The Politics of Shakespeare, Part Three

Hillsdale College Podcast Network Superfeed
Date: March 9, 2026
Host: Hugh Hewitt
Guest: Professor Khalil Habib, Hillsdale College

Episode Overview

This episode—part three in a series on "The Politics of Shakespeare"—features Professor Khalil Habib discussing Shakespeare’s history plays with Hugh Hewitt. The conversation explores why Shakespeare wrote his English history plays, the political philosophy embedded within them, the evolution of English political order, and the educational imperative of studying these monumental works. The discussion uses King John as an entry point and draws connections between Shakespeare, Locke, Montesquieu, and historical nation-building in England.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Why Did Shakespeare Write the History Plays?

• Neglected Kings and Plays
  • Many Shakespeare history plays (King John, Henry VI, Henry VIII) are rarely taught or read, which is unfortunate as they present foundational questions of English nationhood and political structure.
  • King John is especially neglected, despite its pivotal themes.

  “Even if you're familiar with Shakespeare, you're usually not going to get too many English history plays in classes. [...] hardly anyone teaches King John or the Henry VI plays or Henry VIII.” (Professor Habib, 01:33)

• The Arc: From King John to Henry VIII
  • Shakespeare’s history plays begin with King John and end with Henry VIII, bookending the centuries-long transformation from a feudal, decentralized England part of Catholic Christendom to an independent nation with a Church of England.

  “What he's tracing in the interim in these plays is the transformation of England as part of medieval Christendom [...] eventually becomes its own unique English nation.” (Habib, 03:27)

[03:01–04:45] Thematic Setup

• Shakespeare is “trying to show his fellow Englishmen what it means to be English and how their history formed and shaped their institutions and their statesmen.”

Monarchy and Regime Change in Shakespeare

• Montesquieu’s Influence and the Republican Spirit
  • The discussion channels Montesquieu’s observation that republican tendencies eventually emerge within the English monarchy due to the weakening of nobility and church, and a developing love of equality.
  • Shakespeare’s plays illustrate how the wars among nobility and friction with the papacy laid the groundwork for a mixed regime, culminating in a kind of constitutional monarchy.

  “You witness in these plays, I think, Shakespeare teaching thinkers like Montesquieu how to look at England as kind of a mixed regime.” (Habib, 06:53)

[09:30–11:56] Succession and Legitimacy

• Legitimacy Questions in King John
  • The legitimacy of succession is a central tension: Arthur (nephew) has the legal claim, but power dynamics keep John on the throne.
  • The character of the Bastard (illegitimate son of Richard the Lionheart) is the moral center of King John, representing future English citizenship.

  “Arthur does actually have the legal right to inherit the kingdom… She [Eleanor] said, no, unfortunately, just power. You're not legitimate.” (Habib, 09:59)

Comparative Government—England vs. Other European States

• Evolution, Not Revolution
  • England uniquely transitions to parliamentarianism through evolution and internal adjustment, rather than drastic revolution (as in France or Russia).
  • Geography and size matter: England’s small, homogeneous island status resists centralization.

  “Montesquieu believes that a large area can only really be governed efficiently through a centralized state... England is the closest thing you get to something like what Aristotle thought was a polis.” (Habib, 15:37)

[15:37–17:58] Synthesis of Monarchy and Republicanism

• The American Founders' federal system borrows this blend:

  “Montesquieu’s Confederated Republic…is designed to synthesize the advantages of monarchy and republicanism through the separation of powers.” (Habib, 15:37)

[17:58–19:08] The Influence of Locke and Montesquieu

• Locke provides the language of natural rights, but Montesquieu supplies the design for how those rights are protected in institutions.

  “Locke is the language of natural right, and Montesquieu is the engineering of how to secure them.” (Habib, 19:13)

England, the Papacy, and Catholicism

[20:24–21:12]

• Shakespeare’s King John tackles early pushback against papal authority—a theme ahead of its time and only successful in later centuries.
• The American founding isn’t anti-Catholic per se; it’s later Catholic thinkers (e.g., Leo XIII) who show compatibility between Catholic principle and liberal democracy.

