The Politics of Shakespeare, Part Two

Summary

Hillsdale Dialogues: The Politics of Shakespeare, Part Two

Podcast: Hillsdale Dialogues
Host: Hugh Hewitt
Guest: Dr. Khalil Habib (filling in for Dr. Larry P. Arnn)
Date: March 2, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Hugh Hewitt and Dr. Khalil Habib continue their exploration of Shakespeare’s political thought, focusing on the English history plays—especially “Richard III”—and connecting Shakespeare’s themes to broader philosophical and political ideas. Dr. Habib discusses the interplay between Shakespeare, Montesquieu, Machiavelli, and the American founding, with insights on tyranny, the separation of powers, and the problem of evil in politics.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Appeal and Overlooked Riches of the Henry VI Plays

• Dr. Habib notes a surprising student enthusiasm for Shakespeare’s lesser-known works, especially the Henry VI plays, which were oversubscribed at Hillsdale.
  • “Shakespeare is beloved on our campus. Students absolutely love him. But no one's read the Henry VI plays... they're overshadowed by Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, but this is the first time they're coming into contact with Henry VI. But they seem to be enjoying it.” (Dr. Habib, 01:01)

Montesquieu’s View on the English Constitution and Its Roots in Shakespeare

• Montesquieu admired the English constitutional order, describing England as a “republic hidden inside of a monarchy.” Dr. Habib suggests Montesquieu drew inspiration from Shakespeare’s history plays.
  • “...Shakespeare is in fact tracing the emergence of a republican spirit within England. And it really does begin in these English history plays. And as the Plantagenets are escorted out the door, you see the rise of something like a modern state.” (Dr. Habib, 02:19)

Who Were the Plantagenets?

• Clarification on the Plantagenet royal line: They begin with King John (not Henry II) and were known as a “warrior family,” often embroiled in violence and political turmoil.

Richard III: Shakespeare’s Machiavellian Founder

• “Richard III is the only play in all of Shakespeare that actually begins with a soliloquy. And it's a play in which you find a lot of soliloquies. ...He's the only character in all of Shakespeare's work who identifies himself as Machiavelli.” (Dr. Habib, 05:18)
• The attraction of Richard III for actors is the opportunity to embody a character whose motivations and villainy are performed directly to the audience, without props or ensemble support.

The Roots and Results of Richard III’s Villainy

• Richard III’s rise is presented as a direct consequence of Henry VI’s inability to assert control and check destructive factions.
  • “Richard III is crucial because it is connected to, unfortunately, the failures of Henry VI. ...Richard does have his family anyway, has a legitimate claim to the throne. ...He is the devil incarnate, and he relishes that role.” (Dr. Habib, 06:59)

Shakespeare’s Critique of Hereditary Monarchy

• Shakespeare shows that both illegitimate kings (like Henry VI) and legitimate ones (like Richard III) can be disastrous if not aligned with the common good.
  • “You can have a legitimate king. You can have a legitimate claim to the throne. ...Richard III is courageous, he's a warrior. But he also is misaligned because he doesn't have the genuine concern with the common good. He kills for the sake of killing.” (Dr. Habib, 07:59)

The Nature and Consequences of Evil in Shakespeare’s Universe

• Richard III relishes evil for evil’s sake, taking pride in his own monstrous nature.
  • “He's just an evil, evil person and he loves it. He just has, as Nietzsche would say, a thrill for the knife.” (Dr. Habib, 09:06)

The Historical Accuracy of Richard III’s Deformity

• Recent archaeological discoveries confirmed that Richard III did have scoliosis, aligning with Shakespeare’s depiction.
  • “He actually was a hunchback, which he actually fixates on. He tells us at some point in the play that his ugliness liberated him from the illusions of love so that he could just take advantage and exploit people...” (Dr. Habib, 11:56)

Richard III as a Machiavellian Prince

• Shakespeare stages Richard III as an analysis—and critique—of Machiavellian principles: ruthless pursuit of power, preference for being feared over loved, and “founding alone.”
• Despite Machiavelli’s prescriptions, Richard ultimately fails because his cruelty and isolation alienate his supporters.
  • “Politics requires compromise and partnership and friendship. And so it begins with a soliloquy, and it ends with him dying like a dog in battle. And I think it's very appropriate.” (Dr. Habib, 14:22)

