SEPTEMBER GROUP READ: English Renaissance Drama--The Duchess of Malfi

My apologies to everyone for the late start. I had an unexpected outpatient surgery that put me under the weather for a bit, but I'm here and ready to go! So let's get started with The Duchess of Malfi by John Webster. I think what we'll do, considering the late start, is spend as much time as you like on this play, let's say up to two weeks, more if we need it. Meanwhile we can decide whether you'd like to tackle The Witch of Edmonton, Arden of Faversham, or A Chaste Maid in Cheapside next.

I wanted to give you a little background on the play, but it's hard to do so without spoiling the surprises for first-time readers. It was written in 1612, performed first at Blackfriars, a private theater, then at The Globe the following year. Revenge tragedies were all the rage, each playwright trying to top his rivals by devising more intricate plots and more ingenious manners of death (a lot of blood and guts thrown in for good measure). The Duchess of Mali is based on real-life events that took place in Amalfi about 100 years earlier.

So I have a few questions to kick off a discussion of Act I. Webster opens the play with a conversation between two courtiers, Antonio and Delio about the French court. What conflicts or themes does this conversation suggest that we might want to follow for the rest of the play? Do you think it is a good introduction to some of the main characters, including Antonio, Duke Ferdinand, the Duchess, and Bosola? What are your thoughts about these characters?

Please bear with me--this is the first group read I've done or led for 75ers. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have or provide more background, but since this is not a tutored read, I'm trying to leave my professor hat on the shelf.

Anyone is welcome to jump in at any time!

Sorry to hear about the surgery but glad you are feeling better! Thanks for starting the group read. I've downloaded the play from Gutenberg and am hoping to start it this week.

I'm in! I'll find a copy tomorrow and start reading.

>2 rabbitprincess:, >3 RidgewayGirl: Glad to see you both! I hope you enjoy the play.

I've now read the first act. I don't think we are supposed to like the Duke and the Cardinal. Is this where you got your LT name from?

>5 MarthaJeanne: Yes!

I've also read the first act. It seems to me that the cardinal and the duke are corrupt and malevolent. They want to prevent their sister, the duchess, from remarrying. I'm guessing that their motive is financial, that the duchess is wealthy and they don't want a new husband becoming her heir.

Bosola seems to have been freed recently from the galleys where he was for many years a prisoner. (Was he a galley slave like Charlton Heston in Ben Hur? Or is this 16 centuries too late?) It looks as though he was imprisoned for committing one or many murders for the Cardinal, who did nothing to help him then, and avoids him now. Bosola is bitter. In gratitude to Duke Ferdinand, who has offered him a job, he agrees to spy on the duchess, despite his better instincts. He's a violent man, so I predict that he's going to kill quite a few people. Perhaps he will develop loyalty to the Duchess?

Antonio seems to be in love with the duchess and seems genuine, except that he advises her to will everything to her husband, which is a bit suspect.

Hard to tell what the Duchess is like yet. From Antonio's description she is a paragon, but she is misleading her brothers (not that they deserve anything better) and entering into an unofficial marriage.

Thanks Cariola!

It seems to me that everyone is double dealing. You really can't tell what they are thinking from what they say.

BTW, I find my bilingual edition quite useful when the vocabulary gets out of my range. I rather doubt that I would have realized that Castruchios's 'Spanish Gennit' is a horse. Googling gennit doesn't help. You have to google spanish gennit.

>5 MarthaJeanne:, >7 pamelad: So let me give a little context to some of the things you brought up, while answering your questions. At the time Webster was writing, women's status was basically that of property. They belonged to their fathers, then belonged to their husbands; they had minimal rights and could own no property. The law took literally the idea that man and wife were "one flesh," and the woman's identity was subsumed into that of her husband. He was the "head" of their mutual body and therefore made all the decisions. When it came to marriage, middle and lower class women actually had more freedom than aristocrats. Their fathers often led them choose their spouses, or at least gave them the option of giving a thumbs down on suitors. But noble marriages were usually more political alliances between men--not to mention the hefty doweries involved. The Cardinal and Ferdinand, as her closest male relatives, expect to choose the Duchess's next husband (if any). As a widow with a minor son who will inherit his father's titles and property, she has a bit more power, since it seems her husband appointed her as regent until their son comes of age. But you can see from her behavior that that she's riding a fine line between asserting her own will and pleasing her brothers, who would love to get their hands on their nephew's inheritance. In choosing to marry Antonio, she's not only defying her brothers, but, in the context of nobility, polluting the family line by marrying a commoner. Yet we also empathize with her for choosing a good, honest man and for marrying for love (although back in the day, that might be interpreted as mere lust--women were supposedly ruled by their emotions and "appetites").