The Roman Empire as “Foil” and England’s Political Uniqueness

[22:33–26:34]

• Shakespeare’s Roman plays and English history plays are meant to be read as contrasting studies of political development.
• Rome moved from monarchy to republic to empire (and administrative state), while England’s identity is less about conquest, more about self-definition and gradual institutional development.

  “England never presents itself as Rome does, with its expansion; it never consumes the world... It was never about conquest…” (Habib, 26:07)

The Study and Teaching of Shakespeare Today

[29:21–32:47]

• Discusses the decline in Shakespeare curricula due to shifting academic fashions (e.g., criticism of "dead white males"), and Hillsdale's role in reviving a comprehensive, liberal-arts-driven approach to reading Shakespeare systematically.
• A coherent curriculum lets students see links between literature, history, and political theory.

  “No one class will exhaust a great book. That’s not possible, no matter who’s teaching it.” (Habib, 31:26)

[32:47–33:27]

• The best way to teach the plays is not in the order Shakespeare wrote them, but in historical sequence—following Shakespeare’s arrangement of England’s political evolution.

Why Did Shakespeare Skip 150 Years Between John and Richard II?

[33:27–35:34]

• Shakespeare selects pivotal kings and moments to explore the central challenge of hereditary monarchy—its complications and shortcomings.
• Each play raises a critical political tension (illegitimacy in King John, divine right in Richard II, consequences of usurpation in Henry IV, etc.), not a continuous chronicle.

Abdication and the “Problem” of Monarchy

[35:34–36:19]

• Abdication is rare because political survival often trumps personal suitability; monarchy’s failings reflect deep political necessities and personal limitations.

  “Sometimes politics is like riding a tiger. If you let go, you're going to get mauled.” (Habib, 35:48)

Memorable Quotes

• “[Shakespeare is] trying to show his fellow Englishmen what it means to be English and how their history formed and shaped their institutions and their statesmen.” (Habib, 03:27)
• “Locke is the language of natural right, and Montesquieu is the engineering of how to secure them.” (Habib, 19:13)
• “No one class will exhaust a great book. That’s not possible, no matter who's teaching it.” (Habib, 31:26)
• “Each play raises and attempts to get us to think about a central tension inherent in hereditary monarchy. And he selects kings based on the circumstances that most illuminate that.” (Habib, 33:39)
• “Sometimes politics is like riding a tiger. If you let go, you're going to get mauled.” (Habib, 35:48)

Segment Timestamps

• 01:33: Why King John and other history plays are neglected
• 03:01–04:45: The transformation from feudal England to the English nation-state
• 06:53: Political theory—Montesquieu on England's mixed regime
• 09:59: Succession and legitimacy in King John
• 15:37: England’s unique transition to constitutional monarchy
• 19:13: Locke vs. Montesquieu—philosophy of government
• 22:33–26:34: Shakespeare's Roman plays vs. English history plays
• 29:21–31:26: The state of Shakespeare in education and importance of a coherent curriculum
• 33:39: Why Shakespeare skips historical periods in his play order
• 35:48: The personal and political challenge of abdication in monarchy

Tone and Style

The dialogue is passionate, scholarly, and often leavened with humor and personal reminiscence, e.g., football analogies and anecdotes about studying Shakespeare. Professor Habib balances philosophical analysis with literary insight, connecting Shakespeare’s art to broader questions about political order and citizenship.

Summary for Listeners

This episode provides a richly layered exploration of Shakespeare’s English history plays as political documents and national self-examination. If you’ve ever wondered why the plays are structured as they are, what they say about English (and American) identity, and why they matter today, Professor Habib’s commentary provides both foundational answers and fresh questions. The discussion is accessible to newcomers and rewarding for those seeking to deepen their understanding of Shakespeare, political philosophy, and Western history.