The Role of Religion and Justice in Richard III

• Richmond, Richard’s opponent, is beloved and victorious due to justice and alignment with Christian virtue, notably prayer and Marian devotion (rosary recitation in the play).
  • “Shakespeare introduces a character, Richmond, who actually is so beloved because of his commitment to justice and to England and to Christianity. ...People are willing to actually risk their life to side with justice.” (Dr. Habib, 14:30)
• Presence of Catholic ritual in the plays is partly historical accuracy, as they are set before the Reformation.
  • “These plays are set prior to the Reformation, and so it would be historically accurate to present them as Catholics. ...Catholicism and politics are not only compatible, they were instrumental in overturning this scourge...” (Dr. Habib, 16:42)

Tyranny, Regicide, and the Overthrow of Richard III

• The removal of Richard III is consistent with Aquinas’ views on dealing with tyranny: action through legitimate institutions, grounded in divine authority.
  • “...For Aquinas, it can't just be any Joe off the street. It has to be through the institutions which ultimately have their authority in God.” (Dr. Habib, 18:02)

The Allure and Limits of Evil Characters

• Richard III is irresistibly interesting as a character, but Shakespeare insists the moral order asserts itself: evil is ultimately self-destructive.
  • “Richard tries to be a God, but he dies like a beast. Very Aristotelian. ...Men like Richard simply will not get away with it, no matter how impressive they are. And I think the criticism is that Machiavelli is a dead end.” (Dr. Habib, 19:17)

Machiavellian “Virtu” Versus Political Virtue

• Hewitt and Habib discuss Machiavelli’s concept of “virtu”—self-reliance and willpower. Richard III represents a Machiavellian founder who tries to rely on himself alone, whereas Henry V’s character is more ambiguous.
  • “If you're biblically informed. But Machiavelli basically just said relying on God, you might as well just be rolling the dice. You should always have virtue and go it alone. Hence, Richard is presented.” (Dr. Habib, 20:37)

The Problem of Evil and the Political Order

• Students are struck by the direct engagement with evil and the supernatural, including demonic forces, in Shakespeare’s plays—so different from today’s secular political lens.
  • “There's a lot of evil and flirtation with Satanism, actually in these plays... they're really struck by that because we're so conditioned to thinking of politics in purely secular terms.” (Dr. Habib, 24:09)

Shakespeare’s Authorial Genius and Political Sympathies

• Dr. Habib leans toward the belief that Shakespeare’s coherent vision is the work of a single author.
• He also suggests Shakespeare was sympathetic to republican ideals, often portraying figures like Julius Caesar in a surprisingly negative light, perhaps as a “closet Republican.”
  • “I think Shakespeare is a closet Republican and I didn't know this. I didn't catch it until I teach Julius Caesar, actually, every summer.... And I was struck by how incredible Julius Caesar himself is.... the only thing I can attribute that to is that Shakespeare presents Coriolanus sympathetically... He's a republican through and through.” (Dr. Habib, 27:12)

Montesquieu and the American Founding

• Montesquieu’s “Spirit of the Laws” was foundational for the American Founders, particularly his model of the separation of powers.
  • “He published a work called the Spirit of the Laws. It came out in 1748, and he is the second most quoted authority among the American founders.... And the American founders drew our separation of powers from Montesquieu and not from Locke.” (Dr. Habib, 29:32)
• The American solution to factionalism, drawn from Montesquieu and Hume, was a confederated republic—a large, federated system to dilute and manage factions.
  • “...the way to deal with [factions] is not to deprive human beings of the right to associate... They decide to go and adopt what they call a Confederated republic, which is to say a large country made up of various states... where the federal government would be something like a monarchical power...” (Dr. Habib, 30:23)

Why Separation of Powers Matters

• The ongoing “anxiety” in American politics is a feature, not a bug: it keeps citizens vigilant and liberty intact.
  • “Montesquieu thought, your liberty is destroyed the moment you become complacent. And what the separation of powers does is it gives the illusion... that at any moment you could lose the liberty that you have.... They'll remain politically active and avert the problem that luxury and complacency can create.” (Dr. Habib, 33:02)

Churchill and Shakespeare

• Winston Churchill was shaped by Shakespeare’s English history plays, knowing their lines by heart and frequently attending performances.
  • “Churchill would show up whenever an English history play was being performed and the people would report that he would actually mouth all of the lines sitting there as the actors were acting.... He loved the English history plays.” (Dr. Habib, 34:54)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On student engagement with Henry VI:

  • “Shakespeare is beloved on our campus. Students absolutely love him. But no one's read the Henry VI plays... they're overshadowed by Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, but this is the first time they're coming into contact with Henry vi. But they seem to be enjoying it.” (Dr. Habib, 01:01)

• On Richard III as Machiavellian:

  • “He's the only character in all of Shakespeare's work who identifies himself as Machiavelli.” (Dr. Habib, 05:18)

• On the limits of Machiavellian principles:

