This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Anyone else do OCR English lit for a levels?
- Learning Quotes in Two Days
- English Literature A-level
- A-Level English Literature Eduqas Paper 2
- A-level English literature
- a level edexcel coursework englsih lit
- Edexcel English lit alevel 2023 questions?
- OCR A-Level English Lit Resources
- A levels
- Anyone else doing OCR English lit at A level?
- can’t get over the mental block of planning and writing an essay! Please help!
- Eduqas A-level English Literature Component 1 (A720U10-1) - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- english literature help!
- A level resources
- OCR A-level English Literature Paper 1 (H472/01) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- OCR English Lit 2019 exam
- Looking for advice on English lit alevel (ocr)
- Is English literature always this inappropriate?
- OCR A Level English Literature Drama and poetry pre-1900 H472/01 - 7 Jun 2022 [Chat]
- Use chatgpt to get ideas!
The Duchess of Malfi
anyone doing the duchess of malfi
the later Elizabethan and Jacobean poetry is forever brooding upon the more terrifying aspect of death, of the death of evil-doers, and of physical mortification and corruption...but in Donne and to less degree in the plays od webster, there is spiritual terror as well
can anyone explain what is meant by spiritual terror please
the later Elizabethan and Jacobean poetry is forever brooding upon the more terrifying aspect of death, of the death of evil-doers, and of physical mortification and corruption...but in Donne and to less degree in the plays od webster, there is spiritual terror as well
can anyone explain what is meant by spiritual terror please
Scroll to see replies
I'm doing it. Exam on Monday - eek. Really nervous. I apologise for the length of this, I'm basically trying to answer the question for you lol, but it's useful revision for me anyway.
***EDIT - "the more terrifying aspects of death, of the death of evil-doers".... it's important to go about distinguishing "the more terrifying aspects of death" from "spiritual terror". The "more terrifying aspects of death" means the dying itself - you can link that to the gore of Act V, of Jacobean tragedies in general and its Senecan heritage. After all, the murders are quite entertaining and were meant to entertain their audience. Espionage/spying/torture was very much a feature of Webster's time. 'Spiritual terror', I feel, is a more intellectual/theological concept - the afterlife, the 'big questions' about the world and meaning of life - etc.
As regards to 'spiritual terror', I think it could mean a number of things:
1) Fear of the afterlife, i.e. whether a person is going to heaven or hell (look at the dying speeches of the characters of Julia and Ferdinand. I think Julia says "I go I know not whither" just before she dies - she's not exactly an exemplary example of a 'moral' character, after all - and I'm sure Bosola evokes images of hell in his dying speech). The question of morality on earth and its relationship to the afterlife was a general concern amongst the population of 17th century England (even with the move to Protestantism from Catholicism in Henry VIII's time to James I's reign).
2) The origins of Jacobean tragedy derive from medieval morality plays, where characters were personified as sins or positive attributes such as "Vice" or "Virtue"; such plays were popular, were performed open-air and had a didactic purpose. Webster and other dramatists such as John Ford were influenced by these tales (although that's not to say that The Duchess of Malfi has a strict moral code; quite the contrary). The characters can be seen as personifications of sin to some extent (or allegorical representations of certain attributes of humanity). I think in Act V the Cardinal engages in a theological self-reflection about his "conscience". Also remember Cariola's dying words, about her fear of being "damned" because she hadn't gone to confession for years (although this could be an excuse because she's scared of dying and not as brave as her patron). The Duchess, on the other hand, appears to face her death with strength and certainty that she'll go to heaven (after all, she is portrayed as a martyr by Webster and can be seen as morally untainted, although socially transgressive). There is definitely an emphasis - at least by the end of the play - that morality in human terms (i.e. following social mores etc) is redundant - it's inner goodness that leads to ultimate reward.
