Shakespeare's Sources on Crusading
Matt Camacho
Shakespeare references crusading and pilgrimages quite prominently in three of his Henriad plays: Richard II and both parts of Henry IV. Yet, do his depictions of Henry IV and his yearning for a holy war hold up to reality? Raphael Holinshed and Edward Hall, two sixteenth century historians, seem to have a different idea of Henry IV. Modern scholars also give us a different story, so Shakespeare apparently took a lot of creative license in showing how his Henry IV handled holy war.
The fourteenth century was a time of adventure for Henry Bolingbroke. Before he became Henry IV, he was one of several hundred Englishmen who went overseas to fight for the German Teutonic Order in Lithuania (Christiansen, 3). Yet, the Northern Crusades against the Lithuanian natives were going poorly, so he rerouted himself and traveled to Jerusalem in 1392 (Black, 19). This pilgrimage reignited his interest in the region, and scholars continue to debate whether or not he actually intended to prepare a crusade for the Holy Land in 1413 (Black, 19). France seems like an equally likely destination. In any case, by the time Henry came to the throne, his crusading efforts were most likely behind him.
This hardly stopped Holinshed and Hall from speculating about the matter, of course. Shakespeare drew from their respective chronicles, and as a result his plays have more details from them as opposed to our modern knowledge. Towards the end of Henry’s role in Henry IV, Part II, Shakespeare introduces a new motivation for Henry’s crusade. He is fated to die in Jerusalem:
The fourteenth century was a time of adventure for Henry Bolingbroke. Before he became Henry IV, he was one of several hundred Englishmen who went overseas to fight for the German Teutonic Order in Lithuania (Christiansen, 3). Yet, the Northern Crusades against the Lithuanian natives were going poorly, so he rerouted himself and traveled to Jerusalem in 1392 (Black, 19). This pilgrimage reignited his interest in the region, and scholars continue to debate whether or not he actually intended to prepare a crusade for the Holy Land in 1413 (Black, 19). France seems like an equally likely destination. In any case, by the time Henry came to the throne, his crusading efforts were most likely behind him.
This hardly stopped Holinshed and Hall from speculating about the matter, of course. Shakespeare drew from their respective chronicles, and as a result his plays have more details from them as opposed to our modern knowledge. Towards the end of Henry’s role in Henry IV, Part II, Shakespeare introduces a new motivation for Henry’s crusade. He is fated to die in Jerusalem:
Laud be to God! Even there my life must end.
It hath been prophesied to me many years
I should not die but in Jerusalem, (2 Henry IV, iv, iii, 363-365)
This might seem like a bit of creative irony on Shakespeare’s part, given that he dies in the Jerusalem room instead of the real Jerusalem, but he actually draws this from Holinshed: "Then said the King: ‘Lauds be given to the father of heaven, for now I know that I shall die heere in this chamber, according to the prophesie of me declared, that I should depart this life in Jerusalem." (Holinshed, 541)
He makes sure to "leave it to the aduised reader to judge," (Holinshed, 541) but clearly Shakespeare felt no qualms in lifting some of Holinshed’s language. Hall, on the other hand, makes it clearer that Henry did indeed intend a crusade: "...for the war to be made against the Infidels, and especially for the recovery of the holy Citie of Jerusalé, in whiche Christian warres he entended to end his transitory life, and for that cause he prepared a great army" (Hall, Folio 32).
Finally, one can also draw a comparison between Samuel Daniel’s The First Fowre Bookes of the Civile Wars Between the Two Houses of Lancaster and Yorke and Henry’s grave warning to his son (Black, 20). Henry instructs Prince Hal to lead his soldiers to the Holy Land so that they do not look "too near unto [Henry’s] state" (2 Henry IV, iv.iii.340). In other words, the longer the soldiers sit by England, the more restless they will get. Daniel provides a very similar feeling in saying "But some great actions entertaine thou still / To hold their mindes who else will practise ill" (Daniel, Fol. 66, stanza 127). Many have interpreted this as selfishness on Henry’s part, something of a "spectacle" to distract his troops (Parvini, 196).
I would argue that Shakespeare manages to create someone unique by combining so many different elements. Henry’s vow to redeem himself for the murder of Richard II appears nowhere in the chronicles I have mentioned, and that single handedly changes his entire attitude toward crusading. Rather than out of simple piety or manipulation (Tiffany, 78), Henry acts out of genuine remorse, something that cannot be derived from modern historians or sixteenth century chronicles.
He makes sure to "leave it to the aduised reader to judge," (Holinshed, 541) but clearly Shakespeare felt no qualms in lifting some of Holinshed’s language. Hall, on the other hand, makes it clearer that Henry did indeed intend a crusade: "...for the war to be made against the Infidels, and especially for the recovery of the holy Citie of Jerusalé, in whiche Christian warres he entended to end his transitory life, and for that cause he prepared a great army" (Hall, Folio 32).
Finally, one can also draw a comparison between Samuel Daniel’s The First Fowre Bookes of the Civile Wars Between the Two Houses of Lancaster and Yorke and Henry’s grave warning to his son (Black, 20). Henry instructs Prince Hal to lead his soldiers to the Holy Land so that they do not look "too near unto [Henry’s] state" (2 Henry IV, iv.iii.340). In other words, the longer the soldiers sit by England, the more restless they will get. Daniel provides a very similar feeling in saying "But some great actions entertaine thou still / To hold their mindes who else will practise ill" (Daniel, Fol. 66, stanza 127). Many have interpreted this as selfishness on Henry’s part, something of a "spectacle" to distract his troops (Parvini, 196).
I would argue that Shakespeare manages to create someone unique by combining so many different elements. Henry’s vow to redeem himself for the murder of Richard II appears nowhere in the chronicles I have mentioned, and that single handedly changes his entire attitude toward crusading. Rather than out of simple piety or manipulation (Tiffany, 78), Henry acts out of genuine remorse, something that cannot be derived from modern historians or sixteenth century chronicles.