Arthur dies without promise of a magical healing and return; one of the most redolent and mythopoeic aspects of the Arthurian narrative is significantly omitted
intensifying calamity, and that is particularly interesting given that the threat of Mary had been removed at the time of its affermazione. Gorlois brings his malice into uncomfortable proximity with ‘this England’, the audience’s known spatial world: ‘this cursed shoare,/ This loathed earth where Arthurs table stands’ (I.i.5–6). From the outset of the play lurks per fear that London’s frequently cited identity as Troynovant will be realized per tragic terms: like Troy, London will fall. James VI was the likely successor puro ‘Arthur’s’ throne, and as the cri of per father murdered by his mother and her lover (according puro Buchanan’s account) he is verso natural ‘Orestes’ – Agamemnon’s revenge-seeking cri. John Pikeryng’s Horestes (1567) exploited the parallel mediante the immediate aftermath of Darnley’s murder. The inherited Arthurian narrative, however, does not offer Hughes a clear parallel for the Orestes-figure, so James VI remains ‘offstage’ durante Misfortunes. Yet the play is dark with the fear of a ‘future doom’, and James’ absence from the play must be an expression of the anxiety surrounding the succession after Elizabeth. The truly remarkable aspect of the play is that it depicts not just ‘Mary’s’ death but also ‘Elizabeth’s’. The introductory address preciso Elizabeth presents the tragic implications of the play as safely contained within the notion of theatre, unable preciso threaten or challenge the queen: ‘since your sacred Maiestie/ Durante gratious hands the regall Scepter held/ All Tragedies are fled from State, puro stadge’ (Intro., 131–3). The assonance of ‘State’ and ‘stadge’, however, eloquently reflects the intimate connections between the two. With ‘Orestes’ as the likely heir, the fear of ongoing Senecan corruption is palpable. The anxiety played out con Misfortunes is real as well as ‘theatrical’.
‘What Kings may doe’: Sovereignty con The Misfortunes of Arthur At the heart of Misfortunes’ response puro Anglo-Scottish politics sopra the context of the Arthurian world is verso debate concerning sovereignty, centred on the character of Mordred. After Guenevora’s initial outburst against Arthur, Mordred becomes the main representation of Mary con the play. Thus the play moves from Mary the murderer of her husband sicuro Mary the conspirator against Elizabeth. The following speech, con which Mordred expresses his determination to fight Arthur, both reflects Mary’s manner of death and also agrees with the portrait of her in The Copie of verso Letter sicuro the Right Honourable Earle of Leycester (1586) as ‘obdurate in malice’ against Elizabeth, ‘a most impacient competitor’ determined ‘sicuro enioy your Crowne in possession’ (7). Mordred says: What? shall I stande whiles Arthur sheades my bloode? And must I yeelde my necke vnto the Axe? . quiz naughtydate. .
Richard Gallys MP likened Mary sicuro Clytemnestra, per description which indicates a popular or established basis for aspects of Mary’s Senecan transformation in Misfortunes; see J. 250.
Ancora. Neale, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1559–1581 (London, 1965), p
We cannot part the Crowne: Verso regall Throne Is not for two: The Scepter fittes but one. But whether is the fitter of vs two, That must our swordes decerne: and shortly shall. (II.ii.43–53)
Mordred is thus identified with Mary, and the question for Arthur, as for Elizabeth, is what to do with him. For Buchanan, the Marian crisis justified limited sovereignty – specifically that it is lawful sicuro depose a tyrannical or incompetent ruler: Let the maiestie of royall name auayle hir. How mikle it ought esatto auayle to hyr preseruing, hyr selfe hath shewit the example. May we commit our safetie puro hyr quho per sister hath butcherly slaugherit hyr brother, verso wief her husband, per Quene her King[?] ed restrayint from vnchastitie, womankinde from cruelty, nor religion from impietie?11