Murderous Mothers and The Family/State Analogy in Classical and Renaissance Drama

Gorboduc, King of Britain, divided his realm in his lifetime to his sons, Ferrex and Porrex. The sons fell to dissension. The younger killed the elder. The mother, that more dearly loved the elder, for revenge killed the younger. The people, moved with the cruelty of the fact, rose in rebellion and slew both father and mother.

Gorboduc, The Argument ¹

Sackville and Norton's Gorboduc begins with this summary of its action. The play, written in 1562 during the early years of Elizabeth's reign, is usually interpreted as a piece of advice to the young Queen on matters ranging from the issue of succession to the monarch's dependence on good counsel; having heard of its first performance, Elizabeth commanded a second for her own benefit, clearly recognizing the play's efforts at dutiful counsel. In light of the play's history, then, the portion of the Argument excerpted above is perplexing: rather than attributing the fall of Britain exclusively to Gorboduc's unwise political policies, it immediately shifts focus to the familial relationships at the heart of the kingdom's structure of rule--relationships which could, at least apparently, have had little to do with the orphaned "Virgin Queen." Gorboduc, the argument clarifies, is not only king and head of the government; he is also a father and husband, and these family ties counterbalance his controlling authority over his kingdom with disastrous results. The country's demise, according to the Argument, is directly traceable to Queen Videna, who "more dearly loved" her elder son Ferrex, and avenges his death on his brother, thus committing child murder. Rather than foregrounding the king's unwise division of his country which leads to a general uprising (which would be the premise of its attempt at political advice-giving), the Argument suggests that both king and queen are punished with the people's civil rebellion for her infanticide. In fact, Videna's act intervenes at both the linguistic and metaphoric level even in this brief excerpt--once she kills her son, king and queen become "father and mother," as if her violence were transformative of the total relationship between rulers and ruled. Since early modern culture assumed the monarch's right to rule was based in his patriarchal relationship to his nation, that in effect he commanded their obedience because he functioned as father to them, this linguistic shift accentuates the primal, biblical violation of rebellion. But it also reminds readers that familial and political duties for the ruling couple may compete rather than cooperate. Both Gorboduc and Videna, after all, are unable to resist the tug of familial affections regardless of the nation's best interests.

Videna has been associated with the archetypal bad mother of classical drama, Medea; Videna's passionate and violent relationship to her children might indeed have looked familiar to a Renaissance audience watching or reading the play for the first time, given the prevalence of Medea-figures in comparable dramas. On reflection, however, the play's awkward explanation for Videna's actions, that she loved one son more than the other, bears little resemblance to Medea's specific material injuries at her husband's hands: it is Jason's rejection of Medea in favor of a new wife which prompts her to murder his heirs, destroying her fickle husband's future as the price for his violation of the marriage bond. Videna initially conspires against her youngest child only out of her greater love for the elder, who she feels has been slighted. The emotional freight of this "cause" to the tragedy may be sufficient to Videna, but it is inexplicable to the audience and reader, lacking the practical basis of Medea's revenge--and while Euripides' version of Medea insisted that audience sympathies be engaged in her plight, Sackville and Norton do not at any point lead us to sympathize with, identify with or comprehend...