In 16th and 17th century British literature, plots often centered on romance, royalty, and the battle for power. It is with this emphasis that stories that feature the stereotypes of the damsel in distress, the helpless princess, and the haughty heiress come. Although women of this era were born into nobility and endless wealth, the society and expectations of the time placed limits on many women in this literature. However, this rarely stopped some fictional female characters from bending the rules in the best interests of themselves and those they cared for. In The Duchess of Malfi, the main protagonist, the Duchess, crosses societal boundaries by destroying the image of herself as a helpless widow and instead recreating herself as a powerful political figure, mother and wife; As society feared giving too much power or control to women, the Duchess took matters into her own hands and demonstrated her ability to make her own decisions while excelling in her "feminine roles" as mother and wife. Instead of hiding in the shadows of her husband or other male leaders, the Duchess does it all. Through her actions, she provides insight into feminism and the “modern woman” in ancient literature. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essay As one of the most daring female characters in British literature, the Duchess is conscious of her political stance once that she becomes the widow of the Duke of Malfi. In the play, Webster first presents her in the role of a widow. However, the Duchess does not intend to remain in this position of mourning, regardless of what those around her advise her to do. Her two corrupt brothers, Ferdinand and the Cardinal, want to have full control of her decisions, including who she decides to marry. The Duchess ignores her brothers' demands and secretly marries whoever she wants, her social inferior and steward Antonio. This action conveys a bold statement about the Duchess's views on society's expectations, as not only is she marrying below her social class, but she is also marrying against the orders of her power-hungry brothers. Widows, like the Duchess, clearly expected Renaissance society to expect them to follow. The behavior of women after becoming widowed was a problem that needed to be addressed because premature deaths were not uncommon. In his essay "Webster's 'Worthest Monument': The Problem of Postity in The Duchess of Malfi", Brian Chalk points out that "widows were therefore common figures who had to be recognized and taken into account in everyday life. In his Rule and Exercises of Sacred Death, Jeremy Taylor expresses a view toward widows in a disturbingly similar way to Ferdinand's, insisting that "a widow must be in mourning and one who does not is not, cannot as well ensure the chastity of his own state” (388). ). By marrying too soon after her husband's death and to someone whose political standing was not equal or superior, the Duchess was not fulfilling what society expected of her as a widow. Although remarriage was typical of widows, and although the Duchess remarked, "I did not undertake this to create/a new world or a new custom," her brothers believed that they should be responsible for when and who was the recipient of his power. (1604). The society recommended that a grieving widow should not be responsible for finding asuitable new husband; however, the Duchess decides, against the wishes of her brothers, that she can make her own decisions without their interference. Perhaps one of the main reasons the Duchess's brothers attempted to control her actions was the dangerousness of her new status. Chalk continues: “As a new widow, the Duchess is a particularly dangerous figure to her brothers. An initial exchange makes it clear that their desire to control both her current and posthumous reputation is at the center of their concerns: “Duchess: I will never marry. Cardinal: That's what most widows say. But ordinarily this movement lasts no longer than the revolution of an hourglass; he and the funeral sermon both end together” (387). Her brothers are concerned about their sister remarrying and the consequences it could have on her reputation; therefore, they strongly advise against it. They want to be completely involved in his decision-making; similarly, society believes that women should not make important decisions. However, the brothers' interest in controlling their sister is not limited to them. They see it as a gateway to their own increased power and wealth. If she remarries, especially to someone who is not suitable for her, it may affect their political position. Additionally, Ferdinand's apparent infatuation with his sister is the root of all the reasons he doesn't want her to remarry. He is attracted to the Duchess, like most men: she is powerful, beautiful and intelligent. Part of Ferdinand's opposition to remarrying is that he would rather have her for himself, and if he can't have her, no one should. In a conversation with his sidekick Bosola, Ferdinand declares: “She is a young widow, I would not let her remarry. » When Bosola asks why, Ferdinand replies: “Ask not the reason, but be satisfied, I say I would not” (1578). He refuses to share the reasons why he did not allow his sister to remarry, a sign that his logic may be his inappropriate desire to have an incestuous relationship. In “Defining/Confining the Duchess: Negotiating the Female Body in John Webster's The Duchess of Malfi,” Theodora Jankowski explains: “The brothers may be right to be interested in their sister's marital affairs, but it is quite difficult to see how they can can also be justified by their inordinate interest in his sexual being” (227-228). Although Ferdinand has an obvious sexual interest in his sister, their obsession with her sexuality comes back to power. For them, the Duchess is not a powerful political figure; it is a “commercial object to be possessed” (Jankowski 228). By producing heirs, their sister has the ability to make treaties with other rulers. Jankowski continues: "In this sense, their inquiry into the chastity of their sister's body is understandable, if grotesque, because her production of children whom the patriarchy considers illegitimate would diminish her value as an article of commerce for her family » (228). If the Duchess has children out of wedlock, she will not have as much value as an item of commerce. Her brothers fear that her status as a widow will encourage her to act promiscuously. They want to monitor her closely to make sure that doesn't happen. The Duchess confirms her brothers' fears when she does exactly what they hoped to avoid: she marries a social inferior, his steward, and begins to define her image as a wife. Jankowski points out: "It also becomes easier to understand Ferdinand's obsession with the blood of the Duchess and his reference to 'all [his] royal relatives' who might be foundon the way to her planned marriage to a low-ranking