The Duchess of Malfi: Guilty of Innocence? To What Extent Does She Cause Her Own Downfall?

The Duchess of Malfi: Guilty of Innocence?  To What Extent Does She Cause Her Own Downfall?

 

The marriage ceremony in Act One of ‘The Duchess of Malfi’ is interpreted by James Calderwood as ‘an infringement of the rigidly established social order (of the day),  and is ultimately an attack on the cosmological order.’[1] This implies that such a ‘reversal of order’[2] places her in danger.  The Duchess’ motivation for such a reckless act- in her own words,’ a dangerous venture’ (1,2, 43), is difficult to fathom. Yet Calderwood’s serious assertion begs an obvious question.  If The Duchess had understood that her actions in marrying Antonio were hazardous to the extent that she risked being eventually strangled to death, with her husband and children murdered in cold blood, why did she go through with it?   She is an intelligent, astute woman, fully aware of the importance of political hierarchies and social degree.  She is politically experienced and understands the expectations of the repressive patriarchal society that she herself has, so far, successfully survived.  ‘Apprehending danger’ (1,2,260), she is watched closely by two Machiavellian brothers who are determined to keep her celibate and marketable. She recognises that she enters a ‘wilderness… where I shall find nor path nor friendly clue to be my guide?’ (1,2,274/5). What convinces her that marriage to Antonio is something she must do?

 

“internal necessity”

 

One view is that she simply could not deny her true nature.  Susan Baker argues that she is a ‘static protagonist’[3]; that is, one ‘absolutely bound to a deeply rooted internal necessity which is non-negotiable’[4] Seemingly, to Baker, her emotional instincts are so powerful that they cannot be resisted, let alone questioned.   In this regard, ‘we (in the audience) are not obligated to establish motives for this act, only to recognise its centrality’[5]. Yet this tries to deny the natural curiosity of an audience. The Duchess responds to her passions and is true to her heart, but it is a remarkable decision that is both puzzling and illogical.  Baker’s identification of an unidentified “internal necessity” implies, at best, a (possibly unconscious) abrogation of duty; at worst, impulsiveness, political naivety and serious lack of judgement.   Yet the decision is surprising as there is nothing to suggest that the widowed Duchess has ever displayed anything other than effective leadership. While Antonio is hardly objective, his claim that ‘her days are practised in noble virtue’ (1,2,119) seems to be empirically sound.

 

Reputation

 

Despite having established her respectability, Webster hints that the Duchess is not above an emotional reaction.  It seems that she has been pushed to breaking point even though her weary response (‘shall this move me?’ 1,2,256) suggests that her brothers’ co-ordinated, unreasonable bluster is nothing new.  But she is proud and confident.  Having been widowed, she has become successfully independent.  She believes that she is both ready to remarry and strong enough to resist her brothers’ demands.  She loves Antonio and feels that it is her right to marry him. As a ruler, with far-reaching responsibilities she ‘displays a disrespect for social realities’[6] and ‘…overturning a social code, she defies the responsibilities of degree by marrying beneath her’[7].  Acknowledging her vulnerability, she automatically reverts to subterfuge, recognising how dangerous and politically inappropriate her action will seem. Ever practical, her maid, Cariola, is horrified by The Duchess’ decision and seems to realise its significance more realistically then her mistress:

 

‘I’ll conceal this secret from the world

As warily as those that trade in poison

Keep poison from their children.’   (1,2,266-8)

 

She devises her covert marriage ceremony almost to spite her brothers.  Calderwood damns this as ‘impetuosity’.[8] She is aware that her plans represent ‘impossible actions’ (1,2,261), foreshadowing her own fate.  Her reassurance that ‘time will easily scatter the tempest’ (1,2,381) is an unconvincing response to Antonio’s well-grounded and pragmatic concerns.  Her optimism proves to be tragically misguided. 

 

Family Control

 

‘Your privatest thoughts…will come to light…’ (1,2,241)

 

Here, Webster appears to suggest that her brothers’ decision is more about emotional control than tradition.  He hints at their personal, deep-seated motivations. Ferdinand’s slip when he says later, ‘I am to be – bespeak- a husband for you’ (3,1,38/9) not only confirms this suspicion, but also blurs the line between darker, psychological motives and his more tangible political ambitions.  Ferdinand’s lycanthropy later in the play reminds us of these earlier, disturbing suggestions.  In any case, while ‘the argument over the marriage can indeed be seen as a dynastic argument concerned with the Duchess's body politic’[9], we realise that, in viewing their sister as both physical and political property, they are exercising their control over her with as much determination as they display politically; that is, for avoiding the ignominy of a new, lower-class brother-in-law that they had not themselves selected.  It might be argued that Ferdinand’s need to manipulate his sister conveniently obscures any dark interior desire by focusing on more practical needs: ‘His incestuous inclination…is a social posture of hysterical compensation- a desperate expression of the desire to evade degrading association with inferiors’[10].   Indeed, Calderwood argues in support of ambiguity here: ‘It is Ferdinand who is unsure of himself, not Webster’[11].  Whatever the motivation, when he states, sarcastically and threateningly, ‘…pursue thy wishes!’ (3,2,78),  it is his sister’s agency that Ferdinand wishes to control.   This agency is dangerous as it encompasses freedom of thought and sexual autonomy.

