The first thoughts that came into my head while reading the second half of The Dutchess of Malfi were the lyrics of Thom Yorke, “You’re just like an angel/ Your skin makes me cry…You float like a feather in a beautiful world / you’re so very special/ I wish I was special/ But I’m a creep/ I’m a weirdo/ what the hell am I doing here? / I don’t belong here…” You ask what does Radiohead have to do with the Dutchess of Malfi? The answer is nothing at all; however these lyrics draw a strong parallel to the pathetic, out of control and shameless behaviors of both Ferdinand and the easily manipulated Bosola.

We discover that Ferdinand has some serious issues at the very beginning of the play, as he lusts after his sister and goes into inexplicable fits of rage; however his craziness manifests to an absurd degree in Act 4 scene 2, when after plotting to have his sister killed, he weaves through an exaggerated vortex of remorse and guilt in which he chastises Bosola for executing the plot that Ferdinand himself meted out. A few scenes later, he performs ridiculous antics such as trying to restrain his shadow (this is no doubt a metaphor for his own conscience and guilt). The mental picture of a Duke going stark mad trying to catch his shadow like Peter Pan is really funny, but also a little sad. While Webster may have been trying to make the audience laugh (or confuse them), I believe that this display of his foolishness is a brilliantly satiric way of exposing Ferdinand’s bottom feeding character at the core, albeit contradictory to his title as Duke in the eyes of the public.

Then we come to Bosola whom in all honesty I really do feel bad for, even though his ruin is a cause of his own idiocy. The lyrics I mentioned above “I’m a creep… what the hell am I doing here, I don’t belong here” strike a chord with Bosola in a remarkable way. In the beginning of the play, Bosola is recently released from prison for committing a crime that the Cardinal ordered him to do and Bosola not only acknowledges this truth, but is bitter for it and wants to bring misery to those who have condemned him, namely “princes”. Did he learn from his mistake though? Of course not, this is a tragedy we’re talking about here. So Bosola is manipulated again not only by Ferdinand (to kill the Dutchess), but is also influenced by the Cardinal yet again (to kill Antonio). Bosola has not only regressed back to what got him in trouble in the first place, but he finds himself in an even worse position than before, hence “what the hell am I doing here?”. The reason he’s there is because of the very fact that he allows himself to be manipulated and doesn’t learn from his experiences. Particular passages are strewn about the play that would imply Bosola really wanted to do ‘good’; one instance of this appears in Act 5 scene 2, when the Cardinal is trying to persuade him to kill Antonio. Bosola finally puts up a fight, even to the point of rejecting the Cardinals offer of money. However, that hope is deflated when the mention of ‘honor’ appeals to Bosola’s less moral half.

Hence we are taken on a roller coaster of emotions: Ferdinand’s deteriorating sanity, Bosola’s constant inner battle, The Duchesses’ brief yet dramatic resurrection after being killed and then dying again and let’s not forget the random episode displaying Julia’s (I’ll be nice) promiscuity. All are perfect ingredients in creating such a delicious bouillabaisse of tragedy. Although the beginning of the play was a bit challenging for me I actually enjoyed this play very much in the end; I was fortunate to have chosen to write a blog on it and was definitely pleasantly surprised. (I even cried a little bit at the end, I must admit it) 🙂

When I was reading this play, I find myself wondering, is this play promoting the purging of corruption, with the mentioning of the French King ridding his palace of corruption, or emphasizing that the corruption is what makes a government.

This play kind of reminds me of Machiavell’s “The Prince,” rules in how to govern because it has so much to comment about the relationship between a “prince” the one that holds power/money and the lower class. Bosola repeatedly comment on the state of things run by the brothers, like “plum trees rich and overladen with fruit but crows, magpies, and caterpillars feed on them.”(1.1.49-52) The duke and Cardinal are like crows and magpies, they are eating away at the vitality of the things they are to govern. While the people below them in “The court are but like beds in hospital where this man’s head lies at that man’s foot, and so lower and lower.” (1.1.66-68) It almost seems like, he is literally being subjected to lower himself to servitude at the duke’s foot. These corruptions act to further the wealth of the prince, but not to the point where the citizens will revolt.

Another thing that I noticed is that some concepts are meant to mean the opposite. Justice is really injustice, in Bosola’s description of society an unjust place where people with power dictates what is justice. This might be because the corrupt sense of justice seems to be what gets things done quicker than by the books. Another concept that’s inverted is that when a person becomes eminent, they are cursed instead of praised. This is really bizarre in the beginning but it makes sense later, in the case of Antonio. When the Duchess asked people their opinion of Antonio, there were no praises. So these opposite meanings seem to have a foreshadowing effect within the play.

At the end of act I we experience a very bizzare moment in which the Duchess and Antonio perform a weird marriage ceremony. As I wondered whether this is actually even legally binding, it puzzled me. The Duchess’ strenght and perserverance must have been great, when she decided to marry again, outside of her social status, against her brothers’ will. I know it was quite common for men to marry someone of a lower social status, but it must have been unusual and almost unheard of for a woman like the Duchess to marry outside of her status, and she would have to deal with that going forward. I see the Duchess as a strong character that is somewhat revelutionary because she is portrayed as a powerful woman in times where women’s rights were somewhat questionable,  especially in the theathre where women were not even allowed to act on stage. When i think of the Duchess, Queen Elizabeth also comes to mind, as she was also a strong, powerful woman in charge who did not fit into a stereotyped view of  a powerless woman at that time. The Duchess seems like a woman who takes charge of her own fate. She does not listen to what her brothers have to say about her marrying again, and she goes after what she wants. One line was very refreshing in particular in which she states: “The misery of us that are born great! We are forced to woo, because none dare woo us” (ActI) She acts like a man in power, only thing is she’s a woman, and its refreshing to see.

