The Politics of Shakespeare, Part Four

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Hillsdale Dialogues

Episode: The Politics of Shakespeare, Part Four

Date: March 16, 2026
Host: Hugh Hewitt
Guest: Professor Khalil Habib, Hillsdale College

---

Overview

This episode continues a rich discussion of Shakespeare’s history plays with a deep dive into King John. Host Hugh Hewitt and Professor Khalil Habib explore how the play raises questions around legitimacy, nationhood, power, virtue, and the evolution of English identity. The conversation traverses the complexities of English and French claims, the meaning of nationhood, and the figures of King John, Arthur, and the character known as “the Bastard.” The hosts draw parallels between Shakespeare’s world and modern issues like dynastic politics, meritocracy, and the role of local governance.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Approaching King John as a Reader and Teacher

• Entry Into the Play (00:33–02:31)
  • King John assumes much prior knowledge of English history. Professor Habib recommends students read the play “on its own first,” using reference materials sparingly for historical context.
  • Since these plays are relatively unfamiliar, there’s less temptation to overlay preconceived ideas—enhancing careful reading and analysis.
  • Shakespeare takes liberties with history, focusing instead on political, moral, and theological themes.
  • Quote (01:14): “The most important thing, I think, to do is to just define what the theme is and who the characters are and how they advance whatever the political, moral, and theological lesson you’re supposed to extract from them are.” — Professor Khalil Habib

Historical Backdrop and the Plantagenet Dynasty

• Setting the Stage (03:20–05:05)
  • The Plantagenets were a royal dynasty of French origin ruling England for about 300 years.
  • Early English kings, including John, had French heritage—England only becomes “English” in a national sense with Henry V.
  • Shakespeare uses the plays to trace the rise of the English nation and identity.
  • Quote (04:45): “A lot of the drama in these early English history plays is really England trying to carve a unique place in the world that is English.” — Professor Khalil Habib

National Sovereignty, Magna Carta, and the Core Tension

• Why Ignore the Magna Carta? (05:05–07:28)
  • Although John I is most famous for the Magna Carta, Shakespeare omits it as a central issue, possibly because the document was not initially enforced and served baronial interests more than national rights.
  • The play foregrounds England’s struggle for national sovereignty, not just baronial rights.
  • Central tension: the need for national unity and a love of country, not simply legal or familial legitimacy.
  • Quote (05:05): “The core issue in this play is England needs to be a nation. It needs to have national sovereignty, and it doesn’t.” — Professor Khalil Habib

Legitimacy, Inheritance, and the “Bastard”

• Illegitimacy and Succession (07:28–10:17)
  • Debates around inheritance and legitimacy are central. The Bastard (Philip Faulconbridge) cannot inherit by conventional law, but is legitimized by King John due to acknowledgment and treatment as a son—paralleling adverse possession in property law.
  • The character becomes emblematic of “naturalness” and authenticity—ironically, the one with illegitimate birth speaks most powerfully for the nation.

France, Constance, and the Drama’s Spark

• French Involvement and Dynastic Conflict (13:16–14:39)
  • The French enter the conflict supporting Arthur's claim (championed by his mother, Constance). There’s ongoing tension about what is French versus what is English.
  • The absurdity of hereditary monarchy is a theme: Arthur is legitimate but powerless.

The Bastard’s Role and Republican Tension

• Merit Versus Birth (14:57–18:11)
  • The Bastard remains a central figure—brave, loyal, virtuous—embodying meritocracy in a world obsessed with birth.
  • “You can have a king who has a legitimate title, but very few people in these plays have any kind of legitimate character.” — Professor Khalil Habib (15:28)
  • Shakespeare examines the republican idea of power based on merit, not birth.

Parallels to Modern American Politics

• Dynasties and Meritocracy Today (18:11–21:17)
  • Discussion shifts to contemporary America: concerns about political dynasties (Clintons, Kennedys, Bushes, Trumps) versus the ideal of a merit-based republic.
  • Local politics is highlighted as the remaining sphere where merit may prevail.
  • Quote (19:53): “National politics ends up sucking all the oxygen out of the room... People forget where liberty matters most is really locally.” — Professor Khalil Habib

Political Archetypes: Despair, Power, Virtue

• Arthur (Despair), John (Power), Bastard (Virtue) (21:17–25:14)
  • Arthur: represents innocence and the tragedy of powerlessness and despair—he is the play’s “bad conscience.”
    • Scene with Hubert (ordered to kill Arthur) shows humanity's resistance to pure power.
    • Quote (21:52): “There’s even imagery of the Lamb compared to, like, to like a Christ like figure... There is a moral law. It’s not necessarily written anywhere, maybe across the heart.” — Professor Khalil Habib
  • John: obsessed with power, ultimately isolated and undone by lack of legitimacy and conscience.
  • The Bastard: learns and matures—cannot bring himself to act solely in self-interest—comes to embody virtue and patriotism.