 

 

A Simpler View

 

There is a simpler view of The Duchess’ motivation. ‘The truer, simple life of woman; a husband to worship, and children to love and rear; this is what she wishes for herself’[12] . Bradford here insists that she was able to articulate her desires and act upon them.   Susan Baker’s implication that The Duchess’ actions are instinctive and unavoidable contradicts this.    However, her belief seems to support Bradford’s generous assertion, that ‘she is the victim of a cruel and hopeless fatality.’[13]  Yet surely both readings deny her any independence of mind or suggest that she might take some responsibility herself.  Unquestionably, she is the victim of both a cruel patriarchy and a repressive pair of powerful brothers.  Yet she made a conscious decision, in the hideously unfair world in which she was both victim and survivor, that seemed certain to lead to tragedy.

 

 

 

 

 

Pathological Determination

 

Webster’s complex and ambiguous portrayal of both The Duchess and Vittoria Corombona in ‘The White Devil’ suggests that he was prepared to present female characters as intelligent, independent and formidable.  Contemporary attitudes probably reflected this progressive view, particularly concerning widows and remarriage.   Yet, while there may have been contemporary tolerance in such matters, Webster introduces two unpredictably psychotic brothers uninterested in the liberalisation of public attitudes.   We can praise The Duchess’ courage, integrity, passion, and honesty.  Unfortunately, the potency of her desire for both Antonio and her own personal agency impaired her ability to assess the depth of her brothers’ pathological determination.  She erred in that she seriously underestimated how they would react to being deceived.  Time did not “easily scatter the tempest”; quite the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.       James Calderwood “Styles of Ceremony” Essays in Criticism XII  (1961)

2.       Muriel C. Bradbrook Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy Cambridge 1935 pp 186-212

3.       Susan C. Baker The Static Protagonist in The Duchess of Malfi  Texas Studies in Literature and Language, Vol. 22, No. 3,  (1980), pp. 343-357

4.       Clifford Leech Webster: A Critical Study (London 1951)

5.       Theodora A. Jankowski Negotiating the Female Body in John Webster's "The  Duchess of Malfi" Studies in Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Spring, 1990) University of North Carolina

6.       Frank Whigham Sexual and Social Mobility in The Duchess of Malfi PMLA Vol. 100/2 (Mar 1985), pp. 167-186

7.       Joyce E Petersen Curs’d Example University of Missouri Press, (1978, p.78)

8.       G. Bradford The Women of Middleton and Webster The Sewanee Review  Vol. 29/ 1 (Jan 1921), pp. 14-29

9.       Elizabeth Oakes “A Tragedy of Identity” North Carolina Press Winter (1999)

10.   Father Fulvius Androtius The Widdowes Glasse (London 1621)

11.   John Selzer, Merit and Degree in Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi, English Literary Renaissance, Wiley, (1981)

 

 

 

 

---

[1] James Calderwood “Styles of Ceremony” Essays in Criticism XII  (1961)

[2] Muriel C. Bradbrook Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy Cambridge 1935 pp 186-212

 

3.Susan C. Baker The Static Protagonist in The Duchess of Malfi  Texas Studies in Literature and Language, Vol.

    22, No. 3,  (1980), pp. 343-357

4. Baker (ibid)

[5] Baker (ibid)

[6] James Calderwood “Styles of Ceremony” Essays in Criticism XII  (1961)

[7] Clifford Leech Webster: A Critical Study (London 1951)

[8] Calderwood, ibid. p. 107

[9] Theodora A. Jankowski Negotiating the Female Body in John Webster's "The  Duchess of Malfi" Studies in Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Spring, 1990) University of North Carolina.

[10] Frank Whigham Sexual and Social Mobility in The Duchess of Malfi PMLA Vol. 100/2 (Mar 1985), pp. 167-186

[11] Calderwood, ibid.

[12] G. Bradford The Women of Middleton and Webster The Sewanee Review  Vol. 29/ 1 (Jan 1921), pp. 14-29

[13] Bradford, ibid.