Protestant Crusading Thought, Oaths, and Historical Context
Matt Camacho
Although crusades seem ever on the mind of Henry IV, they were hardly the concern of Shakespeare’s sixteenth century audience. Even with the Turks on the horizon, they were more concerned with the conduct of other Christians. The state religion of England officially switched from Catholicism to Anglicanism (a form of Protestantism) earlier in the same century, and Shakespeare was still living out the aftermath. Unlike Catholicism, Protestant faiths never thought much of pilgrimages or crusades, so it feels strange that Shakespeare decided to latch onto the idea of a crusade when describing Henry IV. That feature of his personality came partly from Shakespeare’s imagination, after all.
The establishment of the Anglican Church meant a lot for both oaths and pilgrimages. Although Henry VIII (1491-1547) toyed with the idea of a crusade, his decision to embrace Protestantism resulted in an abolishment of pilgrimages altogether. Pilgrimage was then considered idolatry, a kind of unorthodox behavior, and the only journey worth taking was a mental one (Tiffany, 33). In other words, the Protestants liked to think about their spirituality instead of seek it out in person. So, what does this mean for Henry IV’s crusade?
I think the crusade's most important aspect is that Henry never manages to reach Jerusalem. Instead of travelling off to the Holy Land, Henry broods: "O thou dull god, why li’st thou with the vile / in loathsome beds" (2 Henry IV, iii.i.15-16). He does not blame God for a guilty conscience, but does acknowledge his presence. God is often on the mind of Henry throughout the Henriad (for more details: see my essay on pilgrimages in Richard II), so in many ways the king does go through a mental exploration of his own.
As for oaths, the other critical component of crusades, sixteenth century Englishmen found themselves unable to hold up to them. Tom McAlindon remarks in his book on Tudor-era England that oaths were "a source of great uncertainty" (McAlindon, "Shakespeare’s Tudor History" 40). Henry IV frequently made and broke oaths to test the resolve of his Anglican followers, so he could punish whoever failed to live up to his standards (McAlindon, "Swearing and Forswearing" 210). At first this seems unrelated to pilgrimages, but Grace Tiffany argues that pilgrimages became a matter of standing one’s ground (Tiffany, 30-33). She writes:
The establishment of the Anglican Church meant a lot for both oaths and pilgrimages. Although Henry VIII (1491-1547) toyed with the idea of a crusade, his decision to embrace Protestantism resulted in an abolishment of pilgrimages altogether. Pilgrimage was then considered idolatry, a kind of unorthodox behavior, and the only journey worth taking was a mental one (Tiffany, 33). In other words, the Protestants liked to think about their spirituality instead of seek it out in person. So, what does this mean for Henry IV’s crusade?
I think the crusade's most important aspect is that Henry never manages to reach Jerusalem. Instead of travelling off to the Holy Land, Henry broods: "O thou dull god, why li’st thou with the vile / in loathsome beds" (2 Henry IV, iii.i.15-16). He does not blame God for a guilty conscience, but does acknowledge his presence. God is often on the mind of Henry throughout the Henriad (for more details: see my essay on pilgrimages in Richard II), so in many ways the king does go through a mental exploration of his own.
As for oaths, the other critical component of crusades, sixteenth century Englishmen found themselves unable to hold up to them. Tom McAlindon remarks in his book on Tudor-era England that oaths were "a source of great uncertainty" (McAlindon, "Shakespeare’s Tudor History" 40). Henry IV frequently made and broke oaths to test the resolve of his Anglican followers, so he could punish whoever failed to live up to his standards (McAlindon, "Swearing and Forswearing" 210). At first this seems unrelated to pilgrimages, but Grace Tiffany argues that pilgrimages became a matter of standing one’s ground (Tiffany, 30-33). She writes:
Thus the Protestant pilgrimage in English Renaissance literature is either desacralized - transformed to erotic, military, or commercial adventure – or turned back on itself, so it becomes an inward spiritual struggle against our own alienation from God, who is our home. (Tiffany, 43)
The final clause especially relates to Henry IV. While "alienation from God" may be a bit of an exaggeration, the king certainly feels like he has a guilty conscience. In addition to the brooding quote I mentioned above, he declares the armies of Owen Glendower to be "like the meteors of a troubled heaven" (1 Henry IV, i.i.10). Divine punishment comes to mind when he speaks of his crusade. Yet, instead of going to Jerusalem, Henry IV instead goes to the "Jerusalem Room," as was prophesied. Given that Henry IV never left England, one could say that he did indeed find peace within his own home.
Shakespeare turns Henry IV from a Catholic hero of the fifteenth century to a Protestant hero of the sixteenth century. National heroes were common in plays of the time (Tiffany, 23), but Shakespeare makes his unique by taking elements from a time long past and weaving them into his narrative. In a sense, Henry IV struggles with and against Catholicism, and emerges victorious.
Shakespeare turns Henry IV from a Catholic hero of the fifteenth century to a Protestant hero of the sixteenth century. National heroes were common in plays of the time (Tiffany, 23), but Shakespeare makes his unique by taking elements from a time long past and weaving them into his narrative. In a sense, Henry IV struggles with and against Catholicism, and emerges victorious.