The Play’s End: National Identity and Political Education

• The Bastard’s Final Speech (29:51–31:37)
  • The play ends with the Bastard’s patriotic speech—a call for unity and rootedness in the nation.
  • He concludes that love of country, not factionalism or self-interest, must come first.
  • Quote / Full Passage (30:17):
    “Oh, let us pay the time but needful woe,
    since it hath been beforehand with our griefs.
    This England never did nor shall lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
    but when it first did help to wound itself.
    ...
    Naught shall make us rue if England to itself do rest but true.” — Read by Professor Khalil Habib
  • Hugh Hewitt: “Well, it’s Churchillian... Shakespeare, Churchill was educated by these plays. I mean, Churchill could have given that speech. And I think Churchill did.” (31:37)

Resonance with National Crisis & English Identity

• Historical Context and Patriotism (33:53–35:25)
  • King John written in 1595, only seven years after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, is steeped in themes of English survival and unity under existential threat.
  • Comparison of Shakespeare’s pluralist, decentralized, nationalist vision with Hobbes’ centralized, Leviathan state.

Decency and Conscience in a Ruthless World

• Finding Virtue (35:25–36:38)
  • Hubert (who refuses to kill Arthur) and the Bastard are seen as the true “decent” figures—capable of moral conscience in a cynical environment.
  • “He’s very tender to his mother... He does have... that streak of decency.” — Professor Khalil Habib (36:38)
  • The play shows moral education, not just political instruction.

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On unprepared students reading King John
  “You really have to just feel your way through the characters and the scenes.” — Professor Habib (01:14)

• Absence of Magna Carta in King John
  “Anyone reading it today would immediately think, oh, King John. I know King John. He’s the guy who signed the Magna Carta... And Shakespeare just basically ignores it.” — Professor Habib (05:05)

• Defining Englishness
  “So much of their politics has to do not with merit so much, but with just this hereditary principle...” — Professor Habib (16:44)

• Modern ‘Nepo Baby’ Parallels
  “He’s the anti of a Nepo baby in modern terms.” — Hugh Hewitt (18:11)

• Churchillian Resonance
  “I really believe... Shakespeare, Churchill was educated by these plays. I mean, Churchill could have given that speech. And I think Churchill did give that speech.” — Professor Habib (31:41)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:33–02:31: Approaching King John in the classroom; importance of fresh reading
• 03:20–05:05: Background on the Plantagenets and the English struggle for identity
• 05:05–07:28: Why Shakespeare omits the Magna Carta, national sovereignty as core theme
• 14:57–18:11: Exploration of legitimacy, the Bastard’s role, and meritocracy
• 21:52–23:49: Arthur’s innocence, conscience, and the limitation of pure power
• 29:51–31:37: The Bastard’s closing speech, national unity, and its modern resonance
• 33:53–35:25: Historical resonance with the post-Armada context and Shakespeare/Hobbes contrast
• 35:36–36:38: On the decency of Hubert and the Bastard; moral conscience in politics

---

Conclusion

This episode artfully connects Shakespeare’s King John to perennial debates on power, legitimacy, and the birth of nations, bringing fresh relevance to contemporary politics and personal morality. Through the lens of Shakespeare and history, Hewitt and Habib provide listeners with a stirring reminder of the challenges and rewards of nation-building—and the enduring power of patriotic virtue.