3) Protestantism (as opposed to the Catholicism prevalent in the Italianate setting of Webster's play) preached the importance of the individual conscience and inner fortitude. The Duchess, Antonio and Bosola don't appear to align themselves with the Catholic Church's teachings (the Duchess' marriage isn't solemnized and contrary to her brothers, she appears to eschew an explicit connection with the Church/State). Remember, a Jacobean audience would be very suspicious of those who aligned themselves with Catholicism. The Cardinal's characterisation acts as a satire on preconceived notions about Catholic stereotypes and Ferdinand uses lots of hell/fire damnation imagery, characteristic of the Catholic Church's teachings (at least in Webster's day).
4) ANOTHER argument - a VERY important one. More materialistic views of the universe were developing (the Copernican Revolution of the 16th century - Nicolas Copernicus basically discovered that the Earth wasn't at the centre of the universe with the other planets orbiting around it, which had been the age-old view) and this spurred a lot of intellectual uncertainty. Also, the world was believed to be in its old age in the 17th century as apocalyptic religions were preaching that the world was coming to an end. Link to the developments of the Renaissance and Galileo etc. There's the recurrence of the idea of 'Fate' in The Duchess of Malfi and the fear that humans are at the mercy of a harsh and unfeeling God. Link this to the play - the Duchess' subjectivity, Webster's plot, the importance of the individual, the play's critical regeneration in the 1950s with the rise of existentialism and how the Duchess is seen as an existential heroine, the inevitability of tragedy (the genre) and the senselessness of the killings in Act V.....the evil of humanity, basically. Are we controlled by greater forces or do we determine our own fate? (BIG question of play).
Obviously some characters don't appear concerned with their spirituality or religion at all (e.g. the Cardinal) who uses his position to make political gains. And Ferdinand's incest is a sin against Christian doctrine. But there is a sense by the end of the play that these two characters realise/fear they're going to hell, and that some moral retribution has come in Act V - violent, bloody deaths (at least the audience will feel that this has been fulfilled). The Duchess, however, never seems to exhibit any kind of 'spiritual terror' - from the beginning to the end of the play. She may recognise that her earthly transgressions are not looked kindly upon by the patriarchal society in which she inhabits, yet these things won't matter when she dies - she'll be judged by entirely different moral criteria. The brothers uphold morality in Malfi and it doesn't take a genius to guess that their notions of morality are perverse and self-perpetuating.
ALSO - think of the playwright as God. Weird, I know, but there is something to fear if we see the play as an artifice (i.e. a construct in itself) and all the main characters refer to themselves at some point as "an actor" or that the world is "a tedious theatre". They've all been cultivated and appropriated by Webster. They fear what they know will happen.
HOPE THIS HELPS!
***EDIT - "the more terrifying aspects of death, of the death of evil-doers".... it's important to go about distinguishing "the more terrifying aspects of death" from "spiritual terror". The "more terrifying aspects of death" means the dying itself - you can link that to the gore of Act V, of Jacobean tragedies in general and its Senecan heritage. After all, the murders are quite entertaining and were meant to entertain their audience. Espionage/spying/torture was very much a feature of Webster's time. 'Spiritual terror', I feel, is a more intellectual/theological concept - the afterlife, the 'big questions' about the world and meaning of life - etc.
As regards to 'spiritual terror', I think it could mean a number of things:
1) Fear of the afterlife, i.e. whether a person is going to heaven or hell (look at the dying speeches of the characters of Julia and Ferdinand. I think Julia says "I go I know not whither" just before she dies - she's not exactly an exemplary example of a 'moral' character, after all - and I'm sure Bosola evokes images of hell in his dying speech). The question of morality on earth and its relationship to the afterlife was a general concern amongst the population of 17th century England (even with the move to Protestantism from Catholicism in Henry VIII's time to James I's reign).
2) The origins of Jacobean tragedy derive from medieval morality plays, where characters were personified as sins or positive attributes such as "Vice" or "Virtue"; such plays were popular, were performed open-air and had a didactic purpose. Webster and other dramatists such as John Ford were influenced by these tales (although that's not to say that The Duchess of Malfi has a strict moral code; quite the contrary). The characters can be seen as personifications of sin to some extent (or allegorical representations of certain attributes of humanity). I think in Act V the Cardinal engages in a theological self-reflection about his "conscience". Also remember Cariola's dying words, about her fear of being "damned" because she hadn't gone to confession for years (although this could be an excuse because she's scared of dying and not as brave as her patron). The Duchess, on the other hand, appears to face her death with strength and certainty that she'll go to heaven (after all, she is portrayed as a martyr by Webster and can be seen as morally untainted, although socially transgressive). There is definitely an emphasis - at least by the end of the play - that morality in human terms (i.e. following social mores etc) is redundant - it's inner goodness that leads to ultimate reward.
