THE DUCHESS OF MALFI

AT
STRATFORD
by
YUMI SATO

A thesis submitted to the

Faculty of Arts
of the
University of Birmingham
for the degree of
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY

The Shakespeare Institute

University of Birmingham
Birmingham
B15 2TT
England
September 1991
 University of Birmingham Research Archive
e-theses repository

This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third

parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect
of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or
as modified by any successor legislation.

Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in

accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further
distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission
of the copyright holder.
 ERRATUM

The references to the second Edition of The Duchess of Malfi, the New

Mermaids, should be corrected as follows 1

The Duchess of Malfi, edited by Elizabeth M. Brennan, the New Mermaids,

second edition (London: A.C- Black, 19$3 (first published, London:

Ernest Benn, 196*0)

 SYNOPSIS

This thesis offers a descriptive and analytic study of the productions

of John Webster's The Duchess of Malfi created by the Royal Shakespeare
Company (formerly named the Stratford-on-Avon Company) in 1960, 1971 and
1989. Each of the three productions is separately considered in terms of
its theatrical realization. Discussion derives from the evidence of
prompt-books, production records and contemporary reviews. In Introduction
I refer to the stage history of The Duchess of Malfi and discuss what
aspects in the play has been considered problematic in performance. In
Conclusion I summarize how each director of the RSC productions has
attempted to solve the problems in h\S production. Appendices contains
accounts of the performed texts; cast lists with details of production
personnel; list of the plays produced in each respective season; and my
interview with Bill Alexander, director of the 1989 production.

This thesis contains approximately 44,000 words.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the following for their assistance with my research.

The librarians of the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon: M.J.

Pringle, Senior Librarian; S.M. Morris and F.M. White, Assistant
Librarians; and J. Lockhart and P.C. Lockhart, Library Assistants.

The Librarian of the Shakespeare Institute, Stratford-upon-Avon, Dr Susan

L. Brock.

Bill Alexander, who kindly answered my questions about his production of

The Duchess of Malfi in 1989 in spite of his busy schedule.
 CONTENTS
Page
List of Illustrations iv
INTRODUCTION 1
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION 14
CHAPTER 1: f A Grisly Tale is Uplifted 1 (1960) 17
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1 62
CHAPTER 2: 'This Sane Duchess of Malfi won't Do' (1971) 69
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2 119
CHAPTER 3: 'Tableaux Talk' (1989) 123
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 176
CONCLUSION 180
NOTES TO CONCLUSION 189

Appendix A: Accounts of the performed texts 190

Appendix B: Production cast lists 206
Appendix C: Lists of the productions concurrent with
The Duchess of Malfi 218
Appendix D: Interview with Bill Alexander 220
List of Abbreviations 236
Bibliography 237
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1960 production
I. the setting after Act V, scene ii
II. the court scene
III. the market
IV. the madmen scene
. . following page 68

1971 production
V. the Aragonian siblings
VI. the wooing scene
VII. the Cardinal and Ferdinand in Act II, scene v
VIII. the Cardinal's investiture
I.. the madmen scene
.. the ending
. following page 122

1989 production
XI. the court scene
XII. Antonio describing the Aragonian brethren
XIII. the Cardinal and Julia
XIV. the bedroom scene
. . following page 179
 INTRODUCTION

John Webster's The Duchess of Malfi has been staged three times by the
Royal Shakespeare Company. It was first directed by Donald McWhinnie in
1960; Clifford Williams directed the second production in 1971 and the
third took place in 1989, directed by Bill Alexander. So far the play is
the only play by Webster to have been staged by the company.
The paucity of productions of The Duchess of Malfi is a direct result
of the RSC's necessary emphasis on plays by Shakespeare. In 1960 the RSC
gained a London base at the Aldwych Theatre. This enabled the company to
embrace a wider repertoire and they decided to open the Aldwych with a
production of The Duchess of Malfi, which they previewed at Stratford.
This was the decision of Peter Hall, who was the director of the RSC at
that time, though it was then named the Statford-on-Avon Company. Before
the Aldwych opened, he explained the role of the company's London base in
an essay published in the Daily Telegraph. He clearly asserted that, under
his direction, '[the company's theatre at] Stratford [existed] only to
present Shakespeare', and made it clear that he intended to explore at the
Aldwych 'an all-the-year-round programme of the new plays and non-
n
Shakespearean classics', which he thought he could not provide at
Stratford.
The company's policy changed after that. In his history of the Peter
Hall years at the RSC, David Addenbrooke remarks that '[s]ince 1960, it
[was] part of the RSC's seasonal-planning policy to include, whenever
possible, a non-Shakespearean play in the Stratford repertoire*. Such
plays were often selected from the works of Shakespeare's contemporaries.
Though the company made no official statement about this policy, there
existed
a shared commitment [ ] to presenting as many as possible of the
works of Shakespeare's contemporaries, both to discover more of
Shakespeare's context, and to educate [themselves], and because [they]
were certain that there were all kinds of buried treasures to be
uncovered.
The company's first attempt to perform non-Shakespearean plays, in
particular works of Shakespeare's contemporaries, at Stratford was made in
1965, when Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta, directed by Clifford
Williams, transferred to the Royal Shakespeare Theatre from the Aldwych.
The company, encouraged by the success of the production, sought to stage
another non-Shakespearean play in the following season. In one of its
newsletters issued in 1966, the company suggested to its readers that it
would like to know what non-Shakespearean plays they wanted to see.
Influenced by the readers' reaction, the company decided to stage Cyril
Tourneur's The Revenger's Tragedy under Trevor Nunn's direction. The
production, first created in 1966, revived at Stratford in the following
year and then at the Aldwych in 1969, was highly successful both critically
and financially. This success encouraged the RSC to continue to stage non-
Shakespearean classical plays. The financial success of The Revenger's
Tragedy was, however, exceptional. According to Trevor Nunn, when non-
Shakespearean plays, such as The Duchess of Malfi, Doctor Faustus and Women
Beware Women, were performed at the RST in the late 1960s and the early
1970s, the company 'suffered noticeably at the box office'. Audiences, it
seemed, wanted to see plays by Shakespeare at the RST.
From the mid-1970s financial considerations led the RSC to stage non-
Shakespearean plays at The Other Place, which had been used for the
company's small-stage theatre work. It was 'a small corrugated-iron hut',^
originally built as a studio in the sixties, and converted to a theatre in
1974. With a capacity of only 140, The Other Place was fairly easily
filled, and its low budget enabled the company to stage non-Shakespearean
plays without taking financial risks. Productions at the theatre, however,
caused other problems. One was that the restricted capacity left many
theatregoers unable to see productions at the theatre; another problem was
that 'a production that had originated at The Other Place was very unlikely
to be able to transfer to a larger space and maintain its integrity*. The
company began to consider the desirability of owning a new theatre, which
would have a larger capacity and would generate productions which could
transfer to other theatres.
The RSC concluded that the remains of the first Shakespeare Memorial
Theatre, destroyed by fire in 1926, be restored to solve these problems.
The restoration was completed in 1986, and the theatre was named the Swan.
It is a Jacobean-styled theatre, with a thrust stage and two galleries
surrounding the acting area, and its capacity is 430. Its size and
structure filled both financial and artistic demands; the actors were able
to create intimacy with the audience, as they had done at The Other Place.
The theatre enabled the company to mount productions of non-Shakespearean
plays, which the company had wished since the sixties, with a moderate
financial risk. The company declared that the aim of the Swan was 'to
provide a stage for neglected sixteenth- and seventeenth-century plays
including the Shakespeare Apocrypha plays that may well have been
popular in their own days but that have seldom or, in some cases, never
been performed since i . Q It was at this theatre that the third production
of The Duchess of Malfi was staged.
The stage history of The Duchess of Malfi at the RSC began as late as
1960, but the play had had a stage history in the British theatre long
before that. A full account is provided by David Carnegie's list of
professional productions of The Duchess of Malfi, The White Devil and The
Devil's Law-Case from the first productions of them at the beginning of the
seventeenth century up to 1983. This list suggests the change in
popularity of these plays. The Duchess of Malfi was initially popular and
continued to be so during the Restoration period. The play was only rarely
staged in the first half of the eighteenth century. After Lewis Theobald's
adaptation in 1733, the play was not staged for more than one hundred
years. It regained popularity in the latter half of the nineteenth
century, when it was adapted by Richard Hengist Home. The play began to
be staged with the original text at the beginning of the twentieth century,
and since then it has been staged with increasing frequency, especially
after World War II. David Carnegie's list also suggests that the play has
been more popular than Webster's Toother masterpiece, The White Devil,
which had not been staged by a professional company for more than two
hundred years until 1925. In the following section I will consider briefly
how the play has been staged in the modern theatre from the latter half
of the nineteenth century.
The fact that The Duchess of Malfi became popular when it was adapted
suggests a rejection of the original text by the theatre and the public.
Richard Hengist Home's adaptation, first used in 1850, reveals the taste
of the period, but it also suggests, to some extent, that some of the same
features of the original text troubled the nineteenth-century theatre as
they do directors nowadays. Richard Hengist Home adapted the play so that
it would move more rapidly, appear more naturalistic and less brutal.^
The Cardinal's investiture in the form of dumb show and much of the sub-
plot which involves Julia are omitted; characters explain to themselves and
the audience what they are doing and why. The horror is mitigated; the
madmen do not appear but are heard off-stage, and the Duchess is strangled
off-stage, being heard to cry for help, 'Mercy! 1 . These features of the
adaptation change or remove the perceived difficulties of the original.
These problems include its length; the fact that the characters do not
always explain their behaviour clearly; old theatrical conventions like the
dumb show, which need to be re-examined in the modern theatre; the
relevance of the sub-plot of Julia to the main-plot of the Duchess; and the
handling of horror in the second half of the play.
After the decline of the adaptation, another attempt to revive the
play was made in 1892. The play was produced at the Opera Comique as the
first play directed by William Poel, who was committed
to return to authentic Elizabethan methods of production to a stage
which emphasized the playwright's words and which, in its simplicity,
shifted away from nineteenth-century concern with scenic elaboration
toward a concern with the delivery of lines and the verbal shape of
the play as a total composition.
William Poel's concern with the reconstruction of 'authentic Elizabethan
methods' of staging seemed almost archaelogical to the public and failed to
s~^
win wide spread support. He had many failures, including his production of
The Duchess of Malfi,
The first professional production in the twentieth century was mounted
in 1919 at the Lyric Theatre by the Phoenix Society, 'an organization
devoted to the re-establishment of classic authors on the English stage*. *
A review in the Nation and reviews quoted in Don D. Moore's account o-P
modern productions of Webster's plays suggest that the society was occupied
by archaeological interest and did not pay much attention to directorial
skills to make the play convincing. The successive murders appeared
explicitly comic; especially that of Ferdinand, who died 'standing on his
head 1 . 1-* The next production, created at the Embassy Theatre in 1935,
received 'lukewarm to cold reviews'. It provoked discussion about
whether it was possible nowadays to stage the play convincingly. A review
in ^f\e New Statesman pointed out problems which continue to trouble
directors and actors: the slackening of tension after the Duchess's death;
the handling of what appears sensational nowadays the dead man's hand,
the waxworks, and the madmen; and the successive murders at the end of the
play, which can all too easily look rather ridiculous. 1^
The stage history of The Duchess of Malfi in the first half of the
twentieth century seemed to 'indicate that where Webster [belonged was] not
on the stage, but in the study'. But the theatre's efforts to convince
the audience of the play's worth proved successful in 1945, when George
Rylands directed it at the Haymarket Theatre, with Peggy Ashcroft in the
title role and John Gielgud as Ferdinand. With the acting of such
established actors and George Rylands's directorial skills, this became,
according to Don D. Moore, the first acclaimed production of Webster.
The production was mounted just after World War II. It seems the success
of the production partly derived from the experience of the war, which
encouraged the audience to view seriously the Aragonian brethren's torture
on the Duchesss and the successive murders. For example, Edmund Wilson
o/"\
perceived 'the emotions of wartime IZU in the play and argued that 'one
[saw] [...] in The Duchess of Malfi, the scene where her doom is announced
to the Duchess amidst the drivellings of the liberated madmen, at the
moment of the expose of the German concentration camps'. 1
Remarks like this suggest that the experience of war gave the theatre
the clue to discover modernity in the play and even to view the play as an
existential statement about the evil and helpless condition of the world.
This tendency became evident at the beginning of the 1970s, and notable
productions of this period employed features of the abstract or avant-
garde. In these productions the directors attempted to reveal what they
regarded as the play's modern essence. In a free adaptation of the play
produced by the Freehold Company at the Young Vie in 1970, '[b]alletic and
acrobatic movement replaced much of the dialogue'^ and the Duchess's body,
'roped to a scaffolding tower, [...] [looked] very like Rupert Brooke's
"writhing grubs in an immense night1". 23 In Peter Gill's production staged
at the Royal Court in 1971, austerity dominated the setting; 'the brick
wall of the stage [was] left exposed, while to either side was a row of
peeling, delapidated, matchwood doors' ^; and the characters were 'dressed
uniformly in acid yellow, the costumes intimating the simplest lines of
Jacobean dress*. The austerity enabled the audience to pay attention to
the language and the characters' psychology.
With the decline in the influence of existentialism, it seems that
there has not been a theatrical movement influential enough to unify
production styles. Directors have discovered various themes in the play
and reflected them in the settings and the acting. Adrian Noble's
production at the Royal Exchange, Manchester, in 1980 and at the Round
House, in 1981, emphasized the conflict between the Duchess and her
brothers. The cutting of the Cardinal's investiture and a strong
suggestion that Ferdinand's obsession with the Duchess was sexual made the
production 'a domestic tragedy, a play about family breakdown which almost
[dispensed] with any political moments'. ° In Philip Prowse's production
at the National Theatre in 1985, the director-designer's stress on the
characters' awareness of death and of the other world made the setting look
symbolic. Glass cases and crucifuxes 'suggested a pallid, stark crypt*
 8

and a newly created character, Death, was on stage throughout the

performance.
A survey of modern productions of The Duchess of Malfi suggests two
points. One is that the play has gradually come to be evaluated in
theatrical terms. The other is that the directors 1 attitudes towards the
play have changed. Struggles to conceal what they considered its flaws and
to adjust it to modern audiences' sensibility have changed into efforts to
make audiences appreciate the play's structure and the play's concern.
It is not clear whether the change in directors' attitudes was
influenced by the change in literary criticism of Websterian plays.
Discernible links cannot be found between productions and criticism. It
seems that the two have developed quite separately; and that when there has
been a similarity between productions and criticism, it has been because
both were influenced by literary or philosophical movements rather than
having influenced each other.
In the first half of the twentieth century, Webster's plays,
especially The White Devil and The Duchess of Malfi were often criticized
in terms of thematic considerations and dramatic framework. Criticism of
the former was dominated by the opinion that Webster's work reflected his
nihilistic and pessimistic view of the world and his lack of moral
integrity. The former view was summarized in a passage in Rupert Brooke's
critical study of Webster, published in 1916: 'Human beings are writhing
grubs in an immense night. And the night is without stars or moon'2°; and
the latter in lines from one of T.S. Eliot's poems published in 1919:
'Webster was much possessed by death | And saw the skull beneath the
skin. " These two passages were understood not only by critics but by the
general public to represent the themes of Webster's plays, and they have
often been quoted in reviews. The play's framework was long considered to
be flawed, and it was thought that Webster, though an excellent poet, was
an unskilled dramatist. William Archer attacked Webster from this point at
the end of the nineteenth century, and the view seemed to hold sway. T.S.
Eliot attempted to defend the play, claiming that the play could be defined
as 'poetic drama 1 , because its 'dramatic poetry was for theatrical
presentation. But the defence was not able to change the view established
by William Archer. For example, in his critical study of Webster's plays
published in 1951, Clifford Leech summarized Webster's dramatic skills as
follows: 'we may come to the conclusion that, [...] The Duchess of Malfi
gives fair warning of Webster's imminent decline in dramatic power. He has
excelled in the moving exploration of the human mind, yet his play is
blurred in its total meaning. It is a collection of brilliant scenes,
whose statements do not ultimately cohere'. Clifford Leech regarded
Webster as 'a dramatic poet*. The viewpoint continued to be supported in
the 1960s. Concluding his essay on Webster, lan Scott-Kilvert wrote: 'His
plots lack the unity and the impetus which are the reward of devotion to a
single dominant theme [....] He surpasses Middleton and Ford in the
imaginative depth and concentration of his poetry [,..]'.^
In the mid-1950s, however, critics who became aware of the limitations
in viewing the play in naturalistic terms began to see them from a
different angle. They found a subtle technique and order in the structure
of the plays, some by observing the use of imagery and others by examining
how theatrical convention was used in the seventeenth century. For
example, in 1955 Hereward T. Price argued that verbal images given to the
1 ^
characters closely paralleled their dramatic action. Cecil W. Davies
discussed how several sorts of imagery were interrelated with each other
 10