---

Transcript

[Professor Khalil Habib]

Every week, Hillsdale College president Larry Arne joins Hugh Hewitt to discuss great books, great men and great ideas. This is Hillsdale Dialogues, part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. More episodes at podcast Hillsdale. Edu or wherever you find your audio.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Morning Glory and Evening Grace America. That music means the Hilltale dialogue is underway. I'm Hugh Hewitt. I hope you're watching. On the Salem News Channel, you get to meet Professor Khalil Habib for the fourth week in a row as we continue our dive into the history plays of Shakespeare. Last week we did what ought to have been part one, which became part three. This is part four, which ought to have been part two. But we'll rearrange them at some point and get them right. Professor, can you first start by telling us how do you, if you sit down with John I with a group of Hillsdale freshmen and sophomore, what is the process? What do you have him do?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

Well, unfortunately, it does assume a lot of English history, and I had to do a lot of research just to get oriented. The best way to do it if you're going to be in the classroom format is and when I taught it, I taught it virtually alone because it just it took a long time to work through. Just read it. And then anytime you hear a reference to a certain king like Richard I, or if you hear anything about, for example, who is Eleanor, there are books and volumes out there where you can get a quick read on who they were historically, but Shakespeare tends to be a little bit fast and loose with a lot of his history anyway, so you're really better off just reading the play on its own first. And the most important thing, I think, to do is to just define what the theme is and who the characters are and how they advance whatever the political, moral and the theological lesson you're supposed to extract from them are. So I like these plays in particular because they're unfamiliar, so you can't bring old formulas and impose them onto the plays so that temptation is removed. And I think they really help you to learn how to read carefully because you don't have any preconceived formulas to hold on to. So you really have to just feel your way through the characters and the scenes. And so I emphasize that in the classroom.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Now, is this a long play by Shakespeare? Stan? The only one I've ever seen that I almost just left was Anthony and Cleopatra. I saw it in the original Globe sitting on those damn cushions, almost dying because it went on. It may still be going on. How long is this one?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

It's not his longest. Hamlet is his longest. And I saw Hamlet somewhere in England, I don't remember where. And it was, again, an uncomfortable seat. I don't know what it is about the English. They don't have to be comfortable. I don't get it. But King John, I would say, is an average length. I wouldn't call it very long. Richard iii, I think, might be the second longest. That play is very long, but the action moves. I mean, you're not even aware of time slipping by, because Richard iii, an intriguing character, but Hamlet is his longest.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Okay, give us the introduction to John I.

[Professor Khalil Habib]

So what you would need to know in terms of just the historical background is just who the Plantagenets were. Because I didn't know and I didn't know why. For example, you had an English king whose family refers to him in French, you know, Richard Coeur de Lin. And so the Plantagenets were the royal dynasty who originated in France, and they ruled England for about 300 years. And if you start with Henry II, I think you get something like 14 Plantagenet kings. And then the last undisputed Plantagenet king that you see is Richard iii, and he is, of course, killed in that play. And then the next play is Henry viii. So a lot of the drama in these early English history plays is really England trying to carve a unique place in the world that is English. And they're still struggling to free themselves from their French past. They don't really become a nation, so to speak, until about Henry V. He's the first English king who can't speak French. And so there's a scene in that play where he has to learn basic French vocabulary. But the earlier you go, yeah, it's interesting. And so I think what that teaches you is that Shakespeare's trying to trace the rise of the English speaking people. And I think he does it. In these series of plays now, most

[Hugh Hewitt]

people will be associated with Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And that's it. When it comes to medieval England, what is the general socioeconomic situation in England at the time of John the first, which is. He is king from 1199. So from 1200, almost 1000 years ago.

[Professor Khalil Habib]

For 17 years, the conditions were not good. I mean, King John did have to deal with a lot of peasant revolts. He had revolts from his own nobles. I mean, this is the King John, by the way, who signs the Magna Carta. And there's no mention of it in this play at all. Oh, how interesting. There's hints that it's there in the background. But Shakespeare decided not to make that an issue. And that raises a lot of interesting reflections, like, why would he do that? I mean, anyone reading it today would immediately think, oh, King John. I know King John. He's the guy who signed the Magna Carta, which of course gave us the origins of modern liberalism and rights. And Shakespeare just basically ignores it. And I think part of the reason why he does it is answered in the play. One, it was not historically enforced, and two, it was mostly really the barons protecting their own interest. It wasn't the Magna Carta that you often hear about in high school. And I think the other reason why he doesn't really bring it up at all, even though he shows you the conditions that would have led to it. King John essentially isolates himself. He alienates himself from the church, from his own nobility, from his own family. Nevertheless, the core issue in this play is England needs to be a nation. It needs to have national sovereignty, and it doesn't. It has rival claims from its French roots. It has a papal authority located in Rome that has the ecclesiastical right to excommunicate him. And so those are the tensions that Shakespeare wants to draw your attention to the importance of national sovereignty. Now, why do I say that? There's a colorful character named the Bastard who ends the play with one of the most patriotic speeches. He finally learns from his experience in politics that the problem in England is, isn't that we don't have a Magna Carta, that we don't have. We don't have cooperation, you know, between the barons and the king. It's we don't have a love of country. And the reason why he's the Bastard gives this speech is because he's the most natural. He's born, that's natural. But he might be illegitimate according to the court and to convention, but he's the only one who speaks anything resembling what a nation is. And he's born again a little too early. You don't see that kind of nationalism, patriotism, until Henry V. So I think that's why the Magna Carta is not.