3) Protestantism (as opposed to the Catholicism prevalent in the Italianate setting of Webster's play) preached the importance of the individual conscience and inner fortitude. The Duchess, Antonio and Bosola don't appear to align themselves with the Catholic Church's teachings (the Duchess' marriage isn't solemnized and contrary to her brothers, she appears to eschew an explicit connection with the Church/State). Remember, a Jacobean audience would be very suspicious of those who aligned themselves with Catholicism. The Cardinal's characterisation acts as a satire on preconceived notions about Catholic stereotypes and Ferdinand uses lots of hell/fire damnation imagery, characteristic of the Catholic Church's teachings (at least in Webster's day).
4) ANOTHER argument - a VERY important one. More materialistic views of the universe were developing (the Copernican Revolution of the 16th century - Nicolas Copernicus basically discovered that the Earth wasn't at the centre of the universe with the other planets orbiting around it, which had been the age-old view) and this spurred a lot of intellectual uncertainty. Also, the world was believed to be in its old age in the 17th century as apocalyptic religions were preaching that the world was coming to an end. Link to the developments of the Renaissance and Galileo etc. There's the recurrence of the idea of 'Fate' in The Duchess of Malfi and the fear that humans are at the mercy of a harsh and unfeeling God. Link this to the play - the Duchess' subjectivity, Webster's plot, the importance of the individual, the play's critical regeneration in the 1950s with the rise of existentialism and how the Duchess is seen as an existential heroine, the inevitability of tragedy (the genre) and the senselessness of the killings in Act V.....the evil of humanity, basically. Are we controlled by greater forces or do we determine our own fate? (BIG question of play).
Obviously some characters don't appear concerned with their spirituality or religion at all (e.g. the Cardinal) who uses his position to make political gains. And Ferdinand's incest is a sin against Christian doctrine. But there is a sense by the end of the play that these two characters realise/fear they're going to hell, and that some moral retribution has come in Act V - violent, bloody deaths (at least the audience will feel that this has been fulfilled). The Duchess, however, never seems to exhibit any kind of 'spiritual terror' - from the beginning to the end of the play. She may recognise that her earthly transgressions are not looked kindly upon by the patriarchal society in which she inhabits, yet these things won't matter when she dies - she'll be judged by entirely different moral criteria. The brothers uphold morality in Malfi and it doesn't take a genius to guess that their notions of morality are perverse and self-perpetuating.
ALSO - think of the playwright as God. Weird, I know, but there is something to fear if we see the play as an artifice (i.e. a construct in itself) and all the main characters refer to themselves at some point as "an actor" or that the world is "a tedious theatre". They've all been cultivated and appropriated by Webster. They fear what they know will happen.
HOPE THIS HELPS!
Basically Webster's play has been controversial right up until the present day and it went through periods of unpopularity/popularity. It was practically ignored for a while, but it became popular again in the 20th century after the 2nd World War (due to the horrors associated with war the play was deemed to have relevance in a more modern context) and also in the 1950s, when existentialist philosophy became popular. Definition of existentialism from Wiki: "Existentialism is a philosophical movement which claims that individual human beings have full responsibility for creating the meanings of their own lives." Figureheads were Jean Paul Sartre and Kierkegaard.
The Duchess was seen as an archetypal existential heroine by some critics as the play began to be looked at from this viewpoint in this period. She isn't a slave to any authority (e.g. God, her brothers, the patriarchy) she's her own person and very much in control of her own actions throughout. Her death comes about because of the actions of others and in a way she exemplifies personal autonomy. She is unaffected by Ferdinand's mad parade in Act IV and basically becomes more reliant on her personal strength to ignore her external environment. This can be linked to the question about spirituality as your counter-point; the Duchess doesn't appear to have any spiritual fear or fear of the afterlife, as her own inner strength carries her through. You could now mention Webster's critical regeneration in light of this philosophy and the importance of the Duchess' characterisation in exemplifying this.
