Allen Loomis
The Duchess of Malfi (1612-13), written by the Jacobean playwright John Webster, depicts a struggle between good and evil at an Italian court during the early 1500s. On one side, there is the noble Duchess and her stoic, lower-class lover and secret husband, Antonio. The offending side consists of her two brothers, the Machiavellian Cardinal and the mad Duke, Ferdinand, who harbors incestuous feelings towards the Duchess. Stuck in the middle of this struggle is the horse-leech of the court, the common man Bosola, whose role in this dichotomy shifts and evolves throughout the play. Scholars often argue that the noble Duchess is the play’s protagonist; however, it is Bosola’s initial moral ambiguity and eventual recognition of the enduring innocence and nobility of the Duchess that earns him the titles of tragic hero and the play’s main protagonist.
Arguments that support the Duchess as the play’s protagonist logically start with the obvious fact that Webster titles his play The Duchess of Malfi. Having the protagonist’s name in the title of the play is a common characteristic for the revenge tragedy tradition, and examples include Thomas Kyd’s full title The Spanish Tragedy or Hieronimo is Mad Again, William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and even Thomas Middleton’s The Revenger’s Tragedy, where the main character’s name, Vindici, literally means “The Revenger.” In these plays, there is little controversy regarding the title of the protagonist. However, despite this tradition, there are substantive aspects of the play that support Bosola as the protagonist, including literary cues, moral ambiguity, a transformative evolution of character, and the presence of tragic hero elements.
There are an abundance of literary cues established by Webster that suggest Bosola is the intended protagonist of The Duchess of Malfi. For example, in the first quarto of the play, Webster places him first on the cast list[1], he has the most lines, he is given substantial meta-theatrical soliloquies, and he is undoubtedly the most complex character of the play. In comparison to Bosola, the Duchess is a static character, and as such she maintains the same moral compass throughout the play. She refuses to waiver, even when confronted with the imminent murder of her two youngest children and herself in Act 4. Susan Baker agrees with this analysis, explaining that, “the Duchess does not develop, or grow, or learn anything significant from her experience” (343) and that, “a static protagonist begins his play with all the self-knowledge he will ever have. Whether profoundly heroic or neurotically obsessive, all static protagonists are chained to their initial perceptions of themselves” (344). This proves to be true for the Duchess, as she is, and in death continues to be, the noble and pure “Duchess of Malfi still” (4.2.137). In contrast, Bosola’s character is far from static, and in many ways he is the polar opposite of the Duchess. He is inherently flawed and ambiguous to other characters and the audience, and he experiences a multitude of profound changes in morality and philosophical approaches to life.
Author C. G. Thayer considers Bosola’s ambiguity an important and intentional aspect of the play. He explains that “Early in the play, then, Bosola is lecherous, covetous, proud, bloody, envious, a murderer, valiant— and with goodness to be pointed by melancholy” (164). Thayer is paraphrasing Antonio and Delio, who in Act 1 use these contradictory adjectives to describe Bosola. This perceived ambiguity is shared by the other characters as they attempt to define Bosola and his intentions. In effect, the audience is led to constantly question Bosola and contemplate his true intentions. The assumed answers to these questions are continuously challenged and result in confusion. Bosola becomes further ambiguous by defining and redefining himself multiple times throughout the play: “Me a villain” (1.1.266), “I am Bosola, your friend” (2.3.14), “A true servant” (4.2.317), and “lastly for myself, / That was an actor” (5.5.82-83). Also, Bosola’s moral ambiguity and complexity are trademarks of a protagonist and tragic hero. For example, William Shakespeare’s iconic character, Hamlet, to this day remains ambiguous, despite centuries of debate by scholars, performers, audience members and readers, all of whom interpret him differently. Although the character is less well-known than Hamlet, Bosola also deserves this honor of ambiguity.
Another detail that supports Bosola as the main protagonist and tragic hero is that the Duchess dies at the close of Act 4. A typical convention within revenge tragedy tradition is that Act 5 focuses around the main protagonist and his/her attempt to achieve revenge. In support of Bosola as the protagonist of The Duchess of Malfi, the entire fifth act concerns Bosola’s plan to avenge the Duchess.
Bosola also serves as the play’s mediator through keeping the audience informed by explaining the action with metatheatrics and meaningful soliloquies. Therefore, without Bosola, the continuation of the plot and its connection to the audience would be lost. Interestingly, Bosola also recognizes his role as an actor, and before his death he summarizes for the audience,
Revenge – for the Duchess of Malfi, murdered
By th’Aragonian brethren; for Antonio,
Slain by this hand; for lustful Julia,
Poisoned by this man; and lastly for myself
That was an actor in the main of all,
Much ‘gainst mine own good nature, yet I’th’end
Neglected. (5.5.79-85)
Within these lines, Bosola refuses to take blame for the murders. He places the blame for the death of the Duchess on Ferdinand and the Cardinal. He blames his hand for the mistake that killed Antonio. He refers to himself as a mere “actor” in the “main” of it all and despite his self-perceived good nature, he had remained a pawn of the Cardinal and Ferdinand up until the death of the Duchess. In his eyes, the Aragonian brothers “Neglected” him and used his lowly status to do what they themselves would not.