throughout the play, and how they led to the climax in the madmen scene of
The Duchess of Malfi. 36 Inga-Stina Ekeblad discussed Webster's aim of
employing Elizabethan theatrical conventions, examining the use of the
marriage masque mocked in the madmen scene. ' She started her essay by re-
considering T.S. Eliot's remark on the coexistence of realism and
theatrical convention in Elizabethan drama: *[t]he art of the Elizabethans
is an impure art.... The aim of the Elizabethans was to attain complete
realism without surrendering any of the advantages which as artists they
observed in unrealistic conventions'. 38 While admitting that Webster's use
of theatrical conventions appeared to have been used for sensational
effect, she argued that Webster aimed to fuse such conventions and realism
in a precarious balance.
At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, existentialism
had an influence on criticism of Webster; some critics compared pessimistic
and sceptical remarks in Webster's plays to existentialism or regarded them
as an existential statement. A typical example is David Cook's essay, 'The
Extreme Situation 1 , in 1969. He perceived 'a dominant fear the fear of
meaninglessness: the fear which threatens an age of doubt* and argued that
'Webster [offered] us a deeply-disturbing reflection of our own doubts'.
In 1972 Ralph Berry argued in his book that '[t]he term best adapted to
describe not define the philosophy expressed in The Duchess of Malfi
[was] existentialism. °
At the end of the 1970s, feminist critics began to discuss the play.
They examined the Duchess's position in the patriarchal and aristocratic
society, and discussed to what extent the Duchess was aware of the conflict
between her womanhood and her position as a ruler. One of the early
examples of this view is Charlotte Spivack's essay in 1979, in which she
 11
defined the Duchess as '[a] wife and mother as well as a political woman,
[...] a perfect woman, with both integrity of self-hood and the power to
transform others'.
Books and articles published in the twentieth century suggest that re-
valuation of Webster's plays has taken place and that the plays have been
discussed from various viewpoints. But most of the studies are concerned
with subjects like thematic considerations, examinations of what the play
meant to the Jacobean audience, and explorations of the historical and
social background. Compared to them there have only been a small number of
essays and books which discuss the theatrical significance of Websterian
plays in the contemporary theatre.
One of the earliest examples is George Rylands's introductory essay to
a text of The Duchess of Malfi published in 1945. He examined problems in
staging the play, which was, for him, 'at once a dramatic poem and poetic
drama 1 , and which did not always fit modern dramatic approaches for
example, the handling of the anticlimactic Act V; the difficulty of playing
Ferdinand, who was presented as fire, one of the four elements in
Elizabethan philosophy, rather than as a character; and the need to
appreciate the distinct characteristics of Webster's verse. George
Rylands*s essay suggests that the function of performance was merely to
convey the play's poetry, which Rylands believed compensates Webster's
unskilled stagecraft.
^-N

But by the 1960s Webster's dramatic technique was recognized and its
meaning to the modern theatre began to be considered, as Louis D.
Giannetti's essay, *A Contemporary View of The Duchess of Malfi',I in 1969
suggests. He first argued that Bosola's action on stage reflected his
position in the play as a character who did not belong to either of the two
 12

clusters of characters that of the Duchess and Antonio, and that of the
Cardinal and Ferdinand. Next he examined the theatricality of the waxworks
scene and the madmen scene in Act IV, and concluded that it was 'a highly
complex and economical way to convey a number of subtle ideas and
emotions 1 , such as 'a grotesque parody of the Duchess's wooing scene' and
'a theatrical externalization of Ferdinand's soul 1 . The recognition and
respect for the theatricality in Webster's plays can also be discerned in
Roger Warren's essay in John Webster, a collection of essays published in
1970.^ Roger Warren paid attention to the effective contrast of the light
and the dark sides of the play gaiety as seen in the court scene and the
bedroom scene and horror in the second half of the play. He discussed the
Donald McWhinnie production in 1960 as an example of a successful
presentation of the two sides. The recognition that Webster's plays are
most appreciated in performance has continued to develop in recent years.
For example, in her study of Webster's dramatic technique, Christina Luckyj
argues that repetition characterizes Webster's plays: juxtapositions,
parallels and repetitions of scenes, characters and remarks. ^ The
examination of the repetitions leads her to conclude that Webster's plays
are not loosely structured as has generally been asserted and that it is
the structure which lends theatrical impact. Her frequent references to
notable productions of Webster's plays suggest the significance of
productions to literary criticism.
It has been pointed out, however, that problems remain in staging
Webster's plays even when his dramatic technique is recognized and
understood. Lois Potter's essay in 1975, 'Realism versus Nightmare', was
concerned with the problem of keeping a balance between realism and the
metaphoric or symbolic aspect raised by theatrical conventions in the
 13

seventeeth century. Reviewing some of the recent productions she

concluded that the two elements could be fused by nonverbal means such as
music and setting. The problem remains a major concern in Richard Alien
Cave's book, in which he examines four recent notable productions of The
Duchess of Malfi and The White Devil. Before beginning to discuss them he
points out that difficulties of staging Webster's plays lie not only in the
realism which reflects hierarchy in Jacobean England but in the fusion of
the realistic and symbolic aspects: '[t]he passionate physicality of
[Webster's] plays is repeatedly a metaphor with deep metaphysical
resonances'.
These articles and critical works on performance suggest that
productions of Webster's plays are beginning toTprompt and develop
criticism of the plays, and that links between productions and criticism of
Webster's plays are being established, as has happened in the study of
Shakespeare's plays.
 14

NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
1. Peter Hall, 'Why Stratford is Coming to London 1 , Daily Telegraph, 12
December 1960.
2. Ibid.
3. David Addenbrooke, The Royal Shakespeare Company; The Peter Hall
Years (London: William Kimber, 1974), p. 144.
4. Trevor Nunn, 'From Conference Hall to Theatre', in This Golden Round;
The Royal Shakespeare Company at the Swan, ed. by Ronnie Mulryne and
Margaret Shewring (Stratford-upon-Avon: Mulryne and Shewring, 1989),
pp. 1-8 (p. 1).
5. This suggestion was made in an article entitled 'Fifth Stratford
Production?', in Flourish; Royal Shakespeare Theatre Club Newspaper,
no. 6 (Spring 1966), p. 9.
6. Nunn, p. 1.
7. Sally Beauman, The Royal Shakespeare Company; A History of Ten
Decades (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 320.TnT"
capacity of The Other Place before it was demolished in 1989 is also
given by Beauman, p. 321.
8. Nunn, p. 2.
9. Ronnie Mulryne and Margaret Shewring, 'The Repertoire at the Swan',
in This Golden Round, pp. 23-40 (p. 23).
10. David Carnegie, 'A Preliminary Checklist of Professional Productions
of the Plays of John Webster', Research Opportunities in Renaissance
Drama, 24 (1983), 55-63.
11. The details of Richard Hengist Home's adaptation are from Frank W.
Wadsworth, '"Shorn and Abated" British Performances of The Duchess
of Malfi', Theatre Survey. 10 (1969), 89-104.
12. Ejner J. Jensen, 'Lamb, Poel and Our Postwar Theatre: Elizabethan
Revivals', Renaissance Drama, n.s. 9 (1978), 211-34 (p. 220).
13. Don D. Moore, John Webster and his Critics 1617-1964 (Louisiana:
Louisiana State University Press, 1966), p. 152.
14. Frank Swinnerton, in 'The Duchess of Malfi', Nation, 29 November
1919, examined the performed text which was not severely cut, the
playing time of three hours and a half and the simple setting which
was experimental, and concluded: '[i]n paying homage to literature
and to theatrical art [the production] divorces itself from the jolly
improvization which might make good plays (new and old) a healthy and
enjoyable pastime for intelligent people. All the natural fun, or
the rough seriousness, of robust art is sapped by this aestij^ic
anaemia . A review in the London Times, 25 November 1919, quoted in
 15

Moore, p. 152, suggests a similar reaction to the production: 'The

Duchess of Malfi is no longer a live classic but a curio for
connoisseurs'.
15. Moore, p. 152.
16. Moore, p. 153.
17. Quoted from the New Statesman in Moore, p. 154.
18. Moore, p. 151.
19. Moore, p. 155: 'Finally, in April of 1945, a production of Webster
was acclaimed'.
20. Edmund Wilson, Europe without Baedeker; Sketches among the Ruins of
Italy, Greece and England ^London; Seeker & Warburg, 1948), p. 7.
21. Ibid.
22. Lois Potter, 'Realism versus Nightmare: Problems of Staging The
Duchess of Malfi', in The Triple Bond; Plays, Mainly Shakespearian,
in Performance,""ed. by Joseph G. Price (University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1975), pp. 170-89 (p. 173).
23. Ibid.
24. Richard Alien Cave, The White Devil and The Duchess of Malfi, Text
and Performance (London: MacMillan Education, 1988), p. 46.
25. Ibid.
26. Jacqueline Pearson, 'Man Bites Man*, Times Literary Supplement, 26
September 1980.
27. Marion Lomax, Stage Images and Traditions; Shakespeare to Ford
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 151.
28. Ropert Brooke, John Webster and the Elizabethan Drama (London:
Sidgwick & Jackson, 1916;, p. 158.
29. T.S. Eliot, 'Whispers of Immortality', in Poems (Richmond: L. & V.
Woolf, Hogarth Press, 1919), pp. 77-78 (p. 7?;.
30. This definition was made in the title of his review of the production
of The Duchess of Malfi by the Phoenix Society, 'The Duchess of Malfi
at the Lyric: and Poetic Drama*, Arts and Letter, 3 (Winter 1920),
36-39.

31. 'The Duchess of Malfi at the Lyric', p. 36.

32. Clifford Leech, John Webster; A Critical Study, Hogarth Lectures on
Literature, no. 16 (London: Hogarth Press, 1951), p. 65.
 16

33. The final chapter of John Webster; A Critical Study is entitled

'Webster as a Dramatic Poet .
34. lan Scott-Kilvert, John Webster, Writers and their Work, 175 (London:
Longmans, 1964), p. 45.
35. 'The Function of Imagery in Webster 1 , PMLA, 70 (1955), 713-39.
36. 'The Structure
(1958), The Duchess of Malfi; An Approach', English, 12
89-93. of —————————————

37. 'The "impure Art" of John Webster', Review of English Studies, n.s. 9
(1958), 253-67.
38. As quoted by Ekeblad, p. 253, from Selected Essays, second ed.
(London: Faber and Faber, 1934 (first published in 1932)), p. 96
and p. 97.
39. David Cook, 'The Extreme Situation: A Study of Webster's Tragedies',
Komos, 2 (1969), pp. 9-15 (p. 12 and p. 15;.
40. Ralph The Art of John Webster (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972),
p. 126.Berry, ———————————————

41. 'The Duchess of Malfi: A Fearful Madness', Journal of Women's Studies

in Literature, 1 T" (1979), pp. 122-32 (p. 122).
42. 'On the Productions of The Duchess of Malfi', in John Webster, The
Duchess of Malfi (London: Sylvan Press, 1945), pp. v-xiv (p. xiv).
43. These quotations are from 'A Contemporary View of The Duchess of
Malfi', Comparative Drama, 3 (1969-70), 297-307 (p. 306, p. 305 and

44. 'The Duchess of Malfi on the Stage', in John Webster, ed. by Brian
Morris (London: Ernest Benn, 1970), pp. 47-68.
45. A Winter's Snake; Dramatic Forms in the Tragedies of John Webster
(.Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1989).
46. See note 21.
4-7. Cave, p. 42.
 CHAPTER 1

'A Grisly Tale is Uplifted' 1 (1960)

The first production of The Duchess of Malfi by the Royal Shakespeare

Company (then the Stratford-on-Avon Company before being renamed in
January 1961), directed by Donald McWhinnie, opened at the Shakespeare
Memorial Theatre on 30 November 1960 for eight performances up to 7
December 196P. This was a preview of the first production to be performed
at the Aldwych Theatre, the company's second theatre. It opened there on
15 December 1960, and ran for forty-eight performances up to 19 April 1961.
O
The costumes and the settings were designed by Leslie Hurry, and the music
was composed by Humphrey Searle. An interval of fifteen minutes divided
the play into two parts; the average playing time was one hour and twenty
minutes for the first part, and one hour and thirteen minutes for the
second.
This production was created under the influence of epoch-making
decisions by Peter Hall, then director of the Shakespeare Memorial
Theatre. In 1960 he devised a scheme to acquire another theatre in London
for the company. Peter Hall intended to present at the new theatre not
only Shakespearean plays, selected from productions at Stratford, but other
classic and modern plays. The Aldwych Theatre was chosen for the company's
London branch. Its opening attracted much attention because of the
commitment to presenting a wide range of plays. In deciding to stage non-
Shakespearean classic plays at the Aldwych Peter Hall began with The
Duchess of Malfi, which had not been staged in London since the George
Rylands production at the Haymarket Theatre in 1945, to open the Aldwych.
 18

When its production was announced, what drew the general public's attention
was, however, that Pegg^y Ashcroft, who had played the title role at the
Haymarket, would play the role again.
In launching the new project, Peter Hall attempted to establish a
different style of staging Shakepearean plays — different from the
Victorian tradition, which he thought still prevailed in those days. He
needed 'the new style of staging: "a style in which visual effects would
remain secondary to the speaking actor1", and in which verse speaking
would be given prominence. It followed that the new style laid less
emphasis on visual effect and required more imagination from the audience.
The stages both at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre and the Aldwych were
rejdesigned to fit the purpose. The stage of the former was
raked, and [on each stage] the apron was cut away at both sides to
allow two rows of angled seats to be added at the front of the stalls.
The new stage apron extended 14 feet into the auditorium and was Q
intended to bring the players into [close] contact with the audience.
f*
The stage of the Aldwych was rejiesigned in the same manner.
As well as Peter Hall, Donald McWhinnie was aware of the possibility
of the apron stage. In his essay published in Plays and Players, he argued
that an actor should be 'in close contact with [the] audience'; and he was
also aware that the stage should be used as 'a direct stimulus to the
imagination of the audience*. This recognition required minimum pieces
of furniture and properties. The set photographs show that under
*[t]hree renaissance [sic] arches [which formed] a false proscenium',
there was no large furniture used throughout the performance, and that in
most cases the locations were suggested by back cloths and pieces of
furniture which could be easily moved on- and off-stage: for example,
chairs, a table and a chest (see plate I). By the standard of setting in
 19

1^
those days, Leslie Hurry's settings were 'deceptively simple', making the
stage look stark; they were considered novel but effective. As a result of
the sparse settings the actors had a large acting space.
The function of the stage as 'a direct stimulus to the imagination of
the audience* led the director to regard the settings as
functional [...] "super-props" [...]; objects which [were] integral to
the action and which also [incorporated] the essence of any given
scene.
It followed that anything in the settings should be brought in at the right
time, and they should be carried away promptly when not needed any more.
Thus the manner of changing scenes became a matter of significance to the
director. He invented two methods of changing scenes. One was to have
actors carry properties on- and off-stage. The accounts of the prompt-book
show that most of the properties were transferred by minor characters such
as servants and ladies-in-waiting. The effect was, in the director's
words,
maximum pace of scene-changing without losing visual interest or
suspending belief in the context because of a black-out.
Among reviewers who referred to this method of changing scenes, R.B.
it
Marriot and H.A.L. Craig praised^ To R.B. Marriott, the properties were
moved 'without the trace of disturbing the flow of the play' 1 '; H.A.L.
Craig saw 'choreography in the carrying of a prop'. ° Philip Hope-Wallace
admitted that the manner of carrying properties was 'elaborate-simple', but
felt that it '[grew] distracting'. 19
Another method required the audience's imagination. For instance the
Cardinal's throne, turned around at the end of Act V, scene ii, served as a
monument in a graveyard in the echo scene. 70 Another piece of furniture, a
chest, changed what it stood for during the final scenes; for example, it
 20

