increases, there's a risk that Shakespeare could become another casualty of the culture wars, with one side rejecting his works entirely rather than engaging in debate about their meaning and relevance.
Despite these challenges, Shakespeare's enduring presence in American culture speaks to the power and universality of his work. His plays continue to provide a mirror in which Americans can examine their society, their politics, and themselves. They offer a common language for discussing complex issues and a shared cultural heritage that can potentially bridge divides.
As America continues to grapple with issues of identity, equality, and political power, Shakespeare's works are likely to remain a vital part of these conversations. Whether used to challenge the status quo or to reinforce traditional values, to unite or to divide, Shakespeare's plays will undoubtedly continue to play a significant role in shaping America's cultural and political landscape.
Shapiro's book serves as a reminder of the power of literature to shape public discourse and national identity. It challenges us to think critically about how we interpret and use cultural works, and to consider the responsibilities that come with this engagement. As we move forward, the question remains: How will future generations of Americans engage with Shakespeare, and what will their interpretations reveal about the state of the nation?