Time and time again people have questioned Shakespeare’s ethics, religion, sexuality and politics. Nothing can really be deduced about the man from his works. It is considered a dangerous trap when we start to assume that the words of Shylock or Romeo are conduits for Shakespeare’s personal feelings. However, he writes powerful arguments that chime with Liberal ideology. Do I have bias and wish for Shakespeare to be a liberal? Or is it my love for Shakespeare both as a theatre-goer and as an actor that turned me to liberal politics at a young age? I believe so.
Shakespeare had such a vast breadth of understanding about human nature and his plays are what taught me to be accepting of others and that the world is a vast tapestry of people from different backgrounds. On the one hand they are a fascinating treasure trove of theatrical characters and on the other these are real people and these differences are wonderful and should be celebrated. So Shakespeare is arguably the biggest Liberal campaigner there ever was! His plays espouse equality as well as free will and political and social freedoms for all, but he does it an incredibly powerful and subversive way (partially due to the volatile political atmosphere that he lived in).
It has been argued that Shakespeare was a conservative. Yes he was a Catholic (possibly practising, possibly not) and people tend to associate this with conservatism. He penned arguments for the rights of women, foreigners and universal acceptance. He was fascinated by the human condition in whatever form that manifested itself (even in the “monster” Caliban). To this day his female roles are still the most powerfully written women in Literature.
Shakespeare did take liberties with history for dramatic purposes and some argue that he is too light on characters like Julius Caesar, but this to me is where one aspect of his liberalism lies. His treatment of dictatorial figures like Julius Caesar and Richard III are given a depth of insight which is utterly human. Shakespeare portrayed bad government and hubris particularly in the plays steeped in politics like Coriolanus or Antony and Cleopatra and he always looks at both sides of a story. That, to me, is what separates the liberal ethos from other political philosophies. The ability to see another point of view and play devil’s advocate is how we manage to understand each other even if those views are vastly oppugnant.
As we mark the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death and hope to pick up our feet and have a liberal fight back we must remember what made Shakespeare a great liberal is what should make us want to be great liberals and great human beings: ethical, striving for equality and accepting. No doubt there are holes in my argument but as TS Eliot said, “the most anyone can hope for is to be wrong about Shakespeare in a new way”. It may not be new but to me Shakespeare is the figurehead for liberalism.
* The author is an actor, writer and Lib Dem member
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
How many councillors has Reform UK lost since the May 2026 elections?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
23 Comments
I love a good game of ‘claim a historical Liberal’ as much as the next man but I think that it doesnt really apply when Liberalism as an ideology didnt exist back then – and if it did it would have faced severe persecution.
The main issues of the day were the competing loyalities to the Crown and the Pope. These could be quite fluid – A hardline Protestant would reject both authorities whilst a loyal Catholic would be proud to support both. The capricousness of Elizabethan & Jacobite Governments meant that politics was much more about retaining power than ideology – and any ideology was deeply religous rather than secular/civil
That said, the movement of travel away from the Crown to Parliament picked up speed under James I and I am sure that Shakespeare with his humanity, his intellect and his emotional honesty helped prepare the way for the Parliamentary Revolutions of the 1640s and 1680s
PS – I’m a Methodist not a Catholic myself but I can think of several current and former LibDem Catholic MPs who would question your statement that Catholicism is equivelent to Conservatism!
It all depends on who Shakespeare actually was. Francis Bacon? The Earl of Oxford? Or the jobbing actor from Stratford upon Avon? Any other suggestions?
If anyone doubts that “Shakespeare” was indeed Shakespeare, i suggest that they read “Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare” ” by James Shapiro, first published in 2010 by Faber & Faber.
I suppose that part of the genius of Shakespeare was and is his ability to manage to be everything. Though arguably such a talent requires an intrinsically Liberal mentality.
As to who Shakespeare was, I am referring to the person described by his contemporary genius, Ben Jonson:
“… Soule of the Age !
The applause ! delight ! the wonder of our Stage !
My Shakespeare, rise; I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lye
A little further, to make thee a roome :
Thou art a Moniment, without a tombe,
And art alive still, while thy Booke doth live,
And we have wits to read, and praise to give.
and later
Sweet swan of Avon! what a fight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
“It has been argued that Shakespeare was a conservative. Yes he was a Catholic (possibly practising, possibly not) and people tend to associate this with conservatism.”
Then people are silly and ignorant of history.
Religious conservatism has no inherent need to associate with whatever is the political conservatism of its day. Often in fact it is political liberalism that protects religious conservatism from social or religious liberalism.
Catholics in England in the 17th century who were not in open rebellion against the Crown had a huge vested interest in the rule of law, in limiting the powers of the monarch and parliament, in local communities being allowed to make decisions among themselves without the intereference of local government… etc, etc.