[Hugh Hewitt]

And you also have by our era, again, I teach con law. Illegitimacy is no longer an appropriate constitutional construct. It's been struck down. It no longer obtains. It no longer has force of law. If you're a lawful issue and you can prove it, you inherit. And therefore, the whole idea of being the Bastard is frowned on by modern ears. But in 1200, he is Arthur's son. So John is contending With Arthur's son, the bastard, and Arthur's great nephew. Right? I mean, Richard's great nephew, Richard's son, and Richard's great nephew, Arthur. And if his mother had to choose, if Eleanor of Aquitaine had to choose, who would she choose?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

That's a great question. I think she would choose herself first Hugh, and then put a. Put a puppet in front of that choice. She chooses, actually, the bastard. She gives him a choice. You know, the bastard and his brother come to John, King John, and they are disputing over an inheritance. And to make a long story short, Philip, who's the bastard, in fact, cannot inherit. But King John decides. Well, no, he can, actually, because his father treated him like a son, and there was this period of time where he treated him as one. So therefore, he becomes one. He's part of the family. But Eleanor gives the bastard a choice. Do you want your little inheritance, or do you want to become a Plantagenet? Since you, you know, your father, you do resemble my son, Richard the Lionheart. And he decides to actually take that up instead, and he gives his brother the inheritance and moves on.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Isn't that a bit of a dilemma for John, having recognized that you can inherit even though you're a bastard, and then he finds out that it's Richard's son. Hasn't he got a dilemma there?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

I love that question. And what's funny is you see that same dilemma repeated again later. So one of the things that I think it shows is, well, on what basis does King John say the brother actually is legitimate, even though he came from another father? Well, something like eminent domain laws or adverse possession. Yeah, adverse possession, really, Literally. I mean, like, if you improve upon something for 10 years or whatever the period of time is, and nobody objects, then it becomes yours. That's right, in the Second Treatise, and it's very much English. And that's what John basically says in that the improvement of somebody or land makes it your own. And of course, there's political consequences to that, because just as you can have adverse possession between you and your neighbor, you can also justify colonialism that way.

[Hugh Hewitt]

You know, professor, when you're done with this, go look up the fact that the governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, is involved in a very complex adverse possession case with his neighbor. All right, so the governor of Pennsylvania is in a common law case with his neighbor over property rights gained by adverse possession. It amuses the heck out of me. And property professors everywhere are joyful. Don't go anywhere. I'll be right back with Toyota to give you A show.

[Hyperion Knight]

Classical music is one of the greatest achievements of Western civilization. It took 2,000 years and the work of the greatest philosophical, scientific, political and religious minds to properly tune the piano and make great music possible. But classical music can be intimidating. In Hillsdale College's new free online course, the History of Classical Music, Chopin through Gershwin, you'll learn how to appreciate humanity's greatest musical accomplishments in the history of classical music. Concert pianist and Hillsdale College distinguished fellow, Hyperion Knight explains how music has developed and what distinguishes the greatest musical achievements of Western civilization. To enroll today and secure your spot in this completely free online course, visit Hillsdale. Edu Network. That's Hillsdale. Edu Network.

[Bill Gray]

Hi there. It's Bill Gray from Hillsdale College. Before you skip ahead, can I ask you a question or two? If you could teach 50 million Americans one thing, what would it be? Would you teach our great American story that this nation is unique, founded on self government and individual liberty? Maybe you would teach the truth about free enterprise, how hard work and opportunity allow anyone to rise? Or would you teach the gospel and the Christian faith that helps us live good and meaningful lives? At Hillsdale College, we're doing exactly that, teaching the best that's been thought and said. Through our free online courses, K12 programs, Imprimis, podcasts and more, we reach and teach millions every year with the principles of liberty that make America free. And with your help, we can reach even more. Your tax deductible gift today will help us teach millions more people to pursue truth and defend liberty. Just text the word give to 7 1844. You'll get a secure link to make your donation in seconds. That's give to 7, 1844. Thank you for standing with us. Now back to the show.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Kahlil Habib is a professor at Hillsdale College. This is our fourth and four segments on the history plays of Shakespeare. We are on John I. And the French have to ruin everything. They always do. And how do they get involved?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