01
was used as a chest in Act V, scene ii, and as a 'tomb' zi in the echo
scene. The throne and the chest were present on stage from the beginning
of Act V, scene ii, to the ond of the performance, suggesting the change of
locations: from the Cardinal's palace to the graveyard and to the
Cardinal's palace again (see plate I). It seems that the method of chafing
scenes was devised out of the director's intention to establish that
catastrophe had become prevalent in the world of the play.
As the production records include no wardrobe plot, 99 information on
oo
the costumes is provided by black-and-white production photographs. J The
costumes were Renaissance (see plate II). Male characters wore doublets,
hose , knee-breeches, short capes and ruffs; female characters wore dresses
with fitted bodices, puffed sleeves with slashes or slits, and with what
looked like stomachers. It seems that the women's costumes were modified
to emphasize femininity; without ruffs or high collars, the line from the
neck to the shoulders was revealed. All the male characters, except for
the Cardinal, were bearded, probably a way to emphasize their virility.
The costumes expressed the elegance and luxuriousness of a Renaissance
aristocratic society; most of them were made of '[h]eavy, sumptuous
materials [and] [r]eal Renaissance texture'. Only the Old Woman^ and
peasants in the market I were dressed in coarser fabric or rags, which
implied their low rank (see plate III).
Some of the costumes reflected the director's interpretation of the
characters. For example, in the earlier scenes the Duchess wore a white
^ 26
dress andi light-coloured dress, which were embroidered and decorated with
^^

gems. The elaborate dress^indicated her high rank as a duchess; they also
suggested her noble and graceful nature. Darker-coloured costumes worn by
the other characters made the brightness of the Duchess's dress stand out.
 21

On the other hand Julia's dress, cut low off the shoulder, suggested her
sensuality, which led her to be unfaithful to her husband Castruccio and to
be the Cardinal's mistress.
Not only the costumes but the settings suggested the luxuriousness of
the society; furniture and properties — from a brush to a fountain — were
heavily and intricately carved; the back cloth used for representing Malfi
had silhouettes of trees, pillars, hanging decorations, and what looked
like a palace^'; a 'red and golden 1 , ° huge and draped curtain was used to
suggest the anteroom. The settings conveyed the aristocratic atmosphere
without being overcrowded.

The text used was taken from Selected Plays, Everyman's Library, which
on
is a selection of plays by John Webster and John Ford. The text has
several problems which affect the examination of the prompt-book. It has
no line references, and blank verse is neglected; a new line starts with a
change of speaker, even when the verse line is unfinished. There is
another problem which comes from the unidentified edition on which the text
is based. Act I does not indicate the scene division, which appears in the
on
Quarto and which has been retained in recent editions. In this chapter,
therefore, I will standardize the scene division and all the line
O-j
references to the New Mermaid edition. °-L
The prompt-book is made of looseleaves ten and a half inches long and
eight inches wide. One page of printed script is pasted in the middle of
QO
every left-hand side page. A few pieces of simple stage business Qje
written in the scripts. Cues for lighting, £(;?&and orchestra are written
on the margin of the left-hand side pages. On the right-hand side pages
almost all the stage business is written. Some of the pages also have
 22

simple diagrams of the actors and furniture.

In his essay in Plays and Players, Donald McWhinnie also discussed his
editing of the original text. At the beginning of the essay he referred to
Webster as 'a poet who happened to write for the theatre in spite of a
supreme lack of talent for the "well-made play" 1 . The director felt that
Webster wrote 'in a dramatic frame-work which was often clumsy and
inconsistent but which was strangely appropriate for his purpose [of
expressing his imaginative apprehension of the world]'. McWhinnie
perceived a modern view of the world in Webster's vision 'in spite of
conventions and fallacies which surround "the classics"':
[Webster's] characters live closer to the shadow of the concentration
camp and the hydrogen bomb than to that of the romantic poniard in
their attack of life, their encounter with death. The Duchess of
Malfi is one of the first modern plays; closer in feelings to Gocfot
than to Othello. [...]
Webster looked unromantically, unsentimentally at the human race,
and he didn't often like what he saw; this indeed is the clue to his
modernity.
The comparison of The Duchess of Malfi to Waiting for Godot makes it clear
that McWhinnie regarded The Duchess of Malfi as existential.
All these remarks suggest the director's interpretation of the play: a
play which he saw as characteristic of its modern and existential view of
the world, but which had considerable shortcomings in terms of its dramatic
framework. This interpretation led him to think that the text nowadays
needed thorough but careful editing:
Do not be reverent towards the shortcomings; there's quite a
lot of dead wood which can be ruthlessly cut, but be sure you're
cutting in the right place, and don't assume that because a writer
slips occasionally you will always know better than he does.
The thoroughness with which the director edited the text is obvious in the
number of the removed lines; the performed text is 2,248 lines long as
against 2,864 lines in the full text. The 616 removed lines, which include
 23

sixteen cuts with unclear markings, comprise twenty-two per cent of the
original text. The performed text also has a small number of transposed
lines, changes in the original wording, and inserted words. These cuts and
emendations show the characteristics of the play, which the director
believed needed to be cut as 'dead wood 1 , and, less frequently, to be
altered.
Some of the changes in the wording suggest the director's
consideration for the convenience of modern audiences. For example, the
phrase 'ruts and foul sloughs' (ll.i.27) is simplified into 'furrows';
'cabinet' (V.ii.214), which is used in an obsolete sense, is replaced by
'chamber'. Some words are changed so that the altered words would fit the
context better. 'Who* in the Duchess's 'Who do I look like now?'
(lV.ii.31) is changed to 'What'; Cariola, replying to her, compares her to
a picture of her (IV.ii.32-33). The Duchess's 'Kneel' (I.ii.389), which is
not only uttered to Antonio but to Cariola to make her witness the private
marriage ceremony of the Duchess, is changed to 'Cariola!'. There is,
however, a less explicable change. 'Sad' on line 60 in the following
passage is changed to 'glad':
Some men have wish's to die
At the hearing of sad tidings: I am glad
I shall do't in sadness. (V.iv.59-61)
These lines are delivered when Antonio, after being stabbed by Bosola,
hears that his family have been murdered. Antonio means that he can accept
the imposed death, now that he hears the sad news and is one of those who
'have wish's to die | At the hearing of sad tidings'. It seems that the
change of 'sad' to 'glad' unnecessarily complicates the passage.
Two examples of inserted words suggest the director's consideration
for the audience in terms of clarity. 'Castruccio* is inserted between
 24

'Let me see 1 and 'you have a reasonable good face [...]' (II.i.4) in
Bosola's reply to Castruccio. This is probably to enable the audience to
recognize Castruccio, who often appears on stage and is referred to, but
who is never addressed by name. 'The Duke your brother' (III.ii.161) is
changed to 'Your brother the lord Ferdinand*. This change was made
probably to enable the audience to recognize the 'Duke', when the audience
was required to pay all its attention to the tension and suspense created
by Ferdinand's action. But this insertion appears to be unnecessary,
because the fact that Ferdinand is a duke is already made clear in the
bfewfle*1
dialogue I Antonio and Delio at the beginning of the play (I.11.91).
The transpositions of lines affect the development of the story. For
example, the following lines in Act I, scene ii, are transposed to line 22
in Act I, scene i, right before Antonio's 'Here comes Bosola':
DELIO: You promis'd me
To make me the partaker of the natures
Of some of your great courtiers.
ANTONIO: The Lord Cardinal's
And other strangers', that are now in court?
I shall. (l.ii.1-5)
The director might have thought this transposition appropriate, because,
in the original text, Antonio describes the nature of Bosola, one of those
who 'are now in court', before Delio asks Antonio to do so. Another
notable example is the transposition of the following lines right before
the stage direction, 'knocking* (Ill.ii.154):
ANTONIO: [H]ow came he hither? I should turn
This [a pistol], to thee, for that.
CARIOLA: Pray sir do: and when
That you have cleft my heart, you shall read there
Mine innocence. (III.ii.143-46)
Probably the director thought that the tension of the scene would be
hightened effectively, and that Antonio's suspicion of Cariola, one of few
 25

people whom he trusts, would seem justifiable, if these lines came later.
The transpositions of lines are made so that the development of the
narrative would look more straightforward and the changes in the
characters' thoughts and emotions would appear natural.
The director's cuts also show his consideration for the audience's
convenience. It is evident even in cuts which are made mainly to shorten
the text. A few lines which may sound repetitive are cut: for example,
Pescara's report to the noblemen that Delio has arrived with Antonio's
eldest son (V.v.105-07). The audience is informed of it (V.iii.50), though
the noblemen hear the news for the first time. Another example is seen in
the Cardinal's lines. He orders a servant to prevent the noblemen from
visiting Ferdinand, fearing that the mad Ferdinand would reveal the murder
of the Duchess (V.ii. 221-24). Afterwards the noblemen visit the Cardinal
and ask him permission to visit Ferdinand, to be refused by the Cardinal
(V.iv.1-7), who, this time, intends to dispose of Julia's body secretly
(V.iv. 22-25). The Cardinal's lines to the servant are removed, probably
because these two speeches are the same in content, though different in
purpose, and because the latter speech affects more the course of evenL;
the noblemen, obeying the Cardinal, refuse to visit him even when he is
^assaulted by Bosola.
Lines are removed which refer to what are now forgotten or unfamiliar:
references to myths, legends, medical knowledge, customs, historical facts
and figures, and quotations from works then popular: for example,
Ferdinand's reference to rhubarb, with which he wants to calm down his rage
on knowing the Duchess's childbirth ( II. v. 12-13), and the Duchess's
reference to Tasso in comparing her false accusation of Antonio to the lie
cited in one of Tasso 's works ( III. ii. 179-81), and the Cardinal's remark on
 26

how to discover Antonio in his exile by searching picture-makers and Jews,

and by bribing Delio's confessor (V.ii.126-40). But some references in
significant scenes are retained in spite of their difficulty to modern
audiences: for instance, references to mythical metamorphoses and Paris's
choice in the domestic bedroom scene (III.ii.25-32, 36-42); and references
to heraldry, made by one of the madmen in the climactic madmen scene
(IV.ii.87-91).
Most of the similes and metaphors, with which the play is filled, are
removed as well. The director must have thought that these lines, which
convey the manners of comparison and association in the past, were as
difficult to modern audiences as references to things which are forgotten.
Even lines in important scenes are removed, when they are not
comprehensible to modern audiences: for example, the Duchess's lines in her
imprisonment:
I am acquainted with sad misery,
As the tann'd galley-slave is with his oar. (IV.ii.28-29)
So are nearly half of the lines of Bosola's exaggerated praise to the
Duchess, when he knows that Antonio is her husband. But two parables are
retained probably because they contribute to dramatic impact. One is about
Death, Love and Reputation, told by Ferdinand after witnessing the
Duchess's married life. In telling the Duchess that one can never find
Reputation again if he or she once parts with him, Ferdinand emphasizes the
significance of the fact that her reputation is irrecoverable. The other
is about a salmon and a dogfish, told by the Duchess in the misery of
banishment and parting with Antonio and her eldest son. Narrating that the
salmon will prove more valuable than the dogfish only when it is caught,
she protests that a person's true value is known most clearly in adversity,
 27

and she conveys her resignation to the reversal of fortune.

Some lines are removed to stop speeches meandering. For example,
Bosola says, at the end of Act II, scene iii, after he picks up a piece of
paper dropped by Antonio, and reads what is written in it:
Why, now 'tis most apparent. This precise fellow
Is the Duchess 1 bawd: I have it to my wish.
This is a parcel of intelligency
Our courtiers were cas'd up for! It needs must follow,
That I must be committed, on pretence
Of poisoning her: which I'll endure, and laugh at.
If one could find the father now. (lines 64-70)
i;n e
The omission of lines fronnj>6 to 69, in which Bosola thinks about the plot
inflicted on the courtiers and about its consequences, makes Bosola
concentrate on the main topic, i.e., the Duchess's childbirth. In most
cases deletions like this shortens speeches and make the story develop more
speedily. There is one case, however, in which this sort of deletion did
not succeed. In Bosola's final speech in Act V, scene v:
Oh this gloomy world,
In what a shadow, or deep pit of darkness
Doth, womanish, and fearful, mankind live?
Let worthy minds ne'er stagger in distrust
To suffer death or shame for what is just:
Mine is another voyage, (lines 99-104)
Lines 102 and 103 are omitted probably because of the change of topic:
change from the pessimistic view of mankind, in which Bosola is certainly
included, to 'worthy minds', with whom he thinks he has nothing to do.
This omission, however, makes Bosola's final words, 'Mine is another
voyage', obscure. He means by these words that his death is different from
that of those who have fought for right causes. As a result Bosola's
final speech, which conveys the extent of his pessimistic view of life,
became less effective.
These emendations and cuts suggest the director's effort to adjust the
 28

play to the standards of a modern dramatic framework in giving the play

comprehensibility, brevity, naturalness and straightforwardness, for better
appreciation by modern audiences. It was this function of cuts and
emendations of a classic play which the director emphasized in his essay.
But he did not mention interpretative cuts.
A small number of cuts affect characterization. For Bosola the
following lines are cut: Delio's lines which reveal that Bosola once was a
scholar devoted to studying historical but meticulous topics (Ill.iii.40-
46); and Bosola's lines in which he reveals his wish to have a human
relationship with his employer Ferdinand (IV.ii.323-27). The deletions of
these lines deprived the audience of the clues to understanding Bosola*s
complexity. For Antonio the interpretative cuts worked effectively. The
director's intention not to present Antonio as a weak and pathetic person
is evident in the removal of the Duchess's lines in the wooing scene:
You do tremble:
Make not your heart so dead a piece of flesh
To fear, more than to love me. (I.ii.366-68)
and in the removal of the lines of Antonio and Delio at the end of Act II,
scene i, in which Antonio reveals his bewilderment as the Duchess goes into
labour. The removal of the following lines affects the interpretation of
the Duchess: 'I would have my ruin | Be sudden* (III.v.94-95), and 'indeed
I have not leisure to tend so small a business [as life]' (lV.i.86).
Probably the director did not want to emphasize the Duchess's temporary
impulse to destroy herself before she finally accepts death with serenity
and courage.
Some other interpretative cuts can be regarded as significant because
they affect the interpretation of the relationship of the house of Aragon
with the social world of the play. The most notable examples are the
 29

removal of the episode in which the emperor has ordered the Cardinal to
become a soldier and to join the war (HI.ii.1-8), and the removal of the
ceremony of the Cardinal's investiture as a soldier in Act III, scene iv.
In these scenes the original text implies to the audience the existence of
a world which surrounds the realm governed by the house of Aragon, and
reveals that the Aragonian siblings are ruled by the emperor, and that they
are part of a larger political world. Some of the lines are also removed
which refer to the aristocratic society ruled by the members of the house
of Aragon: most of Antonio's references to the courtiers' malicious rumour
on Antonio's advancement (III.i.29-35) and the noblemen's contemptuous
remarks on Malatesti's unsoldierly behaviour (III.iii.8-33). These lines
imply the atmosphere of the society, through the expression of its
inhabitants' inclination towards envy and malice, and of what they regard
as important. The removal of these lines suggests that director wanted to
lay less emphasis on the position of the house of Aragon in the world of
the play than referred to in the original text.
The removal of the Cardinal's investiture is significant in another
way. This removal changes the implication of the banishment of the
Duchess, which, in the original text, is performed during the ceremony.
The motive of the banishment by the Aragonian brethren is their rage,
especially the Cardinal's, caused by the fact that the Duchess has stained
the family honour in marrying a man of lower rank. The rage is expressed
publicly in front of those who come to see the Cardinal's investiture, to
make common people realize that the banishment is authorized by the power
of the pope and of the house of Aragon. The manner of the banishment of
the Duchess suggests that the conduct of a member of the royal family is
not only a private matter; as the family are rulers, their conduct must be
 30

seen in public terms. Their public roles as rulers thus affect their
private and familial relationship. The director may have considered the
removal of the Cardinal's investiture justifiable, because it is performed
in the form of dumb show, a form which is forgotten, and because the
banishment is reported in detail by the pilgrims (the pilgrims' lines are
retained). It seems that, however, more was lost by this removal than was
gained; the scene of the banishment is important in that this scene
demonstrates that the Duchess is destroyed by the political power of the
pope and the house of Aragon. The removal made the audience unable to
understand the public nature of the banishment. The audience was led to
regard the conflict between the brethren and the Duchess only as a private
matter, and to miss the significance of the family's position in the social
world of the play.
Another significant interpretative cut is made in Act V, scene v.
This scene lost the whole of the noblemen's lines during Bosola's assault
on the Cardinal (lines 19-32), and most of the mad Ferdinand's nonsense
speeches delivered when he wounds the Cardinal and Bosola and is stabbed by
Bosola (lines 55-61, 66-68): the farcical lines which undercut the
seriousness in the scene and which may provoke the audience's laughter.
The laughter has always been one of the problems in staging the play, even
when these lines were cut. It can be argued that the director was
cautious in removing lines which could have destroyed the tragic tension.
The director not only edited the text; he also created new act and
scene divisions, which are recorded in the prompt-book. The details in the
scene divisions are listed in Appendix A. Here I will discuss notable
scene divisions. First the director divided the original Act I (undivided
in Everyman's Library edition) into two scenes at the re-entrance of the
 31

Aragonian siblings after the exit of Ferdinand and Bosola. This scene
division suggests the director's intention to emphasize the private and
familial aspect of the relationship of the siblings in the warning of the
Cardinal and Ferdinand to the Duchess not to remarry without their
permission. Other significant scene division is made in Act II, scene i.
The opening of the original Act II, scene i, to Bosola*s words on line 74,
is treated as one scene and its location is a market. The rest of Act II,
scene i, is combined with Act II, scene ii, to make up another scene. It
seems that the director intended to prevent the performance from becoming
monotonous by inserting a lively scene of peasants in the play's generally
aristocratic world.