And that’s assuming Shakespeare WAS a Catholic, which I thought was more conjectural that you suggest. But anyway, that’s not my point.
Of course, ‘liberal’ is not entirely a helpful term in pre-enlightenment society, as pointed out above.
PS – and, to repeat myself again, there is no ‘one’ form of religious conservatism, even within the same religion. What different religious adherents want to ‘conserve’ will differ and vary.
“But this above all – to thine own self be true”. If that isnt Liberalism I dont know what is. Typically that line is for a minor, comic character who Hamlet describes as a “foolish, prating knave”. Everybody gets to shine whether they are idiots or psycopaths, everyone gets to show what being Human can mean.
Although in a positive light I would agree with paul, I would also point out on the very dark side that I believe David Cameron, George Osborne etc also fit the epithet “to thine own self be true” now we are no longer there to moderate their greed.
‘Yes he was a Catholic (possibly practising, possibly not) and people tend to associate this with conservatism. ‘
Do they? Who are these people who do that? Are they people who know little or next to nothing about the social teaching of the Catholic Church? Yes, I think they must be.
The Liberal Democrats has had plenty of Catholic MPs, peers. It even had a leader, Charles Kennedy, who was a Catholic and who came from a strongly Catholic background. There are Catholic councillors and ordinary members who are Catholic too. They may not have worn their Catholic identity on their sleeves but they have contributed to this party for decades.
If William Shakespeare was a liberal and a Catholic, great but is not the author of the article simply reading back into history his own assumptions about Catholicism and liberalism, and then applying them to the Bard?
Crude stereotyping is really unhelpful and actually quite intolerant.
Andrew
This is excellent and right up my street !As a fellow actor , writer and Liberal Democrat member I agree with you argument and exposition of it .We know little of the man , what we have in the plays is Liberal quantities of liberal ideas !
A quote for you and us all,
“A largesse , universal ,like the sun , his liberal eye doth give to everyone !”
From the chorus in Henry V!
Andrew
Allow me to be chorus to this history ! I am , and have been a while , developing a venture in our party for those interested and involved in the arts and creative industries , I have put a lot of thought and preparation into it and I shall be submitting my proposals for the wider party soon , but in the meantime , anyone I encounter who I know can benefit , I want to be in touch with .Please get in touch via LDV anytime and I shall let you know more .
This debate is getting a bit Irish (of the Northern variety). It’s always dangerous when religion rears its ugly head. Whoever wrote those plays and sonnets was a genius. It’s just a pity that we had to have them rammed down our throats at school. I’m sure that this forced feeding put many off for life. Many Germans have the same problem with Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), who, many would argue, as a literary and scientific figure, would rival and even surpass the Bard of Stratford upon Avon. (Let’s see if anyone rises to this bait!)
John Marriott
What is ‘dangerous’ about discussing whether Shakespeare was a Catholic and a Liberal?
Surely, not talking about religion, in effect privatising it, because some people find it difficult to negotiate the variety and complexity of interpretations, even within one religion, is more dangerous.
Religious literacy is needed as much now as it ever was. Discussing the subject on a public forum is certainly not equivalent to the sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland, which emerged out of its own particular history (as much political and ethnic as religious).
Ok. Perhaps I was a little unclear. Not claiming that all Catholicism is intrinsic to Conservatism or that Catholics are all Conservative…I am just saying that there are certain attitudes that are more Conservative. I was bought up as Methodist (no longer am one) and there was extremely conservative attitudes from the Methodist church when growing up.I was perhaps trying to paint a picture of what people sometimes see as the stricter dogma that the Catholic church espoused and that they haven’t moved forward as fast as it would have liked to. even today. no offence meant.
Matt – Agree Liberal ideology wasn’t around, it doesn’t mean for example that people didn’t have those ideologies . i.e Communism may have existed in thought prior to it being set down.
John – Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare in my opinion.
Nick – Indeed, still didn’t convince me
Martin – Nail on the head “such a talent requires an intrinsically Liberal mentality.” i s what I’m getting at.
Matt (Bristol) – Great thoughts here. I know we don’t know. I suspect he was a Catholic but what i meant was whether he was practising or not we don;t know…we don’t know anything…). And actually yes to your post script – you are right.
Paul – Indeed Sir!
David – The quicker people realise this the better!
Helen – Yes this is a subjective view. I nearly toko this bit out. I am not saying Catholicism is illiberal or all conservative, my point was not clear, not intedning to come accross as crude at all. I ws pouring over attitudes to freedoms such as the Protestant wantin an English bible to make it more excessive and the catholic opposition to Tyndel and Luther and the tensions of the time. not very coherently though!
Lorenzo – Thhanks for your comments and yes “We know little of the man , what we have in the plays is Liberal quantities of liberal ideas” (Catholic or not) – please do get in touch.
