Navigation – Plan du site
American Shakespeare

A Southern Shakespeare?

Michèle Vignaux

Résumés

L’Amérique a toujours entretenu une relation ambiguë, entre rejet et appropriation, avec Shakespeare. L’une des causes de cette ambivalence est la tension sous-jacente entre l’idéal démocratique des Etats-Unis et l’association de Shakespeare avec l’ordre féodal de la vieille Europe, lui-même associé par Walt Whitman à l’esclavage dans le Vieux Sud. D’où l’idée d’explorer dans cet article la dichotomie Nord/Sud au XIXe siècle, en se demandant dans quelle mesure elle recoupe d’autres dichotomies telles que texte lu/représenté sur scène, mais aussi en s’interrogeant sur une éventuelle spécificité du Sud tant en matière de réception que de fécondation de la création littéraire, qui révèle de secrètes affinités thématiques.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1  Kim C. Sturgess, Shakespeare and the American Nation, dust jacket. See also Michael D. Bristol, Sh (...)
  • 2  Sturgess 18; see also Helen Whickham Koon, How Shakespeare Won the West (1925).

1As a number of studies have shown, America’s relationship to Shakespeare is a notoriously ambiguous one, wavering between rejection and appropriation. The main emphasis has usually been on the double paradox of appropriating “a poet of the past” emblematic of the old feudal order in a new democratic nation, and of claiming a poet representative of the old colonial power as an honorary American referred to as “our” Shakespeare, a figure that, according to Kim Sturgess, “had become as American as George Washington,” the first president of the young Republic1. In Shakespeare and the American Nation, Kim Sturgess, purporting to offer a comprehensive and accurate account of how Shakespeare came to be appropriated by the Americans throughout the nineteenth century in connection with the construction of an American identity, allowed for the following provision “problematic as that in turn is” (8), while stressing the equal popularity of Shakespeare in both long-established eastern cities and in booming Frontier towns2. Drawing on Walt Whitman’s observation:

  • 3  “Poetry To-Day in America—Shakespeare—The Future” (1881), www.bartleby.com, §4.

It almost seems as if only […] feudalism in Europe, like slavery in our own South, could outcrop types of tallest, noblest personal character yet—strength and devotion and love better than elsewhere—invincible courage, generosity, aspiration, the spines of all.3

  • 4 Further references can be found in Kolin, Shakespeare in the South, 3-4.

2I would like to examine further the North/South dichotomy, and the possibility of a specifically Southern response to Shakespeare, a question that has not yet been explored systematically, although a number of forays have been made. Helpful but scattered information can be retrieved from such studies as Hugh F. Rankin, The Theater in Colonial America, which is limited to the pre-Revolutionary period; James H. Dormon, Theater in the Ante Bellum South, 1815-1861, which offers little on Shakespeare; Arthur Hornblow, A History of the Theatre in America from its Beginnings to the Present Times, and above all from the two volumes edited by Philip Kolin, Shakespeare in the South. Essays on Performance (1983), and Shakespeare and Southern Writers. A Study in Influence (1985)4. Among the aspects to be taken into account are the following: which Shakespeare are we dealing with—on page or on stage? What was the relative popularity of Shakespeare in general, and of particular plays, on the Northern vs. the Southern stages? What was the nature of the familiarity with Shakespeare and how is it to be assessed? Since the question is of potentially immense scope, I will narrow my focus on the nineteenth century, the heyday of Shakespeare’s popularity in America, with particular attention given to the period leading up to the Civil War and its aftermath, the development of the Southern mythology of the “Lost Cause”.

  • 5 “Hawthorne and His Mosses” (The Literary World, August 17 and 24, 1850), available at www.eldritchp (...)

3Herman Melville’s famous complaint about the “absolute and unconditional adoration of Shakespeare” in America, which dictated that “You must believe in Shakespeare’s unapproachability, or quit the country,” was directed as much, if not more, against what he felt had “grown to be a part of our Anglo Saxon superstitions,” rather than against Shakespeare himself. This is made clear by the surrounding context of this largely polemical text, whose aim was primarily to promote national literature and extol “men [such as Hawthorne] not very much inferior to Shakespeare […], born on the banks of the Ohio.” Besides, Melville regretted that “much of the blind, unbridled admiration that has been heaped upon Shakespeare, has been lavished upon the least part of him” rather than on “the things that have made for Shakespeare his loftiest, but most circumscribed renown,” and praised him as “the profoundest of thinkers,” whom he took pains to distinguish from, and even set against, the dramatist: “For by philosophers Shakespeare is not adored as the great man of tragedy and comedy.”5 Melville was thus establishing a clear hierarchy between page and stage: “very few who extol him, have ever read him deeply, or, perhaps, only have seen him on the tricky stage, (which alone made, and is still making him his mere mob renown)” [italics mine], which paralleled a social and intellectual hierarchy between the kind of refined appreciation of which only the “happy few” were capable, and the coarseness of the majority of his fellow countrymen, a distinction which may also tally with a geographical and cultural North/South divide.

  • 6  The same observation can be extended to the situation that prevailed until the mid-eighteenth cent (...)
  • 7  Sturgess mentions a steady five per decade American editions of Shakespeare’s complete works in th (...)

4Lawrence Levine has established that Shakespeare was part and parcel of nineteenth century American culture across the social spectrum, and that this period also coincided with the heyday of his popularity on the stage, before his translation from stage to page confined him to elite culture, so that “By the turn of the century Shakespeare had been converted from a popular playwright whose dramas were the property of those who flocked to see them, into a sacred author who had to be protected from ignorant audiences and overbearing actors threatening the integrity of his creations” (Levine 72)6. Indeed, from the first documented American professional performance of a Shakespeare play (that of Richard III in New York in 1750 by the Hallams) until the closing of the theaters during the American Revolution in 1774, Shakespeare emerged as the single most popular playwright in the colonies, a position he retained after the Revolution. Even when, by the nineteenth century, books had become a more important vehicle for disseminating his works, the stage, Levine contends, remained the primary instrument of his popularity (Levine 16-18)7.