  • “Politics requires compromise and partnership and friendship. And so it begins with a soliloquy, and it ends with him dying like a dog in battle.” (Dr. Habib, 14:22)

• On religion in Shakespeare’s plays:

  • “It's a classic example where Catholicism and politics are not only compatible, they were instrumental in overturning this scourge...” (Dr. Habib, 16:42)

• On Shakespeare’s view of evil and politics:

  • “They're really struck by that because we're so conditioned to thinking of politics in purely secular terms. ...Shakespeare, these specific plays really remind you that where you have that kind of ambition, you will always have temptations that are no different than the temptations you find from the fall.” (Dr. Habib, 24:09)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:01 – Student enthusiasm for Shakespeare at Hillsdale; introduction to Henry VI plays
• 02:19 – Montesquieu and the English constitution; Shakespeare’s republican themes
• 05:18 – Richard III as Shakespeare’s Machiavellian character
• 06:59 – Richard III as the product of Henry VI’s failures
• 09:06 – The violence and thrill-seeking of Richard III
• 11:56 – Archaeological confirmation of Richard III’s hunchback
• 14:22 – Shakespeare’s critique of Machiavelli and political isolation
• 16:42 – Catholic rituals and their political meaning in Shakespeare
• 18:02 – Aquinas, tyranny, and regicide in the plays
• 19:17 – The moral order and ultimate fate of evil in Shakespeare
• 20:37 – Machiavellian “virtu” vs. Henry V’s ambiguous virtue
• 24:09 – The confrontation with evil in Shakespeare’s politics
• 27:12 – Shakespeare as a “closet Republican” and his portrayal of Caesar
• 29:32–33:02 – Montesquieu’s influence on the American founders and the separation of powers
• 34:54 – Churchill’s love of the history plays and Shakespeare’s influence on his worldview

---

Conclusion

This episode connects literary analysis with enduring political questions, showing how Shakespeare’s historical dramas offer profound insights about legitimacy, tyranny, virtue, and the structure of free government. Dr. Habib’s erudition and enthusiasm invite listeners to see Shakespeare as not just a poet and playwright, but as a formative political thinker. Through the lens of thinkers like Montesquieu and Machiavelli, the dialogues reveal the continuing importance of Shakespeare’s moral and political vision for understanding both history and the present.

---

Transcript

[Narrator/Announcer]

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 even Grace America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. No, I'm not back from vacation. I pre taped this. Thanks to Kurt Schlichter for sitting in for me all week. I'll be back on Monday. Dr. Arne was gone the last two weeks as well, but he sent in as his reserve quarterback, Khalil Habib. Dr. Habib has been a guest on the show before and I'm just we may overthrow Dr. Arn and just keep bringing him back so he can teach us all Shakespeare since none of us can remember it. By the way, Dr. Habib, how many of your students arrived fluent in Shakespeare?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

You know, I have to tell you, quite a lot. I was surprised. I didn't know if anyone would even take this course. I'm currently teaching Shakespeare's Henry the Six Plays and Montesquieu, and it was oversubscribed. I had to lift the cap on the course and there was still a waiting list. And Shakespeare is beloved on our campus. Students absolutely love him. But no one's read the Henry VI plays, which didn't surprise me because for whatever reason, they're ignored. They're overshadowed by Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, but this is the first time they're coming into contact with Henry vi. But they seem to be enjoying it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

And they can be very overshadowed by Richard iii, which we're going to get to today because he's such a great villain and villains are always more interesting than out of place. Misaligned was your word last week. Monarchs like Henry vi. But before we move to Richard iii, a bottom line takeaway from Montesquieu on Henry vi. What is it?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

He doesn't discuss Henry VI specifically, But in book 11 of the Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu holds up the English constitution as an exemplar of what true political liberty consists of. And he believes that England, and this is his quote, not mine, ultimately developed into a republic hidden inside of a monarchy and rock by that. And that's what made me turn to these specific plays, because I just had a hunch that Montesquieu was deriving this reading from Shakespeare. And we know he read Shakespeare because he mentions him and he praises him in his My Thoughts, which Liberty Fund just recently published. And when you read them in tandem, when you read them together, it's clear that Shakespeare is in fact, tracing the emergence of a republican spirit within England. And it really does begin in these English history plays. And as the Plantagenets are escorted out the door, you see the rise of something like a modern state. And sort of you're moved away from the idea that monarchy is necessarily best, and you start to see the importance of the decentralized notion of England and how it did have eventually a system of checks and balances. And so Montesquieu, as a Frenchman, I mean, you would think he would be praising the French, and he doesn't. He was hoping the French could learn something from England. And what he saw in England was the rise eventually of an independent judicial system or judiciary. The separation of powers and the idea that liberty isn't something you just simply write down. Liberty, as Montesquieu describes it, is the opinion of one's security that nobody has to fear the arbitrary harm from a fellow, whether it's from a ruler, a representative of a fellow citizen. And that necessarily requires the separation of powers. And that's, of course, a nice bridge to the American founding. So that's why I turn to these specific plays.