In the following section I will reconstruct how the production was

performed. The reconstruction will be made from the prompt-book,
production records, production photographs, and reviews in newspapers and
periodicals.
The performance began with a bustle. Upstage was seen 'a shouting,
cachinating crowd of odds-and-ends [which] rushed across the stage carrying
a tilting-lance'. This manner of opening established the liveliness of
the Duchess's court. Antonio and Delio emerged from upstage, accompanied
by a servant. On appearing on stage, Antonio gave his helmet, gloves and
pike to the servant, who left with these things. Then Antonio approached a
fountain stage right, wet his handkerchief and mopped his brow; he had just
come back from a joust. While reporting to Delio the French king's
banishment of 'dissolute, | And infamous persons' (l.i.8-9), Antonio
advanced centrestage right, to deliver the following lines about the French
king:
Consid'ring duly, that a Prince's court
 32

Is like a common fountain, whence should flow

Pure silver drops in general. [...] (I.i.11-13)
The property fountain, which 'dominated the scene 1 , gave this speech
prominence, and suggested that not only the French court but the Duchess's
was as ideal as 'a common fountain' in Antonio's speech. Thus the property
fountain, which looked realistic with heavy carving, was symbolic at the
same time; it established the atmosphere of the Duchess's court in terms of
dramatic impact as well as verbal image.
Just after Delio reminded Antonio of the promise to narrate the nature
of those who are at court, Bosola appeared and walked towards the right-
hand side of the fountain, as if to suggest that Bosola were 'Some curs'd
»v

example' (I.i.14) which would poison 'a Prince's court* (I.i.ll) and bring
confusion to the whole country. Antonio and Delio walked downstage, and
Antonio began to narrate Bosola as 'The only court-gall* (I.i.23). Soon
they saw the Cardinal appear stage right. Bosola approached him on 'I do
haunt you still' (I.i.29). The Cardinal, finding him, ostentatiously
showed his neglect of Bosola; he turned anticlockwise to avoid him and
walked away centrestage. The Cardinal met Antonio and Delio, who
genuflected to show respect to him. The Cardinal walked on upstage and
left, deaf to Bosola*s complaint to the end. Antonio and Delio advanced
downstage to talk to Bosola, who left the stage through the orchestra pit
after much complaining. The appearance of Bosola and the Cardinal changed
the atmosphere of the scene and left uneasiness about the course of events.
Bosola*s exit was followed by the entrance of the noblemen and
Ferdinand. Ihey walked towards the bench in front of the fountain, talking
about the result of the joust in which Antonio had taken part. Their
action and the topic of the joust drew the audience's attention back to the
 33

pompous atmosphere of the court. Sitting down on the bench, Ferdinand

ordered one of the servants to give a jewel to Antonio as the reward for
winning the joust. The servant received the jewel from another servant
and gave it to Antonio. Ferdinand began to talk to the noblemen, who drew
near him. As a result of the deletion of Silvio's bawdy joke on
Castruccio's Spanish gennet and of Ferdinand's anger provoked by the joke
(I.ii.36-58), the audience lost the opportunity to see Ferdinand's menacing
presence to the noblemen through his anger and the noblemen's sycophantic
replies to him. The cutting made clear the director's intention to
emphasize the gaiety at the court of Malfi.
The Duchess, the Cardinal, Julia, Cariola and the Duchess's ladies-in-
waiting appeared upstage left immediately after Silvio's announcement (see
plate 11). The Duchess held a mask, which gave the impression of the
extravagance of her court life through the suggestion that she had just
come back from one of 'chargeable revels' (l.ii.252). Ferdinand and the
noblemen approached the Duchess to salute. Ferdinand introduced Silvio to
her. Silvio advanced downstage and kissed her hand. After that the
Aragonian siblings, the noblemen, Julia, ladies-in-waiting and the servants
Qatbed
• Jthe bench, on which the Duchess sat down. During the greetings
Antonio and Delio stood apart from them, downstage left, to observe the
Aragonian siblings. The audience's attention was divided between Antonio's
speech and the Duchess, who was the central figure of the silent play
performed during Antonio's speech. While Antonio narrated the Cardinal's
character, Roderigo and Grisolan respectively approached the Duchess and
kissed her hand. When Antonio began to talk about the Duchess, the
Cardinal and Ferdinand went upstage and the audience's attention was fixed
on the Duchess. At the end of the speech Silvio walked away from the
 34

Duchess, and met Cariola, who walked towards the Duchess. Thus the Duchess
continued to attract the audience's attention all through Antonio's speech,
and linked the silent scene naturally to the ensuing dialogues between her
and Ferdinand, and between her and Silvio, after the exit of Antonio and
Delio.
The Duchess and the others made their exit, leaving the Cardinal and
Ferdinand. On seeing Bosola appear, the Cardinal walked away upstage left.
Bosola appeared stage left, immediately after the Cardinal's exit. Bosola
might have seen him leaving; Bosola delivered *I was lur'd to you*
(l.ii.152), after a pause. Ferdinand walked centrestage towards Bosola and
threw a purse of gold to him, on 'There's gold* (l.ii.167). Though Bosola
once received the purse, he threw it back at Ferdinand's feet, knowing that
Ferdinand wanted to use him as a spy to watch the Duchess. But Ferdinand
insisted on hiring Bosola. Ferdinand offered him a place at the Duchess's
court, adding that this action was worth thanks. Ferdinand's arrogance
drew sarcastic reaction from Bosola, who, in accepting the offer, picked up
the purse on 'say then my corruption | Grew out of horse dung* (I.ii.208),
and bowed to Ferdinand, on 'I am your creature' (I.i.208). Due to the cut
made in the conversation of Ferdinand with the noblemen, it was in
Ferdinand's encounter with Bosola that he revealed his arrogance and cold
nature hidden beneath his courtly appearance. The encounter made a
striking contrast to the court scene, leaving the audience to anticipate
that something ominous was to happen in the Duchess's court under the
appearance of gaiety and extravagance.
The first scene, entitled 'the Fountain', ' finished when Ferdinand,
and then Bosola, left the stage. The Duchess's servants set a draped
curtain, a table, two chairs and a prie-dieu, changing the location into
 35

'the Ante-room' 3** in the Duchess's palace. The Duchess, the Cardinal,
Ferdinand and Cariola entered the room. Cariola stood apart near the prie-
dieu. Left alone in the private place, the Cardinal and Ferdinand revealed
their distrust of the Duchess. The two warned her not to remarry without
their permission, each of them coming next to her during his speech;
Ferdinand even followed the Duchess when she turned away. The stage
business would have made both of the brothers look equally menacing and
made them look alike during the warning. Ferdinand's speech after the
Cardinal's exit, however, changed in tone, as if to suggest that Ferdinand,
alone with his sister, began to reveal what he thought of the Duchess. For
example, pauses gave more expression to Ferdinand's speech: first a long
pause before 'You are my sister' (I.ii.249), and a short pause before 'This
was my father's poniard' (I.ii.250). Not only the pauses but the stage
business implied a difference in Ferdinand's attitude towards the Duchess
from the Cardinal's. The following lines were delivered as he took the
Duchess's hand to bid farewell: 'And women like the part, which, like the
lamprey, | Hath nev'r a bone in't* (I.ii.255-56). The Duchess, perceiving
the bawdiness in the lines, withdrew her hand and turned away one step.
Ferdinand replied to her with 'Nay, | I mean the tongue* (I.ii.256-57).
During a pause after these words he watched the Duchess's embarrassed
reaction. Ferdinand finally left the stage, warning against men's
eloquence with which they would seduce women. The manner of his speech and
his stage business emphasized the sexual implication in his speech; they
would have allowed the audience the interpretation that Ferdinand viewed
oq
his sister with sexual interest. *
The Duchess sent for Antonio, after directing Cariola to hide behind
the curtain. The Duchess began the dialogue after a long pause, which
 36

conveyed her hesitation to propose to him. At first the dialogue between

her and Antonio was that of a mistress and her steward. As the dialogue
went on, the Duchess began to hint at her intention to marry Antonio, in
giving prominence to lines like 'If I had a husband now, this care were
quit 1 (I.ii.301), and 'What good deed shall we first remember? Say 1
(I.ii.303); with pauses before them. Antonio was led to talk about
marriage. When the topic concentrated on marriage, Antonio began to show
playfulness, which was suggested by pauses before his humorous remarks on
marriage. But he prevented their intimacy from developing into that of
lovers with his negative point of view of marriage. The Duchess decided to
reveal her intention; she gave him her wedding ring on 'They say 'tis very
sovereign' (l.ii.324). In this context 'sovereign* means 'efficacious';
but at the same time the Duchess's stage business made it clear that she
wanted to make Antonio 'sovereign' in status and her equal, by marrying
him. Antonio, however, refused to accept her proposal. He removed the
ring from his finger and held it out to the Duchess. This decisive action
would have looked shocking both to the Duchess and to the audience.
Antonio's attitude of refusal was firm; he turned away on the Duchess's
'Now she [i.e., virtue] pays it [i.e., the reward for Antonio's service]'
(I.ii.356). Antonio's action would have reminded the audience of Bosola,
who refused to take Ferdinand's purse. It is clear that the director
emphasized the parallel between Antonio and Bosola; both are men of
relatively low rank, and each of them is offered something by his superior,
who promises higher rank for him. What makes the two parallels different
is the motives of those who make the offers to Antonio and Bosola.
Ferdinand offers gold to corrupt Bosola, while the Duchess offers her ring
to Antonio for love.
 37

The Duchess expressed her shock in being refused by breaking away and
exclaiming 'The misery of us, that are born great'I (I.ii.357). A change
was produced in Antonio, who, perceiving agony in her words and action,
approached her. Her ensuing persuasion convinced him that her affection
for him was sincere. Antonio finally accepted the Duchess's proposal, and
she put her ring on Antonio's finger, confirming their marriage. Thus the
wooing scene established strength and righteousness in Antonio, a character
who tends to be considered passive, while establishing the Duchess's
vivacity.
The wooing scene was followed by 'the Market* scene (see plate III).
The location was suggested by a barrow full of fruit and vegetables,
carried from upstage by peasants. The entrance and exit of two more
peasants, which occurred after Bosola and Castruccio entered and began to
talk, suggested the bustle and liveliness of the market. The dialogue
Bosola and Castruccio provided comic relief after the elegance and
seriousness of the previous scenes. Castruccio's gait and facial
expressions, which revealed his stupidity, increased the comic effect. The
serious nature of Bosola's abuse of women's cosmetics and of the
hypocritical nature of mankind was mitigated by the continued use of
comedy; for example, Castruccio was seen to bring fruit and eat it, and the
Old Woman, unable to bear Bosola's abuse, slapped Bosola's face. At the
end of his speech Bosola drew the Old Woman and Castruccio together, saying
'you two couple* (II.i.64). This business would have provoked the
audience's laughter; but at the same time it echoed and made a contrast to
the marriage of the Duchess and Antonio. The positioning of Bosola between
Castruccio and the Old Woman would have reminded the audience of that of
Carlola between the Duchess and Antonio. It seems that the director, in
 38

'the Market 1 scene, emphasized contrasts and parallels between this scene
and the previous scenes on several levels, suggested in the original text.
But
[the Old Lady's] exchanges with Bosola give Webster a chance to say
some very rude things about court cosmetics.
The success of 'the Market* scene was achieved at the cost of highlighting
hypocrisy in court life, originally implied by the Old Lady's cosmetics.
The director's emphasis on contrast and parallel was seen also at the
beginning of a scene entitled 'the Plot', which combined the original Act
II, scene iv, and scene v. This time the contrast was made between Julia
and the Duchess, and between Julia and the men who had been offered the
chances for advancement, i.e., Bosola and Antonio. The Cardinal entered
his palace with Julia, his mistress. Julia's red hair, revealing dress,
coquettish look and heavy makeup established her as a lascivious woman. He
had Julia sit down on the throne and stood by the throne. As their
dialogue went on, the Cardinal revealed his distrust of women in general.
Hearing his remarks Julia stood up and made to go. The Cardinal's second
remark to her husband Castnice io made her break away, but the Cardinal
caught her by the hand and reminded her of his kindness in making her his
mistress. This series of actions suggested that Julia was aware of the
prick of conscience in being unfaithful to her husband, but her
appearances, which made her *"P* the Duchess's complete foil, undercut the
seriousness in her business. As the servant came in, the Cardinal
pretended that Julia's visit to him was for devotion; Julia knelt down and
kissed his ring. This business suggested that the rendezvous was used for
comic effect as well as for establishing the Cardinal's cruel nature.
The Cardinal left, and Delio entered to visit Julia. Delio's
 39

intention to woo Julia was evident from the beginning when he tried to take
her hand. But Julia withdrew a pace. Her reaction made Delio try to bribe
her in order to succeed in his wooing; he presented a purse to her. Though
Julia held out her hand to receive it, she showed her refusal in
withdrawing her hand, knowing that the purse was not her husband's but
Delio 1 s. Delio continued to tempt her to accept the money by giving her
some coins. Julia reacted to him with a contemptuous attitude. She took
the purse and dropped the coins into it, saying 'A lute-string far exceeds
it 1 (ll.iv.63). But when Delio made it clear that he wanted Julia to be
his mistress, she left him without returning the purse to him. Thus
'[w]hat began as rejection ended in mute consent 1 . Her exit was followed
by Delio*s 'Very fine* (II.iv.76), which must have provoked the audience's
laughter. It is certain that Julia was used for comic effect in this
scene. But this scene also made clear the director's emphasis on the
parallel of Bosola and Antonio and Julia in terms of 'the "service and
reward11 motif'^°; each of them was presented T something as the reward
for the service which he or she was supposed to perform; each of them
received it after once refusing to do so. As a result, the difference of
the character of the three was emphasized when each of them received what
was offered. Bosola took Ferdinand's purse because he had an ambition to
become advanced; Antonio received the Duchess's ring because he himself
loved her and because he knew that her love for him was sincere; Julia's
'mute consent* comically suggested her wanton nature.
bet»^'^
The latter half of 'the Plot' scene consisted of the dialogue 7 the
Cardinal and Ferdinand, who, being informed of the Duchess's chilbirth,
plotted against her. Ferdinand's stage business was restrained. Generally
his rage was expressed by his facial expression when he stood still, as
 40

expressed in the production photographs. Ferdinand moved only on several

of the lines in the scene, walking towards the Cardinal or away from him.
How he saw his relationship with the Duchess was hinted in a few lines.
Ferdinand approached the Cardinal on 'Apply desperate physic 1 (II.v.23), by
which he meant that the Duchess's blood must be purged by the 'physic*.
His emphasis on the Duchess's blood was made clear also by a pause in the
following words: 'for that's the mean | To purge infected blood, [a pause]
such blood as hers' (H.v.25-26). While 'blood' in the Cardinal's 'The
royal blood of Aragon and Castile* (ll.v.22) means 'family lineage',
Ferdinand's 'blood* means literal blood. The emphasis on "blood* in
Ferdinand's speech through his movement and a pause suggested that
Ferdinand was obsessed with the blood ties between himself and the Duchess.
Another pause before the following lines would have allowed the audience to
have the interpretation:
I could kill her now,
In you, or in myself, for I do think
It is some sin in us. Heaven doth revenge
By her. (H.v.64-67)
The sinister atmosphere in the latter half of 'the Plot* scene
remained at the beginning of *the Corridor* scene. ' Antonio and Delio met
each other after several years of Delio*s absence. While they were glad
they saw each other again, they felt uneasy about the behaviour of the
Cardinal and Ferdinand; Antonio expressed his uneasiness by breaking away
as Delio referred to the Aragonian Taceafo *&n. But the entrance of the
Duchess and Ferdinand provided an elegant atmosphere, which replaced the
uneasiness. The positioning of the characters at the moment of the
entrance created a similarity between the court scene and *the Corridor*
scene. Antonio and Delio stood downstage left, observing the Duchess and
 41