  • 8  See Shattuck, 5-6: “whether as colony or state, Episcopalian Virginia never passed laws banning pl (...)

5From this point of view, there is little doubt that the South held a far more open attitude towards theater (although admittedly this openness was not limited to Shakespeare, he nevertheless featured prominently) than Puritan New England or even Pennsylvania. More than that, the South seems to have offered a more relaxed moral climate and a warmer welcome to the theater8. This aspect is particularly emphasized about Maryland (in Annapolis, then Baltimore) by Christopher Thaiss, who compares the players’ stay to a period of carnival, and could be related to other forms of popular entertainment, such as fairs, races, or circuses. Thaiss goes so far as to suggest that the South had a crucial role in promoting theater in the whole of America: “without the hospitable, albeit unsophisticated, audience of Maryland, even the strong companies might have failed, thus setting back for decades the growth of the American theater” (Kolin 1983 69). Thaiss also explains how, after 1865, a rather untypical circumstance further promoted Baltimore as a leading center of theater, when special trains of Washington admirers came to see Edwin Booth who, after Lincoln’s assassination by his younger brother John, had become ashamed to play in Washington, and how in the 1870s Baltimore became a favorite try-out city for new productions on their way to the harsher climate of New York (Kolin 1983 68-69).

  • 9  Shattuck, 6; see also Sara Nalley, “Shakespeare on the Charleston Stage, 1764-1799,” in Philip C. (...)
  • 10  Quoted by Levine 24. For additional evidence of color people attending theater see for instance, i (...)

6One reason for this welcoming attitude may be that leading citizens customarily sent their sons to England to be educated (at schools such as Westminster or Eton, and then on to the Universities or the Inns of Court), where they acquired English tastes in literature and drama, so that going to the theater, “one of the pleasures traditionally available to the English leisured classes,” was also quite naturally part of the lifestyle of the old gentleman of the South, along with hunting, dancing, riding, drinking, and cardplaying9. However, Shakespeare was not confined to an elite in the nineteenth century—a point emphasized by Philip Kolin in his comparison between Elizabethan England and the American South: “both theaters were pluralistic, however aristocratic the society in which they were shaped” (Kolin 1983 7). The public was composed of Ladies and Gentlemen, wealthy planters as well as merchants, steamboatmen, small farmers, and visitors, while the gallery was inhabited largely by those—apprentices, servants, poor workingmen—who could not afford better seats or by those (including free men and women of color, slaves, and prostitutes) who were not allowed to sit elsewhere. The New Orleans paper Daily Picayune stressed Shakespeare’s popularity with the Black population: “The playgoing portion of our negro population feel more interest in, and go in greater numbers to see, the plays of Shakespeare represented on the stage, than any other class of dramatic performance” (March 14, 1844)10.

  • 11 See Levine 36 and Stanley Wells (ed.),Nineteenth-century Shakespeare burlesques, vol. 5: American S (...)
  • 12  Quoted by Levine 73.
  • 13  See James H. Dormon, Theater in the Antebellum South, 1815-1861, 258; Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow, 34
  • 14  Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow, 35 and 37-38. Alfred Van Rensselaer Westfall devotes a chapter to “Our P (...)

7Among the reasons that may have prompted Melville’s contempt for the popularity Shakespeare derived from the stage is that the plays were generally presented not in their original form but extensively revised, drastically cut, or “improved” with interpolated popular songs, and frequently in the form of adaptations—as with Colley Cibber’s version of Richard III, which was shorter, simplified in structure, and emphatically focused on the villainous character of Richard to suit nineteenth century audiences’ tastes for “a clear dichotomy between good and evil, black and white” (Dormon 258). A further step was taken with parodies and burlesques of the kind illustrated in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (ch. 21) which, although dismissed as not genuine Shakespeare, nevertheless testify to familiarity with his plays11. In the same way as Melville contrasted Shakespeare’s “mob renown” acquired on the stage with true, intelligent appreciation, the belief that “Shakespeare off the stage [was] far superior to Shakespeare on the stage” as A.A. Lipscomb put it in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 65, Aug. 188212 has led theater historians to conclude that, in Levine’s words, “Shakespeare was popular for all the wrong reasons” and that he could “communicate with the unsophisticated at the level of action and oratory while appealing to the small refined element at the level of dramatic and poetic artistry”13—a conclusion which Levine has shown to be debatable (resting as it does on an arbitrary separation of “action and oratory” from “dramatic and poetic artistry”), considering how saturated nineteenth century political discourse was with quotations and references to Shakespeare, which naturally found their way in nineteenth-century newspapers. As a result, Levine contends, “Shakespearean phrases, aphorisms, ideas and language helped shape American speech and became so integral a part of nineteenth century imagination that it is a futile exercise to separate Americans’ love of Shakespeare’s oratory from their appreciation for his subtle use of language”14.

  • 15  “Listening to Civil War Voices,” in Shakespeare in American Life, Folger Shakespeare Library,www.s (...)

8Of course, as Stephen Dickey admits in conclusion of his study of diaries, speeches, letters, and other records of the Civil War, revealing the extent to which both sides enlisted Shakespeare to their purposes, this kind of quotation may not reveal more than surface, hardly conscious, familiarity with “a catch phrase, a Shakespearean image that had become idiomatic, portable, and almost infinitely adaptable for one-off usage, regardless of context”. On the other hand, such instances as Lincoln’s use of Hamlet’s “To be, or not to be” speech in his Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) to warn the Southern states against the lures of secession—with the implication that it would be suicidal—or Frederick Douglass’s references to Julius Caesar in My Bondage and My Freedom (1855), suggest “a purposeful appropriation of Shakespeare’s language and a sharp awareness of the original context of the phrase or speech as it is now being re-applied”15.

  • 16  “Shakespeare as Popular Entertainment in the 1800s”: www.shakespeareinamericanlife.org/transcripts (...)

9Such observations prompt the question of the relevance of the page/stage dichotomy, and it appears that other vehicles, both oral and written, should be considered for a full account of the diversity of the ways in which familiarity with Shakespeare could be acquired. In an oral culture in which the spoken word was central, even the illiterate knew their Shakespeare (or whole stretches), from hearing him performed, from public readings, or from having him read to them. Kim Sturgess tells the story of one Jim Bridger (the founder of Fort Bridger in Wyoming), who is known to have traded a pair of cattle worth about 125 dollars to a passing wagon train, so that he could get their copy of Shakespeare. Since, however, he was illiterate, he had to pay a local boy to read this to him, and he used to wander around quoting great swathes of Shakespeare which he had memorized for all sorts of points in his life16.

  • 17  Nan Johnson, “The Popularization of Shakespeare in Nineteenth-Century American Rhetorical Educatio (...)

10Shakespeare was also an important feature of education. As Nan Johnson has shown, his works held pride of place in the two major textbook traditions of the rhetorical treatise teaching the classical principles of invention, arrangement, and style, and of the rhetoric anthology offering excerpts from the best writers of the Anglo-American tradition17. The McGuffey Readers, widely used in schools after the Civil War, contained large excerpts of Shakespeare’s plays as illustrations of rhetoric, whose popularity was second only to the King James Bible—with this reservation that this was Shakespeare anthologized and expurgated, or even rewritten, as in the following lines found on the title page of Hinton Rowan Helper’s The Impending Crisis of the South: how to meet it (1857), of which only the last appears to be genuinely Shakespeare’s (spoken by Macbeth V.3.32):

COUNTRYMEN! I sue for simple justice at your hands,
Naught else I ask, nor less will have
Act right, therefore, and yield my claim,
Or, by the great God that made all things,
I’ll fight, till from my bones my flesh be hack’d!—Shakspeare 18.

  • 19  See Jonathan Bate, “The Romantic Stage,” in Jonathan Bate and Russell Jackson (eds.), Shakespeare, (...)

11So, whether on stage or on page, Shakespeare was rarely unadulterated—although it should be noted in fairness that such practices were not confined to America in the nineteenth century, since Shakespeare was similarly romanticized on nineteenth-century English stages and “bowdlerized” in Victorian editions19.

  • 20  “Shakespeare in Virginia, 1751-1863,” in Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare in the South…, 32.
  • 21  See my “Coriolan dans la jeune république des Etats-Unis: entre tragédie politique et (mélo)drame (...)

12Taking up from the earlier suggestion that the South was more welcoming to the theater, we might next seek to assess whether this had consequences on the respective popularity of particular plays in the North and in the South. This, in fact, does not seem to have been the case; there appears rather to have been a core of favorite plays (most notably Richard III, Romeo and Juliet, the great tragedies, The Merchant of Venice and A Midsummer Night’s Dream) throughout the country, with no significant difference between northern and southern stages or, for that matter, between American and London stages. This, as Aronson suggests, was probably due to the star system introduced by Cooper, a British actor of the Kemble school who came to Philadelphia in 179620. If anything, American audiences seem to have been particularly attracted to tragedies, as more suitable vehicles for actors’ talents (reviews tend to focus on actors’ play), and to violence, with a taste for melodrama which may be related to a general tendency to “romanticize” Shakespeare on both sides of the Atlantic21.

  • 22  Charles B. Lower, “Othello as Black on Southern Stages, Then and Now” in Kolin, Shakespeare in the (...)

13An interesting and rather unexpected example is the tremendous popularity of Othello on the stages of the slaveholding antebellum South. Charles B. Lower has shown that Othello was a favorite across the social spectrum, enjoyed by audiences in the pit, the boxes, and the galleries, who “recognized Iago as [the] villain and not as the scourge of abhorrent miscegeneration, and sympathized with a tragic blackamoor Othello,” proving the point that going to the theater was an aesthetic experience quite separate from considerations of everyday life, and that “Othello and the slavery controversy could coexist.” Othello, Lowell argues, was “a story (safely) far away and long ago,” to which the name of Shakespeare lent an aura of respectability, and “Theater as Art kept Othello from being ‘the negro part’ on the stages of the slaveholding South”22.

14In one area, however, the South seems to have been idiosyncratic: its tradition of amateur acting, which reveals an insider’s familiarity with Shakespeare’s plays. Aronson mentions an amateur Othello in Richmond (Kolin 1983 33), and Thaiss gives several examples of local gentry performing such roles as Hamlet, Othello, Mercutio, or Richmond in Richard III “for their amusement” in Maryland (Kolin 1983 51, 58). On one occasion in 1760 the Douglass company allowed “a young Gentleman” to play Romeo “for his diversion” instead of the troupe’s rising star Lewis Hallam Jr.; as Thaiss comments, “The company’s frequently allowing stage-struck gentry to take roles shows clearly how the players saw their popularity as being dependent on the whims of their small clientele” who on this occasion at least “seems to have preferred the novelty of a local hero to the genuine talents of young Hallam” (Kolin 1983 48). So it would seem that, contrary to Dormon’s contention that Shakespearean drama formed the staple of virtually every star’s repertoire—which he listed among the “wrong reasons” for Shakespeare’s popularity, adding “thus every star engagement was sure to include Shakespearean productions, whether or not the public demanded them” (257)—stars, though obviously a powerful vehicle for Shakespeare, were not necessary for success. This tradition of amateur acting among the Southern gentry may have been related to their English education and tastes mentioned earlier.

  • 23 Henry Timrod’s poem “Ethnogenesis” (1861), available at www.fullbooks.com/Poems-of-Henry-Timrod3.ht (...)

15Finally, a more oblique and impressionistic approach may nevertheless prove rewarding, along two main lines suggested by Philip Kolin, in the fields of reception—how Shakespeare was interpreted from a distinctly regional perspective—and of influence on Southern literature, as it can be traced through “specific points of indebtedness as well as larger thematic similarities uniting Shakespeare to southern writers” (Kolin 1985 3), the latter resting on similarities in social environments and mindsets. In a comparison between Elizabethan England and the American South, especially during the antebellum period, Kolin has pointed out the parallels between similarly hierarchical, patriarchal societies, and the way both societies were affected by “cataclysmic changes,” through a process of “erosion of chivalry and idealism” to civil war (Kolin 1983 6). Indeed, as Sturgess has noted, the issues that finally brought about the Civil War went far beyond the issue of slavery. What was at stake during the first half of the century for writers and commentators in the South such as the Charleston Group was the preservation of a distinct subculture in the South and, in Timrod’s words, the hope that “At last, we are/A nation among nations,” with its own “national” literature visualised in distinctly southern terms23.