Professor they get involved because they are working on behalf of author's mother Constance. And she knows that her son is being essentially robbed of his legitimate inheritance. But she's weak. She doesn't have an army. And so she essentially gets Philip of France to sue on her behalf. And so the French get involved for that reason. And there's a lot of territory between France and England that are in dispute. You know what? This is the problem of having a dynasty that's rooted in France and then rules over 300 years. How do you define what is French and what is English? So what is not in dispute is that Arthur is the legitimate heir to the English crown. But of course, Shakespeare shows you how absurd this kind of, kind of government is because he's not in any kind of position to help England at this time, giving his age. I mean, there's some. Not only disputes, there's potential war between France and England. And so that's what kicks off the drama in this play.

[Hugh Hewitt]

After the Stuarts are tossed out, they have the pretenders forever. After Arthur loses his claim. Do they have pretenders forever?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

That's a good question. I'm not sure about that. I don't know.

[Hugh Hewitt]

All right, so head on to the drama that follows after Arthur can't get his land.

[Professor Khalil Habib]

Sure. So the French come in and King John is very obstinate. He's strong willed. He's not going to just simply hand over all these territories that the French believe belong to him to Arthur. And so basically, King John says, I'm ready to go to war. And as soon as he says that, he's interrupted by a scene where these two young Englishmen come in from the country and they're fighting over an inheritance. And one claims that his brother is a bastard, that he's actually not part of the family at all, and that bastard happens to be the elder brother. So if, if he is not, if he is legitimate, then this young leg, legitimate son would lose his inheritance. And that's when we were introduced to this character, Falconbridge. And even though he's knighted and then renamed Plantagenet, Shakespeare maintains his name on the stage directions as the bastard. And I think to kind of bring out a certain theme in the play, you can have a king who has a legitimate title, but very few people in these plays have any kind of legitimate character. They are so dissembling. Quite often you find characters like the Bastard who are far more kingly or monarchical or statesmanlike than the people who merely inherit an office just through the accidents of their birth. And so I think his character is there to bring out the tension, the republican tension between monarchy and liberty.

[Hugh Hewitt]

When you say monarchical and statesmanlike, are you talking about virtue? Are you talking about ruthlessness? What do you mean?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

No, that's. That's a good, that's a good point. What I mean by that is you can have a world in which birth is what confers your fate and your office and position in life, or merit and republicanism, whose fundamental principle is you are ruled and then you rule in turn because there's a fundamental equality among those who are equal. That would mean that politics really should honor merit. And what happens in these plays is Shakespeare constantly shows you that so much of their politics has to do not with merit so much, but with just this hereditary principle that often puts young children in the seat of a king or illegit or usurpers, you know, who claim, well, if you go back 10 centuries, my great, great grandfather was actually the first legitimate. It just, it causes conflict and civil wars. That's what the, the War of the Roses were about. And so the bastard. When you read the play, you're. You're think. You're thinking, this guy's the star of the play. He's courageous, he's funny, he's witty. Even King John has to acknowledge, my God, this guy's got a real wit to him. He even bears the resemblance of a king. He is a great general. He's fiercely loyal. He has a moral compass, moral scruples. And you're thinking, wow, wouldn't it have been better if the bastard was actually the king? And he can't be the king.

[Hugh Hewitt]

He's the ante of a Nepo baby in modern terms. And so out of left field, a curveball for you. Is America heading towards a republic divided between Nepo babies and meritocrats, people who actually do the work and rise by talent? And if so, what's the result there?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

Well, I think for a while, it's been rule of dynasties. I mean, you can say there's the Clinton dynasty, the Kennedy dynasty. Obviously, Trump wants to try to establish some kind of familial dynasty. And, you know, it's not unique to American politics or politics at all. I mean, one of the things that I learned from Aristotle's politics is when you have a country that potentially moves in the direction of an oligarchy, where it's really wealth and power that moves politics and confers any kind of legitimate power in that society, you're going to want to maintain it. It's just a natural tendency. And the way people tend to do that is by establishing dynasties. And people talk about politics this way. Part of the Clinton dynasty, well, the Bush dynasty.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I mean, there are dynasties all over the place. And now we've got the Soros Dynast, and we've got the Silicon Valley dynasty, but we also have the Hillsdale. I'll call it the Hillsdale impulse. I'm not saying all. I call it the Lantern of the north, and I'm serious about that. But it's not just Hillsdale, there are people who are Republican, small R all over the country. And there might be dumbbell division in the country with a left and a right that are completely alienated, but most of the countries in the middle of everything isn't it.