Ferdinand, who came downstage side by side. Ferdinand's servants stood

upstage right, and the Duchess's ladies upstage left. This time, however,
it was clear that the serenity at the Duchess's court was merely temporary
and superficial. After the Duchess and all the attendants left, Ferdinand
rebuked the absent Duchess and told Bosola to lead him into the Duchess's
bedroom. The uneasiness again became evident.
'The Bedroom' scene^° came at the end of the frequent shifts of
atmosphere. A bedroom curtain, which suggested the existence of the
Duchess's bed behind it, was hung from the ceiling. The curtain and the
furniture — a chest, a chair, a table and a stool — established the
private atmosphere of the scene. On entering the bedroom, Antonio embraced
the Duchess, expressing freely his affection for her, which he was not
allowed to show in the public world. The relaxed atmosphere made him
playful; he knelt down and clasped the Duchess's waist as he asked her to
allow him to sleep with her. The Duchess disengaged herself and sat down
on the chair. After this the removal of the Duchess's jewellery was made
along with the increasingly affectionate exchanges between the Duchess and
Antonio. The Duchess removed her rings and put them into a casket brought
in by Carlo la. She patted Antonio's cheek on his '1 shall like her the
better for that (III.ii.14) [i.e., for being'^sprawling'st bedfellow'
(HI.ii.13)]'; Antonio kissed her hand. While Antonio and Carlola were
talking, the Duchess removed her earrings. Antonio approached the Duchess
and stood up behind her. On his bawdy joke of 'Labouring men* (III.ii.18),
she pulled his head down and kissed him. While discussing the curse of
single life, Antonio removed the Duchess's necklace and put it on the
table. Then the Duchess removed her bracelets, handed them to Antonio, who
put them on the table. After removing all her jewellery, the Duchess let
 42

her hair loose. The removal of her jewellery, which symbolized her public
status as a duchess, emphasized the private nature of the bedroom scene,
and established the Duchess as a wife.
Antonio and Cariola left the bedroom, leaving the Duchess alone.
While the Duchess talked to herself, supposing that she was addressing to
Antonio, Ferdinand stole in the bedroom. The prompt-book reads that he
appeared from the right-hand side of the orchestra pit and stood downstage
right. Martin Holmes reported that '[Ferdinand] was brought into her
bedroom up an unexpected flight of steps from the cellerage . ^ This
manner of entrance might have appeared comical to some extent. But
Ferdinand's business after the entrance succeeded in making him look
dominant and even menacing. The Duchess, who had been combing her hair in
front of the table upstage left, turned to find Ferdinand behind her. At
the Duchess's declaration that she would live or die like a prince,
Ferdinand, after a pause, exclaimed 'Die* (Ill.ii.71). Then he approached
the Duchess and gave her a dagger, as if to suggest that the shock of
discovering the Duchess's marriage life had frozen him into inactivity
until this moment. Recovering from the shock of discovering Ferdinand, the
Duchess turned around and faced him. Ferdinand reacted calmly to the
Duchess's report of her marriage, but her reference to her husband made him
rush towards her. He walked around while rebuking her and her unidentified
husband. It was the Duchess's claim that her reputation was safe which
prompted Ferdinand to react more violently; he rushed towards her, grasped
her right wrist and forced her to kneel down on the floor. After narrating
a parable of Death, Love and Reputation, he threw her down, rebuking her
for damaging her reputation irrecoverably. Exclaiming*'I will never see
you more* (III.ii.137), he broke away downstage. He left the bedroom to
 43

the orchestra pit, crying, 'I will never see thee more 1 (III.ii.141).
The dialogue between the Cardinal and Ferdinand, which directly
followed the end of Act III, scene ii, began f the Fort-bridge 1 scene.
The brief dialogue, in which the brothers planned to banish and catch the
Duchess in ambustywas followed by the conversation of three pilgrims, who
reported the banishment of the Duchess. The manner of changing scenes from
the Aragonian brethren's exit to the entrance of the pilgrims was slightly
different between at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre and at the Aldwych
Theatre. At the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre the pilgrims dragged a log
from upstage left and placed it stage right, as was instructed in the
prompt-book. At the Aldwych, this business was cut, probably because the
transfer of the log, which looked painful, was considered to disturb the
flow of the performance. *- The heavy cutting of lines in Act III, scene
iii, and Act III, scene iv, made clear the director's intention to
emphasize the result, not the process, of the banishment.
CO
In the next scene, entitled 'the Road 1 , the Duchess was seen with
Antonio, her eldest son by him, two officers, Cariola and a lady. The two
women held the Duchess's two other children. The Duchess's costume, a
dark-coloured hooded mantle over a dark-coloured plain dress, suggested
that they had appeared immediately after the banishment. A piece of
business seen only at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre — the Duchess and
Antonio sitting on the log — emphasized the misery of those who were
banished and robbed of their social status. Bosola appeared upstage centre
and approached the Duchess to hand her a letter from her brothers. The
eldest son of the Duchess and Antonio knelt, probably to show respect to
the royal messenger; after Bosola left, the boy was seen to relax. The
Duchess told Antonio to escape with the boy to avoid ambush. Antonio
 44

expressed his surprise at her advice by moving towards her one step, but
accepted it after considering for a moment. The Duchess bade farewell to
Antonio, and she knelt down and embraced her son. Her affection for her
son as well as for her husband was emphasized when she came next to her son
and fastened his cloak, preparing for his departure, while Antonio bade
farewell to Cariola and the other two children. After she parted from
Antonio and her son, the Duchess still showed her strength not only in her
lines but in her action. She was seen as a protective figure even in the
misery of banishment; her two ladies came near her at the sight of Bosola
and several soldiers; when Bosola approached the remaining children, the
Duchess stood between him and her children. Though the scene ended with
the Duchess's parable of a salmon and a dogfish, which conveyed her
resignation to her ordeal, her business established her strength, with
which she stood up to the mental torture.
An interval which came after this scene divided the play into two
parts, in spite of the prompt-book's account, which shows that the director
divided the play into three acts. 5^ Probably the director decided at a
later stage to simplify the structure of the performance and to attract the
audience's attention to how the Duchess reacted to the reversal of fortune.
The second part began with 'the Waxworks Scene*. The setting made
it clear that the Duchess was imprisoned in her own palace; the stage was
furnished with the draped curtain, used for 'the Ante-room' scene, and a
chair. Bosola and Ferdinand entered the room separately and met downstage.
When Bosola, replying to Ferdinand, began to describe the Duchess's sorrow,
the Duchess was seen to enter the room with one of her ladies. The
Duchess's entrance was made earlier than in the original text (lV.i.17),
certainly to give dramatic impact by making it occur on the same lines as
 45

Bosola's narration about her. The Duchess's dark-coloured dress, the same
as the one seen after the banishment, matched her decline and her sorrow.
She sat on the chair, and the lady stood at one end of the curtain, holding
a candelabra. After Ferdinand's exit, Bosola saluted to the Duchess and
told her that Ferdinand would see her in darkness. The Duchess had her
lady remove the candelabra, while two servants began to set the waxworks.
The prompt-book's account suggests that the stage became dark at this
moment. But it was not completely dark; according to the director, there
was light enough to 'let the audience see Ferdinand's arm as he [held] out
the dead hand to the Duchess, but not anything else'. Several contact
sheets which covered the scene, however, suggest that the audience would
have seen the Duchess and Ferdinand, though very vaguely. The audience
would have managed to see the Duchess receive the hand and drop it in
fright on knowing that it was severed. Compared to Clifford Williams's
production and Bill Alexander's, in both of which the audiences were
shocked at the sight of the severed hand as the stage was lit, the shock of
the scene would have been softened in this production.
The waxworks were presented right after the stage was lit. From
behind the chair Bosola talked to the Duchess to show her the waxworks.*'
Though the stage direction of the original text reads 'Here is discover f d,
behind a traverse, the artificial figures of ANTONIO and his children;
appearing as if they were dead' (IV.ii.55), the prompt-book makes it clear
CO
that Antonio was presented only with his eldest son. This change was
made certainly to prevent the Duchess's following remarks on her children
in the next scene from sounding contradictory:
I pray thee look thou giv'st my little boy
Some syrup for his cold, and let the girl
Say her prayers, ere she sleep. (IV.ii.200-02)
 46

On seeing the waxworks the Duchess knelt, overwhelmed by the shock at the
supposed death of her husband and the eldest son. She rose and tried to
approach them on 'If they would bind me to that lifeless trunk, | And let
me freeze to death1 ( IV. i. 68-69), as if she had really wished to be bound
to the bodies. Bosola drew the Duchess downstage grasping her arm, to
prevent her from knowing that the bodies were waxworks. The Duchess broke
away upstage, exclaiming^ 'Who must dispatch me?' (IV.i.82), and suggesting
her hysterical state. A servant, who had come to salute the Duchess,
suprised her, because he stood where the waxworks had been placed. The
positioning would have made the servant's salutation that he wished her a
long life sound more ironical, for the Duchess was forced to see the
waxworks and to lose the desire to live. The sight of the waxworks drove
the Duchess to curse the universe and nature. When Bosola attempted to
console her with 'Look you, the stars shine still* (lV.i.99), she fiercely
replied to him with 'my curse hath a great way to go* (IV. i. 100), which
made him step back in fright.
After the Duchess's exit, Ferdinand re-entered the room. His
obsession with the Duchess was given prominence; at Bosola 's reference to
the Duchess's skin, next to which she should wear a garment to express
penitence, Ferdinand broke away centres tage, referring to her body, in
which his blood had run pure. Ferdinand's words echoed his reference to
the Duchess's 'infected blood* (ll.v.26). It seems that the director here
suggested an interpretation that Ferdinand had identified himself with the
Duchess until he knew her secret marriage, with which she stained her own
blood and Ferdinand's.
After Ferdinand and Bosola left, the scene was changed into the
Duchess's bedroom; the bed curtain was hung, and the furniture which had
 47

been used in the bedroom scene was carried in: the chest, the table and the
stool. The setting suggested that the following scene was parallelled to
the bedroom scene. The Duchess and Cariola entered the room, hearing the
madmen's cry off-stage. The Duchess sat on the chair, and Cariola sat at
her feet, when told to sit down. The Duchess's sorrow made the audience
feel that 'it [was] so terrible to see [the buoyancy of heart] being
desolated 1 . Cariola, seeing her mistress's sorrow, made to take the
Duchess's hand to comfort her. Right after the madmen's cry was heard
again, a servant appeared and informed them that Ferdinand would let the
Duchess see the madmen for sport. Cariola rose astonished as the Duchess
agreed to let the madmen in, but was told to sit down on the stool. Six
madmen entered the room separately and gathered downstage. Their restless
movements gradually became violent while they were talking to each other.
Two madmen began to fight with the mirror on the table, and were stopped by
the servant; one madman threatened the Duchess, but was stopped by another;
the two madmen, who had fought, began to fight again, and this time others
joined them. The madmen's behaviour and howls frightened the Duchess and
Cariola, who, drawing near each other, tried not to see or hear them by
closing their eyes and ears (see plate IV). Thus the setting, which had
been used in the bedroom scene to present the harmony and peace produced by
the Duchess and Antonio, now ironically presented the confusion and
disorder brought in to torture the Duchess by the Aragonian brethren.
Bosola's entrance followed the madmen's exit. He wore a mask instead
of being disguised as an old man as in the stage direction (lV.ii.113).
The madmen's dance and Bosola's mask might have been contrasted to the
revel, which the Duchess had attended, and to the mask she held at the
opening scene. Bosola's 'I am come to make thy tomb' (lV.ii.115)
 48

astonished the Duchess, who rose from the chair. Coming next to her Bosola
lectured her on the fragility of man's flesh and on the vanity of life.
The Duchess replied to him with 'I am Duchess of Malfi still' (lV.ii.139).
To Edmund Gardner,
'I am Duchess of Malfi — still* [came] out triumphantly as a P/limax
of emotions: desire, loneliness, terror, nobility and dignity.
But the same line, to one reviewer, sounded as if it were 'almost thrown
away'. This account seems to suggest that the delivery of the line was
marked by restraint to make the line sound more effective.
A coffin was carried in by three executioners, masked and dressed in
black, on the Duchess's 'Let me see it' (lV.ii.165). The horror of
imminent death was overcome when she began her defiant speech after a
pause. She was prepared to accept her death with dignity; she stopped
Cariola, who tried to protect her when the executioner made to approach her
after Bosola's dirge. The Duchess embraced and instructed Cariola to look
after her remaining children. The Duchess's defiance was the most evident
at her last moment. After a rope was set around her neck and the
executioners were ready to strangle her, she stretched her arms in front of
them to make them delay the strangulation while she prepared herself for
'heaven gates' (lV.ii.228). This action made the strangulation 'an episode
of perfect martyrdom', establishing the Duchess's righteousness and
defiance. Peggy Ashcroft's performance suggested that the Duchess had
changed into a super-human figure. The Duchess's change from her first
appearance to her death was commented as follows: 'She was fire, air and
the duchess then; not until her last rites of poetry did she kick off the
woman'.
After strangling the Duchess, the executioners laid her body on the
 49

lidded coffin, which was too small to contain the Duchess's body. This
inbalance attracted the audience's attention to the Duchess's body and made
her death look more unjustifiable and cruel. Ferdinand appeared and walked
to the right-hand side of the coffin. Ferdinand, after a long pause and
certainly after staring at the Duchess's body, asked Bosola, 'Is she dead?'
(IV.ii.251), as if to suggest that he did not want to realize that the
Duchess was dead, even at the sight of her corpse. He delivered 'Cover her
face. Mine eyes dazzle' (IV.ii.259) after a long pause. The rest of the
line, 'she di'd young' (IV.ii.259), was preceded by another long pause,
which suggested that Ferdinand had not realized the Duchess was dead until
this moment. Bosola covered the Duchess's face and knelt by her body. At
Ferdinand's request to let him see the Duchess's face, Bosola removed the
cover. The following business of Ferdinand and Bosola, most of which had
the coffin at the centre, would have conveyed the impact of the sight of
the Duchess's body, even before Bosola was left alone with it. On seeing
her face again, Ferdinand began to rebuke Bosola for not having pitied her.
The rebuke provoked Bosola's anger; h<2 stood up. As Ferdinand concluded
that Bosola had 'done much ill, well* (lV.ii.285), Bosola stepped back
downstage of the coffin to remind Ferdinand that he had caused the
Duchess's death in ordering Bosola to murder her. Ferdinand moved upstage
the
of the coffin,/left-hand side of Bosola, to give the reward, which stunned
Bosola: a pardon for the murder. Ferdinand moved downstage left of the
Duchess, referring to a wolf which would reveal the murder. On 'Never look
upon me more* (lV.ii.311) Ferdinand knelt next to the coffin; it was as if
to suggest that the sight of the Duchess's body had stirred Ferdinand's
conscience, which had made him uable to endure to be watched by those who
accused him. After Ferdinand's exit, Bosola moved upstage left of the
 50