  • 24 “The Morals of Slavery” (1837) , in The pro-slavery argument: as maintained by the most distinguish (...)

16A first similarity between Elizabethan England and the antebellum American South would seem to concern the conception of man and of his relation to his society. Levine’s contention that “Shakespeare’s plays had meaning to a nation that placed the individual at the center of the universe and personalized the large questions of the day” (40) would seem to apply primarily to the more individualistic North and possibly to the pioneer spirit of the West. But it hardly applies to the South, which conceived of man as an essentially social being, whose natural state was to live in society. As William Gilmore Simms, one of the foremost spokesmen of Southern ideology, put it:“[M]an was hardly ever, at any period, in what we describe as a state of nature. The artifices of a social condition were woven about him from the earliest periods…”24. Society was itself conceived of in terms of a community, an organic whole reminiscent of the Elizabethan “body politic,” of which every individual was a member. This idea was frequently expressed through the metaphor of the bee-hive, as in Sir Thomas Elyot’s The Book Named The Governor (1531), I.2:

… who can deny but that all thing in heaven and earth is governed by one God, by one perpetual order, by one providence? One sun ruleth over the day, and one moon over the night; and to descend downn to the earth, in a little beast, which of all other is most to be marvelled at, I mean the bee, is left to man by nature, as it seemeth, a perpetual figure of a just governance or rule (7)

17or in a famous description in Shakespeare’s Henry V:

Therefore doth heaven divide
The state of man in divers functions,
Setting endeavour in continual motion;
To which is fixed, as an aim or butt,
Obedience: for so work the honey-bees,
Creatures that by a rule in nature teach
The act of order to a peopled kingdom.
They have a king and officers of sorts;
Where some, like magistrates, correct at home,
Others, like merchants, venture trade abroad,
Others, like soldiers, armed in their stings,
Make boot upon the simmer’s velvet buds…
(Act I. sc. 2, 183-194)

  • 25  George Fitzhugh, Sociology For The South Or The Failure of Free Society (1854), chap. I “Free Trad (...)
  • 26  See Renee Dye, “Narrating social theory: William Gilmore Simm’s Woodcraft”,Studies in the Novel, V (...)

18This metaphor is taken up by George Fitzhugh in his Sociology For the South: “Man is born a member of society, and does not form society. Nature, as in the cases of bees and ants, has it formed for him. He and society are congenital. Society is the being—he one of the members of that being”25. In other words, society was seen as “a system of social relations rather than a conglomeration of autonomous individuals”—a conception which, as we shall see, stood in complete opposition to the Northern intellectual tradition illustrated by Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” or Thoreau’s Walden, in that it cultivated “fictional representations of characters who can come into a full realization of their beings within, not apart from, the confines of a social order which allots them a particular niche according to their race, class, and gender”26.

  • 27 Hinton Rowan Helper,The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It (1857), available at http://d (...)

19Such a conception of society rested on a whole set of reciprocal obligations exemplified by the relationship of master and servant in Elizabethan society, and on a benign view of the “peculiar institution” of slavery, featuring a benevolent patriarchal master ruling over loyal, faithful, child-like slaves in a plantation modeled on the extended family of the early modern, pre-industrial period. Although this view was already under threat, potentially undermined by an “impending crisis,” to borrow the phrase of Hinton Rowan Helperwho argued that slavery was impoverishing the South’s white nonslaveholders and that they would—and should—soon be ready to lead a revolt against the planter class27.

  • 28  Bertram Wyatt-Brown, ed., Hearts of darkness: Wellsprings of a Southern Literary Tradition, Baton (...)

20A corollary of the communal conception of society was a particular emphasis on certain values, dependent on the community’s gaze, and constitutive of an individual’s reputation. Prominent among those values was honor, which Bertram Wyatt-Brown aptly describes as “an ancient, preliterate mode of thinking about individual identity and the outer world by apprehending the self and society through the lens of those belonging to a watchful, close-knit community”28. To that prime value—honor—was harnessed a whole set of related values such as truth, faith, justice, and charity,as illustrated in Timrod’s famous poem “Ethnogenesis”:

scorn of sordid gain,
Unblemished honor, truth without a stain,
Faith, justice, reverence, charitable wealth,
And, for the poor and humble, laws which give,
Not the mean right to buy the right to live,

  • 29 www.fullbooks.com/Poems-of-Henry-Timrod3.html

But life, and home, and health!29

21This goes some way towards explaining why, as Stephanie McCurry has shown in her study of the South Carolina Low Country, the ideology of the Old South appears to have been strong enough to bridge the gap between, and bind together, the minority of slaveowning planters and the vast majority of non slaveowning yeomen who, in spite of the potential for division, fought side by side for the Confederacy, because they shared

  • 30 Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political (...)

a definition of manhood rooted in the inviolability of the household, the command of dependents, and the public prerogatives manhood conferred. When they struck for independence in the fall of 1860, when they contributed their part to tearing the Union asunder, lowcountry yeomen acted in defense of their own identity, as masters of small worlds.30

  • 31 Rable points out that those women are generally neglected by historians who have “often emphasized (...)

22This conclusion is corroborated by George C. Rable’s study of Southern women during the Civil War, revealing the complexity and ambivalence of the position of those women who “buttressed as well as suffered from the status quo,” perhaps because they felt trapped, as it were, between two logically connected, even mutually supporting, ideologies. Indeed, “the clashes among planters, yeomen, and poor whites […] made racial and social distinctions seem even more important to women who had come of age in an environment steeped in a hierarchical tradition, a tradition that many women hoped to see restored”31.

  • 32  Shakespeare, Richard II, II.1.31-68; Louis D. Rubin, Jr, “Southern Literature and Southern Society (...)
  • 33  Thomas Jefferson,Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Query 19, available at http://etext.virgin (...)

