The Tragedy of King Arthur, by William Shakespeare

Since I do not want to be a mere destructive force here I would like to suggest another possible plot , namely Lancelot the Overreacher. Arrhur himself may be too much of a secylar saint to be played as deeply flawed, but Lancelot, while heroic, is an adulterer who betrays his King. With a little tweaking we could easily fit him into the aforementioned ambitious character who defies his proper role causing problems for everybody dramatic stereotype. While the play might be called the Tragedy of Arthur, it might be about Lancelot. Shakespeare might conflate Lancelot and Mordred into one character so the man who seduces Arthur's wife also tries to steal his crown. A tad domestic I know but then Shakespeare did tend towards that direction. Just a thought.

That makes far more sense as something Shakespeare would write. It's not overtly political, and it has a lot of blood and sex.

Depending on the timing of things, I could see Shakespeare putting in sly little references to Essex, as Lancelot-the Overreacher would be a tad similar to that rebellious Earl. Not enough to have the play outright banned, but the usual sort of small allusion to contemporary affairs he usually did, as in his references to the war in Ireland in Henry V.

"Launcelock, thou shaketh thy crown as 'twere gold. Thou art not Caesar nor Sampson of old"
;)
 
Since I do not want to be a mere destructive force here I would like to suggest another possible plot , namely Lancelot the Overreacher. Arrhur himself may be too much of a secylar saint to be played as deeply flawed, but Lancelot, while heroic, is an adulterer who betrays his King. With a little tweaking we could easily fit him into the aforementioned ambitious character who defies his proper role causing problems for everybody dramatic stereotype. While the play might be called the Tragedy of Arthur, it might be about Lancelot. Shakespeare might conflate Lancelot and Mordred into one character so the man who seduces Arthur's wife also tries to steal his crown. A tad domestic I know but then Shakespeare did tend towards that direction. Just a thought.

In Tudor times any Arthur play would recall the once-nearly King Arthur, Henry's big brother. In that case the Lancelot/Mordred character would be Henry, who took his brother's wife (in somewhat different circumstances, but who remembers details?).

I don't see that playing well IOTL, but it might go down well in the aftermath of a successful Armada.
 
I suppose there is a reason why Shakespeare did not touch the Arthur story, despite a certain degree of fondness for the period in which Arthur was then believed to have reigned. And that reason might well be political. Perhaps a successful Armada would change that equation, but then his entire career and that of his contemporaries would be impacted by that in unpredictable ways. I think he would still have a career in that case
because if I recall correctly Phillip wanted to replace Elizabeth with James rather than rule directly and James was every bit as fond of theater as Elizabeth. But still the outcpme of that is rather unpredictable.
Actually, it is kind of funny, but when I try to picture an Elizabethan or even Jacobean Arthur play, I imagine the sort of play Marlowe would have written. My idea for Lancelot makes him an almost prototypical Marlovian character. Yes, Shakespeare too was fond of the overreacher, but Marlowe constantly used that archetype.
 
In Tudor times any Arthur play would recall the once-nearly King Arthur, Henry's big brother. In that case the Lancelot/Mordred character would be Henry, who took his brother's wife (in somewhat different circumstances, but who remembers details?).

I don't see that playing well IOTL, but it might go down well in the aftermath of a successful Armada.
I'd like to keep the more-or-less-OTL background, if possible. That means, as you say, the play's treatment of the Lancelot/Guinevere affair would need to be very careful not to call up even the faintest image of Elizabeth's father Henry. (Unless, perhaps, it's written later under James? But even then, I think the censors - to say nothing of the crowd - would be highly adverse to such slanders of the late monarch.)

And yes, I suppose you're all right, and the idea of Pope Lucius wouldn't work. Of course, this means we get to keep Roman Emperor Lucius who can still perform the exact same role in the play, demanding Britain as once-Roman territory, and be rebuffed by... hmm, perhaps Arthur can still send his knights questing for the Holy Grail as one of the ancient treasures of Britain? Perhaps the legend of Joseph's bringing the Grail to Britain can be twisted into a proclamation of Britain's early separate existence from Rome? Did anyone try to interpret that legend thusly?
 
I'd like to keep the more-or-less-OTL background, if possible. That means, as you say, the play's treatment of the Lancelot/Guinevere affair would need to be very careful not to call up even the faintest image of Elizabeth's father Henry. (Unless, perhaps, it's written later under James? But even then, I think the censors - to say nothing of the crowd - would be highly adverse to such slanders of the late monarch.)