[Professor Khalil Habib]

You're absolutely right. And I think that one of the problems with our hyper social media culture with respect to politics is that national politics ends up sucking all the oxygen out of the room. And we're so distracted by the theater of it all that I think people forget where liberty matters most is really locally. Who your mayor is, you know, who your state representative is, who your senate. State senate. I mean, that has a far more important impact on your immediate or who your governor is. So I think that that's where you. That's where there's room for merit. It's still getting more and more difficult, I think, to run for office. It's. It's expensive, it's costly, it takes a lot of energy. You have to have, unfortunately, like a machine behind you. So that obviously moves things in the direction of those who have the most advantage, but not necessarily the most virtue or, or the biggest heart. But I think locally is where. And I know in Hillsdale county itself, it's a very politically active community. I've never seen anything like it. People go to town hall meetings. It's exactly what Tocqueville thought would save America, this local participation and real investment in the community. And I think that the more we see, you know, promises made and then it's just now replacing one dynasty with another, I think it's just a nice, healthy reminder that we should be focusing more on local politics.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Okay, we're going to come back. Talk about despair, power and virtue. Despair is Arthur, power is John, and virtue is the bastard. Stay tuned. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Professor Habib. We'll be right back on the Hugh Hewitt show. Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. I don't recommend speed reading John the First, because you need your Shakespeare dictionary on one hand and you got to have Google on the other hand, and then you need Professor Abib to explain. But at the end, I'm left with Arthur, John and the bastard. And Arthur is despair. What do we take away from Arthur?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

Well, Arthur is. He's kind of the bad conscience of the play. There's a beautiful scene where Hubert, who's been essentially ordered by King John to kill, is in the tower. And it's an unbelievable scene. I mean, Arthur is so sweet. I mean, you couldn't but love him. And he's such a charming, indecent fellow. There's even imagery of the Lamb compared to, like, to like a Christ like figure that he moves Hubert to tears and he says, I can't do it. I mean, and the reason why he represents despair, I think, in that, in that particular play, is he show. Shakespeare, I think, is showing you how difficult it is to reduce politics to just mere power. That's John's fatal flaw. He thinks that it's just might, you know, and is what makes right. And he says that to his. When his mother tells him, no, you only have might, you don't actually have right. He thinks, so what? And the rest of the play shows you that's not how politics work. Human beings do have a conscience and there is a moral law. It's not necessarily written anywhere, maybe across the heart. But Hubert defies orders and risks his own life by basically, I can't kill this guy. And even one of the executioners is relieved. Thank God you didn't go through with this. Because there's something in man that is irreducible to just simply calculating self interest. Even the bastard at one point thinks, you know what? Everyone else around me is selfish and calculating. That's what I'm going to be. And he can't do it. Part of his maturation process is he learns that, you know what? I can't lower myself to what I'm seeing around me among these ruling elites. And by the end of that play, the bastard grows up. There's a moral education that he undergoes.

[Hugh Hewitt]

What do you think the audience thought when Arthur falls out of the window and I'm giving away the story, but anyone's going to know the story. He falls to his death trying to get away, maybe commit suicide. I don't know. I read a couple of different things, but he's dead and the barons are really mad. Except the French fleet is destroyed in a storm, which is pretty providential for John. But what's the audience going to react to when they find out Arthur, great

[Professor Khalil Habib]

Arthur is dead, that King John had essentially transgressed a moral red line. And it really pushes England to an extreme. I mean, they. I think the reason why the play ends with a very patriotic speech is because England needs something more than just the cult of personality like John thought he could have, or just merely aligning yourself with the nobility. What author shows and his death shows is, you know, there's human lives at stake in these power plays and there has to be something that's going to unite us, that transcends just Family lines that transgresses just the interest of a king or the nobles. And the bastard figures out what that is and not through calculation, but I think he feels it. He thinks England, England can be that thing we all are rooted in and love, that can help elevate us above these petty problems that are leading innocent people to their death.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Does the people, Nuncio, help at all with that or is he simply powerful?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