It is quite an important thing to bear in mind when answering questions in the exam, particularly about the Duchess herself. I remember a past paper about the Duchess' responsibility for her own downfall, and if you put that in an existentialist context, then she can be seen to take personal responsibility for her actions and thus she is responsible if seen in this light. Also critical perspectives are part of the assessment objective requirements, but don't worry about it too much. You'll probably have other points to make but this is a useful one to bear in mind.
Hope that helped!
The Duchess was seen as an archetypal existential heroine by some critics as the play began to be looked at from this viewpoint in this period. She isn't a slave to any authority (e.g. God, her brothers, the patriarchy) she's her own person and very much in control of her own actions throughout. Her death comes about because of the actions of others and in a way she exemplifies personal autonomy. She is unaffected by Ferdinand's mad parade in Act IV and basically becomes more reliant on her personal strength to ignore her external environment. This can be linked to the question about spirituality as your counter-point; the Duchess doesn't appear to have any spiritual fear or fear of the afterlife, as her own inner strength carries her through. You could now mention Webster's critical regeneration in light of this philosophy and the importance of the Duchess' characterisation in exemplifying this.
It is quite an important thing to bear in mind when answering questions in the exam, particularly about the Duchess herself. I remember a past paper about the Duchess' responsibility for her own downfall, and if you put that in an existentialist context, then she can be seen to take personal responsibility for her actions and thus she is responsible if seen in this light. Also critical perspectives are part of the assessment objective requirements, but don't worry about it too much. You'll probably have other points to make but this is a useful one to bear in mind.
Hope that helped!
also going through past papers this one
the duchess of malfi endorses the Christian conviction that the hope of salvation is never denied to the repentant sinner, however great the evil that has been committed. include an examination of act5 scene5 in your answer
how would you go about getting the 50 marks
the duchess of malfi endorses the Christian conviction that the hope of salvation is never denied to the repentant sinner, however great the evil that has been committed. include an examination of act5 scene5 in your answer
how would you go about getting the 50 marks
Oh dear God... is as much contextual knowledge as that required??
Bugger!
Bugger!
Firstly - what a sod of a question! I did the beginning bit (Act 5 scene 5) and I sort of answered the qu. This is prob how I'd do it in an exam (if I COULD actually do it like this in an exam - I doubt it):
Anyway, this is damn useful revision for me cause I ain't seen these questions before!!!!!!! I used my book btw:
Webster's 'The Duchess of Malfi' does appear to self-consciously incorporate notions of Christian morality, despite being glibly categorised as a Revenge Tragedy. This becomes particularly apparent if Webster's sympathetic characterisation of the Duchess and her juxtaposition against the tyranny of the Aragonian brothers is considered; thus, we should not let any popular notions of the horrors of 'The Tragedies of Blood' override the importance of the Christian perspective in Webster's play. However, to state that Webster "endorses the Christian conviction that the hope of salvation is never denied to the repentant sinner" is a sweeping generalisation, and one which does not run in tandem with Webster's manipulation of the Revenge genre in general. Although the origins of Jacobean tragedy derive from the medieval morality plays and their allegorical representations of good verses evil, Webster appears to propound an ambiguous moral code, and the characters' afterlife destinations, although usually anticipated, are never affirmed. We, as the audience, are often left to deduce the answers to these questions, and as a member of the Catholic laity, the Cardinal and other practicing Catholics in Malfi would be conscious of the existence of Hell. In many ways, Act V, Scene V acts as a structural purgative, with characters such as the Cardinal and Ferdinand rendered as victims of the perversions of morality that they both advocate, and represent, throughout the play.