Let’s recap, shall we? We have a crazy, over the top tragedy, complete with very aptly named characters, a man who turns his mother into a bawd for his sister, a semi-incestuous relationship, adultery, rape, intertwining plots as a cluster of characters seek revenge and a fair bit of misogyny. Oh, what quaint devises used in this play! Throw in a man who always seems to have a dead body laying around for when he needs it, and you’ve got a performance for the ages.

Now that I’ve got your attention, I would actually like to talk about the end of the play. As you all know, the play ends in a bloodbath in which someone is killed almost every other line. However, the only other scene that features the death of a character is in the third act, when the Duke was killed. It makes me wonder, does having the play set up in this way do something for the plot? Does it have some deeper meaning  in the story? Or is it all just for the sake of good theatre?

Let’s think about this for a moment, shall we? If Thomas Middleton were to pace himself, and spread out the deaths throughout the play, it would seem to make more sense and would make the play a lot less cartoonish. Unfortunately, it would also make the intertwining plots of revenge less obvious. To have one group of masked revengers come in and act out their plots, and then have another group come in to find their foes already defeated not only makes the play funnier and more interesting, but it blatantly displays the overlapping and intertwining plots.I feel this cluster of deaths is necessary for the humour of the play. It makes it sort of a parody of revenge tragedies, the Scary Movie of its time, if you will.

My initial response to the end of this play was: “Did that really just happen?” Did Vindice really succeed in killing the Duke, then convince Lussurioso that he wasn’t Piato, gain his trust, convince him that Piato murdered his father and ran off, murder Lussurioso by blending in with masque disguises, have the entire royal line kill each other as a result, and then be sentenced to death by Antonio because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut?!

The little “aside” comments that Vindice makes throughout the play make it clear that he thinks rather highly of himself, and after the whole plot resulting in the entire royal family being murdered, I (grudgingly) agreed with him, luck or no luck. Therefore, while the end was a relief because Vindice was too arrogant to be likable, it was also downright shocking in a distasteful manner. The idea that his own big mouth sends him to his death is just…funny.

This play was (to put it lightly) over the top. It’s not enough for Vindice need to attain his revenge by murdering the Duke; he needs to kill Lussurioso as well. While ambition is a trait that should certainly be prevalent in royal households, does everyone need to want to kill their siblings/dad to run the show?

On a final note, I’m not really sure why that comet was introduced. If this was a sort of foreshadowing of Lussurioso’s impending death, I’d have to call it a bit clumsy.

Revenging against one’s enemy makes one the enemy.  Vindice’s fiancé is raped and murdered.  Antonio’s wife is raped and commits suicide.  How each seeks revenge on his offender determines his fate. 

Antonio praises his wife for committing suicide, by choosing to sustain her chastity in death rather than living a life of shame.  While his logic is muddled, he still accepts her death and moves on. 

Vindice, on the other hand, can not let go of his wife—literally.  By morbidly carrying around her skull like it’s a cameo carved in her likeness, his grief festers into a violent anger.  He decides that the only cure for his pain is to murder the Duke and the Duke’s heirs.

In the end, Vindice divulges his bloody conquests to Antonio, expecting him to be pleased with his actions, given that Vindice also fueled the murders of all the brothers of Antonio’s wife’s rapist.  Rather than patting Vindice on the back, however, Antonio has him arrested and put to death.  The last man standing—and alive—is the real hero of Thomas Middleton’s The Revenger’s Tragedy, not the one we’ve been rooting for all along, who slowly morphed into the very villains that offended him.

Though we’ve only been assigned the first two acts of “The Revenger’s Tragedy”, several important themes seem to be prevalent. Among them are revenge, envy and incest(sort of). The play’s main character, Vindice(very subtle name), sets the tone for the play; carrying his former lover’s skull at the beginning of the play. Apparently, the current duke, lusting after Vindice’s lover, Glorianna, was denied in his lust and therefore poisoned her. Vindice is seen at the beginning of the play speaking to the skull and vowing revenge on the duke for his “Sin”.

Speaking of sin, this word is repeated constantly throughout the play. It would be wise to look for some religious theme to come to play here if it hasn’t already. Chastity and adultery are already used as a measure of sin. The sinner in the play seems to be he that commits adultery or is loose(Lussurioso) and the “purest” is also the most chaste(Castiza).

As far as envy is concerned, the Duke and Duchess’ son’s are all out to get each other killed. The Duchess’ son’s want Lussurioso dead and “the bastard”(what’s the story behind him? I think it turns out that he’s actually the Duke’s son, but of illegitimate birth. Of course) wants all of the children dead.

The incest here occurs with “the bastard” and the Duchess. Jeez!

That is what we call a play……….

I’m sure there will be lots more to come as we read(I haven’t even mentioned Junior Brother raping some woman at a masquerade and how it seems like he’s going to get away with it!). Revenge tragedy? Definitely a whole lot more……