coffin and stared at the Duchess's body, delivering 'What would I do, were
-th»s tc do again? 1 (lV.ii.333); the sight of the Duchess's body made him
recognize the cruelty of the murder. The treatment of the Duchess's body
emphasized its importance in waking Bosola from 'a sweet and golden dream'
(lV.ii.318) and prompting his penitence.
The original Act \) , scene ii, was entitled 'Julia's Death', * though
it began with a significant scene which presented the consequences of the
murder of the Duchess: Ferdinand in total madness. The Doctor and Pescara
appeared stage left and walked downstage centre. They broke away and stood
on the left-hand side of the Cardinal's throne at the entrance of
Ferdinand, Malatesti, the Cardinal, and Bosola. The interesting point of
the performance of the scene was the use of Malatesti; the action of all
characters involved him. Malatesti followed Ferdinand centrestage. When
Ferdinand threw himself on the floor to strangle his own shadow, Malatesti
left him and walked downstage left. Instead Pescara approached Ferdinand
to persuade him to rise. At the Cardinal's request to lift Ferdinand up,
Malatesti tentatively approached him, but again retired downstage left,
without helping Pescara lift up Ferdinand. When Ferdinand avoided the
Doctor and ran away from him, Malatesti advanced downstage and observed him
at a distance. The Doctor left his gown to Malatesti before attempting to
cure Ferdinand. Ferdinand suddenly became violent and made to attack the
Doctor; then Malatesti advanced and grabbed Ferdinand's arm, while the
Doctor retired to the left-hand side of the throne. Ferdinand threw
Malatesti down, moved to the right-hand side of the throne, and left the
stage. Malatesti rose and helped the Doctor put on his gown. This use of
Malatesti would have made the audience laugh at him, not at Ferdinand or
the Doctor, both of whom the original text makes look comic to some extent.
 51

The description of Ferdinand lying on the floor to see an imaginary race of

snails inevitably provokes the audience's laughter; the Doctor also
contributes to making Ferdinand look comic with his attempt to cure
Ferdinand with 'some forty urinals filled with rose-water' (V.ii.68-69).
It seems that the director attempted to avoid making Ferdinand look comic
or absurd in making Malatesti the main subject of the audience's laughter;
for the purpose the director even ran the risk of making him the focal
point of the scene.
Malatesti, Pescara and the Doctor left the stage. So did the Cardinal
after ordering Bosola to murder Antonio. Then Julia appeared, pointing a
pistol at him. After Bosola understood that she was in love with him,
Julia directed Bosola to the chest, on which the two sat down side by side.
Bosola embraced her at 'Know you me, I am a blunt soldier* (V.ii.169).
Julia removed her dressing gown to attract Bosola sexually. After this the
two became increasingly intimate; Bosola as well as Julia was positive.
The deletion of his aside, 'I will work upon this creature' (V.ii.180),
made it ambiguous whether he merely used Julia to discover the Cardinal's
secret or he was interested in her to some extent. As Bosola held out his
hand to stroke her face, she bit it. He then pulled her backwards and
embraced her. They kissed each other, and Julia lay down on the chest,
leaning on Bosola. Julia's lasciviousness was emphasized in her amorous
gestures. While wooing Bosola Julia was presented as a woman who was
blindly dominated by her sensuality. This description of Julia would have
appeared to be contradictory to that in the scene of her death. Poisoned
by the Cardinal's Bible, Julia collapsed on the floor. In her death throes
she struggled to crawl up to the Cardinal, who grabbed her wrists to hear
her final words. As Julia confessed that she had let Bosola overhear the
 52

dialogue between the Cardinal and her, the Cardinal threw her down in
anger. Bosola approached and knelt to support Julia. She died nobly,
without thinking too much 'what should have been done 1 (V.ii.283), or
blaming the Cardinal, who had brutally poisoned her. Philip Hope-Wallace,
embarrassed by the gap between Julia's lasciviousness, which an actress
playing the figure was naturally supposed to emphasize, and the nobility of
Julia's death, which is described too clearly to be neglected, wrote as
follows:
Sian Phillips did not shirk the part of the cardinal's [sic]
mistress-Julia, but what can any actress today make of the last
scenes?"5
The original Act V, scene iv, and scene v, were combined into the
'Last Scene*. The chest and the throne, which had been used in the
preceding scene as a tomb and a monument, remained on stage. The throne
indicated the location: the Cardinal's chamber. The chest may have stood
for a coffin for Julia's body. Bosola appeared after the exit of the
noblemen and the Cardinal, and he heard Ferdinand's soliloquy, which he
understood as a plot to murder him. After Ferdinand's exit Antonio and a
servant secretly entered from the left-hand side of the orchestra pit and
advanced centrestage left. Antonio approached the Cardinal's throne,
delivering his plan to visit the Cardinal. Bosola approached and stabbed
Antonio, mistaking him for an assassin. Antonio crawled up the throne and
sat down on it as he replied, 'A most wretched thing* (V.iv.47)f to Bosola's
'What art thou?' (V.iv.47). Antonio died on the throne. This echoed the
function of the throne as a monument in the echo scene, and reiterated the
image of a graveyard. The echo scene and this scene were linked to each
other with the symbolic use of the properties, which provoked the image of
death.
 53

As the Cardinal appeared, Bosola approached him and threatened to kill

him. The servant, seeing this, approached the Cardinal to save him.
Bosola stabbed the servant. The deletion of "Cause you shall not
unbarricade the door | To let in rescue 1 (V.v.34-35) contributed to
emphasizing Bosola's brutality which increased in his desperate search for
revenge. Then he approached the throne and showed Antonio's body on it.
Fear made the Caridnal abandon his dignity; he knelt, asking for mercy.
Bosola rejected it and stabbed the Cardinal, whose cry brought Ferdinand.
The mad Ferdinand mistook the two for enemies and stabbed them. The
Cardinal sank down and crawled towards the throne, which had been the
symbol of his power and authority, and which had stood for his identity.
As Ferdinand advanced downstage, Bosola approached and stabbed him. While
hearing Ferdinand's final speech, Bosola walked towards the chest and sat
down on it. The tumult brought the noblemen: Pescara, Malatesti, Roderigo
and Grisolan. For a few moments the throne became the focal point, as if
to suggest that power and authority symbolized by it had been the cause of
these murders. The Cardinal died, next to the throne, after delivering
'let me | Be laid by, and never thought of (V.v.88-89), with his face
turned away from Pescara, who stood next to /him. The manner of the
Cardinal's death indicated his distress in dying miserably. As the
Cardinal had died, Pescara, standing by the throne, mourned his death.
Malatesti, who had knelt next to Ferdinand, approached the throne, as he
asked Bosola how Antonio had died. Bosola stood up as he began to deliver
his final speech. At the end of it he fell down and died; his death was
more dignified than that of the Aragonian brethren. Right after Bosola's
death Delio appeared with Antonio's eldest son. When Delio began to appeal
to the noblemen to help the son inherit the duchy, the son approached
 54

Antonio's body on the throne and knelt, mourning his father's death. This
manner of ending would have established sorrow rather than the sign of hope
for the future.

Reviewers' discussion on the production of The Duchess of Malfi

concerned whether it was successful not only artistically but
strategically. Some reviewers, who emphasized the strategic significance
of the choice of the first production at the Aldwych, thought that The
Duchess of Malfi was too flawed for the purpose. What they regarded as its
defects can be classified as follows. One point was thati the play's
structural problem; the Duchess, the central figure, dies in the middle on
the play. The second point was that the play appeared problematic in terms
of naturalism or realism. For example, Ferdinand's murder of the Duchess
cannot be explained away by a motive delivered by himself: 'An infinite
mass of treasure [which he would have gained] by [the Duchess's] death*
(lV.ii.279); Bosola's change from a hired villain to an agent of justice
appears to be sudden. The third was that a dead man's hand, a group of
madmen and the successive murde^ tended to look sensational.
In spite of the anxiety about the choice of the play the production
was regarded as successful by most reviewers, who were led to think that it
was a good start for the Aldwych Theatre. As the title of a review for The
Times, 'Webster's Play Well Handled', 68 shows, McWhinnie's production was
generally praised in terms of directorial skills.
One of the pointy which the reviewers approved of was the 'swift but
unhurried' 6^ pace throughout the performance. This was partly a result of
the director's device of having the properties carried by servants and
ladies for changing scenes. In fact pace was one of the points which the
 55

director was careful about; he was aware that the speed in changing scenes
affected the atmosphere of the play, in which 'Webster's cross-cutting from
scene to scene is usually filmic'.^0 The apron stages of the theatres at
Stratford and London and the simple settings, which were originally
designed to increase intimacy between the actors and the audience by
allowing the actors a larger acting space, also contributed to the speedy
presentation of the play. For example, Eric Keown reported that the
maximum excitement was given by the apron stage, where each scene flew
quickly out of the last. *
The actors' delivery of verse lines was also evaluated. Reviewers who
saw the performances at the Aldwych noted that Peter Hall's attempt to
improve the standard of verse speaking, made for the first time outside
Stratford, proved successful. Mervyn Jones for Tribune reported that
verse lines were spoken, not recited, and that the actors 'always
[understood] their lines, even when these [included] some highly-compressed
philosophical statements.'^
It seems that the director aimed with the acting primarily to resolve
the structural problem and inconsistencies of the text, which remained even
after the heavy cutting of the text. H.A.L. Craig felt that the director's
attempt had proved successful:
None of the disconnections — the inadequate motivations for the
theme of revenge, the inadequate matching of Antonio and the Duchess,
which always troubled my reading of the play — were present in this
production. /J
This effort was made especially to resolve the structural problem, or 'to
conceal a slackening of tension after the somewhat too early death of the
heroine'.74 This 'slackening of tension', first caused by the death of the
central figure, the Duchess, is maintained and is increased in the final
 56

scenes, where the successive murders tend to appear rather ridiculous than
tragic. To avoid this the director attempted to emphasize the serious
nature rf the scenes after the Duchess's death. The reviewer for The Times
praised the treatment and reported that:
The mad scene of the lycanthropic Duke Ferdinand [was] tellingly
acted, and before the fatal stabbings and poisonings [multiplied]
themselves with comic regularity the actors [contrived] to hold us
fascinated by the consummate calm with which the [... ] Machiavellian
Cardinal [contemplated] the possibility of damnation, and by the
stumbling approach of [...] Bosola, to the point at which a self he
[had] never recognized through his mental disguisings [began] to
emerge.'^
As a result of this effort there was hardly a giggle at the scene at the
end of the play. 7fi0 This fact suggests Donald McWhinnie s success in
retaining tragic tension up to the end. But a small number of reviewers
argued that the director's efforts had failed to save the performance from
the defects of the play. For example, the reviewer for the Times
Educational Supplement thought that Webster rather than McWhinnie was
responsible for the failure in making the audience accept the
improbabilities of the plot. Eric Keown, who praised McWhinnie's
directorial skills, was dissatisfied with the manner of the characters'
death. 78

Most reviewers, who focussed their attention on the directorial

skills, thought that McWhinnie had kept the action going with the
effectively rapid pace and that he had succeeded in achieving unity and
consistency throughout the performance through the treatment of the final
scenes. Only Harold Hobson for the Sunday Times criticized the production
for containing 'no drive, no force, no continuity'. The reason for his
criticism was that quiet, meditative and sententious single lines, which
were given prominence in the actors' delivery, were not integrated in the
 57

performance.
Several reviewers regarded the aspect of horror as essential to the
play and commented on the production, laying emphasis on the treatment of
scenes of horror. Their opinions were not always in accordance. For
example, Mervyn Jones praised the director for the serious presentation of
scene of the severed hand and of the madmen scene. To Jones the aspect of
horror, especially that before the murder of the Duchess, was closely
related to the theme of the play. He argued that
[t]he interest of the play [rested] in the resolve of the Duchess's
horrible brothers, [...] to subject her to psychological torture —
'to drive you to despair." [sic] This theme [was] ingenious, it [was]
fascinatingly "modern," and [he thought] it had the depth and scope to
true tragedy. u
Richard Findlater for Time and Tide, on the other hand, criticized the
production for distracting the audience's attention from the the nature of
the play as:
a nightmare, a dream-world caricaturing the world of waking facts and
logic, where shadows of monstrous vice and virtue [projected] the
despairing vision of a poet
with 'external extravagance [Findlater's emphasis]' of the settings.
McWhinnie's restrained (as Findlater saw it) and serious treatment of the
madmen scene led him to think that McWhinnie's insufficient visual sense
had left him unable to 'put the absurd story in theatrical perspective' by
highlighting the luridness and grotesqueness of scenes like the madmen
scene and by 'playing with [the grotesqueness] [Findlater's emphasis]'. *
These reviews suggest that it was the scenes of horror which made clear the
director's policy of stimulating the audience's imagination by suggestion,
not by display.
The acting was generally praised. Peggy Ashcroft's Duchess was
praised by many reviewers. Her portrayal of the Duchess was, as R.B.
 58

Marriott perceived, 'coloured by deep inner feeling and intellectual

Qty
understanding of a noble woman . But this approach ledTreviewers like
Harold Hobson to think that Peggy Ashcroft failed to establish 'the
grandeur that Webster doubtless thought was in [the Duchess's] soul 1 .
Another subject of the reviewers' discussion was the restraint of the
expression of happiness in the earlier scenes, such as the wooing scene and
the bedroom scene. Though the image of 'a woman of high natural spirits
and vitality' 8^ was established during these scenes, it is certain that
Peggy Ashcroft lay more emphasis on the Duchess's defiance and dignity in
spite of the tortures and the fear of strangulation. Many reviewers
considered this emphasis effective. Comparison of Peggy Ashcroft's
performance at the Aldwych to that at the Haymarket Theatre in 1945 was
also made. Most reviewers who referred to her former portrayal of the role
e
thought that her interpretation had deepen^. Some, however, argued that
less emphasis on the Duchess's identity as a wife and a mother caused the
Q£
Duchess to lose pathos. 00
Derek Godfrey's Antonio was, in H.A.L. Craig's words, a 'good match
for the Duchess'. ' Though Godfrey gave strength and dignity to the
character who tends to appear passive to modern audiences in the wooing
scene, it was in the bedroom scene, in which Antonio cooperated with the
Duchess to convey the happiness in his married life, that Godfrey proved
H.A.L. Craig's description. Godfrey's performance in the scene impressed
the audience strongly enough to exemplify Roger Warren's argument of
Antonio's importance in the play:
[in the bedroom scene] Antonio has as important a part to play as the
Duchess; he matches her in wit and in elegance, [....] The effect is
that Antonio joins with the Duchess to provide a warmly human contrast
to the sterner scenes later on. And as with the Duchess, the actor of
Antonio must be able to capture the wit and poise of these lines
[....] Mr Godfrey was then able to show how much vital gaiety The
 59