23Another essential element of the Southern sub-culture is an attachment to place verging on devotion, identified by Rubin as “central to the matrix of Southern literature,” that would no doubt have found an echo in John of Gaunt’s famous death-bed praise of “this sceptred isle […] This other Eden, demi-paradise […] This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England […] This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land […]”32. As Lewis P. Simpson has convincingly argued, this sense of place was rooted in Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, more specifically Query 19, which contains the seeds of the Myth of the South as a spiritual nation. Jefferson’s description of Virginia as an agrarian civilization made up of self-subsistent yeoman farmers, from which the issue of slavery (denounced in Query 18) was conveniently absent, rested upon his projected vision of a “redemptive yeoman community” according to which “Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God […] Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example”33. Jefferson’s view was upheld in Southern literature by such writers as Henry Timrod, who did much to establish the values of pastoral idealism and innocence as the “interior and spiritual history” of the South (Simpson 1973 218), to be defended against the encroachment of Northern materialism and industrialization; or by antebellum novelists who, like John Pendleton Kennedy in Swallow Barn, or A Sojourn in the Old Dominion (1832), created the illusion of a romantic haven secluded from the rest of the world in a kind of suspended time. The literary plantation was conceived as a pre-lapsarian world of Edenic, natural, self-yielding plenty. It was an essentially atemporal, idealized world of pastoral innocence which was bound to remain an illusion as it came into tension with history (Simpson 1983 x). By the 1830s however, the pastoral ideal came up against the forces of history in the form of the development of technology, a clash aptly conveyed in the title of Leo Marx’s famous book The Machine in the Garden (1964). This clash led to an opposition to modernity which Lewis Simpson calls the “culture of alienation,” characterized by “a discontent with the emphasis modern societies place on machines […at the expense of] the humanity of man,” and coupled with “an endeavor, marked by an ironic consciousness of the futility of the effort, to arrest the de-humanization considered to be inherent in the industrial-technological process.” This culture of alienation, more broadly defined as

that special community of discontent and disaffection formed by writers and artists in the general Western culture when, in the breaking apart of Christendom and the rise of modern history, they began to experience a deficiency of wholeness, or, we may say, an incapacity to experience a cultural wholeness

  • 34  Lewis P. Simpson, The Dispossessed Garden, 65 and 34 respectively.

24forms an essential part of the condition of the modern man of letters, and can be traced in the Western literary mind and spirit from Petrarch and found its first great expression in English in Shakespeare, an artist with whom post-Civil War southern authors shared a degree of affinity34.

  • 35  Lewis P. Simpson, Foreword to Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare and Southern Writers x.
  • 36  Christina Murphy, “The Artistic Design of Societal Commitment: Shakespeare and the Poetry of Henry (...)
  • 37  Kolin 1985 44 and 42 respectively; it is noteworthy that Hamlet’s indecision was similarly used by (...)

25As suggested earlier, and as was to be expected from their respective conceptions of society, the culture of alienation took different forms in the North and in the South. Where New England produced the type of the Romantic artist who prefers the solitude of nature to the society of the many, as illustrated by Thoreau’s Walden, the South developed what could be called a “communal” culture of alienation characterized by a sense of social fragmentation and of the loss of a cultural ideal, and by an awareness of “the psychic burden of history on the individual”35, a burden that had to be acknowledged in order to be overcome, and eventually shaken off. This double movement is illustrated inTimrod’s mature poems which, Christina Murphy argues, “thematically reverse the views of the early poems, emphasizing not the beauty of man’s spiritual alignment with Nature but the tragedy of man isolated from natural, cosmic, societal harmony”36. Her study of the “Address Delivered at the Opening of the New Theatre at Richmond” shows how “Timrod derived from Shakespeare the capacities both to depict societal fragmentation and to reconceptualize cultural wholeness” (Kolin 1985 44). History is symbolized as a stage upon which are enacted various phases of southern culture (each represented by characters drawn from Shakespeare’s plays), forming a sequence represented as “a progression from the innocence of Miranda’s vision of the world to the redeemed dignity of Hamlet’s perspective of action attained through self-knowledge,” which is the subject of the “Address.” “Like the South, Hamlet is slow to rise to the call but, once challenged, he fights bravely and is willing to sacrifice his life for the attainment of noble ideals”37. As Murphy concludes:

  • 38  C. Murphy, in Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare and Southern Writers, 44, quoting Lewis P. Simpso (...)

The cultural wholeness Timrod seeks and projects in the “Address” is affirmative of wisdom, or the enlightenment that follows disillusionment. For the Old South, Miranda’s innocence led to tragedy; Timrod suggests that from tragedy can come the regenerated spirit to believe in the brave new worlds yet to be. […] Deriving his paradigm of history from Shakespeare, Timrod was able to forge a sense of purpose and direction for his poetry and to elucidate the concerns of a society “trying under great historical stress to make an image of itself and of its meaning in history”38.

26This capacity to transcend a present situation viewed as sterile and to attempt to achieve clarification through art, “as if a desert way/Could blossom and unfold/A garden fresh with May”39 can be seen to justify the title of “Laureate of the Confederacy,” which Tennyson conferred upon Timrod, in spite of the apparent paradox, or even irony, if we consider that he was the one among the Charleston group who “most strongly advocated the belief that sectional or regional interests in literature diminished that literature’s potential for universal impact and appeal.” Moreover, at a time when Walt Whitman was declaring himself a bard for the American nation, Timrod was acutely aware of the sorrowful plight of the Southern writer, whom he famously called “the Pariah of modern literature,” unread by Southerners and denounced in the North, in his essay “Literature in the South”40.

  • 41 Edward A. Pollard, The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates (1866).
  • 42  Quoted by William R. Taylor, Cavalier and Yankee, the Old South and American national character (1 (...)