Before the murder of the Duchess, Bosola reluctantly goes against his inner morality and dutifully does the bidding of the aristocratic Cardinal and Duke. However, with Ferdinand’s instruction, Bosola is directed to kill the Duchess and her two youngest children in Act 4. After completing this task, Bosola tearfully encounters the grave consequence of his actions as he witnesses the dying Duchess, and he solemnly shares with the audience, “Where were / These penitent fountains while she was living? / O, they were frozen up” (4.2.356). Brian Chalk, in interpreting these lines, explains that, “Bosola’s former satirical lens allowed him to approach his role in the Duchess’s death with ironic detachment, but the sight of her corpse bridges this divide and forces him to acknowledge that he too is guilty of the attempt to theatricalize death to advance his own designs” (397). At this moment, Bosola places blame for the death of the Duchess on Ferdinand, and he decides to follow his own conscience instead of continuing to do the bidding of the Duke and Cardinal. When this evolution occurs, Bosola resoundingly commits himself to avenging the Duchess and rectifying the crimes committed within the “rank pasture” (1.1.298) of the Italian court.
It takes the murder of the Duchess for Bosola to realize his own potential and strength to be free of the Aragonian brothers. Bosola is emboldened by the Duchess and her unwavering strength to stay true to herself and her refusal to bend to the will of the Cardinal and Ferdinand, even when she faces imminent death. In this moment, Bosola begins his transition from villain to tragic hero. It is fitting that Antonio lovingly describes the Duchess as, “All her particular worth grows to this sum: / She stains the time past, lights the time to come” (1.2.201-02), as this was also witnessed by Bosola. The death of the Duchess “stains the time past” for Bosola, and as a result he recognizes his error of blindly following the orders of those above him. At the same time, she “lights the time to come” by being the catalyst that transforms Bosola into the future hero of the play. This growth enables Bosola to follow his self-directed conscience and morality, which allows him to avenge the wrongs of the Duke, the Cardinal, and himself. Bosola’s vengeance eventually rids the Malfi court of corruption and evil and, in turn, allows the surviving son of the Duchess and Antonio to become the next Duke.
Critics and readers of the play might at first resist the idea that Bosola is the protagonist and tragic hero of The Duchess of Malfi, mostly because Bosola starts as such an abhorrent villain. His greed can make him do anything when he is presented with an adequate amount of gold and the coercion of those of higher status. He commits the unforgivable acts of killing the benevolent Duchess, mistakenly stabbing Antonio, and murdering their two innocent children. As a result, readers struggle with the question of how someone so evil and corrupt can also be the hero of the play. Applying the ethical relativist approach to philosophy helps explain the malleability of Bosola’s morals in a somewhat sympathetic way and helps clarify Webster’s role for Bosola. In other words, Bosola’s morality is relative to the corrupt culture of which he is a reluctant participant. Proof of his reluctance can be seen in the lines, “Take your devils, / Which hell calls angels! These cursed gifts would make / You a corrupter, me an impudent traitor; / And should I take these, they’d take me to hell” (1.1.256-70). Then, shortly after he is forced to submit to the Ferdinand’s will after the Duke refuses to take the gold back, Bosola replies, “Say then my corruption / Grew out of horse dung. I am your creature” (1.1.278-79). However, after murdering the Duchess, Bosola undergoes a transformation brought on by the strength and unwavering incorruptibility of the Duchess. For Bosola, the Duchess becomes a new model of morality to emulate, and he begins to redefine his environment, proclaiming,
Oh turtles’ feathers! Whilst a guilty conscience
Is a black register wherein is writ
All our good deeds and bad, a perspective
That shows us hell. That we cannot be suffered
To do good when we have a mind to it. (4.2.341-45)
This soliloquy highlights the crux of Bosola’s character flaw and constitutes him as tragic hero. It is apparent that he has the yearning and capability to do good, but he has fallen victim to his surroundings, an environment imposed upon him by the corrupt Duke and Cardinal. Bosola shares his inner morality with the audience after he is denied payment by Ferdinand for killing the Duchess,
Let me know
Wherefore I should be thus neglected. Sir,
I served your tyranny, and rather strove
To satisfy yourself, than all the world;
And though I loathed the evil, yet I loved
You that did counsel it, and rather sought
To appear a true servant than an honest man.(4.2.312-18)
Within these lines, Bosola expresses how he aimed to be a “true servant” to those above him instead of an “honest man.” Thus, it can be discerned that he planned to be a “true servant” to gain favor and improve his life by moving above his lowly existence, and because he had believed it was the right thing for a man of his status to do. However, after Bosola is refused payment by Ferdinand, he realizes the futility of his servitude and begins to direct his own life instead of being a horse-leech and creature of those above him.