Duchess in fact contains/

Max Adrian's Cardinal was generally praised for presenting the
£
character's cold, wicked and las/Lvious nature. Critics' opinions were in
accord, and there was little discussion about the acting or the role. Even
the harshest critic, Harold Hobson, commented that '[o]nly Max Adrian's
ascetically lecherous Cardinal, thinking on hell, [retained] one's interest
throughout'. But Hobson, at the same time, thought that the success was
partly brought out because the role was 'a comparatively easy task*.
There was discussion on how Eric Porter interpreted Ferdinand's motive
for having the Duchess murdered. To Ivor Brown, who wrote the preface in
the programme, the motive for the murder was financial to both of the
Aragonian brethren; he wrote that they revenged themselves because 'the
Duchess, a widow, [chose] for her second husband her steward Antonio, thus
taking money out of the family'. This interpretation was drawn probably
from Ferdinand's words after the murder that he would have acquired 'An
infinite mass of treasure by [the Duchess's] death' (lV.ii.279) if she had
remained a widow. But most reviewers did not support the interpretation or
even refer to it. They sought more satisfactory explanations in Eric
Porter's performance. Many of these critics were concerned about whether
his Ferdinand suggested incestuous love for his sister. Among those who
discussed it, many critics thought that he did so. Q1 Only R.B. Marriott
argued that '[t]he incest motive [...] [was] practically ignored, avarice
and a desire for power being made uppermost. This [robbed] the play of a
great deal of its force and conviction*. Critics were generally
favourable to scenes in which the director was cautious to prevent the
audience's laughter at the mad Ferdinand. But Porter's acting of madness,
in itself, gave some reviewers the impression that he had failed to convey
 60

the horror of the madness and that he was merely 'barking mad 1 . 93
Partick Wymark's Bosola strongly reflected the director's
interpretation of the figure, which did not please reviewers who saw the
figure from a literary point of view. It was pointed out that the director
attempted to fix Bosola's image and present the figure as defined by Bosola
himself: as 'a blunt soldier' (V.ii.169). This attempt can be discerned
also in the cutting of lines which reveal that Bosola was once a scholar,
and in the emphasis on Wymark's stout physique through his costume. It
seems that the director attempted to simplify the image of Bosola, who, in
the original text, shows complexity. Bosola is not merely 'a blunt
soldier' as he defines himself. From the beginning of the play Bosola's
lines suggest that he has intelligence which makes him see clearly the dark
side of human nature, and a potential to change from a hired assassin to an
agent of justice. Reviewers who had expected Wymark to present the
complexity did not evaluate the director's attempt to simplify Bosola's
image or Wymark's acting. For example, Don Chapman criticized the loss of
impact in Bosola's lines when he attempts to convince the Duchess of the
vanity of the world. R.B. Marriott thought that Wymark's acting had 'a
clownish element that often [destroyed] conviction* in Bosola's lines.
But some reviewers praised Wymark's acting in terms of theatrical
presentation. For example, H.A.L. Craig argued that:
by refusing both the operatic and the lago possibilities of the part,
[Wymark] saved the play's credit as a work for the stage
and that this interpretion of Bosola led to 'the unification of Webster's
separate pieces'. ' Edmund Gardner thought that the image of Bosola
presented by Wymark should be evaluated on its own:
it [was] a fine, downright theatrical portrayal which [reminded] us
that Mr. Wymark s talent and imagination [were] too wide to be hemmed
 61

in by traditional or over-rigid interpre tat ions.

Donald McWninnie's interpretation of The Duchess of Malfi as a modern
and even existential play finally led him to lay emphasis on the successful
staging of the play in order to make his audience appreciate its modernity.
For this purpose he made his efforts to adjust the play, which he thought
had become too flawed by modern standards, to a modern dramatic framework.
The thorough editing of the original text, which not only made the play
develop with more speed but changed the narrative in some scenes, reflected
the director's criticism of the original text. In performance he
highlighted the contrasts and parallels suggested in the original text by
means of the settings and the acting. He also paid attention to the pace
of the performance to retain the tension up to the end by making much of
the apron stage. As a result, his production was praised for reanimating
the play which had been dismissed as flawed and sensational with the
directorial skills. His efforts, however, involved defects; he sacrificed
some of the complexity in the original text. For example, characters like
Bosola suffered from a simplification. The exploration of the
psychological or metaphysical aspect of the play was ignored in most part.
The McWhinnie production, however, should be valued in proving that
contrasts and parallels of actions and characters could be rendered most
effective in performance, and that the serious and tragic nature in the
final scenes, which tends to be overlooked, could be conveyed by the
mastery of directorial skills.
 62

NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
1. Taken from the title of a review by B.C. W. in Solihull and Warwick
News, 10 December 1960.
2. Donald McWhinnie, born in 1920, had been assistant head of sound drama
at BBC; he adopted The Duchess of Malfi as one of radio dramas. He
made a debut as a director at the Royal Court in 1958, with Krapp's
Last Tape for the English Stage Company. The Duchess of Malfi was the
third play he directed.
3. Leslie Hurry was born in 1909. His first production was the ballet
Hamlet, at the New Theatre with the Sadler*s Wells Ballet in 1942.
Since then he designed for many productions.
4. Humphrey Searle had composed for Troilus and Cressida in 1960 before
he composed for The Duchess of Malfi.His others works include
symphonies, piano concertos, opera, ballet and chamber music.
5. Calculated from the scene timings, which is included in the production
records held at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon. Scene
timings have incomplete records both for the Shakespeare Memorial
Theatre and the Aldwych Theatre. For the former the playing time of
seven out of the eight performances is recorded; the playing time on 6
December 1960 was not calculated, due to the breakdown of the
stopwatch. For the latter there are records for two rehearsals or
previews, one charity performance, and five performances, the date of
one of which is unidentified.
6. Peter Hall, born in 1930, directed more than twenty plays while he
studied at Cambridge University. He made his first professional
production at the Theatre Royal, Windsor, in 1953. He began to direct
at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in 1956 with Love's Labour's Lost,
and was appointed director of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in
1960.
7. Peter Hall made no reference to the choice of The Duchess of Malfi as
the first production at the Aldwych. But he referred to the staging
of non-Shakespearean classic plays in his essay published in the Daily
Telegraph on 12 December 1960. He wrote: '[the company's theatre atj
Stratford exists only to present Shakepeare. I am taking the London
theatre to provide the company with an all-the-year-round programme
of the new plays and non-Shakespearean classics .
8. David Addenbrooke, The Royal Shakespeare Company: The Peter Hall Years
(London: William Kimber, 1974), p. 44. The phrase in the double
quotation marks are taken from Peter Hall, 'A New Way with
Shakespeare', January 1963, Royal Shakespeare Theatre Tapes, held at
Shakespeare Centre Library, Stratford-upon-Avon.
9. Addenbrooke, p. 44.
 63

10. These quotations are from 'Working on Webster 1 , Plays and PlayeiS 8,
no. 5 (February 1961), 5. Hereafter I refer to the essay as A
'McWhinnie'.
11. The production records, held at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-
upon-Avon, include the set photographs. Probably they were taken by
Angus McBean; one of the series of production photographs, taken by
Angus McBean, has a notice which reads 'For set photos see production
records'. The set photographs cover 'the Fountain* scene, the Ante­
room* scene, 'the Plot* scene, 'the Bedroom' scene and the final
scenes from 'Julia's Death' to the 'Last Scene*.
12. Addenbrooke, p. 44.
13. 'Duchess of Malfi at Stratford*, Warwickshire Advertiser, 2 December
1960. The writer's name is unknown.
14. McWhinnie.
15. Ibid.:'Use the insolent and sloppy serving-men of Malfi, Rome and
Milan to shift the furniture'. The prompt-book lists who should
strike and set properties. Sometimes the list is more detailed as to
assign which actor should carry which property. For example, at the
beginning of 'the Bedroom' scene: 'Chest — Voss, Thomas; Chair —
Thorne; Stool, Table — Thorne, Cruise; Drape [used as a curtain to
suggest a bed behind it] — Rigg, Gifford'.
16. McWhinnie.
17. 'Stratford Comes ~ Season Opens with The Duchess of Malfi 1 , Stage, 22
December 1960. Hereafter referred to as 'Marriott'.
18. 'A Miracle of Pity', New Statesman and Nation, 24 December 1960.
Hereafter referred to as 'Craig 1 .
19. These quotations are from 'The Stratford Company Goes to Town',
Guardian, 17 December 1960. Hereafter referred to as 'Hope-Wallace'.
20. It is recorded by E[dmund] G[ardner], in 'What will be the Impact on
London of Malfi? *, Stratford-upon-Avon Herald, 2 December 1960 (this
article is hereafter referred to with its title), and by a 'Prompter'
in 'The Evil that Men Do 1 , Western Independent, 18 December 1960.
21. The property was called 'tomb' in 'the Fortifications* scene in the
prompt-book.
22. The production records do not record the existence of a wardrobe plot.
23. The production records include the production photographs. The
photographs consist of the following groups: Series A and Master set,
taken by Angus McBean; Duplicate photographs selected from Ser\ es A;
Series B, taken by David Sim, which includes a programme for the
performances at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre; Series C, taken by
Joe Cocks, and his duplicate photographs. It seems that David Sim's
 64

photographs were taken at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre. David

Sim's photographs show differences from others in f the Bedroom' scene
and 'Julia's Death', and photographs of the performances at Stratford,
printed in the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald on 2 December 1960, are the
same as David Sim's.
24. McWhinnie.
25. The Old Lady in the original text, though retained in the prompt-book,
was changed into the 'Old Woman' in performance.
26. One of the Duchess's dresses in the earlier scenes was white; George
W. Bishop, -T 'Stratford-atte-Aldwych', Daily Telegraph, 5 December
1960: 'Peggy Ashcroft, [...] in a white silk dress'.
27. There were three backcloths each of which represented Malfi, Rome and
Milan. The running plot makes it clear that the cloth representing
Malfi was used in 'the Fountain' scene and 'the Corridor* scene.
28. 'What will be the Impact on London of Malfi?'.
29. Introduction by G.B. Harrison, Everyman's Library, no. 899, Poetry &
Drama (London: J.M. Dent, 1958 (first published,1933)). The editor's
name is unknown.
30. Elizabeth M. Brennan, in her edition of The Duchess of Malfi, the New
Mermaids, second ed. (London: Ernest Benn, 1983 (first ed.,1964)),
makes it clear that each of four quarto editions of the play contains
a scene division in Act I (p. 118). The scene division has been
followed by recent editions, for example, the Revels Plays edition,
published in 1964; the New Mermaid edition, published also in 1964;
and the Penguin English Library edition, published in 1972, which
contains three plays of Webster.
31. See note 30.
32. On a few pages of the prompt-book more than one script are pasted:
pages 106-07, 122-123, 128-29, 129-30 of the original text (page 129
is cut into two); the prompt-book does not have its own page number.
Pages 140 and 142 of the original text, which cover 'the Fort-bridge'
scene, are pasted on one page; under the scripts the pilgrims'
conversation up to line 34, Act III, scene iv, on page 144 is written.
33. These quotations are from 'Working on Webster*.
34. For example, the final scenes, i.e., Act V, scene iv, and scene v, in
Clifford Williams's production in 1971 at the Royal Shakespeare
Theatre received much laughter in spite of the cutting of all the
lines of the noblemen during Bosola's assault on the Cardinal (see
Chapter 2). In Bill Alexander's production in 1989 and 1990 at the
Swan Theatre and the Pit, in which all lines during the murders in the
final scenes were retained, the murders, especially those of the
Cardinal and Ferdinand, provoked the audience's laughter, though it
became much smaller at the Pit (see Chapter 3).
 65

35. Martin Holmes, 'Players and Productions', Quarterly Review, 299

(1961), pp. 448-59 (p. 450).
36. Holmes, p. 450.
37. Prompt-book.
38. Ibid.
39. For example, Bernard Levin, in 'When Horror is No Problem 1 , Daily
Express, 16 December 1960, argued that '[McWhinnie established] from
the beginning that Ferdinand [was] driven consciously by his guilty
lust for his sister*.
40. The anonymous reviewer in 'Webster's Play Well Handled', The Times,
16 December 1960, reported that *[t]he scene of [the Duchess 1 sj
stooping to conquer her steward [was] alive with vivacity*. (This
article is hereafter referred to with its title.)
41. Prompt-book.
42. Holmes, p. 452.
43. Prompt-book.
44. Felix Barker, Evening News, 16 December 1960: 'Sian Phillip's red-
haired wanton*.
45. Christina, Luckyi, A Winter's Snake; Dramatic Forms in the Tragedies
of John Webster (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1989;,
p. 79.
46. Lois Potter, 'Realism Versus Nightmare: Problems of Staging The
Duchess of Malfi*, in The Triple Bond; Plays ? Mainly Shakespearean, in
Performance, edT by Joseph G. Price (University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1975), pp. 170-89 (p. 180).
47. Prompt-book.
48. Ibid.
49. 'Players and Productions', p. 451.
50. Prompt-book.
51. The change is recorded by Edmund Gardner in 'Stratford Takes over its
Home in London', Stratford-upon-Avon Herald, 23 December 1960: 'gone
are the pilgrims and that dreadful log — dragged so painfully across
the stage on the first Stratford night*. This article is hereafter
referred to with its title.
52. Prompt-book.
 66

53. The division, which divided the play into two parts, is recorded in
almost all the production records like the scene timings, the running
plot and the property plot. Only the prompt-book contains the three
act divisions.
54. Prompt-book. The following scene is entitled 'the Madmen Scene 1 .
55. 'Working on Webster*.
56. Included in the production records. Contact sheets are several series
of photographs which cover successive movements of the actors in
several short scenes, and from which the production photographs were
selected.
57. There is no account in the prompt-book or any other production record
on how the waxworks were presented.
58. At the begins109 of 'the Waxworks' scene, the prompt-book lists the
names of the actors who appeared in the scene. Among them are listed
Derek Godfrey, who played Antonio, and 'Boy'; the word certainly means
Robert Langley, who played Antonio's eldest son.
59. T.C. Wors^ley, 'The Duchess of Malfi*, Financial Times, 16 December
1960. Hereafter referred to as 'Worseley'.———————
60. 'Stratford Takes over its Home in London*.
61. H.L., 'Duchess Peggy', Glasgow Herald, 17 December 1960.
62. Marriott.
63. Craig.
64. Prompt-book.
65. 'The Stratford Company Goes to Town*.
66. Prompt-book.
67. But the property continued to be called 'tomb' in the 'Last Scene* in
the prompt-book.
68. See note 40 for reference.
69. Richard Findlater, 'Holding up a Mirror to Madame Tussaud's'. Time and
Tide, 31 December 1960. Hereafter referred to as 'Findlater.
70. 'Working on Webster*.
71. 'Criticism ~ At the Play', Punch, 28 December 1960. This article is
hereafter referred to as 'Keown'.
72. 'Stratford in London', Tribune, 30 December 1960. Hereafter referred
to as 'Jones 1 .
 67

73. 'A Miracle of Pity 1 .

