Author Archives: Lyaman

Posts: 5 (archived below)
Comments: 3

Madness – the sign of villainy without the cover of rationality/humanity

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Lyaman

At the end of the play, A New Way to Pay Old Debts, the antagonist – the villain – of the play, Sir Giles Overreach goes mad. It reminded me a lot of how at the end of The Duchess of Malfi, the villain of that play (or one of them at least) also goes mad, thinking he is a werewolf.

It seems as if madness, at least in these two plays, serves as the ultimate punishment. But madness also seems to serve as the signal of complete separation from reason, and humanity. Ferdinand in The Duchess of Malfi was already compared to animals through out the play for his villainy, but that final act of betraying his sister and ordering her and her children’s death seems to be the final act that takes away his humanity – and drives him into madness.

(As for Sir Giles Overreach, he’s no peach.) He is ruthless, unfair, merciless, man who has made his fortune through “usury,” who acts very much like the puppet master, and who despite his amassed wealth has not been able to break though the upper echelons of the society – leading to his quest to marry off his daughter into aristocracy. That is his driving force – to have his legacy (progeny)  connected with nobility. When that driving force is taken away, when his daughter married a mere page boy, and he loses the estate he cheated Wellborn out of,  the string that has been keeping him tethered to rationality and humanity is cut and his depravity takes hold, which without a goal or purpose leads to his madness.

Madness of the villains seems to be the portrayal of a person whose disguise of rationality and humanity is taken away to reveal their inner depravity and villainy.

Posted in A New Way to Pay Old Debts | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Judgement of Females in Literature

Posted on May 21, 2013 by Lyaman

Recently I read an article, Do We Judge Female Characters More Harshly Than Male Characters?  It brought up an interesting point about gender perception and the work done by social psychologists that “has repeatedly demonstrated that women are perceived and evaluated on a different criteria than men. Some traits seen as positive in one is seen as negative in the other ..such as assertiveness is seen as a positive trait in a male and in a female it is seen as pushiness, or a lack of warmth is acceptable in men but in women it can be a deadly (in terms of perception by others).” The discussion followed by how it translates to literature as well and how the female characters are evaluated against a different scale than their male counterparts.

It made me think about the character of Beatrice Joanna in The Changeling. There is no doubt that she is a villain, but the characteristics she exhibited are very similar to those we have seen in the “new men” in the different plays we have read this semester. And yet, as a female she is giving the harsher judgment, which as the ending of the play reaffirms shows it holds true….because it is De Flores who confesses the full extent of their crimes and kills her and himself.

While I am in no way trying to defend her as a character, there are some points that should be considered. And one of those points is the fact that in any other situation, and through our modern eyes, De Flores was basically stalking and sexually harassing Beatrice Joanna. Yes she was mean to him, but it wasn’t completely unprovoked. She also had very little choice and control over her own life, as many women of that time, as it was her father who would decide who she would marry….even if she did not want to.

But putting aside Beatrice Joanna, that double standard of character evaluation holds true even when applied to other characters. We praise Isabella for her virtuousness to her bastard of a husband, Celia for her goodness…and even with the Duchess and Julia there is the ingrained comparison of the moral virtuousness of the female character.

It does cause me as a reader to reevaluate, if not precisely how I evaluate what I read and judge characters, then at least how those judgements differ between genders and if the judgment would be the same if the gender was taken out of context.

Posted in The Changeling, The Duchess of Malfi, Tragedy | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Shades of Mephistopheles in Bosola

Posted on April 28, 2013 by Lyaman

During my reading of The Duchess of Malfi, the character of Bosola at times kept reminding me of Mephistopheles from Doctor Faustus. To me they seem to be an extension of the same archetype, not to say they are particularly similar but rather they seem to be part of the same string extending in different directions.

Mephistopheles is the fallen angel who makes the bargain with the Faustus to serve him for 24 years in return for Faustus’s soul. Throughout the play Mephistopheles keeps urging and helping Faustus to damn himself and waste his time, but at the same time he shows striking signs of trying to make Faustus believe in G-d and heaven, as well as showing signs of regret for his fall and banishment from heaven. Mephistopheles says, “I am a servant to great Lucifer/And may not follow thee without his leave. No more than he commands must we perform” (1.3.41-3) and then he follows it up with, “Why this is hell, nor am I am out of it. Think’st thou that I, who saw the face of God/ And tasted the eternal joys of heave, / Am not tormented with ten thousand hells/ In being deprived of the ever lasting bliss?”(1.3.78-82).  He  later repeats his knowledge of hell and thus heaven by saying, “For I am damned and am now in hell” (2.1.138). The quotes show that not only is Mephistopheles bound and subservient to Lucifer (and Faustus, but that’s besides the point) but he shows self-awareness of what he is and what he has lost.

We meet Mephistopheles already damned, and in the middle there are small instances of him trying to (futilely) dissuade Faustus from condemning his soul, thus doing a good deed. However, when that fails, Mephistopheles reverts to his prime directive as a servant of Lucifer, which is pushing Faustus into abandoning G-d and thus gaining Faustus’s soul.