At the beginning of Act V, the Cardinal's theological soliloquy: "How tedious is a guilty conscience!" - is a clear demonstration that he is aware of the existence of repentance and remorse, yet continues to objectify emotion entirely. Indeed, his portrayal throughout the play is an archetypal necrophiliac; his vision of seeing "a thing armed with a rake" can be taken as a metaphorical premonition of his own descent to hell. His humiliating death and his final dying couplet: "let me / Be laid by, and never thought of" indicates that he does not care for his own legacy, and he shows no remorse for his sister's death. By contrast, Ferdinand does appear to exhibit repentance for his wrongdoings before his death, but this is only in terms of his own solipsism; indiscriminate revenge is exemplified by his slaughter of his own brother, yet this indicates he is unwilling to accept responsibility for his role in perpetrating the Duchess' imprisonment, torture and subsequent strangulation. The imagery he uses before his death - "I do account this world but a dog kennel" - emphasises the link between his character and the animal world; his base nature that lies beneath the veneer of his aristocratic pre-eminence interprets his external environment as a reflection of his inner self. It is perhaps with good reason, therefore, that Webster's contemporaries, ever-fearful of potential repercussions of human sin in the afterlife, would interpret the brothers' deaths as the preceding chapter to their descent as taught by Christian doctrine.
Act V, Scene V, despite flouting the conventions of Senecan definitions of Revenge Tragedy as the main protagonist has already met her death, is in fact an original structural device used by Webster. It gives a view of a world which is absent of the Christian morality upheld by the Duchess and, in consequence, Webster's dramatic construct of the world of Malfi has become a staged 'Hell' with the final array of dead bodies on the stage representing the triumph of a new matriarchal order in honour of the Duchess' adherence to Christian morality and its triumph over the brothers' evil patriarchy and obsession with preserving their bloodline. It should also be noted that Webster's situation of the play in Italy was not merely an effort to avoid the public censor of James I's England; its Catholic religion was used as a target-point of the playwright's satire, and consequently, the distinction between those characters in the play who follow the Church's dubious moral code and those like the Duchess who follow a more universal, more 'Protestant' code of morality, with its emphasis on introspection and inner fortitude. Therefore, "Christian principles" is a generalisation, and it is clear that there is no coincidence in Webster's unsympathetic portrayal of the brothers and their Catholic allegiance.
Furthermore, a closer examination of the action in Act V, Scene v reveals that to view Webster's play solely from a Christian perspective is reductive. Webster's emphasis in this final scene is that human beings fall victim to their own follies and wrongdoings, and Bosola, as the play's 'malcontent', appears to be the only character in the play who recognises the paradoxes of morality and its arbitrary relationship to social codes. He provides a summarative epitaph of the play in this final scene, concluding with a view of his own position as "an actor in the main of all, / Much 'gainst mine own good nature". This also serves to emphasise the meta-theatricality of Webster's play; the characters, in many ways, are their "own tragic theorists" (Emma Smith) and Webster's role is of the Godlike figure, acting to appropriate certain attributes and actions to his characters to illustrate the problematised actions of following a rigid moral order based on Christian principles. Webster's focus is on the human world, and his theatre can therefore be seen as a dramatic arena representative of a wider reality. The playwright suggests that such ultimate questions are beyond the comprehension of those on earth, and all of the individuals in the play are uncertain of their 'destinations' after death.
The regeneration of the text of the Duchess of Malfi in the 1950s and the rise of existentialism seems to emphasise that there is credit to be given to the view that the horrors of Act V exhibit those of a senseless world; a world with no real meaning and where we meet retribution in human terms. Then go on to - Act IV, Scene 2 (where the Duchess kneels and prays etc. - she seems to have some faith perhaps, but mainly in herself. Internal strength etc. in the face of Ferdinand's theatre of horrors)
However, the Duchess can be seen as a "repentant sinner" in Act IV scene 2 but she still dies - killed off by Webster. Jacobean audience would perhaps find this just - there was a clear correlation between social transgression and notions of Christian morality in this day. Webster - quite radical in presenting a female at the centre of the play (few dramatists did in this time) and in a sense appears to be hinting at dichotomy between social principles vs. Christian. Modern audience could be sympathetic to this.