[Hugh Hewitt]

And I want the Steelers fans to know the Plantagenets are a family of monarchs that go back. Is Henry II the first one?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

No, King John.

[Hugh Hewitt]

King John.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

So, yeah, that's the play immediately before. And King John is the first presentation of a Plantagenet king. And they were warrior family. If you read just history books about them, they were considered quite often the bloodiest royal family the English ever had. And they do have roots from Normandy,

[Hugh Hewitt]

So they run from John to Richard iii. Along the way is Henry ii, who's a great lawgiver, advised by my patron saint. That's why I know about him, St. Hugh of Lincoln. But he's a lawgiver. And they are up and they're down. Henry V is the warrior. Henry VI we talked about last week, but they end in a rather brief reign of Richard iii. Now, I had the great good fortune of hearing a wonderful Shakespearean actor recite John Richard III's great monologues at 34,000 air, you know, feet in the air in the middle of the night. And I thought to myself, my gosh, to be a Shakespearean trained actor is to really. But he could have done anything. He chose Richard iii. Why do you think he chose Richard iii?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

Richard III is the only play in all of Shakespeare that actually begins with a soliloquy. And it's a play in which you find a lot of Soliloquies. And there's a simple reason why. He's the only character in all of Shakespeare's work who identifies himself as Machiavelli. So it's not a Straussian reading to say, this is a critique of Machiavelli. Shakespeare goes out of his way to show you that. And Machiavelli always says, as you know, that to be a founder, one has to found alone. And so that play begins with somebody who wishes to found alone. And he has a soliloquy that draws you in and really reminds you of Machiavelli's political principles and ideas. So as an actor, I can imagine it would be very tempting to want to play that role because you don't have a prop on stage. It's just you and your ability to convey these ideas convincingly just on stage. I saw Kevin Spacey in London play Richard III years ago, and he was incredible. And I could see why he would be the gold standard for actors. You don't playoff.

[Hugh Hewitt]

This was Jon Voight and his audience, Dennis Prager, myself, Michael Medved and some Salem executives on a bumpy flight. And just to get people's minds off of it, he stood up and started doing Richard iii. And we are all kind of amazed, I guess Shakespearean trained actors don't ever forget, do they?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

No, they don't. I can't imagine. Yeah.

[Hugh Hewitt]

So let's talk about Richard iii. Give us the outline of the play and then let's tell us how Are you teaching him with Montesquieu as well?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

I'm not, but I just finished rereading him literally last week, so it's perfect timing. And I would have added that play, but I was really afraid that I was just going to end. I was going to write. But Richard III is crucial because it is connected to, unfortunately, the failures of Henry vi. Henry VI just couldn't put his foot down. He had struggled to punish criminals. He was terrified of the factions that were destroying England, and he just couldn't. He couldn't put them down. His father would have had no problem. And in fact, if his father was alive, these factions would have been checked and would have been kept at bay. So Richard iii, I hate to say it because I do like Henry as a character, in spite of his is the direct result of Henry VI's failures. And so what he ends up doing is Richard does have his family anyway, has a legitimate claim to the throne. Henry VI didn't, and neither did Henry V because their father usurped from the Yorkist line. So Richard III does have a legitimate claim, and this is actually a continuation of Shakespeare's critique of hereditary monarchy. So we know Henry VI was misaligned and he was illegitimate, but now you have a legitimate. And he's completely misaligned with everybody. He is the devil incarnate, and he relishes that role. So you can have a legitimate king. You can have a legitimate claim to the throne. You can have all of the virtues that Henry VI lacks. Richard III is courageous, he's a warrior. But he also is misaligned because he doesn't have the genuine concern with the common good. He kills for the sake of killing. He loves it and he relishes in it. And he loves to exploit Christians for sheer personal delight. And so by the time you're done with these plays, you've seen it all.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Does he kill Henry the six or just the boys?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

No, he does. He in Henry the Six, Part three, he does kill Henry vi.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Okay, I'm not losing my mind. But he does kill the princes in the tower, right?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

Does he kills his own brothers? There's a suggestion that he actually killed his brother Edward, who was on the throne, perhaps had him poisoned. He killed the twins. He killed his brother Clarence, who toward the end of his life was beginning to repent and come around. And he even has these dreams where his conscience resurfaces and he wants to atone for his sins. This is before he even knows his brother has set out to murder him. So he's just an evil, evil person and he loves it. He just has, as Nietzsche would say, a thrill for the knife.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Is this why he is portrayed as a hunchback? Though science is debating whether or not he was,