27However, the course taken by Timrod was not the only one, especially after the Civil War, when the Confederate States of America, having been “defeated in history and by history” as a nation (Simpson 1973 242), had to justify the continuing historical existence of its people under the conditions of this defeat. So there arose a new myth—the “Lost Cause” myth (from the title of a postwar book by a Virginia journalist41)—which for the majority of Southern writers provided a new basis for the “culture of alienation” by supplying a heroic interpretation of the war that enabled southerners to maintain their sense of honor. Hence a predilection, as William R. Taylor has shown, for Shakespeare characters which provided models for such common plantation types as the Southern Hothead and the Southern Hamlet, which can be seen as “two expressions of the same fundamental failure of character,” as Mary Boykin Chestnut, the wife of a Confederate official and former US Senator from South Carolina noted shrewdly in her diary on June 5, 1862: “Our planters are nice fellows, but slow to move: impulsive but hard to keep moving. They are wonderful for a spurt, but that lets out all their strength, and then they are to rest”42.

  • 43  Quoted by David S. Williams in his article “Lost Cause Religion,” in New Georgia Encyclopedia: www (...)

28The old idea of the South as a spiritual nation now developed into a myth of the long-suffering region as a source of future redemption, created by poets and novelists attempting to expiate the collective guilt of the defeated South by emphasizing the fact that the South fought a defensive war against Northern aggression to preserve the rights of states to govern themselves. As a Georgian war veteran, Clement Evans, put it: “If we cannot justify the South in the act of Secession, we will go down in History solely as a brave, impulsive but rash people who attempted in an illegal manner to overthrow the Union of our Country”43. So, it may be argued, the Lost Cause myth enabled the Southern people to retain their sense of dignity, to preserve their faith in a distinct, superior, white Southern culture, and to survive the defeat of the idea of a Southern nation on the battlefield. But as “in the Old South, literary pastoralism became devoted wholly to the defense of slavery instead of the defense of poetry” (Simpson 1973 239), the Lost Cause myth heralded the low ebb of Southern literature until the Southern “literary renaissance” of the 1920s.

29To conclude, it can be argued that, in spite of the uniformity induced by the star system, the antebellum South did retain a specificity in the warm enthusiasm of southerners for theater, both as members of a socially-mixed audience and, for the gentry, as amateur performers, who thereby revealed an intimate knowledge of Shakespeare’s art. In addition, some familiarity with Shakespeare (although of a less reliable kind) could also be acquired through a variety of other vehicles, both oral and written. Finally, a more unexpected avenue of enquiry has revealed more subtle, subterranean and enduring affinities between Shakespeare and Southern literature in such important themes as conception of society, attachment to place, or awareness of the psychic burden of history on the individual embodied in such emblematic characters as the anachronistic Hotspur or the Romanticized Hamlet.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Bristol, Michael D. Shakespeare’s America, America’s Shakespeare. New York: Routledge, 1990.

Byrnside, Ron. “Antebellum Music,” in The New Georgia Encyclopedia, www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1652

Dickey, Stephen. “Listening to Civil War Voices,” in Shakespeare in American Life, Folger Shakespeare Library, www.shakespeareinamericanlife.org/identity/bard/war/civilwar.cfm

Dormon, James H. Theater in the Ante Bellum South, 1815-1861. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1967.

Dye, Renee. “Narrating social theory: William Gilmore Simm’s Woodcraft,Studies in the Novel, Vol. 35,  Summer 2003, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3440/is_2_35/ai_n29016411/

ELYOT, Sir Thomas. The Book Named The Governor (1531), ed. S.E. Lehmberg, London: Dent, 1962.

Fitzhugh, George. Sociology for the South (1854) http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughsoc/fitzhugh.html

HORNBLOW, Arthur. A History of the Theatre in America from its Beginnings to the Present Times(2 vols.). London, 1919.

Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia (1787)www.etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefVirg.html

Kennedy, John Pendleton. Swallow Barn; Or, A Sojourn In The Old Dominion (1832) http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/abolitn/kennedyhp.html and http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/kennedyswallowbarn1/kennedyswallowbarn1.html

Kolin, Philip C., ed. Shakespeare in the South. Essays on Performance. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1983.

---. Shakespeare and Southern Writers. A Study in Influence. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985.

Levine, Lawrence W. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1988.

McCurry, Stephanie. Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Melville, Herman. “Hawthorne and His Mosses” (The Literary World, August 17 and 24, 1850)www.eldritchpress.org/nh/hahm.html

Murphy, Christina. “Shakespeare and the Poetry of Henry Timrod,” in Philip C. Kolin (ed.) Shakespeare and Southern Writers. A Study in Influence. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985. 29-47.

Pollard, Edward A. The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates (1866). New York: E.B. Treat, 1868.

RANKIN, Hugh F. The Theater in Colonial America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965.

Rubin, Louis D., Jr and C. Hugh Holman. Southern Literary Study: Problems and Possibilities. Chapel Hill: University of Carolina Press, 1975.

Shattuck, Charles H. Shakespeare on the American Stage: From the Hallams to Edwin Booth. Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1976.

Simpson, Lewis P. The Man of Letters in New England and the South. Baton-rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1973.

---. The Dispossessed Garden. Pastoral and History in Southern Literature [1975], Athens: University of Georgia Press 1983.

---. “The South’s Reaction to Modernism: A Problem in the Study of Southern Letters”, in Louis D. Rubin, Jr and C. Hugh Holman. Southern Literary Study: Problems and Possibilities. Chapel Hill: University of Carolina Press, 1975. 48-70

Sturgess, Kim C. Shakespeare and the American Nation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.

---. “Shakespeare as Popular Entertainment in the 1800s,” in Shakespeare in American Life, Folger Shakespeare Library, www.shakespeareinamericanlife.org/transcripts/sturgess2.cfm

Taylor, William R.  Cavalier and Yankee, the Old South and American National Character [1957]. London: W.H. Allen, 1963.

Timrod, Henry. “Literature in the South,” in Russell’s Magazine 5 (Aug. 1859): 385-95, rpt in Edd Winfield Parks (ed.) The Essays of Henry Timrod. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1942.

---. “Address Delivered at the Opening of the New Theatre at Richmond” <www.fullbooks.com/Poems-of-Henry-Timrod2.html>

---. “Ethnogenesis” <www.fullbooks.com/Poems-of-Henry-Timrod3.html>

Wells, Stanley, ed.Nineteenth-century Shakespeare burlesques, Vol. 5: American Shakespeare travesties (1852-1888). London: Diploma Press, 1978.