Also Bosola repents for killing the Duchess - his characterisation is dramatised as a conflict of conscience - look at his speech (eulogy) after the Duchess dies. However, he still dies as he's been involved in espionage and immoral activities.
CONCLUSION: Basically although he seems to export the importance of 'Christian' human qualities, Webster doesn't adhere to any strict moral conclusion. He explores the possibilities of revenge more than any 'Christian' ideas of going to Heaven. Fears of death are prevalent; cries for repentance are not. Concentrates on human world and doesn't seem to explore possibilities of the afterlife; if he does so, it is only to seal his opinion of the characters in the play. Seems to hint at this 'Heaven' with the Duchess' stoicism and apparent faith in her death scene, but perhaps this is more of a way of affirming her legacy and importance on earth after her death and her paving of the way for a more 'bourgeois' social order. Also, she doesn't really repent. Only one who does is Bosola, and he dies a more violent death than the Duchess and on a more ambiguous statement: "mine is another voyage". So therefore we can't really say, basically. lol
Anyway, this is damn useful revision for me cause I ain't seen these questions before!!!!!!! I used my book btw:
Webster's 'The Duchess of Malfi' does appear to self-consciously incorporate notions of Christian morality, despite being glibly categorised as a Revenge Tragedy. This becomes particularly apparent if Webster's sympathetic characterisation of the Duchess and her juxtaposition against the tyranny of the Aragonian brothers is considered; thus, we should not let any popular notions of the horrors of 'The Tragedies of Blood' override the importance of the Christian perspective in Webster's play. However, to state that Webster "endorses the Christian conviction that the hope of salvation is never denied to the repentant sinner" is a sweeping generalisation, and one which does not run in tandem with Webster's manipulation of the Revenge genre in general. Although the origins of Jacobean tragedy derive from the medieval morality plays and their allegorical representations of good verses evil, Webster appears to propound an ambiguous moral code, and the characters' afterlife destinations, although usually anticipated, are never affirmed. We, as the audience, are often left to deduce the answers to these questions, and as a member of the Catholic laity, the Cardinal and other practicing Catholics in Malfi would be conscious of the existence of Hell. In many ways, Act V, Scene V acts as a structural purgative, with characters such as the Cardinal and Ferdinand rendered as victims of the perversions of morality that they both advocate, and represent, throughout the play.
At the beginning of Act V, the Cardinal's theological soliloquy: "How tedious is a guilty conscience!" - is a clear demonstration that he is aware of the existence of repentance and remorse, yet continues to objectify emotion entirely. Indeed, his portrayal throughout the play is an archetypal necrophiliac; his vision of seeing "a thing armed with a rake" can be taken as a metaphorical premonition of his own descent to hell. His humiliating death and his final dying couplet: "let me / Be laid by, and never thought of" indicates that he does not care for his own legacy, and he shows no remorse for his sister's death. By contrast, Ferdinand does appear to exhibit repentance for his wrongdoings before his death, but this is only in terms of his own solipsism; indiscriminate revenge is exemplified by his slaughter of his own brother, yet this indicates he is unwilling to accept responsibility for his role in perpetrating the Duchess' imprisonment, torture and subsequent strangulation. The imagery he uses before his death - "I do account this world but a dog kennel" - emphasises the link between his character and the animal world; his base nature that lies beneath the veneer of his aristocratic pre-eminence interprets his external environment as a reflection of his inner self. It is perhaps with good reason, therefore, that Webster's contemporaries, ever-fearful of potential repercussions of human sin in the afterlife, would interpret the brothers' deaths as the preceding chapter to their descent as taught by Christian doctrine.
Act V, Scene V, despite flouting the conventions of Senecan definitions of Revenge Tragedy as the main protagonist has already met her death, is in fact an original structural device used by Webster. It gives a view of a world which is absent of the Christian morality upheld by the Duchess and, in consequence, Webster's dramatic construct of the world of Malfi has become a staged 'Hell' with the final array of dead bodies on the stage representing the triumph of a new matriarchal order in honour of the Duchess' adherence to Christian morality and its triumph over the brothers' evil patriarchy and obsession with preserving their bloodline. It should also be noted that Webster's situation of the play in Italy was not merely an effort to avoid the public censor of James I's England; its Catholic religion was used as a target-point of the playwright's satire, and consequently, the distinction between those characters in the play who follow the Church's dubious moral code and those like the Duchess who follow a more universal, more 'Protestant' code of morality, with its emphasis on introspection and inner fortitude. Therefore, "Christian principles" is a generalisation, and it is clear that there is no coincidence in Webster's unsympathetic portrayal of the brothers and their Catholic allegiance.
