From the Introduction to Strauss's class sessions on Shakespeare
he taught Macbeth, the Tempest, Julius Caesar, and Coriolanus (1941)
The question of the political opinions of Shakespeare must be considered in light of the question of “the influence of politics on literature.” Shakespeare lived under a monarchy, and he accepted the monarchy. But this does not mean that he did not see the problem involved in that monarchy or in monarchy as such. He could discuss the problem without any difficulty by means of his plays: in a play, he never speaks; besides, he could entrust the nice views (i.e., the generally accepted views) to nice characters, and the dangerous views to the bad or ridiculous characters; finally, it was possible for him to discuss serious matters in an entirely playful way in his comedies.
This view naturally presupposes 1) that Sh. had any political views, and 2) that his political views were not absolutely orthodox.
How do we know this?
1) He could not have written his “histories” without having understood the “spirit” of political life, and in particular of English political life. I venture to say that the only writer who equals Shakespeare in presenting the spirit of monarchy is Montesquieu. But Sh. knew not only monarchy, as is shown by his Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, Merchant of Venice. Now, one cannot understand “monarchy” or “republic” without being faced by the question: which is the better form of government? Even if, and precisely if, the answer should be: it all depends, monarchy is better for such and such countries, such and such climates, republic is better for such and such countries, such and such climates, the question would remain: which type of country or climate is preferable from the highest point of view (virtu, “civilization”)? Moreover, in every form of government the question of “honor” and “policy” (or of “law” and “policy”), the problem of Machiavelli comes up (Third Part of King Henry the Sixth III.2, v. 193). Besides, within monarchy, within English monarchy, the question of usurpation comes up [left margin note toward bottom, cut off and too small in copy: “every usurpation by murder—vice versa, every murder is usurpation…”]; there are evidently two sides to the question: an imbecile legitimate monarch, and an able and reasonable usurper. Finally, State and Church, politics and religion. Only a very foolish view of a poet—a poet is a lover of “beauty” who expresses “beauty” in his verses, and does not give a damn for things outside of the lofty realm —could dispense us from raising the question of Sh.’s political views.
2) Sh.’s political views cannot have been orthodox—for there is no political view which is not open to grave difficulties. In political things, there is always the question of minor evils. If Sh. preferred monarchy, he considered it a minor evil—he naturally would not emphasize too much its evil aspects.
How can we know Sh.’s pol. views, since he never utters them in his own name? One might suggest: there are utterances which express evidently Shakespeare’s views. “This is the English, not the Turkish Court” or “Life is tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” But such utterances express so completely the character who utters them, and the situation in which that character utters them, that we are not entitled to take them out of their context only because they are “sententious.”
Only the understanding of the action as a whole, and the understanding of the characters and their utterances in the light of the action, can lead to a real understanding.