At the end
of Act I, Scene iii of Shakespeare’s “Richard III,” Catesby summons the court
to dying King Edward’s bedside, leaving Richard alone on stage. Two unnamed murderers then enter to receive
direction and a warrant from Richard for the extra-judicial murder of Clarence,
whom Richard has decided to kill simply because Clarence precedes him in the
order of succession. Richard’s casual bonhomie
with the murderers whilst arranging the details of his brother’s death makes
the scene chilling. Such small,
extra-judicial conspiracies, often with homicidal aims, are a common dramatic
element for Shakespeare, particularly in the histories and tragedies. As a
dramatic structure, they hardly seem worthy of special consideration. Some aren’t original to Shakespeare, rather
coming from his sources, such as Holinshed’s Chronicles or the Brut Chronicle.
However,
they may be more interesting structurally than their humble dramatic role
suggests. In the abstract, they signal a
decision or action taken outside the usual frame and process of political
decision making, by exceptional participants, sometimes for someone’s personal
gain. And, perhaps, they suggest a
strategy for applying heterogeneous large data set analysis to historical
questions. It would be a kind of
historical social network analysis and it usefulness would hinge, of course, on
the kinds, specificity and quality of formal network connections that could be
identified within and between the elements of large data sets. My particular interest derives from studying
the life of Sir Thomas Malory and the 15th century social and
historical context within which he lived.
So much of the evidence surrounding his life is provocatively
circumstantial and open to multiple interpretations. Is it possible additional important specific
knowledge could be derived from the combined global mathematical analysis of
say the databases of Parliamentary acts, recorded judicial actions, affinity
structures, and the financial records of
the Exchequer? Is it possible, for
example, that a judicial decision made entirely for partisan reasons might have
a characteristic social network signature or be identifiable through a
particular kind of cluster analysis?
A few weeks
ago, we attended a conference on current work in Southwest
Archaeology. One of the presentations,
“An Examinination of Spatial Relationships Using GIS Data from the Basketmaker
Communities Project,” by Tanachy Bruhns, showed how the use of cluster analysis
applied to correlating diverse and heterogeneous types of information, from
cost/distance analysis to local solar radiation might be used to predict the
location of archaeological sites and derive additional knowledge about existing
ones. Can social networking information,
implicit in large databases of historical societies be studied
analogously? It’s an appealing idea.
But challenging. I decided to examine a couple of possible test cases: the decision to execute Mary Queen of Scots
and Richard III’s assumption of the throne.
In both cases, a leader reluctantly assented to a major decision in her
or his interest. However, we generally
credit that Queen Elizabeth really was reluctant to order the execution of her
cousin queen whilst Richard’s acceptance of the petition by the citizens and
nobles of London may have been an act of clever political theatre engineered by
his supporters and himself. In both
cases, the number of linked events, the complexity of the affinity diagrams are
daunting, not to mention categorization and characterization of linkages in any
social networking diagram. Then there’s
the problem of nuance: the process of
abstraction might exclude precisely the information necessary for
differentiation between such situations.
Can
additional information or even significant conclusions about historical events
be derived by mathematical analysis of large data sets? It seems like an important and natural area
of research for groups and institutions conducting “Digital Humanities”
research.