Furthermore, a closer examination of the action in Act V, Scene v reveals that to view Webster's play solely from a Christian perspective is reductive. Webster's emphasis in this final scene is that human beings fall victim to their own follies and wrongdoings, and Bosola, as the play's 'malcontent', appears to be the only character in the play who recognises the paradoxes of morality and its arbitrary relationship to social codes. He provides a summarative epitaph of the play in this final scene, concluding with a view of his own position as "an actor in the main of all, / Much 'gainst mine own good nature". This also serves to emphasise the meta-theatricality of Webster's play; the characters, in many ways, are their "own tragic theorists" (Emma Smith) and Webster's role is of the Godlike figure, acting to appropriate certain attributes and actions to his characters to illustrate the problematised actions of following a rigid moral order based on Christian principles. Webster's focus is on the human world, and his theatre can therefore be seen as a dramatic arena representative of a wider reality. The playwright suggests that such ultimate questions are beyond the comprehension of those on earth, and all of the individuals in the play are uncertain of their 'destinations' after death.
The regeneration of the text of the Duchess of Malfi in the 1950s and the rise of existentialism seems to emphasise that there is credit to be given to the view that the horrors of Act V exhibit those of a senseless world; a world with no real meaning and where we meet retribution in human terms. Then go on to - Act IV, Scene 2 (where the Duchess kneels and prays etc. - she seems to have some faith perhaps, but mainly in herself. Internal strength etc. in the face of Ferdinand's theatre of horrors)
However, the Duchess can be seen as a "repentant sinner" in Act IV scene 2 but she still dies - killed off by Webster. Jacobean audience would perhaps find this just - there was a clear correlation between social transgression and notions of Christian morality in this day. Webster - quite radical in presenting a female at the centre of the play (few dramatists did in this time) and in a sense appears to be hinting at dichotomy between social principles vs. Christian. Modern audience could be sympathetic to this.
Also Bosola repents for killing the Duchess - his characterisation is dramatised as a conflict of conscience - look at his speech (eulogy) after the Duchess dies. However, he still dies as he's been involved in espionage and immoral activities.
CONCLUSION: Basically although he seems to export the importance of 'Christian' human qualities, Webster doesn't adhere to any strict moral conclusion. He explores the possibilities of revenge more than any 'Christian' ideas of going to Heaven. Fears of death are prevalent; cries for repentance are not. Concentrates on human world and doesn't seem to explore possibilities of the afterlife; if he does so, it is only to seal his opinion of the characters in the play. Seems to hint at this 'Heaven' with the Duchess' stoicism and apparent faith in her death scene, but perhaps this is more of a way of affirming her legacy and importance on earth after her death and her paving of the way for a more 'bourgeois' social order. Also, she doesn't really repent. Only one who does is Bosola, and he dies a more violent death than the Duchess and on a more ambiguous statement: "mine is another voyage". So therefore we can't really say, basically. lol
amyshambles
Oh dear God... is as much contextual knowledge as that required??
Bugger!
Bugger!
No way is it, but I'm a retaker and I've had too much time with this god damn play. I can basically do written essays on the computer but the thought of exams terrifies me. So I've done my best to learn absolutely everything!!!!!
Oh thank goodness! Well, not for the retaking aspect (good luck btw), but for knowing I haven't failed English just yet.
I hope there isn't going to be a question related to the Church! I hate those types of questions.
Any predictions as to what the questions will be?? Obviously it's unwise to base revision on a prediction, so I just want to speculate for the hell of it
I hope there isn't going to be a question related to the Church! I hate those types of questions.