steward, which would pollute this system. blood” (227). The Duchess's choice of marriage does not help her advance politically; As a result of this decision, some critics consider her a poor ruler because she failed to put the needs of her subjects before her own desires. Because her brothers would oppose this marriage, the duchess must keep it a secret. Although marrying Antonio did not result in political progress, her decision to marry the man she cares for demonstrates a surge in feminism. Instead of marrying for power, politics or wealth, the Duchess is redefining the meaning of marriage as an act between two people who have genuine affection for each other. She chooses Antonio because he is kind and loyal, a union that John Halkett describes as "a relatively modern concept of marriage as a partnership of love and mutual care" (qtd. in Jankowski 230). The Duchess's reasoning behind her marriage completely opposed society's expectations of a woman of political power. For society, the union of a powerful woman with a lower-class man was madness because the woman gained nothing; on the contrary, it has lost value. Jankowski asserts: “She violated existing patriarchal conventions of marriage to create her own conception of the state. To do this, this character relied on an ideology of marriage very different from the dynastic union of which his brothers speak” (230). The Duchess disrupts the definition of marriage as dictated by society and creates her own idea of ​​marriage. She embodies the image of the wife as a loving companion who helps her partner just as he helps her. Instead of becoming the helpless wife of another aristocrat, the Duchess uses marriage to Antonio as a gateway to shared power and mutual respect. The intimacy and friendship shared by the Duchess and Antonio appears in various scenes throughout the play. The couple even incorporates fun and flirting into marriage. An example of this is in Act 3, Scene 2, as Antonio and the Duchess are having fun before bed: “Duchess: what use will you be to me? Antonio: We will sleep together. Duchess: Alas, what pleasure can two lovers find in sleep? (1601). Their ease with each other and their loving attitude prove the depth of their relationship. The Duchess shows Antonio her ability to be a loving wife. As a result, the Duchess and Antonio are friends, lovers and life companions until death. Another duty that the Duchess faithfully fulfills is the role of mother. Unlike many wealthy mothers of the time who distanced themselves from their children by relying on servants and wet nurses, the Duchess cared for her children and their well-being. Moments before her death, she asks Cariola: “I pray you, look, you give my little boy / Syrup for his cold, and let the girl / Say her prayers before she sleeps” (1625). In “Just a Spoonful of Sugar: Syrup and Domesticity in Modern England,” Wendy Wall asks: “What does it mean for a “hero” to say goodbye in these terms? How can the audience understand a character who is ready to die "like a prince", but who is concerned, on this momentous occasion, with administering family remedies to his children? (149). The Duchess's final requests to her friend demonstrate her maternal and caring instinct. She worries about her son getting medicine for his cold and her daughter remembering to say her prayers when she is no longer there to care for them. Even though the Duchess had, among other things, duties as a politician and wife, she appreciatedespecially her role as a mother. Furthermore, the Duchess did not fear for the political future of her children; she is primarily concerned with their health and well-being. Some view the Duchess' final moments as her acknowledgment of defeat as she gives up her power and her life. Lisa Jardine calls the Duchess a “stereotypical nurturing mother”. . .stripped of dynastic power” (quoted in wall 150). However, the Duchess proves to be anything but the stereotypical mother of her time, since losing prestige does not bother her. Any other mother in her situation would worry about the social and political status of her heirs (descendants being considered first as heirs, then as children) after her death. Wall continues: "The Duchess's indifference to considering her children as heirs, coupled with her general lack of concern for her political legacy, convinces critics that something new – perhaps mystifying, perhaps liberating – is at stake. happening” (150). Unlike the majority of powerful and wealthy people of her time, the Duchess was able to separate politics from her private life. She does not consider her children as heirs and objects; she considers them her children whom she loves. In her final moments, she does not worry about the legacy she will leave or how they “dispose of [her] breath” (1626). As Bosola hangs the rope that the executioners will use against her and attempts to scare her about the manner of her death, the Duchess simply remarks that she does not care how she dies. She announces: “How would it please me to have my throat cut / With diamonds?” Or be choked / With cassia? Or be shot with pearls? (1625). For the Duchess, it doesn't matter whether she dies with diamonds or pearls as long as her son gets his cough syrup. “It is about motherly care, movingly revealing her core values ​​as she is extinguished by a corrupt world” (Wall 150). It's yet another example of the Duchess's modern ability to stand out from society and act as both a human and a mother. Instead of worrying about her own loss, she worries about her children. She offers a final demonstration of her selflessness by putting her children's needs above all else. What makes the Duchess a remarkable character is not just her position of power; instead, she is remarkable in her ability to balance all the roles she must fulfill: mother, wife, and duchess. If we only consider her role as a duchess, we cannot consider her a success. As Joyce Peterson argues, "Webster's character places her private desire to marry Antonio above her public responsibility as ruler, an act that identifies her with her corrupt brothers" (qtd. in Jankowski 223). This is not true. In her unique role as a political figure, the Duchess may have failed. However, examining her actions as a Duchess alone is not an accurate way to assess her success or failure as a character, as she is not fulfilling a singular role. Instead, the Duchess takes on the role of the modern woman: she has a “career” and is a mother and wife. With her ability to balance her functions, the Duchess represents a type of woman who would not surface for several hundred years; she is a glimpse of the modern woman before such a woman existed. Today, society does not define a woman solely on career success. Rather, society is concerned with a woman's ability to earn a living for herself and her family, her dedication as a mother, and loyalty and compassion in her marriage. By evaluating the success of.