[Narrator/Announcer]

you know, the Robertson family from the hit TV show Duck Dynasty? Now Hillsdale College offers you the unique opportunity to learn alongside the Robertsons as they dive deep into Hillsdale's online course, the Genesis Story. Every Friday on the Unashamed podcast, the Robertsons will share their insights and perspectives. Learning from Hillsdale professor of English Justin Jackson. Take a trip down south to Louisiana for this one of a kind learning experience we call what a Shamed Academy. Visit unashamedforhillsdale.com and enroll today. That's unashamedforhillsdale dot com to experience the genesis story alongside the Robertsons.

[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 in Primus, 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 718 44. Thank you for standing with us. Now back to the show.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

Oh, no. We know he is. He was found in the park. His bones were found in the parking lot somewhere in London, actually relatively recently. So it turns out that he actually was a hunchback. For years it was speculative. Yeah, for years. They thought 10 years ago you would have thought that was just Shakespeare trying to make his body reflect his soul. But it actually turns out that he genuinely was a hunchback, which he actually fixates on. He tells us at some point in the play that his ugliness liberated him from the illusions of love so that he could just take advantage and exploit people who love each other, who want to form a unity or some kind of community of love. And his ugliness actually plays a role in that. He's not even resentful. He just. He just thinks that he was presented misshapen precisely so that he can be liberated from the illusions of those around him so that he could exploit their weakness.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Don't go anywhere. Khalil Habib is coming right back. Now he's got an answer. Was Richard III made for Machiavelli? Don't go anywhere, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. During the break, I looked up the fact that Machiavelli was born in 14 and Richard III is, I think, 1452. So they're contemporaries. Khalil Habib. Professor Habib. What do you think? Is he Machiavelli? Has he come come to reign in England?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

He does. And I will say one other thing that's funny about their contemporaries in Talbot, in a. In a previous plays, who, who lived way before Machiavelli was even born, accuses somebody on the French side of being Machiavellian, which obviously is an enact. Right. And the point there is, I think Machiavelli puts that in there, knowing it's ahistorical, to indicate what he wants us to. Another element of what he wants us to get out of these plays. And that is, I think, a dialogue that he's having with Machiavelli. I do believe there's a critique of Machiavelli, though, in these plays. Richard is presented in some ways as extraordinary and impressive. He does. You're just struck at how effective he is. I mean, he woos the wife of somebody he had killed. He is. He's willing. He's very resolute. He's courageous. But there is, I believe, a critique. I don't want to blather on. So cut me off.

[Hugh Hewitt]

No, blather, blather. This is. I'm fascinated.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

Sure. So, you know, anyone familiar with Machiavelli knows that Machiavelli raises the question of whether it's better to be feared or loved.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yes.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

And of course, Machiavelli says it's better to be feared because love depends on others and fear depends on you. Well, Richard tries to actually rely on fear, and it's mostly effective. But Shakespeare introduces a character, Richmond, who actually is so beloved because of his commitment to justice and to England and to Christianity. They pray. They pray the rosary during these plays, and people are willing to actually risk their life to side with justice. And so you can see one of the pillars of Machiavelli's political thought in action, and it actually ends up harming Richard iii. He has defectors who at some point, because the pull to justice is always stronger than fear, he actually starts losing his men one by one. The other critique is that he does have a vision. He has a dream. And all of the men that he had murdered visit him in a dream. And we know it's a dream and not his imagination, because Richmond receives the same visitors in his dream, and they give him an approval, a mandate to follow through with justice, because Richard is, in fact, a tyrant. And so Shakespeare wouldn't present that and wouldn't present Richard's downfall as the result of disrupting the moral and the religious order. He was fated to die. And the women in the play invoke curses from both the Old and the New Testament, and all of their curses come true. And so Shakespeare shows you that no matter how impressive somebody can be, no matter how Machiavellian they can be, at the end of the day, Machiavellian principles leave you alone and isolated and unpolitical, because Politics requires compromise and partnership and friendship. And so it begins with a soliloquy, and it ends with him dying like a dog in battle. And I think it's very appropriate.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Two quick questions. One, how in the world do they get away with Marian adoration in the Rosary in Elizabethan England? And first, let's answer that one. How does that happen?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

Yeah, so that's one reason why some people would say that he is, in fact, sympathetic with Catholicism. I mean, that's one thing. Two, these plays are set prior to the Reformation, and so it would be historically accurate to present them as Catholics. And that's a classic example where Catholicism and politics are not only compatible, they were instrumental in overturning this scourge that Shakespeare presents him as having been sent by God to cleanse England of the stain of the Plantagenets, who from the very beginning, beginning with King John, were frankly, impious and always rubbing up against church authority. And so I think it's just historically accurate. And like I said, he also, in a way, tries to vindicate the rise of the Tudors in these plays. So I think that probably would might moderate any kind of suspicions.

