Tom Stern, in Chapter Four of his book Philosophy and Theatre: An Introduction, quotes Lukács on the significance of historical drama, stating that in this form of drama, the writer focuses not on historical detail but on the conflicts and tensions of a particular era and its characters. Thus, a playwright like Shakespeare selects a compressed and dramatic event filled with conflicts as the subject of his writing. However, the crucial point is that the reason for this choice lies in the similarity between the conflicts of the play’s historical period and those of the playwright’s own time. In this chapter, Stern looks at Shakespeare as a philosopher of history—someone who reconstructs history and reveals the spirit of an era. Although there is still no consensus on how to classify Shakespeare’s works, it seems that, following Lukács’s definition, his tragedies can be considered historical dramas [i]—even if some are based on English figures and others on characters from ancient times or foreign lands. The subject of this article is the recurring theme of violence in Shakespeare’s plays. Clearly, portraying violence in a dramatic text can heighten its internal conflict and rhythm. But the question is: Where does violence in Shakespeare’s work originate, how does it manifest, and what historical memory does drama help to evoke?
Roman Theatre and Its Influence on Shakespeare
Ancient Roman theatre largely refers to the 4th century BCE. During this period, the Romans—frequently at war to expand their territory—subjugated many city-states. It was during these conquests that they became familiar with Greek theatre. Originally used as a tool for entertainment and social control, theatre gradually evolved in Roman culture. Comedy was the preferred genre, but playwrights like Seneca depicted the social realities of Rome and remained committed to a deeper, politically charged theatre rooted in Greek tradition. Seneca’s works, which later served as a model for Shakespeare’s playwriting, were filled with violent and terrifying scenes. He relished the themes of revenge and the downfall of his characters. Seneca’s tragedies emphasized rhetorical structures and revealed psychological states through language. He employed techniques such as paradox and antithesis to achieve this. Using declamatory styles, Seneca aimed to express his characters’ inner thoughts not only through text but also in performance. Characters used asides, soliloquies, or monologues to unveil their psychological contradictions and internal reasoning. Unlike Greek tragedies, Roman theatre often portrayed murder and violence on stage and directly in front of the audience—reflecting the martial spirit of Roman society. Roman culture was steeped in tales of violence, murder, and assault [ii]. Their drive for conquest—even when achieved without bloodshed—can be interpreted as a form of cultural erasure and identity theft imposed on colonized nations. This hegemony is itself a form of violence, based on deprivation and control. A play like Coriolanus tells the story of a people who refuse to submit to their political leader—a situation that ends badly for both sides.
Montaigne and Shakespeare’s Skepticism
Michel de Montaigne, the 16th-century French thinker, lived during the Renaissance—a time when ancient skeptical thought, long ignored, resurfaced. An ardent humanist, Montaigne admired ancient Greek and Roman culture and believed in the limitations of human reason and knowledge. His skepticism profoundly influenced Shakespeare. In many of Shakespeare’s plays, two narrative patterns emerge: first, characters misjudge the motives of others; second, a character is deceived due to limited reasoning and perception. Intriguingly, Shakespeare suggests that humans cannot even truly know themselves. In the first scenario, this misjudgment often leads to tragedy; in the second, it may trigger vengeful reactions that also result in disaster [iii]. A clear example is King Lear, where Goneril and Regan successfully deceive the king at the outset, while Cordelia’s sincere intent is misunderstood.
England and the Writer’s Historical Context
Shakespeare’s career spanned the reigns of Queen Elizabeth I and King James I—both politically tumultuous periods. Even prior to this, England had experienced significant political and religious strife. One example is the Wars of the Roses, a dynastic conflict between the powerful Lancaster and York families that lasted for years. Religiously, the Protestant Reformation divided Western Christianity into Roman Catholicism and various Protestant churches. Protestants rejected many traditional rituals and resisted the authority of bishops. Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn—who was executed during Elizabeth’s childhood—was initially denied the right to succeed the throne. She was a marginalized woman who ultimately claimed her right to rule. Elizabeth supported the rights of Protestant rebels, but as religious tensions escalated and threats to the country grew, she resorted to violence. A patron of theatre and the arts, Elizabeth helped solidify national identity during a time of political instability. Following her reign, under James I (the early Jacobean era), the flourishing of arts, literature, theatre, and intellectual skepticism continued. James was not inherently warlike (though he couldn’t always prevent conflict in Parliament) and sought to be a progressive ruler.
This brief historical overview explains why Shakespeare’s mind was so deeply occupied with themes such as moral authority, sovereignty, the nature of leadership, and the recognition of the marginalized [iv]. These subjects offer fertile ground for dramatizing acts of violence and exploring the concept of violence itself. A good example is Richard III. Although the events and character of Richard in the play don’t align precisely with historical reality, Shakespeare’s preoccupation with portraying a marginalized figure whose quest for power leads to revenge and crime is evident.
The Latent Violence in Shakespeare’s Works
The concept of violence does not merely refer to the overt violent acts of an agent involving war and bloodshed (although this kind of violence is indeed abundant in Shakespeare’s works). In his book Violence, Slavoj Žižek outlines other forms of violence. First is symbolic violence, which refers to the imposition of a world of meaning through language, shaped by the structures of social dominance. Second is systemic violence, which emerges from economic and political disorder and is often invisible. Visible, active violence appears as a consequence of the disruption of a situation, whereas passive, structural violence is the very cause of a situation’s stability. [v] Can’t Othello’s violence be seen as a result of the continual humiliation he suffers for being a Moor? Isn’t Hamlet’s violence rooted in his refusal to accept the newly established order after his father’s death and his resistance to submit to the new king? And isn’t Hamlet himself an object of a silent, underlying violence?
What Was Shakespeare’s Intention?
In the 16th and 17th centuries, while societal structures remained largely unchanged, a new understanding of the world emerged that shifted thinking about power and law. In England, the promotion of the arts and literature created space for skeptical artists to once again question themes like power and justice.
Michel Foucault argues that authoritarian states choose the discourse that suits them and turn it into “truth” by excluding and silencing other discourses. In doing so, they construct a kind of knowledge that is profoundly ideological. Language among the people works in the same way. But literature, in contrast to political structures, places itself in a position of inquiry—challenging our everyday perceptions (in this case, the use of violence in the exercise of power and justice). Thus, Shakespeare’s stance appears to be one of resistance against these oppressive systems of power. At a time when the will of kings was seen as aligned with divine will, and people were expected to accept their fate unquestioningly, Shakespeare’s depiction of royal mistakes signaled a shift in public perspective. People no longer saw themselves as unconditionally under God’s or the king’s protection. Like Hamlet, they began to confront their own vulnerable and unstable existence. The hierarchical system, which had long devalued the subordinate and the outcast, reinforcing rigid social roles and equating kings with gods, now feared societal breakdown and chaos. This concern became fertile ground for the creation of many literary works. [vi]
On the one hand, royal support for theatre might have aimed to showcase monarchical authority and justify the use of force to maintain power. However, Shakespeare’s works seek to generate empathy in the audience for his helpless and anguished protagonists.
Characters like Macbeth, although doomed by rebelling against the king, seem driven by more than mere ambition. The audience can understand their motives—something that disturbs their psychological state. Something like the burden of enduring daily, silent violence.
[i] Stern, Tom. Philosophy and theatre: an introduction. Routledge, 2013.
[ii] Boyle, Anthony James. Tragic Seneca: An essay in the theatrical tradition. Routledge, 2013.
[iii] Gaskin, Richard. Othello and the Problem of Knowledge: Reading Shakespeare Through Wittgenstein. Routledge, 2023.
[iv] Durant, Will, and Ariel Durant. The age of reason begins. Vol. 7. Simon and Schuster, 2011.
[v] Zizek, Slavoj. Violence. Picador, 2008.
[vi] Droste, Anika. ““Storm Still.” Violence, Power and Justice in Shakespeare.” Universitätsdrucke Göttingen (2015): 63