John – Yes Goethe is the German front runner. I don;t think it is dangerous to discuss it and actually have a northern Irish partner may have even effected my attitudes to the religious debate that has arisen here (not intended!)
Helen – Agree we can and should discuss both! and they are not the same thing. Also I’m happy to be proven wrong and open minded to evaluating my own thinking and ideas. Religious literacy is needed indeed. A close family member was an RS teacher when I was growing up and have always been as opened minded as I can. I certainly find intolerance abhorrent and yes of course our own experiences effect who we are and I’m always striving to be objective in these as well as other things.
Helen,
Sorry if my slightly tongue-in-cheek comments annoyed you. Quite frankly I don’t really care whether he/she/they was/were Catholic, Protestant or whatever. My point was that religion has got much to answer for over the centuries. At least your intervention did prove that someone would rise to the bait! Oh, by the way, if you think that sectarianism is confined to Northern Ireland, how do you explain 30 Years’War and the Spanish Inquisition?
Andrew Venning
Thanks for your clarifications.
John Marriott
I’m not annoyed, merely animated! It would be interesting at some point to have a ranging discussion about how ‘religion’ – an umbrella term which can be misleading – is used and manipulated as an instrument to justify violence and intimidation.
Sectarianism is often bound up with tribalism and politics and yes there are myriad, complex examples.
To several above , “Me think thou dost protest too much !”
The fact is Andrew gives a very good account for liberal values at the heart of many of the plays and a liberal attitude in the heart of their author .A brief and not altogether without foundation comment by Andrew on religious views of the time has led to even the robust John Marriot to express concern !
Really , as someone brought up a Catholic with great respect for the best it has to offer , it has never been a bastion of liberalism has it ?!To call it conservative at the time of Elizabeth 1, who I am honoured to share a birthday with , though she s much older , is to speak the truth !She , who was definitely more liberal and who , in her religious compromise of a new Anglican settlement, said ,she did “not want to make windows into men s souls ,” hardly what could have been said of the pope who backed the Armada and invasion of these islands !
Andrew ,
Well done , thank you for that , shall be including my contact details in a future post , watch this space and we shall be in touch !
I think that Lord Paddy Ashdown famously summed up the problem with sectarianism when he told how, upon arriving with his family in Northern Ireland as a young lad, he decided to claim to be Buddhist. When approached in the playground by one of his new ‘friends’ and asked his religion he told him. “Well”, came the reply, “is yers a Catholic Buddhist or a Protestant Buddhist?” GREAT!
@ Lorenzo “She , who was definitely more liberal”
Yes, well, sorry Lorenzo but you wouldn’t have had much fun on your shared birthday. Under Elizabeth, the 1559 bills made English Catholics guilty of high treason—a crime English law punished by hanging, drawing, and quartering offending men, and by burning offending women. To say or attend the Catholic Mass became a criminal act punishable by fines and imprisonment. All parishioners had to attend church on Sundays and holy days under penalty of a shilling for each absence.
The only thing in her favour as a liberal was that she came from an All Women Shortlist.
As for the ‘did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?’ debate. Catherine Spurgeon settled this for me 44 years ago in her book ‘Shakespeare’s Imagery’. He did.
Thank you Nick!
Anyone else looking into this should read Stanley Wells and Paul Edmonson’s Shakespeare Beyond Doubt.
Shakespeare does seem to have been a humanist in the widest sense: he believed all humanity shared a common condition, that all humans were wonderful and terrible whatever their skin colour, gender or religion. This is perfectly in line with Catholicism: it was some strands of Protestantism, plus some strands of Hinduism, that managed to find the most fundamental religious sanctions for inequality. He also seems to have believed deeply in an ordered, hierarchical society: this was well in line with Catholicism and conservative Anglicanism of his time, though less so with Puritanism and the Protestant Radicals. His treatment of peasant rebellions shows a deep fear of the mob and an unwillingness to engage with the reasons why peaceful peasants might become a mob. He was a great writer whose work contributes to Liberal and Conservative thought.
David Raw
As a graduate of history and politics and brought up a Catholic and , as a Liberal Democrat , I am aware of the difference between words used as relative or as absolute .Of course you are correct , but nonetheless Elizabeth put together a fudge of a compromise , yes which everyone was obliged to follow , but which was designed to please Catholic moderates and protestant moderates , rather than so called papists or , puritans .That it would please no one now , is of course true !
Fewer people were executed by the state in the whole of her reign , according to some accounts , than in one year of Phillip of Spain , friend of the papacy at that time .It is , aware of context , that I meant she was more liberal , more than her father Henry , more than her sister Mary , more than the monarchs who followed her soon after .
Today we d call them all fascists !