In his new book, Shakespeare’s Politic Histories: The Italian Connection, Dr. John H. Cameron of Saint Mary's Department of English Language and Literature discusses the impact of early modern politic histories, such as those by Niccolò Machiavelli and Francesco Guicciardini, impacted the creation of Shakespeare’s History Plays, particularly in regards to their approach to politics as it is actually practiced. Here is what John says about the book:
What gave you the inspiration to write Shakespeare’s Politic Histories: The Italian Connection?
Part of my interest derives from my wider engagement with the various ways that the English Renaissance was shaped by the Italian Renaissance. This topic has been well documented over the years, but it has often become affected, perhaps more than is helpful, by focusing almost exclusively on drawing direct lines between, for example, Shakespeare and this or that specific text. While much of interest can come from this approach, my own approach - which is much inspired by the work of scholars such as Robert S. Miola - seeks to broaden how one considers the ever-vexed question of influence. I seek to consider Shakespeare’s plays in regards to the wider tradition of politic histories, those Italian early modern works that were inspired by the Roman author Tacitus and that considered the politics of the day through the lens of what Giovanni Botero would later call Ragion di Stato, or ‘reason of state.’ Shakespeare’s direct knowledge of these histories has been debated by many; however, whatever the precise point of connection, his plays clearly display a similar view of politics, so much so that the History Plays could be seen as politic histories in their own right.
The book's title is intriguing. Could you explain the significance of this title and how it reflects the themes explored in your work?
I must thank my editor, Michele Marrapodi, for the title, or at least for the subtitle. My original title evoked a famous line from 3 Henry VI, in which Richard of Gloucester proclaims the various ways that he means to seize the crown. After listing his various skills in duplicity and ruthlessness, Richard tells the audience that he will be so successful that he will ‘set the murderous Machiavel to school.’ My original title, in keeping with this, was Setting Machiavelli to School: Shakespeare’s Politic Histories. Michele pointed out, rightly, that the title stressed too strongly the direct influence of Machiavelli on Shakespeare, a point that I did not mean to pursue, at least to that extent. Michele noted that his suggested title showcased my two core arguments, that there was a connection - be it direct or indirect - between Shakespeare’s History Plays and that Italian politic histories and that Shakespeare’s History Plays could be considered as politic histories in their own right. I am glad that I heeded his advice.
How did you approach the writing process of this book, and what were some of the challenges you faced?
The book grew from my doctoral dissertation, for which I received tremendous support from my supervisor, Dr. John Baxter. After graduating, I put the work aside to move on to new projects without any immediate desire to rework it into a monograph. It was only after some time, as I began to work more on Shakespeare and the Italian Renaissance and was asked about it by my editor, that I became inspired to rework what I had previously written. I teach many writing courses for undergraduates, and I often stress the importance of rewriting. Giving advice is, as the saying goes, much easier than following it oneself. In any case, the rewriting process took as long as the original writing, so much so that what emerged is ultimately a very different book.
One key change, beyond the extensive revisions and the new research, was my voice. When writing my dissertation as a graduate student, I had developed a style that fitted what I thought was appropriate for the task, with all the accompanying flaws that one might suspect. However, over the years, and especially when working to re-craft my lectures for online delivery in 2020, I managed, through much trial and error, to allow for a better reflection of my own voice. At the very least, I can say that I recognize myself more in my writing, whereas before I was trying to hide myself behind the voices and ideas of others; whether that is a good thing remains to be seen; in any case, it is a process that is still ongoing.
I have always enjoyed the research, especially the pursuit, with one book leading to another, with the many byways and leads (true and sometimes false) one may travel. This was certainly the case with this book, as my readings in early modern historiography and the impact of Tacitus on Machiavelli, Guicciardini, Botero, and several others revealed much of interest and many connective suggestions. Selection is always difficult, as one can never include all that one has discovered; nevertheless, the ability to decide upon what will remain, what will be confined to a footnote, and what will stay in one’s files is an important one to cultivate.
What are the key contentions of your book? What questions does it seek to answer?
My book argues that Shakespeare’s First Tetralogy (among his earliest plays, those dealing with the reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV, and Richard III) draws inspiration from the Italian politic histories of the early modern period. These works of history, influenced by the Roman historian Tacitus, delve into the exploration of the machinations of power politics in governance and the shaping of historical events. My argument is that closely analysing these Italian politic histories, particularly those by Machiavelli and Guicciardini, can significantly enhance our understanding of the ‘politic’ aspects dramatized in Shakespeare’s early English History plays. These Italian politic histories were accessible in a variety of forms (as well as translations) to many English early modern writers, including Shakespeare. Thus, they serve as foundation for political and strategic analogies while also serving for points of analogy and contrast, enriching our interpretation not only of Shakespeare’s politic histories but of how he began to see the dramatic possibilities of strategy as played out on the Elizabethan stage.
Does the book change our readings of these plays? If so, in what ways?
While delving into the Italian politic histories can illuminate Shakespeare’s achievement, I argue that we should also regard the English History plays, and the First Tetralogy in particular, as politic histories in their own right. In essence, they are dramatized versions of precisely the same kinds of ‘politic’ historical writing, with its emphasis on ragion di Stato. This emphasis on what the Elizabethans called ‘stratagems,’ strategies that were often linked to drama, introduces new approaches to interpreting the plays.
In particular, it greatly expands the possibilities for considering the wider cast of characters as well as their various aims and strategies. Not only must one consider the character’s dramatic motivation; for these plays, one must always consider the strategic motivation. When looking at the actions unfolding on the stage, a key question is Cui bono? or ‘Who Benefits?’ When one reconsiders the actions in this way, a whole host of dramatic possibilities emerge, along with a whole host of possible readings or rereadings of various characters, particularly the Duke of York, Elizabeth, and Stanley.
The dramatic action of Richard III is heavily impacted by this approach. Rather than seeing Richard as a wily Machiavel defeating a variety of dupes (a view Richard does much to encourage), we begin to look past this and see the true complexity of the play’s action. Of particular interest are the motivations and strategies of Buckingham and Elizabeth, but my main argument is that Stanley, a character often overlooked and even cut from most productions, actually emerges as Shakespeare’s greatest strategist, for he is able to both survive and thrive in an environment where both things seem impossible.
As much as Shakespeare may have been inspired by these politic historians, in what ways does he differ from them?
He certainly differs as his career goes on and as he comes more and more pessimistic about the ends that Machiavelli and others had seen as the only end. Even if one achieves such ends, are they worth it? Shakespeare’s politic histories show how such power is desired, how it is fought for, and how it is lost. When it comes to the first tetralogy, as well as to his later dramatic explorations of the topic, Shakespeare is more aware that strategy has, whatever its possibilities, very definite limits, and his exploration of these limits sets him apart from Machiavelli and other politic authors.
Aside from learning from a possible strategic blunder or learning about the malignant nature of fortuna or Fortune, Machiavelli’s interest begins to wane once a prince has fallen. This is certainly not the case with Shakespeare, who is as interested in those who fail strategically as he is in those who succeed. Machiavelli and other politic authors are engaged with providing a lesson, a purpose very much in contrast with Shakespeare, who is more interested in the questions than in the lessons afforded by the study of strategy and strategists. A failure could only appear to a lesson-maker as something to avoid, but to a dramatist a failure is just as dramatically interesting as a success.
The First Tetralogy demonstrates the strength of Shakespeare’s approach. In my book I try to demonstrate the multiple factors that make strategy so dynamic and so useful to a young dramatist in the process of discovering his art, a dramatist whose thinking was both open-ended and deliberate, and whose exploration reveals durable truths about the art of politics and the art of drama.
View All