Before the invention of engines, ships were moved by either winds or manpower, so you're right, being a galley slave is still pretty similar to Ben Hur. Bosola was in the galleys for seven years, having been convicted of murders done at the Cardinal's bidding. He expected not only to be ransomed but rewarded upon release, but the Cardinal has ignored his petitions. He's bitter--as Webster calls him, a "malcontent." As Antonio noted in his opening monologue, he admires the French king for having gotten rid "sycophants, of dissolute / And infamous persons," yet these are the very kinds of persons the Cardinal and Ferdinand attract. (Anybody seeing contemporary parallels here? Leaders who want to surround themselves with flatterers and loyalists?) Antonio and Delio recognize Bosola for what he is, yet Antonio says, "'Tis a great pity / He should be thus neglected. I have heard / He's very valiant." So clearly Bosola has the potential to be a good man, a good soldier, but to borrow from the opening metaphor, he has been sickened and corrupted by the poison at the head of the fountain/government. He's so hungry for something to do, for recognition, that, as Pam notes, he agrees to spy on the Duchess as part of his employment.

I hope everyone caught on to the pun behind Castruchio's name . . . Ferdinand makes a lot of jokes at his expense. When the courtiers laughs at one of them, he burst out that they "should be my touchwood, take fire when I take fire, that is, laugh when I laugh . . . " Wow, so controlling! As for the Cardinal, not exactly a pious cleric, according to what Delio and Antonio have to say about him! No wonder the Duchess seems like such a paragon compared to her brothers! (BTW, you'll learn later that she and Ferdinand are twins.)

The second act is at least 9 months later. Bosola doesn't seem so bitter, but just interested in getting ahead. However he is in grave danger of being unjustly imprisoned. The other characters consider him to be expendable. This includes Antonio, for even if it is a 'pity that he should be thus neglected,' A still prefers to have B up for poisoning the Duchess than to admit that he has married and impregnated her.

If I read him correctly, the Cardinal rebukes his mistress for her unfaithfullness for having been friendly with her husband. How she is to avoid this under the circumstances is beyond me.

I've finished the first act and will start on the second tomorrow. I'm surprised at how easy it is to follow what is going on, at least in the broad, general strokes. Not a lot of character development! What is Webster doing with this play?

Act 2 starts with some banter between Bosola and Castruccio. Bosola gives advice on how to be respected. He seems to recommend being arbitrary and cruel. Bosola then turns on an old lady, whom he berates for painting her face. Seems to be telling her that rather than pretending to be young, by using paint and dressing in beautiful clothes, old people should give up and die. Is he expanding on the play's themes of falsity and cruelty? If not, I've missed the point.

Bosola suspects that the duchess is pregnant, but has no proof. The duchess pretends that she is ill from eating poisoned apricots, and has been robbed, so that she can demand that the courtiers and guards stay in their rooms, allowing her to give birth in secret. Unfortunately, Antonio does a horoscope for his new daughter and leaves it where Bosola finds it. He sends a letter to Ferdinand, the Duke of Calabria, who is enraged and threatens violence against his sister. From my 2018 perspective, Ferdinand acts like a psychopath. The cardinal, fresh from dallying with his mistress Julia, wife of Castruccio, is calmer, but just as determined to murder the duchess, who has tainted the blood of their family. Ferdinand and the cardinal decide to postpone the slaughter until they know the identity of the duchess' lover.

By the beginning of Act 3, the duchess has had two more children. Ferdinand has arrived at court, determined to discover the children's father. He suggests to Bosola that the duchess has been drugged, and made to fall in love. We see Antonio and the duchess being happy and affectionate, and Antonio has just left when Ferdinand sneaks in secretly and hears the duchess talking of her love. She tells Ferdinand that she is married. Ferdinand is wild with jealousy and vows to torture and kill the duchess' husband. The duchess makes up a story that Antonio has stolen from her, so that she can banish him from the court without Ferdinand suspecting that Antonio is her husband. Antonio leaves with his elder son. She plans to take her other two children and meet Antonio later in Ancona. Unfortunately she includes Bosolo in her plans, and he tells Ferdinand.

Bosola is hard to understand. He thinks Antonio is a good man, and believes that the duchess has accused him unjustly of theft. When the duchess tells Bosola that she and Antonio are married, he praises her for choosing a husband on his merits rather than because of his wealth. But he betrays them both.

