Religious Antagonism in Shakespeare's Time
Matt Camacho
One might think of France and England as eternal rivals, but Sir Philip Sidney, an English translator, saw something in the works of the Frenchman Philip de Mornay. Sidney released a text of Mornay’s called A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion in 1587, just before Shakespeare began writing his history plays. As the title implies, Mornay sought to "discerne the true Religion from the false" and speak against Jews and Muslims (Mornay, 2). Even though Mornay wants to debate the matter logically, his text and Sidney’s willingness to translate it prove that religious friction was still an issue during the sixteenth century.
The "threats" that Western Christendom faced at the time were very different from a few centuries prior. The Ottoman Empire (founded by Muslim Turks), reached its apex during the sixteenth century. By 1566, they possessed land stretching from Hungary to Yemen, having beaten every Christian country in their way (Cleveland, Bunton, 38). This conquest captured the minds of many Englishmen, and eventually the image of the Turk began to make its way onto the stage. Jerry Brotton characterizes the Turks as a "spectre," something unseen that haunts the edges of Christian imagination (Brotton, 522). Shakespeare is no different, as Turks are mentioned in thirteen of his 1590s plays, and more than a third of those references come from his history plays (524). Oddly enough, no Turkish characters appear in the Henriad.
The "Turks" of the Henriad are not actual figures, but aspects and undesirable characteristics of existing characters or settings. Much like Brotton’s "spectre," they simply loom over the cast and pit them against one another. The Bishop of Carlisle claims that Henry IV’s usurpation shall cause peace to "go sleep with Turks and infidels" (Richard II, IV, i, 130), a statement that Brotton claims signals an oncoming "social death" (Brotton, 528). In choosing to usurp the King, Henry IV equates himself to a Muslim.
Accusing others of Turkish behavior was by no means unusual for the time. Benedict S. Robinson writes that Protestants and Catholics often called one another "Turks" despite being fellow Christians in order to prove a point or denounce the other (Robinson, 401)(Tyerman, 369). The two Henrys of the Henriad suffer a similar treatment. Both Henry IV and Henry V struggle with exorcising or crusading this element of "Turkishness" from their realms. Henry IV declares his formal quest for the Holy Land at the start of Henry IV, Part I. Henry IV is unsuccessful in this, as shown in Part II, when the newly crowned Henry V declares, "This is the English not the Turkish court; / Not an Amurath an Amurath succeeds," (2 Henry IV, V.ii. 48-49).
Amurath is the English name for the Ottoman Sultan Murad III (Brotton, 530) who executed his brothers (a common practice among Turkish nobility). Henry IV, who is the second Amurath that Henry V mentions, is frequently accused of killing a "brother" as his allusion to Cain in Richard II suggests (V.vi.43). Henry V, his own son, is inclined to agree. The stigma stays with Henry V despite his efforts as well. When rallying his troops during his famous Saint Crispin’s day speech in Act 4 of Henry V, Henry also repeats the term "brother," "For he today that sheds his blood with me" / "Shall be my brother," (Henry V, IV.iii.59-60). Henry claims that he shall avoid the Ottoman practice of killing one’s brothers upon succeeding the throne (Robinson, 415). Even though Henry united England through the Battle of Agincourt by following his father's dream, he cannot shake certain aspects of his reign. Even in his highest moment of glory, he is forced to convince his followers that he shall not turn on them. Through these repeated references to Turks and brothers, Shakespeare illustrates that a nation's biggest enemy may be civil conflict. In attempting to purge "Turkish" behavior from their realms, Henry IV and Henry V display a fear of becoming morally or religious deviant.
The "threats" that Western Christendom faced at the time were very different from a few centuries prior. The Ottoman Empire (founded by Muslim Turks), reached its apex during the sixteenth century. By 1566, they possessed land stretching from Hungary to Yemen, having beaten every Christian country in their way (Cleveland, Bunton, 38). This conquest captured the minds of many Englishmen, and eventually the image of the Turk began to make its way onto the stage. Jerry Brotton characterizes the Turks as a "spectre," something unseen that haunts the edges of Christian imagination (Brotton, 522). Shakespeare is no different, as Turks are mentioned in thirteen of his 1590s plays, and more than a third of those references come from his history plays (524). Oddly enough, no Turkish characters appear in the Henriad.
The "Turks" of the Henriad are not actual figures, but aspects and undesirable characteristics of existing characters or settings. Much like Brotton’s "spectre," they simply loom over the cast and pit them against one another. The Bishop of Carlisle claims that Henry IV’s usurpation shall cause peace to "go sleep with Turks and infidels" (Richard II, IV, i, 130), a statement that Brotton claims signals an oncoming "social death" (Brotton, 528). In choosing to usurp the King, Henry IV equates himself to a Muslim.
Accusing others of Turkish behavior was by no means unusual for the time. Benedict S. Robinson writes that Protestants and Catholics often called one another "Turks" despite being fellow Christians in order to prove a point or denounce the other (Robinson, 401)(Tyerman, 369). The two Henrys of the Henriad suffer a similar treatment. Both Henry IV and Henry V struggle with exorcising or crusading this element of "Turkishness" from their realms. Henry IV declares his formal quest for the Holy Land at the start of Henry IV, Part I. Henry IV is unsuccessful in this, as shown in Part II, when the newly crowned Henry V declares, "This is the English not the Turkish court; / Not an Amurath an Amurath succeeds," (2 Henry IV, V.ii. 48-49).
Amurath is the English name for the Ottoman Sultan Murad III (Brotton, 530) who executed his brothers (a common practice among Turkish nobility). Henry IV, who is the second Amurath that Henry V mentions, is frequently accused of killing a "brother" as his allusion to Cain in Richard II suggests (V.vi.43). Henry V, his own son, is inclined to agree. The stigma stays with Henry V despite his efforts as well. When rallying his troops during his famous Saint Crispin’s day speech in Act 4 of Henry V, Henry also repeats the term "brother," "For he today that sheds his blood with me" / "Shall be my brother," (Henry V, IV.iii.59-60). Henry claims that he shall avoid the Ottoman practice of killing one’s brothers upon succeeding the throne (Robinson, 415). Even though Henry united England through the Battle of Agincourt by following his father's dream, he cannot shake certain aspects of his reign. Even in his highest moment of glory, he is forced to convince his followers that he shall not turn on them. Through these repeated references to Turks and brothers, Shakespeare illustrates that a nation's biggest enemy may be civil conflict. In attempting to purge "Turkish" behavior from their realms, Henry IV and Henry V display a fear of becoming morally or religious deviant.