I am now reading "The Duchess of Malfi", which is a play that I find interesting. There are a few things I wonder about though, such as how no one figures out that Antonio married to the Duchess. The Duchess has three children with him, yet only the people they told suspect the relationship. Most people in nobility are watched pretty carefully, yet no one has caught on about the Duchess and Antonio. Then there is the question of why the Duchess is only called the Duchess. She is never given an actual name, which is funny since the play is named after her. One reason she might not have a name is because she is symbolic. The Duchess is a duchess, but she is also a wife and mother. To not give her another name suggests that the duty as duchess comes before her family, which is opposite to how most women feel. Most women put their family first and their work second. By not giving her a name John Webster could be commenting on the fact that women should be mother's and wives, rather than rulers. If this is true then it comes at an interesting time period because it is right after Queen Elizabeth ruled England. Elizabeth never married and ruled without a king for her entire reign as queen. John Webster could be saying that he felt that Elizabeth should have married and let a man take over the country while she raised their family. Because Elizabeth never married and had children, the people worried about who would become the new monarch after Elizabeth died. This anxious feeling would have been around during the time that Webster was growing up, and subsequently it could have affected his views on women as monarchs.
Another thing I find interesting is that the Duchess's brother is a Cardinal. He is another character that is never called by any other name, maybe to emphasize his role as a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. At this period England was lead by the Anglican Church, and Catholicism was strongly discouraged. Even though this play is set in Italy one hundred years ago, I think that Webster's personal views on the Catholic Church are coming through in the Cardinal. He is a character that is evil and does things for the good of himself and not for others. This might be symbolizing the corruption of the Catholic Church and how the priests and other officials were more interested in earthly things than the things of God. I also think it is interesting that supposedly he had a thing for his sister. I read this in the summary before the play starts and have not gotten that far in the play, but I am curious about how Webster is going to portray this relationship.
The issue of twins in the play that I find intriguing. My brothers are twins, so every time I think of twins I think of them. Apparently Ferdinand and the Duchess are twins, yet Ferdinand and the Cardinal are compared to each others as twins. I would think that the Cardinal and the Duchess would be the twins because their names are both titles. Although Ferdinand and the Cardinal are both considered to be on the darker side and to only think about themselves, they don't appear to me to be twin like. To me twins are actually more opposite each other than regular brothers and sisters. The Cardinal and Ferdinand to me would work better as just being the brothers that they are and not compared as twins. The real twins, the Duchess and the Cardinal, seem like the better twins here because they seem like polar opposites. The Duchess cares about her family and her people, while the Cardinal seems to only care about himself. The issue of twins in this time period is also an interesting one because we talked in class about how twins were thought of as good oddities. I might be thinking of an earlier time period in England, but I do find it intriguing that twins were thought of as so interesting.
I am only through two acts of the play, but I will write later on how I feel about the rest of the play.
Another thing I find interesting is that the Duchess's brother is a Cardinal. He is another character that is never called by any other name, maybe to emphasize his role as a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. At this period England was lead by the Anglican Church, and Catholicism was strongly discouraged. Even though this play is set in Italy one hundred years ago, I think that Webster's personal views on the Catholic Church are coming through in the Cardinal. He is a character that is evil and does things for the good of himself and not for others. This might be symbolizing the corruption of the Catholic Church and how the priests and other officials were more interested in earthly things than the things of God. I also think it is interesting that supposedly he had a thing for his sister. I read this in the summary before the play starts and have not gotten that far in the play, but I am curious about how Webster is going to portray this relationship.
The issue of twins in the play that I find intriguing. My brothers are twins, so every time I think of twins I think of them. Apparently Ferdinand and the Duchess are twins, yet Ferdinand and the Cardinal are compared to each others as twins. I would think that the Cardinal and the Duchess would be the twins because their names are both titles. Although Ferdinand and the Cardinal are both considered to be on the darker side and to only think about themselves, they don't appear to me to be twin like. To me twins are actually more opposite each other than regular brothers and sisters. The Cardinal and Ferdinand to me would work better as just being the brothers that they are and not compared as twins. The real twins, the Duchess and the Cardinal, seem like the better twins here because they seem like polar opposites. The Duchess cares about her family and her people, while the Cardinal seems to only care about himself. The issue of twins in this time period is also an interesting one because we talked in class about how twins were thought of as good oddities. I might be thinking of an earlier time period in England, but I do find it intriguing that twins were thought of as so interesting.
I am only through two acts of the play, but I will write later on how I feel about the rest of the play.
1 comment:
Your post offers a lot of interesting analysis for several of the questions raised in The Duchess of Malfi, especially that of the nameless Duchess. I like the conclusions you have drawn about Webster's potential reasoning with regards to her being unnamed. It didn't occur to me that maybe he was stating his opinion on the roles he thinks women have (as mothers and wives) and even the relation his "unnaming" of the Duchess has with that of Queen Elizabeth and her power as a female. Similarly, I like the comments you made with regards to the Cardinal and his representation of Webster's view of the Catholic Church. I agree with your comparisons and it certainly gives me something to think about as I read further in the story.
Post a Comment