Act 4: The Duchess of Malfi

There are some things in Act 4 that I find strange. One is Bosola. In Act 1 Scene 2 Bolosa is handed money and his reaction is "Whose throat must I cut" (line 155), yet in Act 4 he seems to have done a 180. He says in Scene 1, "Come, be of comfort. I will save your life" and "Now, by my life, I pity you". At the beginning of the play he was willing to kill anyone and do anything, and now he seems to be regretting his part in the Duchess's downfall. I think that Bosola never had to face the consequences of his actions because his actions were mostly to kill for the powerful. By killing for the powerful he never got into trouble and he did not have to see how others were affected by his actions. Because he did not kill the Duchess or her family, but simply helped to bring their downfall, he has to watch them suffer.

Act 4, Scene 1

(131) Bosola - Must I see her again?

Ferdinand - Yes

Bosola - Never

Ferdinand - You must

Bosola - Never in mine own shape
That's forfeited by my intelligence
And this last cruel lie. When you send me next,
The business shall be comfort.

Although Bosola does not want to see the Duchess and the misery he has caused her, he does not seem to have totally repented from his evil ways. He argues with Ferdinand and tells him he will never again see the Duchess, yet he says that the next job he goes on "shall be comfort". Bosola does not want to stop working for Ferdinand, he only wants to not have to see the consequences of his actions again.

Bosola then appears again in scene 2 and is the one who come to tell the Duchess she is going to die. He says "I am come to make thy tomb" (line 104) and the Duchess asks if he is mad. Bosola does seem for a while to have gone mad, which could be a reflection of the fact that Ferdinand, the man he works for, does seem to go mad in Act 5. But later on in the scene he seems fine, so I am not sure what to make of it. And it seems strange to me that in scene 1 Bosola does not want anything more to do with the Duchess, yet he is the one who brings the executioners and tells her it is time to die. The Duchess does not seem to be afraid of death, in fact she says "Who would be afraid on 't" (line 189). Even though she does not fear death, I don;'t understand Bosola's reason for being there. One way that I can rationalize him being there is because he is the one who likes to kill people. That is what he is paid to do and that way he does not have to deal with the person's suffering because the person is dead. I think that maybe be enjoys being the evil one as long as he does not have to realize people suffer. And I know that he must on some level know that people suffer when they are killed because they want to live, but their suffering is short-lived and that I think makes all the difference. Once Bosola does what he is paid to do the person is not suffering anymore. Except in the case of the Duchess, which I talked about in the paragraph or two above, all his victims were killed. I think that with the Duchess he realizes that making people suffer for long periods of time is evil, yet I think that he does not sense that killing people is just as bad.

There is one thing that I don't quite understand about Act 4. In scene 2 the Duchess and her children are murdered, yet you only find out because of side notes to the actors. The words of the play give no indication that anyone has been killed and apparently expects the audience to see the actors being killed, which is something a reader cannot see. I supposed that the reason no one says "And they die" is because it is a play and of course Webster probably intended for his play to be seen and not read. I can see how the play leads up to the Duchess's death, but I don't understand the logic behind her children's deaths. With the Duchess there is dialogue and you realise that the Duchess is not afraid of death, so in a since her death is not so tragic. But the children's death seems to be a forgotten side not; like Webster was said "oops, I forgot about the kids, well I guess they better go to" (although I'm sure he would not have used those words because they sound evil). One explanation for the children's deaths being simply a side note is because Webster did not want the play to have more tragedy than it already did. If he was to put in a scene with the children's murder then the audience might have been stuck more on that scene than Webster wanted them to be. The death of children would stand out more and might overshadow the parts of the play that Webster wanted to really focus on. Although I think he could have done something more than give the children's death only a side note.