Summary of Key Points
This book explores the divisions and conflicts within American society through the interpretation and controversy surrounding Shakespearean plays at different historical periods in the United States. From the bloody riots triggered by an actor dispute in 1849, to the claims in 2017 that the play *Julius Caesar* alluded to Trump and led to death threats, to the extreme misinterpretation of Shakespearean characters during Lincoln's assassination, Shakespearean works have always served as a mirror reflecting deep-seated issues such as class contradictions, racial differences, and gender debates. The author questions whether Shakespeare can still be a tool for promoting dialogue and bridging gaps in an era of increasing division.
1. The Shakespearean Controversy of 2017: How Did Playing Caesar Become an Allegation of Assassinating the President?
In 2017, when the Public Theater of New York performed *Julius Caesar*, a white actor playing Caesar was assassinated. Opponents directly equated Caesar with Trump, arguing that the performance was inciting an attempt to kill the president. Over the course of several weeks, the actor received numerous threats, and the theater had to hire additional police and security personnel. During the performance, a young woman rushed onto the stage, filming and shouting "Protect the president," later revealing that she had set up a donation link in hopes of gaining attention and raising money for a cause. The director intended to use the play to reflect on power, but opponents were only concerned with the superficial reference to assassinating Trump. Right-wing media further fueled the tension, leaving the director with no chance to refute these claims—just as the book states: "How can you defeat a monster without becoming a monster yourself?"
2. The Bloodshed of 1849: Shakespearean Productions as a Flashpoint for Class Conflict
In 1849, another significant incident occurred at the Astor Theater in New York. Both American actor Forrest and British actor Macready were performing Shakespearean roles. Forrest's supporters viewed Macready as a representative of British elitism and looked down on the poor in America. The underlying issues were the widening gap between the rich and the poor, rising nationalism (dislike for outsiders), and the presence of street gangs. What was supposed to be a place where the wealthy and the poor could come together turned into a conduit for social tensions. In the end, workers gathered outside the theater to protest, resulting in the death of more than 20 people and the injury of over 100—one of the bloodiest theater riots in American history.
3. Lincoln's Assassination: Shakespearean Characters as a Blueprint for Violence
John Wilkes Booth, the assassin who killed Lincoln in 1865, was himself an actor who identified with Shakespearean heroes such as Macbeth and Brutus (the assassin in *Julius Caesar*). Lincoln enjoyed Shakespeare and used his plays for self-reflection; however, Booth saw the characters as action-oriented figures who acted without reflection, believing he was acting on divine authority. A white supremacist, Booth saw himself as a Brutus saving the South from defeat. He completely distorted the complex inner workings of the character Brutus (who in the play expresses remorse).
4. Shakespearean “Battlefields” Throughout History: Each Era Projects Its Own Dilemmas
The book provides numerous other examples:
- In 1833, former President Adams (a proponent of abolition) criticized *Othello* for Tessimone's marriage to a black man, reflecting racial discrimination at the time.
- In 1845, a woman played Romeo (a traditionally male role), which caused mixed reactions, demonstrating the confusion about gender roles.
- In 1916, politicians portrayed Shakespeare as an American hero and used *The Tempest* to justify restrictions on immigration based on racial purity.
- In 1948, *The Taming of the Shrew* was adapted into a musical that promoted the idea of women having the right to pursue careers and desires, reflecting the awakening of female consciousness after the war.
These examples show that Shakespearean works serve as a “container” for societal contradictions of each era, which are then reenacted through performance.
5. Shakespeare in an Era of Division: Can It Still Be Used for Dialogue?
America is currently experiencing increasing divisions, and over 90% of high schools teach Shakespeare. However, Trump was the first president to express disinterest in the genre. The Public Theater's production of *Julius Caesar* aimed to use the play to discuss politics, but opponents were unwilling to engage in dialogue; they simply wanted to vent their emotions. The author believes that Shakespeare may still have value: at certain historical moments, people have learned to communicate and reconcile through reflection on its characters. On the other hand, it can also be used by extremists to incite hatred. The answer lies within Shakespeare itself: if political divisions are not addressed through reflection, they will lead to tragedy; if dialogue is pursued, a way forward may be found.
This book is not about finance per se, but uses Shakespeare as a lens to examine the history of American social division. Its themes—such as how social contradictions erupt and how group emotions are manipulated—are relevant to economic scholars’ concerns. Whether it’s the class conflicts of 1849 or the political opposition of 2017, the root causes are always rooted in conflicts of interest and ideology, and Shakespeare merely brings these issues to the forefront. For ordinary people, understanding these examples helps to understand why American society has become what it is today.