It seems to somewhat mirror Bosola’s path. Just like Mephistopheles made a bad decision that damned him in following Lucifer to turn against G-d and heaven, so has Bosola made a bad decision in killing for the Cardinal (the first time).  We meet Bosola when he is already damned, having effectively sold his soul to the devil (the Cardinal), because as seen as the play unfolds, once fallen into the Cardinal’s clutches there is no escaping.  It is that first deed that leads Bosola to further irretrievably damn himself, as he falls into the life of spying on the Duchess. Bosola makes the comparison to Mephistopheles himself when he says to Ferdinand on his new job, “Why a very quaint invisible devil, in flesh:/An intelligencer” (1.1.261-2).  Just as Bosola is Ferdinand’s and Cardinal’s “creature” (1.1.289), so is Mephistopheles Lucifer’s creature. And as Bosola says, “Sometimes the devil doth preach” (1.1.293), both he and Mephistopheles preach a cautionary tale.

There are other similarities between the two characters like the disguises they take on, Bosola because he can’t bear to appear as himself to the Duchess and Mephistopheles because Faustus commands it and because he needs to disguise his true nature. As Mephistopheles plays a deceptive confidant to Faustus, so is Bosola to the Duchess.

The difference between the two characters emerges in in the closing of Doctor Faustus. Mephistopheles embraces his damned fate and his servitude to Lucifer. Bosola, on the other hand, repents his role in the death of the Duchess (as for the motives, there is a healthy mix of its wrongness and once again being cheated by the Duchess’s brothers).  The Duchess takes on the role of a deity to him. Bosola says, “am angry with myself, now that I wake” (4.2.326-8) and then, “What would I do, were this to do again? / I would not change my peace of conscience / For all the wealth of Europe.  …. Return, fair soul, from darkness, and lead mine/ out of this sensible hell! ” (4.2.340-50)

Like the theme in Doctor Faustus, penitence plays a large part in The Duchess of Malfi and in both cases all the characters fail to achieve it. When Bosola says, “I’ll be my own example” and “O, penitence let me truly taste thy cup that thrown men down only to raise them up” (5.2.366-67), it is his attempt to save himself, to make some sort of amends in saving Antonio. But much like Mephistopheles attempts to stop Faustus from making the bargain had the oppose reaction, so did Bosola’s actions – killing Antonio.  What Bosola says about himself, “That we cannot be suffered to do good when we have a mind to it” (4.2.364), relates to Mephistopheles too. Both these characters are damned because of their initial alliance.

The final difference between them is that Bosola is able to tear the string that ties him to his Lucifer figure , the Cardinal, when he kills him. And though that act is not enough to salvage him, it does at least just make him a damned soul, rather than one of the devils.

Posted in Doctor Faustus, Power struggles, The Duchess of Malfi, Tragedy | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

“The Duchess of Malfi” Scene Study

Posted on April 24, 2013 by Lyaman

“The Duchess of Malfi” Scene Study Act 3 Scene 2

As mentioned in class, we had a bit of an adventure while trying to film the scene. Initially, we had a study room reserved in order to film the scene, however the library messed up the reservations and we ended up not having time to film the scene properly. This past Tuesday we decided not to take a chance on the library and instead met outside of school to film the scene.

As for the filming process, the scene could have been improved by better staging. An example would be me (as the Duchess) not turning my back to the camera in order to face my scene partners.

Posted in The Duchess of Malfi | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Volpone vs. Mosca

Posted on April 16, 2013 by Lyaman

In class we discussed the differences between Volpone and Mosca, and Carol A. Carr’s article, “Volpone and Mosca: the two styles of roguery”  argues that although there are similarities between the two, Volpone is the more intriguing, charismatic and less typical rogue/ villain.

While that may be true, I still find myself preferring Mosca to Volpone. One of the reasons for that is for all their seemingly innate roguishness / villainny there is still one essential difference between them: Volpone is the ‘gentleman’ and Mosca is his servant, his ‘parasite.’  That means that Mosca is dependent on Volpone for his livelihood and for his very survival. However weird their relationship seems in the beginning of the play, however untypical for the usual master / servant relationships, at the end of the day they all, from the vultures: Castrone, Voltore, Carbaccio, to the rest of the world, including Volpone, still view Mosca as someone below them, there to do their bidding.  Despite the hints of admiration Volpone shows for Mosca’s ability to turn cons, there is still no admiration or respect for Mosca’s skill, as Volpone says in act 5.7.1-3, “Outstripped thus by a parasite? A slave/Would run on errands, and make legs for crumbs? …”  ( And even further proved by the severity of Mosca’s punishment compared to the Volpone’s sentence.)

The article talks about how both Volpone and Mosca are intelligent and creative in their cons, and how although they are both detached from the money, they are detatched for difference reasons.  But the issue with that is that while the cons are primarily entertainment (not profit) for Volpone, they are part of Mosca’s job and his way of life in order to survive.

Mosca is much more pragmatic and realistic because that is the reality of his station in life. The article mentions that while Volpone has static disguises he takes on,  Mosca’s disguise is constant but at the same time fluid, as he adapts his manner to the person with whom he is interacting.  But despite that fact, there is much less pretense to Mosca, no rose- colored cover or pretty words to present the type of person that he is or his motivation in a better light.

In class we also spoke about loyalty and how it seems that Mosca betrays Volpone. But Volpone’s loyalty is to the con, not to Mosca or his bastard children – so why did Mosca have to show him more loyalty than was shown to him?! Mosca says, “ I’ll bury him or gain by him. I am his heir / And so will keep me till he share at least” (5.5.13-15).  Mosca wants part of the profit; he wants financial security and independence, which can be understandable because Volpone has no care or caution about anyone beside himself.  In a play where every character (except two) is rotten to the core, at least Mosca doesn’t pretend to be better than he is, but the same cannot be said for the others.

Posted in Power struggles, Uncategorized, Volpone | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment