“O Piteous Spectacle! O Bloody Times!”: The Faithlessness of English Identity in <i>1</i>, <i>2</i>, and <i>3 Henry VI</i>

Abstract

Shakespeare’s Henry VI trilogy is jam-packed with spectacle: heads are severed and made to kiss, women dress as men and lead armies, ghosts predict the future, and a plethora of miracles take place all over the various locales we visit across fifteen acts. In fact, if “faith is… the evidence of things not seen,” as asserted by the author of Hebrews, then the Henry VI plays are entirely devoid of faith, by the merit of bringing miraculous events from the realm of faith into the realm of observational knowledge. Of note, then, is the fact that the trilogy depicts Henry as a weak king whose main virtue is his commitment to his faith. Compared to other kings in Shakespearean history plays, Henry is almost-constantly referencing the spiritual world, and the world he lives in is so full of miraculous happenings that miracles themselves run the risk of becoming banal. Perhaps surprisingly, given the trilogy’s thematic investment in miracles and spirituality, the English are defined in the plays as destroying or debunking miraculous spectacles. From Gloucester outsmarting Simpcox in his feigned healing to the putting-down of two witches (Joan in 1 Henry VI and Margery Jourdain in 2 Henry VI), it seems that, despite Henry’s incredible devotion, his courtiers raise skepticism to the level of modus operandi. In this essay, I hope to examine the way that the second Henriad depicts a version of England that places logic and skepticism in the seat of faith, while its ruler’s faith is often both uninterrogated and misplaced. Shakespeare stages a teleology of spectacle that highlights English faithlessness as a source of internecine struggle and insurrection, while also cautioning against naivete in the face of canny nemeses.

Keywords

• faith
• doubt
• atheism
• Christianity
• early modern
• Shakespeare