And yes, I suppose you're all right, and the idea of Pope Lucius wouldn't work. Of course, this means we get to keep Roman Emperor Lucius who can still perform the exact same role in the play, demanding Britain as once-Roman territory, and be rebuffed by... hmm, perhaps Arthur can still send his knights questing for the Holy Grail as one of the ancient treasures of Britain? Perhaps the legend of Joseph's bringing the Grail to Britain can be twisted into a proclamation of Britain's early separate existence from Rome? Did anyone try to interpret that legend thusly?

Well, you could always have Lucius demand some sort of exorbitant tribute, some unpayable demand that makes his assertion of Lordship as tangible as possible. If I remember correctly when Shakespeare dramaticized England under Roman rule he often returned to the issue of tribute.
 
Well, you could always have Lucius demand some sort of exorbitant tribute, some unpayable demand that makes his assertion of Lordship as tangible as possible. If I remember correctly when Shakespeare dramaticized England under Roman rule he often returned to the issue of tribute.
Great point! But, what I was really thinking about was Arthur's response.
 
Great point! But, what I was really thinking about was Arthur's response.

Well, it would not be too hard for Arthur to rebuff such a demand to Lucius' messengers. I am thinking of something like the second scene in Hamlet, in which Claudius lists all the demands young Fortinbras is making on Denmark, only to brush them aside with "So much for him." I think a similar scene would work well in an Arthur play, and it may even be the first scene, it establishes the conflict while also establishing the sense of Arthur as King-that is as power in his own right.
 
Upon further reflection, I suspect strongly that Shakespeare would make heavy use of Lancelot's adultery and "cuckolding" of Arthur, presuming he were to write such a play. I think we can safely conclude this for two reasons. As far as I know by his day the affair had long since become the centerpiece of the Arthurian narrative. Shakespeare could not ignore it or confine it to a subplot. It is just too important. More to the point, Shakespeare and his contempories were in many respects obsessed with adultery and female infidelity in particular. The Lancelot part of the narrative is precisely where the attention of Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramaticists would have been drawn. Shakespeare was no stranger to that trend.
 
Last edited:
Upon further reflection, I suspect strongly that Shakespeare would make heavy use of Lancelot's adultery and "cuckolding" of Arthur, presuming he were to write such a play. I think we can safely conclude this for two reasons. As far as I know by his day the affair had long since become the centerpiece of the Arthurian narrative. Shakespeare could not ignore it or confine it to a subplot. It is just too important. More to the point, Shakespeare and his contempories were in many respects obsessed with adultery and female infidelity in particular. The Lancelot part of the narrative is precisely where the attention of Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramaticists would have been drawn. Shakespeare was no stranger to that trend.

I agree. The most likely frame of the story would be Arthur's return from the ontinent, having conquered Rome, and finding his kingdom in chaos. Mordred having seized the throne, and Lancelot having made off with Guiniverre.

The theme of the work then shows how, even at their strongest point, men can be undone by their own ambitions (infact, you have three ambitious men at the center of the story. Arthur, whose ambitions caused him to conquer Rome, and to return order to the world; Lancelot who ambitions are to be the greatest knight and also to truly love his beloved, and Mordred who sees himself as the rigtful KIng and taking what is his by right, but which has been denied him).

All three of these characters possess a fundemental weakness in that each sees themselves as working for the greater good (even Modred, who would be a GREAT Shakespearian villian), but who are weakening the Kingdom as a result. The tragedy of the story is that all three end up being destroyed, along with the Kingdom, because of the very traits that, otherwise, would be laudible.
 
I agree. The most likely frame of the story would be Arthur's return from the ontinent, having conquered Rome, and finding his kingdom in chaos. Mordred having seized the throne, and Lancelot having made off with Guiniverre.

The theme of the work then shows how, even at their strongest point, men can be undone by their own ambitions (infact, you have three ambitious men at the center of the story. Arthur, whose ambitions caused him to conquer Rome, and to return order to the world; Lancelot who ambitions are to be the greatest knight and also to truly love his beloved, and Mordred who sees himself as the rigtful KIng and taking what is his by right, but which has been denied him).

All three of these characters possess a fundemental weakness in that each sees themselves as working for the greater good (even Modred, who would be a GREAT Shakespearian villian), but who are weakening the Kingdom as a result. The tragedy of the story is that all three end up being destroyed, along with the Kingdom, because of the very traits that, otherwise, would be laudible.