In addition to transforming his morality, Bosola experiences a shift in his world philosophy between the murder of the Duchess and the accidental stabbing of Antonio. When Bosola offers false assurances to the dying Duchess about Antonio, he says, “He’s reconciled to your brothers. The Pope hath / wrought / The atonement” (4.2.337-38). This is an obvious fabrication and his motives are not exactly known. However, Bosola offers hope for the Duchess, in a possible attempt to ease her pain or to give her a reason and strength to continue living. In contrast, this same type of kindness and hope is curiously not shown to Antonio after Bosola mistakenly stabs him. Instead, Bosola expresses an existential attitude about the meaning of life, which is said to occur when an individual recognizes that his or her life is not predestined by a virtuous God and that things do not happen for any particular reason. After mistakenly stabbing him, he decides to tell Antonio the truth, unlike the lie he told the Duchess. He tells Antonio that his wife and two sons were murdered to make his, “heart break quickly” (5.4.55). It can be assumed that Bosola does this because he no longer believes in a hopeful future and has given up any idea that he may have once had for meaning of life. Therefore, Bosola now views life as a series of random acts and cold, tragic consequences. As a result, Bosola attempts to hasten Antonio’s death so he can escape the realistic pains of life, rather than promote its hopeful continuation. This philosophy is solidified and conveyed later in the play when Bosola says, “We are merely the stars’ tennis balls, struck and banded / Which way please them” (5.4.53-54).
It is not until after the death of the Duchess that Bosola recognizes his own freewill and the existential possibilities to choose for himself. This occurs too late because Bosola’s life will now end tragically because of his crimes. Leah S. Marcus describes Bosola as, “One day a Parasite and the next a Precisian. There could be no better capsule definition of the riven consciousness of Bosola, whose mercurial and self-conflicted perspective casts Malfi into a mode of intellectual complexity and self-interrogation that helps to account for its enormous power and fascination for readers and theatrical audiences” (42). However, instead of “parasite,” a truer definition can be attributed to Bosola as “horse-leech,” which he likens himself to within the first act: “He and his brother are like plum-trees that grow crooked over standing pools; they are rich, and o’erladen, stagnant with fruit, but none but crows, pies, and caterpillars feed on them. Could I be one of their flattering panders, I would hang on their ears like a horse-leech till I were full, and then drop off” (1.1.47-53). The horse-leech consumes blood for their own nourishment and survival, much in the same way Bosola is forced to accept gold from Ferdinand and complete the tasks presented to him by the upper class. However, and perhaps unknown to Bosola, leeches are, dating back to antiquity, well known for their use in blood purification. Just as a leech was thought to allow blood to be purified, Bosola ends the play by righting his wrongs and purifying the Italian court with the murder of Ferdinand and the Cardinal. One of Bosola’s significant tragic flaws is that his greed was unquenched, that he held on like a horse-leech for too long. This characteristic reinforces the idea of Bosola as the play’s tragic hero because after recognizing his sad role as a horse-leech, he takes action by listening to his own conscience instead of obeying the will of those above him. Consequently, although it is too late to save himself, Bosola solidifies his role as a tragic hero at the end of the play, as he is able to rectify all the wrongs done, including his own, within the “rank pasture” (1.1.298) of the Italian court.
John Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi is Bosola’s tragedy: a common man, attempting to rise in life by following the whims of those above him, realizes that, instead, he should have lived life according to his own morals. Bosola shares this premise with the Cardinal before they both die,
Yes, I hold my weary soul in my teeth:
Tis ready to part from me. I do glory
That thou, which stood’st like a huge pyramid
Begun upon a large and ample base,
Shalt end in a little point – a kind of nothing. (5.5.73-77)
Readers may contemplate whether Bosola’s attempt was enough. For example, D. C. Gunby articulates, “his role has been that of an agent of God as well as of the Devil, we may wonder whether he will escape damnation” (234). However, despite Bosola’s flaws and fluctuations as an agent for both good and evil, he eventually personifies his previously dormant morality and attempts to right his wrongs. Because of this self-realization, Webster’s Bosola equally joins the ranks of Hieronimo, Hamlet and Vindici as a tragic hero, a profound and unforgettable protagonist of the Elizabethan/Jacobean revenge tragedy genre.
Works Cited
Baker, Susan. “The Static Protagonist in The Duchess of Malfi.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 22, no. 3, Fall, 1980, pp. 343-357. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40754615.
Chalk, Brian, “Worthyest Monument: The Problem of Posterity in the Duchess of Malfi.” Studies in Philology, vol. 108, no. 3, Summer, 2011, pp. 379-402. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23055997.
Gunby, D. C. “The Duchess of Malfi: A Theological Approach.” The Duchess of Malfi, Norton Critical Edition, edited by Michael Neill, Norton, 2015, pp. 219-240.
Marcus, Leah S, ed. The Duchess of Malfi by John Webster, Arden Shakespeare, 2009.
Thayer, C. G. “The Ambiguity of Bosola.” Studies in Philology, vol. 54, no. 2, Apr., 1957, pp.162-171, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4173200.
[1] See Marcus 130, n. 5 for discussion.
Terrific essay, Allen. You are a consummate and exemplary scholar — and such an asset to the Wright College student community. Great job on the journal.