Bosola persuades the duchess to stop at the Shrine of Our Lady of Loretto, where she, Antonio and the three children are reunited with Antonio. There the cardinal meets them, and banishes them. The cardinal tries to persuade Antonio to meet him in Naples, but Antonio refuses and leaves for Milan. Antonio expects to die, and the duchess to be kept prisoner by her brothers.

Where is everyone?

Sorry, I was waiting to see if anyone else would chime in. On Act 3, just let me say how powerful this is in performance and how much it reveals about the characters. It's just chilling when that playful domestic scene is interrupted when the Duchess sees her brother in her mirror. We seem how intelligent she is, what a good ruler, in her plot to blame Antonio for theft. But she is also fooled by Bosola's flattering praise of her husband and her choice. He's clever, too, in the way he addresses her. We've already seen what he really thinks of women in his misogynistic rant to the Old Lady.

What do you make of the "dumb show" where the Cardinal banished the Duchess and her family and his regressing in armor? Why would Webster choose to have this scene presented without dialogue?

Any thoughts about why Ferdinand is so angry about the marriage at this point?

I'll get back later with a close look at a few passages.

I've finished Act III.

My guess about Ferdinand's anger has to do with a woman who was supposed to be under his control acted against his wishes. And also her money now goes to Antonio.

I don't understand how they can be married and raising a family and no one knows that they're married. How did society function back then so as to make this a plausible situation? Or would it have been just as unlikely to the seventeenth century playgoer?

Confused about why the Cardinal became a soldier. Legalistic reason? Cardinals don't have the right to banish people? Does he become a Cardinal again, later? Just guessing about the reason for the lack of dialogue: some sort of classical reference to Greek tragedy?

On top of the reasons for Ferdinand's anger in >16 RidgewayGirl:, Ferdinand has a bee in his bonnet about his sister's chastity and seems revolted by the idea that she would sleep with a man, whether or not she is married to him. He has an unhealthy interest in his sister's sex life.

One thing I found a bit challenging when reading the play was that I didn't get a sense of how much time had passed between each act. Maybe it was because I was reading a bare-bones Project Gutenberg version... but it was certainly a surprise to start Act 3 and go "Wait, what? They have THREE kids now?"

What editions did others read, and would you recommend them in terms of presentation?

>16 RidgewayGirl: Right. I think as you read on, you'll start to wonder just how much Ferdinand "loves" his sister, and in what way. They are twins, so theoretically have a stronger bond than other siblings. But he seems pretty wound up about her sexuality . . . There's an interesting critical article that theorizes that when someone like Ferdinand is at the top of the social order, the narcissism is so strong that no one outside of the family is good enough. Notice how often he uses metaphors of eagle's nests, etc.

Well, the play is based on a true story, so apparently the rich and powerful were able to hide pregnancies, children, etc. The guards undoubtedly took vows of secrecy and to protect their masters/mistresses, and in general, most people took such things more seriously back then (and were also well paid for their loyalty). It would have been much more common, however, for a noble to board a "secret" child in the countryside.

>17 pamelad: I think Webster wanted us to emphasize his lack of piety; he's much more of a soldier than a cleric. He can change roles as easily as he changes his face, and he's so powerful that no one will confront him about it.

As to the "dumb show" (as the pantomime scenes were called), I'm not entirely sure why Webster chose to use this. For the dramatic spectacle, of course. In the medieval theater, it was common for a dumb show to preceded the main play; supposedly it stirs the audience's curiosity and also gives them kind of an outline to follow the plot. Remember the dumb show in Hamlet, which the Payers perform right before The Murder of Gonzago? There's also a theory that it was considered sacrilegious for actors (lower class "vagabonds," masterless men) to don clerical garb and perform religious rites onstage. I don't give as much credence to that, especially since the persons in this play are Catholics, and Tudor Englishmen were always looking for ways to make them look bad. That said, this is supposedly the reason why Romeo and Juliet's marriage ceremony happens offstage.

>18 rabbitprincess: I've never seen an edition that actually prefaces each act with time shifts. This is pretty typical of Renaissance plays; you figure out how much time has passed from the dialogue. I've used the New Mermaid and the Revels Student editions in teaching the play. They have a lot of notes and a helpful introduction.

Ok, that got wild at the end. And a little meta - at one point Antonio declares an obvious contrivance to be like something you'd see in a play.