Whitman, Walt. “Poetry To-Day in America—Shakespeare—The Future” (1881), www.bartleby.com

Williams, David S. “Lost Cause Religion,” in The New Georgia Encyclopedia www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2723

Wimsatt,Mary Ann. “William Gilmore Simms”, in Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris (eds.), Encyclopedia of Southern culture(University of North Carolina Press, 1989) www.docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/simms1/bio.html

Wish, Harvey, ed. Antebellum Writings of George Fitzhugh and Hinton Rowan Helper on Slavery. New York: Capricorn Books, 1960.

Wyatt-Brown, Bertram, ed. Hearts of Darkness: Wellsprings of a Southern Literary Tradition. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2003.

Haut de page

Notes

1  Kim C. Sturgess, Shakespeare and the American Nation, dust jacket. See also Michael D. Bristol, Shakespeare’s America, America’s Shakespeare (1990 2) and Lawrence W. Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America (1988).

2  Sturgess 18; see also Helen Whickham Koon, How Shakespeare Won the West (1925).

3  “Poetry To-Day in America—Shakespeare—The Future” (1881), www.bartleby.com, §4.

4 Further references can be found in Kolin, Shakespeare in the South, 3-4.

5 “Hawthorne and His Mosses” (The Literary World, August 17 and 24, 1850), available at www.eldritchpress.org/nh/hahm.html, accessed Aug. 24, 2009.

6  The same observation can be extended to the situation that prevailed until the mid-eighteenth century, when Shakespeare was only available in book form (mostly in private libraries), and therefore confined to a small, educated elite (see Jennifer Mylander, “Instruction and English Refinement in America: Shakespeare, Anti-Theatricality, and Early Modern Reading”, a paper presented at the “Shakespeare in American Education, 1607-1934” Spring Conference held at the Folger Institute (16-17 March 2007); an abstract can be found at www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=2355).

7  Sturgess mentions a steady five per decade American editions of Shakespeare’s complete works in the first half of the nineteenth century, and a sudden increase in the 1850s (29 editions) (19-21). In De la démocratie en Amérique (1835), Tocqueville famously reported “There is hardly a pioneer's hut which does not contain a few odd volumes of Shakespeare. I remember reading the feudal drama of Henry V for the first time in a log cabin” (I, 13).

8  See Shattuck, 5-6: “whether as colony or state, Episcopalian Virginia never passed laws banning plays, nor did Catholic Maryland.”

9  Shattuck, 6; see also Sara Nalley, “Shakespeare on the Charleston Stage, 1764-1799,” in Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare in the South… (73) and, in the same volume, Christopher Thaiss, “Shakespeare in Maryland, 1752-1860,” who mentions the aspirations of Maryland’s fashionable society to emulate that of London (48).

10  Quoted by Levine 24. For additional evidence of color people attending theater see for instance, in Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare in the South…,  the contributions of A. Aronson on Virginia, J. P. Roppolo on New Orleans, or L. E. Orange in Mississippi, who gives details of ticket prices for the various categories—usually $1.00 for a white adult, 50 cents for children and slaves (in the gallery) (159), while Ron Byrnside mentions admission prices ranging from twenty-five cents to one dollar to see operas and dramas in antebellum Georgia, which made theaterthe “primary source of entertainment for the populace” (article “Antebellum Music”, in The New Georgia Encyclopedia, www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1652).

11 See Levine 36 and Stanley Wells (ed.),Nineteenth-century Shakespeare burlesques, vol. 5: American Shakespeare travesties (1852-1888).

12  Quoted by Levine 73.

13  See James H. Dormon, Theater in the Antebellum South, 1815-1861, 258; Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow, 34.

14  Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow, 35 and 37-38. Alfred Van Rensselaer Westfall devotes a chapter to “Our Presidents as Shakespearean Critics” in his survey of American Shakespeare Criticism 1607-1865.

15  “Listening to Civil War Voices,” in Shakespeare in American Life, Folger Shakespeare Library,www.shakespeareinamericanlife.org/identity/bard/war/civilwar.cfm and www.shakespeareinamericanlife.org/identity/bard/war/voices_6.cfm.

16  “Shakespeare as Popular Entertainment in the 1800s”: www.shakespeareinamericanlife.org/transcripts/sturgess2.cfm

17  Nan Johnson, “The Popularization of Shakespeare in Nineteenth-Century American Rhetorical Education,” www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=2348

18  Available at http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/helper/helper.html. On the influence of the McGuffey Readers, see E.C. Dunn, Shakespeare in America, chap. XII and Jonathan Burton “ ‘Lay On, McGuffey’: Shakespeare and the Shaping of High School English in America” (www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=2338); for the suggestion that the extension of education after the Civil War coincided with the anglo-saxonization of Shakespeare, as “New England became the school of America,” see Kim Sturgess, Shakespeare and the American Nation, 19-21.

19  See Jonathan Bate, “The Romantic Stage,” in Jonathan Bate and Russell Jackson (eds.), Shakespeare, An Illustrated Stage History (Oxford UP, 1996), 92-111.

20  “Shakespeare in Virginia, 1751-1863,” in Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare in the South…, 32.

21  See my “Coriolan dans la jeune république des Etats-Unis: entre tragédie politique et (mélo)drame personnel” at http://www2.uvsq.fr/toute-l-actualite/autour-de-coriolan-perception-reception-19249.kjsp and Jonathan Bate, “The Romantic Stage”, in Jonathan Bate and Russell Jackson (eds.), Shakespeare, An Illustrated Stage History (Oxford UP, 1996), 92-111. Judging from the tables established by John Ripley, Julius Caesar on stage in England and America (1599-1973) and Coriolanus on stage in England and America (1609-1994), it could be tentatively argued that the South saw less of the Roman plays, but on the whole, there is little hard evidence to rely upon. Besides, the South was not a uniform entity, and there appear to have been variations in popularity from one city to another, as appears clearly from the studies collected by Philip Kolin in Shakespeare in the South.