[Hugh Hewitt]

The second question is, since you're connecting it to the founding, Jefferson, of course, calls for revolution. Other people sign on, and we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of our revolution. There's tirecide, there's regicide throughout these plays. Is this something that Tudors were happy to have bandied about in Elizabethan and Henry England?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

Yeah, that's a great question. You know, I don't know the historical reaction to them, but I will say one other thing. The posing of Richard III is completely consistent with Aquinas take on that issue, on monarchy and elsewhere in his writings. Aquinas, like Jefferson and like Locke, has no problem with dealing with tyranny. The difference is, for Aquinas, it can't just be any Joe off the street. It has to be through the institutions which ultimately have their authority in God. Think, for example, the romans, Gospel of St. Paul's letter to the Romans. And so it's the proper people, through the proper institutional challenge channels, essentially destroying Richard III and freeing England from tyranny. So that's another completely consistent event that takes place in those plays that are actually praised. And so totally consistent with Aquinas on that score. Whether the Tudors felt unnerved by that, I'm not sure. That's a good question. I'm not sure about that. They might have, but I would be.

[Hugh Hewitt]

When you just finished reading Richard iii, What's ringing in your head?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

I think the. Although people like you said it yourself at the very beginning, everybody likes somebody who is bad. They're just. They just draw your attention. There's something seductive about him. And as seductive as he does make Richard iii, and he does. He does show you, at the end of the day, human beings do live in a moral order, and they do live in a political order. And man cannot live outside of the city. You remember Aristotle's line that man is a political animal and the only thing outside of politics by nature is either a God or a beast. And Richard tries to be a God, but he dies like a beast. Very Aristotelian. And so these plays, I think, reaffirm the necessity for moral virtue and the necessity for justice, and that men like Richard simply will not get away with it, no matter how impressive they are. And I think the criticism is that Machiavelli is a dead end. He leads you down a very dark path that simply doesn't align with reality as Shakespeare presents it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Well, we were talking about Harvey Mansfield last week, a teacher of mine, though I never quite understood what he was talking about. But I do remember him often talking about virtu. Virtu, virtu. That's the essence of Machiavelli, is to find a prince with virtu. Don't both Richard III and Henry V have virtuous?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

They do, but in a different way. First of all, what does Machiavelli mean by that? He always means it as self reliance. He defines, for example, virtue and a prince as relying on one's own arms, and chance as relying on others. So if you're biblically informed. But Machiavelli basically just said relying on God, you might as well just be rolling the dice. You should always have virtue and go it alone. Hence, Richard is presented. Now, Henry V is a different animal. I know that there are plenty of readings that present him as Machiavellian. Sorry, Shakespeare's most Machiavellian character. The problem with that is Shakespeare himself makes Richard III explicitly that. I think there's ambiguity about Henry.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I'm coming right back at a couple more segments with Dr. Habib. Don't go anywhere, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Stay tuned.

[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 718 44. Thank you for standing with us. Now back to the show.

[Narrator/Announcer]

You know the Robertson family from the hit TV show Duck Dynasty. Now Hillsdale College offers you the unique opportunity to learn alongside the Robertsons as they dive deep into Hillsdale's online course, the Genesis Story. Every Friday on the Unashamed podcast, the Robertsons will share their insights and perspectives. Learning from Hillsdale professor of English Justin Jackson. Take a trip down south to Louisiana for this one of a kind learning experience we call Unashamed Academy. Visit unashamedforhillsdale.com and enroll today. That's unashamedfor hillsdale.com to experience the genesis story alongside the Robertsons.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. We're taking a break from Churchill with doing Shakespeare for two weeks last week and this week with Dr. Kahlil Habib. Dr. Habib is teaching political theory at Hillsdale and has been for a long time. How many years now, Dr. Habib?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

I'm coming to the end of my seventh year, so eight years.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Eight years up in poor Dr. Habib having to move for Michigan all those years. But Dr. Habib, it's like Maine, though if you grew up in Maine. There's not much difference between Michigan and Maine. Tell me a little bit about your students and their reaction to these classes.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

