"Arden of Feversham"

This piece was one of the more interesting works we've read in this class, in my opinion.  The fact that the play was based on a true story was fascinating, especially when compared to the Holinshed Chronicles, which were written during the same time period as the crime; the play's events lined up almost exactly with the Chronicles.  I began thinking about the title of the play in relation to the crime after our class discussion and how the title, "Arden of Feversham", belittles the main character, mastermind, and only developed female character in the play: Alice.  I came up with a modernistic theory that maybe the play is named after Arden because he was a white, "middle-class" man, whereas Alice is only his wife.  It reminded me much of the way in which white-victim crimes are relayed to the public in the media almost instantaneously, whereas crimes with African American or Hispanic victims are rarely publicized.  Class systems were just starting to really develop during this time period, but we discussed the fact that Arden was a landowner- fairly well-known in Feversham and at least somewhat powerful in the community.  Another theory I thought might explain the lack of Alice's mentioning in the play's title was the fact that Alice, as a woman, was not her own person; rather, she would have been considered an extension of Arden.  In fact, Arden mentions in the play that Alice's behavior is a reflection on himself: "I had cause to speak,/ When all the knights and gentlemen of Kent/ Make common table talk of her and [Mosby]" (1.1.343-345).  Alice is Arden's property.  There is language in the play that favors Arden and condemns Alice, even though both individuals are guilty of some level of evil (Arden taking land from those who need it and Alice plotting Arden's death); I found it interesting that the text works to victimize Arden when he has also committed sin.  I see a correlation between Arden and Alice and Adam and Eve that is unsettling: regardless of a man's mistake, he is fully capable of placing the blame on the woman involved.

A Monster of a Man in "The Duchess of Malfi"

Most undergraduate students studying monsters of Renaissance Literature would focus on the reference John Webster makes to werewolves; the doctor says that people with Ferdinand's condition usually "imagine/ Themselves to be transformed into wolves;/ Steal forth to churchyards in the dead of night,/ And dig dead bodies up" (5.2.9-12). I, on the other hand, would like to focus on the more realistic monster that I see in the character of Bosola. We mentioned him briefly in our class discussion, but I want to dive further into an analysis of his character and the way in which he seems to redeem himself towards the end of the play.

One thing that we mentioned in class was the fact that Bosola will do anything for money or for a higher status among the Duke and his brother, the Cardinal. This includes murder, as we see more than once throughout the course of the play; Bosola murders the Duchess, Cariola, and Antonio for mere favor. Then, as he comes to the realization that he is in fact a sinful (and somewhat vengeful) human being, he kills an unnamed servant, the Cardinal, and the Duke Ferdinand. He uses words as a tool to twist and confuse the thoughts of his victims; he is a slippery character. This slipperiness is made evident in the play with lines like "There are many ways that conduct to seeming/ Honor, and some of them very dirty ones", which was spoken by Bosola himself (5.2.291-292). It is peculiar that he recognizes that he has only gained honor by committing dishonorable deeds, but he continues to do so. This type of language is perhaps strongest in Act 4 Scene 2, when Bosola has a type of revelation regarding his behavior; he calls Ferdinand and the Cardinal "like the plague" and says that they have "hearts [like] rotten graves,/ Rotten, and rotting  others", followed by him saying, "I stand like one/ That long hath ta'en a sweet and golden dream./ I am angry with myself, now that I wake" (296-301).  

There is no doubt that Bosola is a monster- he is able to kill others for his own personal gain without flinching- but I think his most interesting character trait and perhaps what makes him most evil is that he recognizes that his behavior is wrong and still doesn't stop his own hand from murdering others. In the end and after his revelation, he still uses murder as a means to eliminate those that have abused him for so long: Ferdinand and the Cardinal. I would have never thought that Bosola was the play's protagonist, but after reading the play and seeing how Bosola's conscience is constantly being checked, I would argue that he is the protagonist, although he is mostly evil in his doings.