That…that was eloquent very Shakespearian but perhaps some evil person (Merlin, Morgina le Fay)
 
That…that was eloquent very Shakespearian but perhaps some evil person (Merlin, Morgina le Fay)

Well, Morgan Le Fey is Mordred's Mother and is often seen as manipulating him in order to bring about the fall of her brother (although they were later reconciled in the original stories; but Shakespear doesn't have to use the part, of course). Perhaps she is the one who pushes Mordred into his usurption (making him an even more tragic figure, since he is ultimately being controlled by his Mother).

Although, honestly, I would see ol' Bill likely sticking with Mordred as the villain. Mordred can be a sympathetic/tragic figure, but the play is going to have to cumulate with him and Arthur killing each other on the field of battle, and he is the traditional antagonist of this part of the cycle in any case.

For some odd reason (and showing how much of a nerd I am), I'm thinking of the lines of one of the songs from the Protomen album Act II when I imagine this Mordred:

"If there ever was a chance, if there ever was a time/ to undue the wrong I've done and wipe these blood stains from my hands/ It has passed and been forgotten/ These are the paths that we must take/For you and I are real men, and we can bend and we can break"
 
That…that was eloquent very Shakespearian but perhaps some evil person (Merlin, Morgina le Fay)

Got it: Have Modred and Morgana le Fay as somewhat more villanous Macbeth couple. Mordred is ambitious and sees himself as the rightful King, but it is Morgana who is the one to finally push him to do the deed.
 
Got it: Have Modred and Morgana le Fay as somewhat more villanous Macbeth couple. Mordred is ambitious and sees himself as the rightful King, but it is Morgana who is the one to finally push him to do the deed.

Perfect! And you have the weird Mother/Son dynamic which would be interesting as well.
 
Well, Morgan Le Fey is Mordred's Mother and is often seen as manipulating him in order to bring about the fall of her brother (although they were later reconciled in the original stories; but Shakespear doesn't have to use the part, of course). Perhaps she is the one who pushes Mordred into his usurption (making him an even more tragic figure, since he is ultimately being controlled by his Mother).

Although, honestly, I would see ol' Bill likely sticking with Mordred as the villain. Mordred can be a sympathetic/tragic figure, but the play is going to have to cumulate with him and Arthur killing each other on the field of battle, and he is the traditional antagonist of this part of the cycle in any case.

For some odd reason (and showing how much of a nerd I am), I'm thinking of the lines of one of the songs from the Protomen album Act II when I imagine this Mordred:

"If there ever was a chance, if there ever was a time/ to undue the wrong I've done and wipe these blood stains from my hands/ It has passed and been forgotten/ These are the paths that we must take/For you and I are real men, and we can bend and we can break"


What I ment was maybe Morgiana le Fay played Arthur, Lancolot and Mordred against each other for some reason, maybe she was working with the pope?
 
I agree. The most likely frame of the story would be Arthur's return from the ontinent, having conquered Rome, and finding his kingdom in chaos. Mordred having seized the throne, and Lancelot having made off with Guiniverre.

The theme of the work then shows how, even at their strongest point, men can be undone by their own ambitions (infact, you have three ambitious men at the center of the story. Arthur, whose ambitions caused him to conquer Rome, and to return order to the world; Lancelot who ambitions are to be the greatest knight and also to truly love his beloved, and Mordred who sees himself as the rigtful KIng and taking what is his by right, but which has been denied him).

All three of these characters possess a fundemental weakness in that each sees themselves as working for the greater good (even Modred, who would be a GREAT Shakespearian villian), but who are weakening the Kingdom as a result. The tragedy of the story is that all three end up being destroyed, along with the Kingdom, because of the very traits that, otherwise, would be laudible.

Generally, I agree. But that frame seems a little classical for Shakespeare. I think he would want to show the seduction of the Queen, and Mordred's seizure of power rather than present them as already accomplished facts.
 
Perhaps Mordred could have become a type of the illegitimate bastard prince which God lovingly spared England and King Henry VIII from enduring by only giving fair Guinevere of Aragon a daughter ;) Henry VII then becomes a type of Uther Pendragon, the rightful King restored to the throne and descending from the native and Imperial Roman lineage, which is carried through to his son who restores England as an 'empire' ;)
 
Perhaps Mordred could have become a type of the illegitimate bastard prince which God lovingly spared England and King Henry VIII from enduring by only giving fair Guinevere of Aragon a daughter ;) Henry VII then becomes a type of Uther Pendragon, the rightful King restored to the throne and descending from the native and Imperial Roman lineage, which is carried through to his son who restores England as an 'empire' ;)
That sounds more like a successful version of Maximus Magnus.
 
Top