No, the Pope, you know, it's funny, the Pandolf who's the legate, you know, as I took a look again at the play in anticipating our conversation today, I had forgotten he actually has a prophecy that comes true. And that is he tells Louis Philip's son that, you know, here's what's going to happen. King John is going to kill Achler. And the way he behaves with the Catholics in England, he's going to alienate the people because he orders, you know, his men to confiscate its wealth so that he can fund his endless wars. And, and that's going to actually lead to the end of John himself. And no matter how bad Pandolf may come off to an Anglican audience because you got to remember, when this is staged, England is no longer Catholic. So King John, in his Protestant sounding pushback against the Papal Legate, I'm sure was well received by Englishmen. But I think what, what it shows you is that the legate, who can at times appear Machiavellian himself, nevertheless taps into a certain kind of prophetic ending. Did John's demise, was it caused actually by. Was John's downfall caused by his moral lack of moral scruples?

[Hugh Hewitt]

The Magna Carta's not in the book, it's not in the play. Even though every Englishman there is going to know John has to yield to the Baron. When we come back, the great speech of the bastard at the end of John the First. We will have Professor Habib read us a little bit of that and why it's so great. Don't go anywhere in America. I'm Hugh Hewitt.

[Hyperion Knight]

Classical music is one of the greatest achievements of Western civilization. It took 2,000 years and the work of the greatest philosophical, scientific, political and religious minds to properly tune the piano and make great music possible. But classical music can be intimidating. In Hillsdale College's new free online course, the History of Classical Chopin, through Gershwin, you'll learn how to appreciate humanity's greatest musical accomplishments. In the history of classical music, concert pianist and Hillsdale College distinguished fellow, Hyperion Knight explains how music has developed and what distinguishes the greatest Musical achievements of Western civilization. To enroll today and secure your spot in this completely free online course, visit Hillsdale. Edu Network. That's Hillsdale.

[Bill Gray]

Hi there, it's Bill Gray from Hillsdale College. Before you skip ahead, can I ask you a question or two? If you could teach 50 million Americans one thing, what would it be? Would you teach our great American story that this nation is unique, founded on self government and individual liberty? Maybe you would teach the truth about free enterprise, how hard work and opportunity allow anyone to rise? Or would you teach the gospel and the Christian faith that helps us live good and meaningful lives? At Hillsdale College, we're doing exactly that. Teaching the best that's been thought and said. Through our free online courses, K12 programs, Imprimis, podcasts and more, we reach and teach millions every year with the principles of liberty that make America free. And with your help, we can reach even more. Your tax deductible gift today will help us teach millions more people to pursue truth and defend liberty. Just text the word give to 718 44, you'll get a secure link to make your donation in seconds. That's give to 7, 1844. Thank you for standing with us. Now back to the show.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Professor Khalil Habib is a associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College. And for the last four weeks we've been kind of dancing around the history plays of Shakespeare, which I haven't really done in the Hillsdale dialogues over all these years. And we're at the end of John, the one which is part two of a four part series which began with part three and four, then went to part one and now part two. What is the speech of the bastard about, Professor?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

The last one? Yeah, the last speech. So that's an Act 5, Scene 7. And it really, I think, result. You know, like in music, they say you can create a chord that's dissonant. You know, it creates tension, but it needs resolution. What that, what that speech does is it provides the resolution to the tensions that were just permeating this play. And that is the bastard wants to belong to something like literally. And he thought that he got this elevated position to the, to the royal family. And he's very loyal to England and he's even loyal to King John till the very end, even though he's aware that King John, you know, lacks a bit of moral integrity. And I think what the speech at the very end of this play is designed, and I'm happy to read it to you, it's not very long. I think it's designed to inspire England to think not in terms of factions and not to think in terms of, you know, intrigue and flattery, but to think in terms of what ultimately unites us. And for him, it's England. So let me just read it. This is literally the last lines in the play. Oh, let us pay the time, but needful woe, since it hath been beforehand with our griefs, this England never did, nor shall lie at the proud foot of a conqueror. But when it first did help to wound itself, now these her princes are coming home again, and he's referring to the nobles. Come the three corners of the world in arms, and we shall shock them. Naught shall make us rue if England to itself do rest. But true. So it ends with this identification of. Yeah, it's incredible. It's. You know what it is? It's almost like the Declaration of Independence for the English.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Well, it's Churchillian. I don't know if Churchillian when they're

[Professor Khalil Habib]

by themselves, you see, I am telling you, I think we. I might have mentioned this maybe four or five episodes ago, but I really believe. There's no question in my mind. Shakespeare, Churchill was educated by these plays. I mean, Churchill could have given that speech. And I think Churchill did give that speech.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yes, he did.