Any predictions as to what the questions will be?? Obviously it's unwise to base revision on a prediction, so I just want to speculate for the hell of it
God knows what the question will be - it's so unfair as they just seem to keep getting harder and harder as the years go by. They get more specific - the people 4 years ago had a hell of an easier time. I reckon that they could do one on satire as that hasn't come up. Or maybe the Catholic church again, that's always a favourite. Basically, anything hard which doesn't really make sense. I'll end up staring at the question for about 20 mins!
i hav duchess on 25th june...hmm
hopefulloser
i hav duchess on 25th june...hmm
U must be doing the AQA syllabus then... lucky u I wish I had that long
WJEC...and not so lucky, its the same day as my synoptic chem, so i probably wnt hav time 2 revise 4 it!
The sooner u get it out of the way, the better..
The sooner u get it out of the way, the better..
amyshambles
Oh dear God... is as much contextual knowledge as that required??
Bugger!
Bugger!
Reading this thread, I thought the same! I'm getting kind of worried about this exam and by the extent to which you all seem to know this, I should be!
I used by time wisely by watching a students version of Malfi : Here!
Kind of puts it in a modern day perspective! Haha im such a slacker. Anyway, i hope a question on corruption of the church / state comes up, but I think that is too general for them to throw out. But I live in hope!
Good luck everyone!
I did question 2 as well. They always do one question giving you a scene to look at and one which is vague, don't they? Yeah, I picked the relatively vague one.
No harm in saying that... right?
Anyway, I don't really know what to make of that...
No harm in saying that... right?
Anyway, I don't really know what to make of that...
lol yep, there is... i was trying to be tactful in my wording so that i just stated things about the generic format of the questions that happen every year.
Oh sorry, i didn't know that. I'm only new here so have yet to read the rules (i shouldnt be using being new as an excuse though!)
I managed to devote exactly 1 hour to each, almost to the minute. Wrote 4 and a bit pages for poetry, 5 for Malfi.
Anyway, are the people on this thread also doing The Tempest next Tuesday? I is scared of that one!
I managed to devote exactly 1 hour to each, almost to the minute. Wrote 4 and a bit pages for poetry, 5 for Malfi.
Anyway, are the people on this thread also doing The Tempest next Tuesday? I is scared of that one!
Related discussions
- Anyone else do OCR English lit for a levels?
- Learning Quotes in Two Days
- English Literature A-level
- A-Level English Literature Eduqas Paper 2
- A-level English literature
- a level edexcel coursework englsih lit
- Edexcel English lit alevel 2023 questions?
- OCR A-Level English Lit Resources
- A levels
- Anyone else doing OCR English lit at A level?
- can’t get over the mental block of planning and writing an essay! Please help!
- Eduqas A-level English Literature Component 1 (A720U10-1) - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- english literature help!
- A level resources
- OCR A-level English Literature Paper 1 (H472/01) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- OCR English Lit 2019 exam
- Looking for advice on English lit alevel (ocr)
- Is English literature always this inappropriate?
- OCR A Level English Literature Drama and poetry pre-1900 H472/01 - 7 Jun 2022 [Chat]
- Use chatgpt to get ideas!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A-level English Literature Paper 1 (9ET0 1) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
Please mark my gcse english language paper 2 question 5!!!Last reply 1 month ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel igcse english language a 2024 may paper 1Last reply 1 month ago
OCR A-level English Literature Paper 2 (H472/02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel GCSE English Language Paper 1 (1EN0 01) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 2 (8700/2) - 9th November 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 2 (8702/2) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]English exams and study help
294
1234
Last reply 3 months ago
Does anyone know what war poem appeared on the 2024 GCSE paper?Last reply 4 months ago
Edexcel A-level English Literature Paper 3 (9ET0 3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 months ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 2 (8700/2) - 6th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 months ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 months ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 2 (7702/2) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 months ago
IGCSE Edexcel English Language A Paper 2 (2024 May/June)Last reply 4 months ago
OCR A-level English Literature Paper 1 (H472/01) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 months ago
AQA A-level English Literature & Language Paper 1 (7707/1) - 24 May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 months ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 2 (1ET0 02) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
