SUMMERS, KAREN CRADY, Ph.D. Reading Incest - The University ...

150
Early modern theatergoers had reason to fear their tyrannical kings. Henry VIII
brought turmoil to the nation because of his willful seizure of power and the split from
the Catholic church. He used the indeterminacy of the social and legal definition of
incest to suit his needs, having married his brother’s wife though this was clearly
recognizable as incestuous and then divorcing her for the same reason. But the
enthronement of Elizabeth provided fresh anxieties. The three early modern plays under
discussion enact a new fear, that of increasing female agency, while retaining the old fear
of tyranny. In all three, incest incurs metaphorical blindness and madness. Losing one’s
reason is the first step of turning away from the human and turning toward the bestial.
Lack of self-control allows the king to gratify his urges and wishes without considering
the welfare of others, and without reason as a guide the danger to the family and nation is
clear.
The comparison of the medieval and early modern variations of Tale of
Apollonius reveals a decidedly more antagonistic attitude toward the daughters—both the
daughter of Antiochus and Marina—in the later version. Then, the dizzying speed with
which Panthea is revealed to be the true heir to the throne in A King, and No King and is
just as quickly unthroned provides explicit disapproval of the notion of a female ruler.
And when Malfi’s Duchess attempts to exercise her autonomy, she is violently cut down.
Acting on her desire to marry the man of her choice proves untenable both for the fact
that it is she instead of a male guardian who makes the decision, and also because the
man of her choice is beneath her socially. A world in which women seize power and
inferiors might climb the social ranks is not allowed to stand. Incest appears poised to