They like them a lot. And one of the things that has struck them most, and this is literally I'm reporting what I'm hearing, there's a lot of evil and flirtation with Satanism, actually in these plays, Joan is working with the demonic and there are other characters who literally invoke the devil and it's a part of their ambition and they're part of their desire to disrupt the political order. And they're really struck by that because we're so conditioned to thinking of politics in purely secular terms. You Know, like who's elected, who's not, which branch of government is derelict or which one is actually doing its job. And Shakespeare, these specific plays really remind you that where you have that kind of ambition, you will always have temptations that are no different than the temptations you find from the fall. And so they're really struck by that. And I think a lot of them are quite satisfied and happy to see somebody take seriously evil and say it's evil and say that it's diabolical, that they were really surprised by. And I think they've told me personally and in class that they appreciate these plays a lot for that reason. It's the first time they see somebody of the magnitude of Shakespeare presenting politics with that lens of looking at the world in terms of good and evil.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Well, you raised the penultimate question. I'll save the last one for the last segment. When you confront Shakespeare, is it possible he did it all by himself? It's such an extraordinary achievement.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

Yeah, you know, I would like to think so. They're just so coherent and they just are so masterful. Just the way the. All his other plays. Just the way the English history plays lined up. They have to. You know, if you read the Summa, you would think that was done by. It couldn't have been done, man. It is. I don't know. My experience on committees makes me doubt that more than one person could have produced something that coherent. But I would like to think that he was. That he wrote himself. They're just too interconnected.

[Hugh Hewitt]

So have you done other Shakespeare courses and do you plan to do more, or is it just the three history, the three Henry plays?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

No, no, no. I've been teaching Shakespeare for a long time. I would say close to two decades. I've taught Titus Andronicus. I've taught the Roman plays. I can't, man. I've taught Macbeth. I've done reading groups on Shakespeare. And this is, I think, the second or third time that I've taught Shakespeare at Hillsdale. And the students asked me if we could continue on to the summer into next year. So there seems to be quite a demand for.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Disappointed me earlier, professor, when you said that Caesar was an old senile brute. I love the play. I've seen it perform more than any other Shakespeare, and I've never heard that before. So I'm sort of taken aback. I read a lot of plutarch as well, Dr. Arn, and I did many weeks on Plutarch. To what do you attribute that?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

I think Shakespeare is a closet Republican and I didn't know this. I didn't catch it until I teach Julius Caesar, actually, every summer, come to think of it, for Hillsdale College, we have a teachers conference in the summer. And for years, I just took for granted Shakespeare's presentation of Julius Caesar. The play is named after him, and yet the first time we see him, he's hard of hearing, he misjudges people, he looks frail, and he just looks out of touch. But then I went and I decided, you know what? I should probably read Caesar. I mean, if I'm really going to teach this play. And I was struck by how incredible Julius Caesar himself is. I read the Gaelic wars cover to cover, and I just. I thought, wow, what a discrepancy between Julius Caesar himself and what he's written and the way Shakespeare presents him. And the only thing I can attribute that to is that Shakespeare presents Coriolanus sympathetically, even though you know he does. It is a tragedy, but he's a Republican through and through. He's a true aristocrat.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Oh, interesting. Do you read Plutarch?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

I've only read the Plutarch on Antony and I believe Julius Caesar. No.

[Hugh Hewitt]

1 Negrachi Brothers Read Sulla as well. But Sulla said about Caesar when he had wanted to proscribe him and he was talked out of it. Anyone who doesn't seem that there are many Marius in Caesar is blind. I'm paraphrasing. But Sula had his measured demand instantly. I'm going to come back and we're going to wrap up with Montesquieu, because I think I owe it to the audience. We mentioned him in passing. We are assuming fact's not in evidence that you have any idea who Montesquieu is. Not a French restaurant in Georgetown. So we'll tell you about it when we come back. Don't go anywhere. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Welcome back, America. It's my last segment for a while with Dr. Khalil Habib, who is a professor of political theory at Hillsdale. He also teaches con law. He also teaches medieval theology, politics and literature. But originally we were going to cover a little bit of Montesquieu. It is our 250th birthday, and Montesquieu plays an enormous role in the framing, whether or not you know that, at least in the constitution. Dr. Habib, explain a little bit about Montesquieu, who he is, why he matters, what he's up to.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

