The Cardinal’s mistress, Julia ‘woos’ Bosola in Act 5, reminding the audience of the Duchess’s ‘saucy//wooing’ of Antonio. Julia, however, exposes tainted love governed by passion. The grotesque comparison of Julia to a ‘tamed elephant’ implies a sexually frustrated woman ‘watched’ by men. In this manner, Julia focuses our attention on the Duchess’s purity; she expresses genuine love towards Antonio who’s presented as a dignified, honest man, untouched by rancour. We can thus speculate that Julia is not a ‘hateful leftover’ but a helpful foil. She exemplifies the tragedy of the protagonist’s death by focusing the audience on her temporary ‘pleasure’ with Cardinal, to the Duchess’s loving marriage.
Julia seduces potential ‘suitors’ to survive, ironically, her ‘maintenance’ is the very cause of her death.
Julia dies kneeling, with the conventional words of a dying sinner: she ‘betrayed her counsel.’ Thus, the spectators will recognise a visual parallel with the death of the Duchess, who in contrast, dies with an elaborate speech. She wishes to have her ‘throat cut with diamonds.’
On the other hand, the characterisation of Ferdinand is so extreme that it we can catagorise him as ‘hateful’ but not a mere ‘leftover.’ His violence and abuse manifests in his language; he likens himself to ‘a sheep-biter.’ This character therefore plays a pivotal role in the dynamics of the play. He is the antithesis of Cardinal as both are coldly-calculating and ‘sycophants//of the court.’ However, Cardinal is comparatively less sinister because Ferdinand is motivated by a somewhat mad and fiery spirit.
The spectators will compare the actions of the Aragonian brothers to the Duchess. She has not participated in any sort of corrupt behaviour. It was the narrow minded society at that time which deemed her relationship as unacceptable. Conversely, Cardinal’s commits in ‘Adultary,’ his hypocrisy impresses upon the audience, the unjust and tragic fate of the couple. Their love appears to be untainted and ‘sweetly.’
The character of Bosola, who services Ferdinand, places him in the category of the Renaissance dramatist ‘type,’ ‘the malcontent.’ Although disgustingly unpleasant, he does provide a great comedy element to the play. In light of the ‘melancholy’ of Act 5 he compares the assissting of his ‘murders’ as ‘applying horse leeches to a rank swelling.’ This character is not a ‘hateful leftover.’ His character appeals to the working class audience who enjoys a ‘blood-bath’ for entertainment.
Webster takes pleasure in the pun in his name. ‘Bos’ means a proturbulence on the body or a slang for masterfulness this further strengthens the idea that Bosola is not a ‘leftover.’
The vileness of the Aragonian brothers and to some extent, Bosola leads the audience to contrast the acquiescent and pure Duchess to the corruption of the other characters. Without the dynamics between the supporting characters in Act 5, the audience would have been unable to establish such a differentiation. They add substance to the plot and places a particular poignancy to the Duchess’s death. She is the victim of a debauched society in which the brothers operate in. Bosola, on the other hand realizes his ‘mistake.’ He is apparently persuaded of the value of the Duchess’s life. Her life was ‘worthy’ of living. This fractured sense of self pushes him over a melancholic edge. Subsequently, Webster illicits sympathy for Bosola.
Some critics attacked the structure of the play, finding that the last act was anti-climatic following the dramatic and tragic implications of the Duchess’s death. Consequently, the other remaining characters are merely seen as ‘left-overs.’
In Act 5, the focus is on Ferdinand. His incestuous fantasy leads to serious repercussions. His unhealthy obsession towards the Duchess’s political and maternal body initiates him in to a ‘lycanthropic// mad’ man. This sadistic self torture characterises the last act as suffused with ‘sin and retribution.’ Ferdinand’s metamorphosizing into a ‘werewolf’ harkens back to his earlier speech; ‘My imagination will carry me// To see her in the shameful act of sin.’ Ironically, it is he who suffers ‘retribution.’ The Duchess bears herself ‘nobly’ in her death. In the face of the ‘wild consort’ of madmen she is able to ‘maintain her right wits.’ In doing so, she faces her fate serenely.
Ferdinand, in contrast has lost his ‘lust’ and is left to wail ‘O my sister.’ As he immerses himself in the Duchess’s body, the audience is reminded of his sin which he now has to pay for.
The mudering of the Duchess and her children illustrates how moral corruption is rife throughout the play. The predicament may also act as a paradigm with which to protest about the society of that time. While it was accepted for a male of power to marry below his rank, it was considered heresy for a noble female to conduct herself in such a way.
In this manner, we can question the accuracy of the critic’s opinion; ‘Webster’s moral purpose of sin and retribution’ because he partly succeeds in voicing the inequity of the law involving women in Jacobean society.
Countering the despair of the last act, is the Duchess’s courage and individual integrity, as she faces her death she does ‘not’ go ‘mad’ instead, she asserts herself as ‘still the Duchess of Malfi.’ Thus Allen’s critique is not wholly accurate. He appears to suggest that Webster’s ‘moral purpose’ was solely to ‘pursue sin and retribution.’ Another theme that finds expression in ‘The Duchess of Malfi’ is an affirmation of merit rather than birth as the criterion of power and ‘nobility.’