22  Charles B. Lower, “Othello as Black on Southern Stages, Then and Now” in Kolin, Shakespeare in the South…, 199-228, 202 and 218.

23 Henry Timrod’s poem “Ethnogenesis” (1861), available at www.fullbooks.com/Poems-of-Henry-Timrod3.html;see also Kim Sturgess, Shakespeare and the American Nation, “South of the Mason-Dixon Line,” 150-51.

24 “The Morals of Slavery” (1837) , in The pro-slavery argument: as maintained by the most distinguished writers of the Southern states, containing the several essays, on the subject, of Chancellor Harper, Governor Hammond, Dr. Simms, and Professor Dew Charleston: Walker, Richards & Co., 1852, 251, available athttp://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=ABT7488

25  George Fitzhugh, Sociology For The South Or The Failure of Free Society (1854), chap. I “Free Trade,” in Harvey Wish, ed.,Antebellum Writings of George Fitzhugh and Hinton Rowan Helper on Slavery, New York: Capricorn Books, 1960, 57 and electronic edition: http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughsoc/fitzhugh.html pp. 25-26. On the notion of service in Elizabethan England, see David Evett, Discourses of Service in Shakespeare’s England, New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005.

26  See Renee Dye, “Narrating social theory: William Gilmore Simm’s Woodcraft”,Studies in the Novel, Vol. 35, Summer 2003, available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3440/is_2_35/ai_n29016411/ 1-2.

27 Hinton Rowan Helper,The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It (1857), available at http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/helper/helper.html; see also David Brown, Southern Outcast: Hinton Rowan Helper and The Impending Crisis of the South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2006), and “Hinton Rowan Helper: The Logical Outcome of the Non-Slaveholders’ Philosophy ?”:The Historical Journal46:1(2003): 39-58, Cambridge UP.

28  Bertram Wyatt-Brown, ed., Hearts of darkness: Wellsprings of a Southern Literary Tradition, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 2003, xiii. For an account of honor in Shakespeare’s England, see Mervyn James, English politics and the concept of honour, 1485-1642, Past & Present Supplement n°3, 1978, 27-28, reprinted in Mervyn James, Society, Politics and Culture, Cambridge UP, 1986.

29 www.fullbooks.com/Poems-of-Henry-Timrod3.html

30 Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995, 304.As Janette Keith observes in her review of the book, “The Low Country represents the Slave South carried to extremes,” characterized as it was by “huge plantations, a majority slave population, and a political system unique in the South for its elitism” (www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=284).

31 Rable points out that those women are generally neglected by historians who have “often emphasized women’s expressions of discontent with life in the South, particularly discontent with slavery, trying to turn them into not only abolitionists but also closet feminists” (Civil Wars, Women and the Crisis of Southern Nationalism, Chicago: U. of Illinois P, 1989, x).

32  Shakespeare, Richard II, II.1.31-68; Louis D. Rubin, Jr, “Southern Literature and Southern Society: Notes on a Clouded Relationship,” in Louis D. Rubin, Jr and C. Hugh Holman, Southern Literary Study: Problems and Possibilities, Chapel Hill: U. of Carolina Press, 1975, 7.

33  Thomas Jefferson,Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Query 19, available at http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefVirg.html, and Lewis P. Simpson, The Man of Letters…, 210-12. Jefferson’s description is permeated with overtones of the tradition of pastoral humanism first fully articulated in Virgil’s Eclogues.

34  Lewis P. Simpson, The Dispossessed Garden, 65 and 34 respectively.

35  Lewis P. Simpson, Foreword to Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare and Southern Writers x.

36  Christina Murphy, “The Artistic Design of Societal Commitment: Shakespeare and the Poetry of Henry Timrod,” in Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare and Southern Writers, 40. Those “mature poems” (written over the period 1860-67), include “Ethnogenesis,” “The Cotton Boll,” “Carolina,” “Charleston,” “Address Delivered at the Opening of the New Theatre at Richmond,” and “Ode (Sung on the Occasion of Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead)”.

37  Kolin 1985 44 and 42 respectively; it is noteworthy that Hamlet’s indecision was similarly used by William Gilmore Simms to characterize the indolent Southern planters whom he urged to assume martial readiness (see Charles S. Watson’s contribution on William Gilmore Simms in Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare and Southern Writers).

38  C. Murphy, in Philip C. Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare and Southern Writers, 44, quoting Lewis P. Simpson, “The South’s Reaction to Modernism: A Problem in the Study of Southern Letters”, in Louis D. Rubin, Jr and C. Hugh Holman, Southern Literary Study… 62.

39  Timrod, “Address…” at <www.fullbooks.com/Poems-of-Henry-Timrod2.html>.

40  “Literature in the South”: first published in Russell’s Magazine 5 (Aug. 1859): 385-95, rpt in Edd Winfield Parks (ed.), The Essays of Henry Timrod, Athens: Univ. of Georgia Pr, 1982, 83; Timrod complained: “We think that at no time, and in no country, has the position of an author been beset with such peculiar difficulties as the Southern writer is compelled to struggle with from the beginning to the end of his career,” quoted by C. Murphy, in Kolin (ed.), Shakespeare and Southern Writers, 30-31.

41 Edward A. Pollard, The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates (1866).

42  Quoted by William R. Taylor, Cavalier and Yankee, the Old South and American national character (1963), 161-62, in the chapter entitled “From Hotspur to Hamlet.” See also the more recent book by Joseph B. Keener, Shakespeare and Masculinity in Southern Fiction: Faulkner, Simms, Page, and Dixon, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

43  Quoted by David S. Williams in his article “Lost Cause Religion,” in New Georgia Encyclopedia: www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2723

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Michèle Vignaux, « A Southern Shakespeare? », Transatlantica [En ligne], 1 | 2010, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2010, consulté le 25 mars 2017. URL : http://transatlantica.revues.org/4879

Haut de page

Auteur

Michèle Vignaux

Université Lyon 2

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Transatlantica – Revue d'études américaines est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Logo AEFA - Association Française d'Etudes Américaines
  • Revues.org