So he published a work called the Spirit of the Laws. It came out in 1748, and he is the second most quoted authority among the American founders. Some say Locke, some say Montesquieu. It's a photo finish. If he wasn't second, then he was third. The first, of course, was the Bible. And the American founders drew our separation of powers from Montesquieu and not from Locke. There isn't an independent judiciary in Locke like there is in Montesquieu. And so they really favored Montesquieu's approach to that. And secondly, he's the only philosopher actually mentioned by name in the Federalist Papers. Polybius is mentioned, but Polybius is generally taken to be a political historian or political theorist. Historian. But Montesquieu was enormously important. And they take Montesquieu's path to solving the problem of factions, and that is in 9 and 10 of the Federalist Papers. They say the way to deal with them is not to deprive human beings of the right to associate, and it's not to deprive them of the right to freedom of speech. We know that that kind of liberty is likely to generate factions that the English history plays show you can lead to complete destruction of a political order. So what do they do? Well, building on David Hume and Montesquieu, they decide to go and adopt what they call a Confederated republic, which is to say a large country made up of various states that are incorporated into this extended sphere, where the federal government would be something like a monarchical power that can be large enough and central enough that it can prevent foreign threats or at least reduce them. And the separation of powers internally would curb the potential for that to ever become tyrannical. And that the states could remain republic in the sense that they're small, where they can be local, particip, participation. And so they adopt that as a way of expanding the orbit of the territory and government so that you can have freedom of speech, you can have all this liberty without having the effects of factions bringing the country down. And I would say they've been remarkably successful. We've only had one civil war. We have a very robust freedom of speech and freedom to associate. In England, that led to civil war. In Lebanon, that leads to civil war in Athens. In ancient Athens, the smallness, or how Madison puts it, the petty republics of the ancients meant they were so small that they were always swinging from anarchy to tyranny and anarchy to tyranny. They were just unstable. So Montesquieu is very important for the American founders.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I want people to. He was born in 1689. He's a French judge. He dies in 1755. So he is, to the framers, at least, of the Constitution, as Reagan would be to us. So he's not so far removed from the framers that they would not be immediately familiar with his work. And, of course, Dr. Habib and I are taping this, and we're doing so on February 20, the day that the United States Supreme Court strikes down Donald Trump's tariff powers, which is the perfect example of a separation of powers, checking one branch, checking another in a way that upsets the former but doesn't endanger the latter. So it's worked.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

Yeah, no, it's astonishing. I mean, what's interesting about Montesquieu and why this works is he felt that if you properly channel. When he looks at the English, for example, he says, there's a general unease about the English that I'm observing. Montesquieu says, and that unease is that their adversaries, their opposing factions or parties, have access to power, but they do, too. And what Montesquieu says is that the secret, the trick to the separation of powers is that everybody has enough butterflies in their stomach and concern that the other side could make advancements and they can't, that it actually creates an institutional equilibrium that doesn't result in bloody conflict and civil war. So, believe it or not, this kind of anxiety that Americans generally feel around elections and midterms and what happens when a president gets into power who ends up on the court is actually not a. Not a bug. It's a feature of the separation of powers, because Montesquieu thought, your liberty is destroyed the moment you become complacent. And what the separation of powers does is it gives the illusion, and even uses that term, that at any moment you could lose the liberty that you have. He says, as long as people continue to believe that they'll remain politically active and avert the problem that luxury and complacency can create, which is really the condition that leads to centralization of authority and tyranny. So vigilance requires that constant potential risk that you could lose your liberty. So it's a very fine edge that Monesky walks.

[Hugh Hewitt]

So I want to conclude this way. In your note to me, you said, these are Churchill's favored by plays, the history plays. Was it just Henry VI or Henry VI and Richard III or all of the history plays?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

I think the English history plays. When I used to take students to Oxford, when I taught study abroad ages ago, we would go, for example, to Blenheim, and depending on who you would get For a tour guide. They would tell you that Churchill would show up whenever an English history play was being performed and the people would report that he would actually mouth all of the lines sitting there as the actors were acting. And quite often we'd go back into the dressing room afterward and critique them or praise them. He loved the English history plays. And you know, and as you know, Churchill himself wrote a history of the English speaking peoples.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Oh, yes.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

And I think he was absolutely educated and formed by Shakespeare. I have no, no doubt about that.

[Hugh Hewitt]

If I have a favorite line in the history of the English speaking peoples, it's when he writes about Joan of Arc. If she did not exist, she ought to have. And so I like the way he approaches history. He's very, very generous. Dr. Habib, thank you for your generous amount of time. Next time we talk, who knows where we'll be? Wherever your classes take you. I'm glad that you were up there at Hillsdale, remember? Have you, by the way, taught a video course yet?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

No, we're actually in the process. We've got one coming up. I think we're filming in May.

[Hugh Hewitt]

What's it going to be about?

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

And it's going to be on Montesquieu.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Oh, very good. We'll look forward to that. And we'll promote the heck out of it. Dr. Coelambib, thank you so much.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Thanks for listening to the Hillsdale Dialogues, part of the Hills 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.

[Dr. Khalil Habib]

Eduardo.