by Stephanie Hanna, Blogging Circle 3
Shakespeare segways into his next play, Henry IV, using the same metaphors with supporting imagery present in Richard II. England, in Richard II, is a garden ravaged by political corruption at the hand of KIng Richard. Hope lies within a revolution and King Henry’s seizure of the throne. It becomes evident, however, that there is a role reversal in Henry IV, as Henry is viewed as “canker” destroying the pristine garden of England and Richard becomes martyrized.
Throughout Richard II, Richard is portrayed as more of a landlord than King, abusing the common people and ultimately preying “upon” himself (2:1:36). Richard raises taxes on commoners to inflate his own worth and support a lavish lifestyle. Although he experiences an immediate gain, his inability to recognize his place in the collective of England results in revolution from a collective more powerful than himself and his own death. Henry stands in stark contrast to Richard, and is once characterized as the salvation the “garden” of England desperately needs.
The imagery used to describe Henry shifts from savior to “canker.” Henry, like Richard and those before Richard, is not free from the temptation of corruption (2.4:68). York also refers to Henry as a “white rose” that must be drowned in “bloody red” (2.4:60-61). The imagery of blood and the metaphor that blood is not unique to the individual, but rather lent to an individual from the pool of a collective is also present in Richard II. Richard’s becomes pale, or white, upon the realization that the collective has outnumbered him and will overthrow him. Here, a parallel is drawn between a corrupt Richard and Henry. Paleness or white, thus, becomes a symbol of corruption and disenchantment. Possessing color, specifically red, is reserved for a King who is regarded as part of the collective.
The imagery and metaphor of blood continues as it is invoked to characterize the posthumous reputation of Richard. Blood, once used to portray Richard’s folly and disconnect from the collective, now serves as a connection point between he and the collective. Richard’s death is described as “exempt from ancient gentry” and an act that “live guiltily in” the “blood” of the nation (2.4:94). Exemplified here is the shift in perspective of King Richard from a petulant landlord figure to somewhat of a martyr. His blood, and the responsibility for his “unjust” death, has been recycled to the collective and lies in, small concentration, in each of the inhabitants of England. Henry, following the cyclical pattern of Shakespearean politics, now embodies the role of cankerous garden worm, destroying what was once “pristine.” As one ruler proves himself corrupt and disenchanted from the collective, revolution ensues with a new ruler ultimately seizing the throne. This new ruler will not remain free from corruption and his reputation will eventually turn sour.
I like your point about the color of white or paleness becoming a symbol of corruption and disenchantment, in contrast to the knowledge that the color white usually represents pure and wholeness. I also find your contrast of King Henry IV and King Richard II as switching positions in terms of martyr and corrupter. While King Henry IV was once seen as the martyr of the story, Richard’s apparent absence seem to paint a different picture of him as a ruler and a person compared to the one that was painted when King Richard was under direct ridicule. Maybe this whole idea of taking away from one is where the power really lies within both of these plays.
I definitely agree with you that there’s a sort of role reversal between Henry and Richard that begins in Richard II—at first, Richard is the terrible ruler and a change is necessary, but once Henry enacts that change by trying to become king himself, he becomes the “canker.” Henry’s seizure of the throne in Richard II was portrayed as completely and utterly wrong, and he definitely has something to make up for in his own reign over the country. His position as king is in danger because he did not follow the rightful line of succession, and this is what needs to be worked out in Henry IV.
I like that you bring up color in relation to this phenomenon of “corruption and disenchantment,” with red being the right to rule (interesting because red is definitely associated with royalty in addition to blood) and white being corruption (interesting because white is associated with purity, but also often with winter and death, and corruption becomes the death/dying of the king’s reign).
Hi Stephanie,
I too especially like your point about the colors red and white and their significance. We tend to think of white as resembling purity, but York uses it to represent lifelessness associated with King Henry. Instead of remaining white, he needs to draw from the collective lifeblood of England, something that he’s not doing. So along these lines of reasoning, even though now the garden isn’t being ravaged, now instead of being tended and restored, it’s just dying. In this case, the entire garden might end up “white” if Henry doesn’t drown himself in “bloody red.”
Like everyone above, I think its really cool to see how white represents lifelessness and disenchantment. It is common to see white as a sign of innocence and purity, but the fact that here it is used as essentially a loss of purity is quite interesting. I like your point about red being the symbol for rightful and pure blood as given through lineage along with the rose metaphor. It is striking that Henry as represented as a white rose needing to be dipped in blood shows how Henry has to prove his blood as being worthy of this rose, which is where Harry comes in. This metaphor seems to be hopeful of Henry and Harry’s success because this pale rose has to regain its color in order to have England united and functioning again.
I really liked the point you made about the cyclical nature of Shakespearean rulers. It seems as though Shakespeare may be opposed to the idea of overthrowing leaders in general. Every time it happens in one of his shows, we’re left with a sense that perhaps things could get worse than they were before the rebellion. This holds true with the end of “Richard II.” We’re aware of the fact that Richard was a bad king, but we’re left wondering whether or not Henry will be any better. Would the people have been better off with Richard? We see in this play that Henry has only gotten worse and that people continue to try to rebel against him. Your statement that rulers in Shakespeare will always end up corrupt is one that’s very interesting in terms of analyzing all of Shakespeare’s plays.
England being a “garden” is an interesting metaphor that plays throughout the plays. I also noticed its presence in the garden scene in Richard II. Richard mentions earlier in the play that he wanted to “reap” the land for taxes to fund his war. In this scene in the garden it is the people who literally take care of the garden. The gardeners are common people and here the queen overhears their words. When she speaks disrespectfully to the gardener he offers to plant a bush for her. I do believe that he said this with good intentions. However, the queen’s status is certainly on a decline here as is Richard’s. In nature, the decomposition of organic matter, namely dead bodies and waste, creates nutrients in soil that allow new life to grow. Here, this could be read as the gardener suggesting that the King and Queen are fodder for the garden that is England to grow.