[Professor Khalil Habib]

And there's another book written by Roger Scruton, and Roger Scruton is another one. You know, he.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Famous philosopher for the Benedict. Steelers fan. Famous philosopher, sorry.

[Professor Khalil Habib]

So he was. He was an English philosopher. He taught at Boston University toward the end of his life, and then I think he retired back in England. But he was very much a proud Englishman and he loved its institutions and its history. I don't know if he was a big Shakespeare fan or not. I don't. I don't know that. But you can see certain English mindset, you know, in the end of the speech. But what's great about the speech is that's what's missing in England. What the bastard is calling for is something like a rootedness in the English island and her sons have finally come home, meaning the nobility. There has to be something that has to unite these disparate estates within England. That is more than just mere calculation, mere self interest, because he gave a speech earlier. It's the famous commodity speech, which basically means everybody is self interested. There is no. Doesn't appear to be a common good anywhere. So if I can't beat him, I'm going to join him. And when you first hear him make that pronouncement you're a little bit disappointed because you want more out of the bastard. But it's the beginning of his political education, not the end of it. Once he realizes that you can't live a life of calculation and commodity. You know, there's something in man that speaks to justice and morality and self respect. And he finds it by the end of the play in England as a nation. And that is the one thing we can all belong to, you know, not our class and not our royal lines, not our class interest. It's England itself. And that's why I thought of Roger Scruton. That's so meant. So much of his work is about that. You know, this is. We're England.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Well, I'm going to plan it in a timeline because I'm linear. The play is 1595. The Spanish Armada is only seven years ago. So England, led by Elizabeth I, have the heart of a man, the body of a woman. That's only seven years ago when he writes his play. So the bastard is speaking very much in terms about having defeated the Armada. Am I off base there? Am I making that up?

[Professor Khalil Habib]

No, you're not. That's absolutely correct. And what's interesting about that is Hobbes has a funny line about the Armada that I think actually might be related to this. He says that he was born the same day the Armada was sunk. And he says, so I was born with fear, you know, and that's. And he's joking because so much of his philosophy is about fear. But, you know, Hobbes understanding of England is very different from Shakespeare's understanding of England. And there's no question in my mind they were somewhat contemporaries, they overlapped. But the England you find in Shakespeare is not a Leviathan. He celebrates its decentralization and its patriotic inclinations. Whereas with Hobbes, Hobbes sees liberty as too problematic. And it just leads to the way to deal with the nobles and the way to deal with all of these conflicts is to just strip them of that liberty and ensure that everybody is governed according to natural right. And one voice only.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Last question. There's not much decency. I hesitate to say theology, because natural right is natural right, but there's not much decency in these plays. Hubert, I guess, is decent.

[Professor Khalil Habib]

I would say that Hubert is decent. I want to say the bastard is though, you know, if you read him the way I do, which is to say that you get to witness an education. I think by the time the play is over, I think he does have a. He is a decent man. He speaks about his conscience when he sees author's dead body. And he, like Hubert, just cannot live in a world where they just simply think commodity is what governs. People may think that's what governs, but I think the decency that you find in the bastard and why he gets the last word, which is unusual. Oh yeah, think it would belong. But it's the bastard. And he is more decent because he also he's very tender to his mother. His mother was horrified that she had been outed that yes, you're right, your father actually is Richard the Lionheart. And rather than admonishing her, he actually shows real decency and compassion for her. So he does have, I think, that streak of decency.

[Hugh Hewitt]

That's a good place to end. A magnificent four weeks, Professor Habib. Thank you. I hope all of your classes are flow and overflowing and that you have to teach extra classes. That's not a nice thing to wish on any professor, but thank you for making the last four weeks a lot of fun. Professor Khalil Habib of Hillsdale College, all things [e-mail] all the prior [e-mail].

[Professor Khalil Habib]

Thanks for listening to the Hillsdale Dialogues, part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. More episodes at podcast hillsdale.edu or wherever you find your audio. For more information about Hillsdale College, head to Hillsdale. Eduardo.