74. 'Webster's Play Well Handled'.
75. Ibid.
76. J.C. Trewin, 'The Duchess of Malfi at the Aldwych', Birmingham Post,
16 December
77. 'A Correspondent', 'In Good Health', Times Educational Supplement, 30
December 1960: 'the improbabilities in this play are such as to
inhibit the suspension of belief in a twentieth century audience* .
78. At the beginning of 'Criticism — At the Play', Eric Keown suggested
his great dissatisfaction with the plot in the summary of the play as
follows: 'The Duchess of Malfi is a play to the death. Every single
character expires, by strangling, poisoning or stabbing, until at
length the slaughter becomes mildly laughable*.
79. The quotation is from 'The Duchess is Dead', Sunday Times, 18 December
1960. Hobson felt that quiet, meditative and sententious lines were
treated like 'isolated jewels and criticized the director for 'not
[making] them part of any necklace' . This article is hereafter
referred to as 'Hobson'.
80. 'Stratford in London'.
81. These quotations are from 'Holding up a Mirror to Madame Tussaud's'.
82. 'Stratford Comes — Season Opens with The Duchess of Malfi*.
83. 'The Duchess is Dead'.
84. Wors•^ley.
85. For example, Robert Spelght in 'The Duchess of Malfi' , Tablet, 23
December 1960, argued tfoit * [Peggy AshcroftJ [wasj careful to avoid
too heavy emphasis in the earlier scenes*. But a small number of
reviewers like Mervyn Jones argued that *[t]his Duchess [was] superb
in her misery, but less convincing in her earlier days of ardour and
happiness* (Stratford in London*;.
86. Caryl Brahms, in *Blue Stocking and Blue Beard*, Plays and Players, 8,
no. 5 (February 1961), 7, suggested in the following passage her
dissatisfaction with the fact that Peggy Ashcroft laid less emphasis
on the Duchess's motherly aspect in this production than she had done
at the Haymarket: 'I can remember the earlier revival of Malfi when a
Miss Peggy Ashcroft made my throat ache with the with the maternal
feeling in her voice in just this question [i.e., 'Why did the Duchess
at the point of death ask her lady to see that her little son took his
cough mixture [...]?']
87. 'A Miracle of Pity*.
 68

Roger Warren, The Duchess of Malfi on the Stage 1 , in John Webster,

edited by Brian Morris, Mermaid Critical Commentaries (London: Ernest
Benn, 1970), pp. 47-68 (p. 52 and p. 54).
89. 'The Duchess is Dead 1 .
90. Programme.
91. For example, Speaight: 'Mr. Eric Porter, [...] seemed to give a
clearly incestuous motive to Ferdinand'. David Nathan, in 'A Marvel
of Drama and Evil', Daily Herald, 15 December 1960, also argued that:
'Duke Ferdinand [,..J who finally [realised] that his real reason [for
the murder of the Duchess] was his forbidden lust*.
92. Marriott.
93. Keown.
94. Craig: 'Patrick Wymark played Bosola to Bosola's own description
"bluff soldier1". Don Chapman, in 'Horrors of Webster are Toned
Down', Oxford Mail, 1 December 1960, also aruged that 'Mr. McWhinnie
[had] taken as his text for the portrayal of LBosola] the words
[Bosola spoke] to Julia: "I am only a common soldier [sic]"*.
95. 'Horrors of Webster are Toned Down'.
96. 'Stratford Comes ~ Season Opens with The Duchess of Malfi'.
97. These quotations are from 'A Miracle of Pity'.
98. 'Stratford Takes over its Home in London'.
 The Duchess of Malfi

1960

I. the setting after Act V, scene ii

II. the court scene
III. the market
IV. the madmen scene
PLATE I
PLATE II
AI aivu
 CHAPTER 2

'This Sane Duchess of Malfi Won't Do' 1 (1971)

Clifford Williams's2 production of The Duchess of Malfi opened at the

Royal Shakespeare Theatre on 15 July 1971 and ran for thirty-two
performances up to 9 December 1971. The production did not transfer to any
other theatre. Both the costumes and the setting were designed by Farrah.
The music was composed by Marc Wilkinson. The average playing time for
the first part of the performance was one hour and twenty-one minutes, and
for the second part one hour and twenty-seven minutes.
The director's interpretation of the play was revealed in an interview
given in the Birmingham Post before the production opened. Asked how he
thought of directing the play, he answered as follows:
"I really enjoy working on the Jacobean writers like Webster. It
makes extra demands on the company because of the differences between
Webster and Shakespeare in speech and psychology.
"The Jacobeans had this realistic view of heaven and hell. It
wasn't just hell that was terrible; there was something very wrong
with heaven, too. In a way, the Jacobean plays are like Greek
tragedies — there is this terrible inevitability about the action:
gods won't intervene.
"I suppose the 'clean up the theatre' people might approve of the
Duchess; she has a relationship which is not correct and dies for it.
Very moral — if your morals are that way inclined.
"Really, you have to go as far as Sartre to find the same kind of
atmosphere as there is in The Duchess of Malf i and to the modern
psychologists for the imagery.
"Just look at the Cardinal when he begins to get guilty." (The
Cardinal, in fact, dreams that when walking in his garden, he looks in
his fishpond "and me thinks I see a thing armed with a rake, which
seemed to strike at me." [sic])
"In fact," [...] "the worst character in the play, Ferdinand,
says that you mustn't take any notice of heaven or hell. It is what
happens here that matters. The Jacobeans were among the first to
realise that man alone is responsible for his actions."
These remarks suggest that Clifford Williams saw the play in terms of
 70

existentialism. Though he did not use the term, this viewpoint is evident
in his reference to Sartre and remarks such as f [i]t is what happens here
that matters 1 , and 'man alone is responsible for his actions 1 . It seems
that the director thought that these remarks summarized the theme of the
play.
In the following section I will examine what image the director
attempted to establish by means of the programme, the setting and the
costumes and discuss how his thematic considerations, based on
existentialism, were related to the image expressed in the visual elements.
The programme consists of the following: a cast list, notes of the
sources of the play, notes on Ferdinand's motive in having the Duchess
murdered, a short bibliography of John Webster, a note on the criticism of
the play in the twentieth century, an account of the recent notable
productions, short bibliographies of the actors and rehearsal photographs.
An examination of some of the articles reveals how the director saw the
world of the play and the charac^ters.
The organization of the cast list gives a clue about how the director
saw the society of the play; the characters are categorized according to
their relationship with the Aragonian siblings as well as according to
their social status. Each category has a name, under which the characters
belonging to it are introduced. The first category, 'The house of Aragon',
of course, includes the Cardinal, Ferdinand and the Duchess. The Cardinal
is referred to as the 'brother of' Ferdinand and the Duchess, who are
'twins'. The fact that the two are twins is referred to only once in the
text proper. It seems that the director considered the blood ties among
the siblings as important as their being members of the family of power and
influence.
 71

The next group, 'The household of the Duchess 1 , consists of Antonio,

Bosola and Carlola, while the Duchess's other attendants are in another
group, 'Attendants of the house of Aragon'. The three are separated from
V
them probably because of/their significance in the play. There is a slight
change in the reference to Cariola. She is a 'companion to the Duchess* in
this production, not 'her woman', 8 as in the original text. This change
was made probably to emphasize the closeness between the Duchess and
Cariola and the Duchess's trust of Cariola.
The members of the group named 'Courtiers to the house of Aragon' are
Delio, Silvio, Castruchio, Julia, Roderigo, Malateste and Pescara.
Courtiers whose ranks are indicated in the text are listed with their
titles, for example, 'Count Malateste' and 'the Marquis of Pescara'.
Delio, whose status is not indicated in the original text in spite of his
frequent appearances at court, is reasonably identified as a courtier.
This identification is probably made for the audience's convenience. It
seems that it is made also to suggest to the audience the atmosphere of
this aristocratic world, the inhabitants of which must be identified in
terms of his or her social position at the Aragonian court.
The notable point about the group, 'Attendants on the house of Aragon',
is the wide range in rank of the characters included: the Duchess's ladies-
in-waiting, her officers, a monk, who is the Cardinal's servant, another
monk at the shrine of Our Lady of Loretto, the Dignitary of the state of
Ancona, soldiers of Ferdinand and the Cardinal, a soldier on guard of the
Duchess, and the executioners. The Dignitary is the director's invention.
One of the production photographs9 shows that he watched the banishment of
the Duchess and her family by the Cardinal. This invention would have been
effective in impressing the audience with the influence of the house of
 72

Aragon, to which a high-ranking person like the Dignitary was one of its
attendants. Another significant point is, as the title of the group shows,
that the characters are categorized not according to whom they serve, but
according to the family to which their masters belong. This serves to
emphasize the fact that it is the family which gives its members power and
authority.
The group named 'in the professions' consists of those who do not
serve any member of the house of Aragon: the Old Lady, who is the Duchess's
midwife, the pilgrims, the madmen, the Doctor who attempts to cure the mad
Ferdinand, and the Friend of Antonio. The group of madmen consists of the
Astrologer, the Lawyer, the Priest, the Doctor, the English Tailor, the
Gentleman Usher and the Broker. The Mad Farmer, who was retained in the
prompt-book, was lost probably because the reason for his madness, that
he failed to gain a fortune with his harvest (IV.ii.56-57) , was too
difficult for modern audiences to appreciate. The prompt-book also makes
it clear that the Friend of Antonio was invented later; 'a Servant* appears
in the prompt-book, as in the original text. The appearance of a friend
instead of a servant must have given the audience the impression that
Antonio's virtue enabled him to find someone to help him even in adversity
and isolation. The change might have been made to confirm the audience's
good impression of Antonio.
The rest of the characters are the Duchess's children, listed
separately from any of the groups. Probably the director thought that the
children, the Duchess's illegitimate offspring, could not be regarded as
members of the house of Aragon. It can be argued that the categorization
of the characters is made to emphasize the influence of the house of Aragon
on the aristocratic society of the play.
 73

The emphasis on the significance of the family in the play is

discerned in another article in the programme. The untitled article is
concerned with Ferdinand's motive for having the Duchess murdered.
Referring to the Duchess's remarriage which provokes Ferdinand's rage, the
unidentified writer gives prominence to the fact that she is a member of a
royal family which has political influence, and to the significance of
family honour in the world of the play. Though the writer introduces the
theory that Ferdinand's incestuous love for his sister is the motive of the
murder, he or she leaves the theory undiscussed.
The atmosphere which the director discovered in the play is most
clearly expressed on two pairs of facing pages of the programme, in which
quotations are made both from the play and from some of the distinguished
critical works, on how life and the play's world can be viewed. The
quotations from the play are as follows:
Oh this gloomy world,
In what a shadow, or deep pit of darkness
Doth, womanish, and fearful, mankind live? (V.v.99-101)
Of what is't fools make such vain keeping?
Sin their conception, their birth, weeping:
Their life, a general mist of error,
Their death, a hideous storm of terror. (IV.ii.183-36)
Thou art a box of worm seed, at best, but a salvatory of green mummy.
(IV.ii.123-24)
all our fear,
Nay, all our terror, is lest our physician
Shoid put us in the ground, to be made sweet. (II.i.61-63)
The critical comments include lines as follows: Travis Regard's 'it is as
if the world were an immense jungle, steaming and rotten with disease,
haunted by the sudden unseen treacheries of man*^; F.L. Lucas's 'Such is
Webster's atmosphere — the individuality of the Renaissance, but also its
despair; and with it the courage of despair'^; Rupert Brooke's 'Human
 74

beings are writhing grubs in an immense night. And the night is without
stars or moon 1 ^; and T.S. Eliot's 'Webster was much possessed by death |
And saw the skull **\ the skin'. All these quotations serve to
establish a certain viewpoint of life and the world: that the world, in
which evil is dominant, is dark and hopeless, and that life is vain because
human beings are destined to die after struggling with evil.
The programme's colour scheme of black and red serves to suggest what
the director considered the atmosphere of the world of the play. For
example, in one pair of the pages of quotations the background is black,
and the passages from the play are printed in red; in the other pair the
background is red, and all the quotations are printed in black. Red is
also used for the background for the illustration of an old-fashioned
a
prison. Another illustration, which provokes the image ofyprison,
A- consists
of black bars crossing diagonally against a red background. The marked
impression of the two colours, combined with the quotations and the
illustrations of prisons, seems to imply the darkness and hopelessness of
the world and its inhabitants' despair.
A poster included with the programme indicates the director's focus.
The poster contains black-and-white photographs of the faces of the
Cardinal, the Duchess and Ferdinand from left to right. The photographs
are partly touched in red and gold, and the background is black. A passage
from the play is printed under the photographs:
You never fix'd your eye on three fair medals,
Cast in one figure, of so different temper. (I.ii.110-11)
The photographs and the passage make it clear that the blood ties of the
three characters, already emphasized in the programme, was given prominence
in the production. The programme and the poster established the director's
 75

view of the play and the play's atmosphere, while giving necessary
information about the play and its plot. Not only the content but the
visual effect of the programme and the poster were combined to convey a
unified interpretation.

The information about the costumes is limited due to the loss of the
wardrobe plot. The remaining records about them are eight colour slides,
which cover scenes from Act I, scene ii, to Act III, scene iv, and the
production photographs, all of which are black-and-white. The slides and
the photographs suggest that the costumes, though eclectic, were intended
to convey the atmosphere of a hierarchical society. There were differences
between the costumes for high-ranking characters and lower-ranking ones.
The differences were evident in costumes both for male and female
characters. Elegantly designed dresses were worn by high-ranking women
like the Duchess and Julia. Their dresses had low necklines and high
waistlines just under the bust. The sleeves and the bodices were close-
fitting. The skirts with long trains fell long and straight. Dresses like
these must have had flowing shapes when the women walked. The Duchess's
dress was the most elaborate. The bodice and the skirt of her dress in the
court scene were scarlet (see plate V). The sleeves and the underskirt
were made of the same material: dark red lurex. The neckline was
ornamented with golden chains. The Duchess's jewellery was also elegant;
she wore a golden necklace and a goien collar ornamented with pearl-like
gems. Julia was less lavishly dressed. She wore a red dress on a white
underdress. The only jewellery that could be seen was a collar around her
neck, which was less elaborate than the Duchess's. The Duchess's ladies-
in-waiting wore much plainer dresses, which were ornamented with no
 76

jewellery. The ladies wore headdresses designed probably to indicate their

status, and they were dressed in darker colours like brown, dark blue and
black. Some of their dresses were without long trains. One of the ladies
even dressed herself as if she were a puritan; she had a large white collar
and white cuffs; a white underdress was seen under her dark blue skirt,
which was rather short. Low-ranking women like the Old Lady wore homely
dress. She had a plain dark-coloured headdress, which almost looked like a
scarf; and a knit shawl on her shoulders. Over her white underdress she
wore a loose gown with a low waistline, short sleeves and a gathered
bodice. There was no elegance in the Old Lady's costume.
Costumes for the male characters also reflected the difference of
social status of those who wore them. As a member of the house of Aragon,
Ferdinand's costume was the most elaborate. In the court scene Ferdinand
wore a black jacket on a lurex shirt; what looked like a collar around his
neck; a golden chain; black gloves edged with red gems, and a black belt
(see plate V). The noblemen wore plainer costumes. Some of them had a
black jacket or a waistcoat on their dark-coloured shirts. The only
exception among the noblemen's costumes was Castruchio's, which indicated
his status: 'a lawyer 1 . In Act II, scene i, Castruchio wore a long cloak
under a long overcoat edged with fur, and a cap. This costuming was made
probably to emphasize his stupidity in spite of his profession. Lower-
ranking men like Antanio and the Duchess's officers were all dressed in
black. They wore high-collared black jackets on white shirts and trousers
made of black cloth, not of lurex as in the Ferdinand's and the noblemen's.
The plainest costume was worn by Bosola. In most scenes he wore a dark-
coloured mult*-belted jacket, a pair of trousers also of a dark colour, and
short boots. He wore them even when he visited the Aragonian siblings.
 77

The costume suggested Bosola's status as a commoner. Only in the apricot

scene in Act II, scene i, did Bosola dress better; he wore a bolero-like
jacket on a white shirt with elaborate cuffs, sash belt around his waist,
and a cap. But even this costume looked plain compared to others'.
In most cases dark colours were dominant in the costumes. Apart from
the Cardinal's cassock, red was used mainly by characters of the highest
ranks, such as Julia, Ferdinand and the Duchess. There was a limited use
of gold, for example, for their jewellery. The choice of textile for their
costumes also reflected their rank. The costumes were mainly made of
ordinary cloth and lurex, and the latter was used for high-ranking
characters. There were some cases, however, in which red and gold were
used in unusual manners. One was the Cardinal's cassock in Act II, scene
iv, and scene v (see plate VII). In most scenes the Cardinal wore an
ordinary cardinal's robe: a skull cap, a cape and a cassock which was made
of velvet. The white sleeves had small patterns in relief. A golden cross
and chain was seen from beneath the cape. But in Act II, scene iv, and
scene v, he wore a robe with unusual colouring and textile. The cape and
the sleeves were golden and shiny, with leaf-like patterns on them. The
scarlet cassock, also shiny, had a distinct swirling pattern on it. This
robe was worn in the scenes in which the Cardinal met Julia and plotted
against the Duchess along with Ferdinand; it was in these scenes that he
revealed to the audience his lust and the inclination towards intrigue for
the first time. It can be argued that the Cardinal's gaudy robe was
designed to emphasize his much worldly nature. The other case was the
Cardinal's costal after the investiture (see plate VIII). A red plume and
an underdress, which had red and gold horizontal stripes of shiny fabric,
were used probably to contribute to the scene's pompous and ceremonious
 78

atmosphere.
The change of the costumes of the significant characters reflected
that of their situation or psychological state. For example, in Act IV,
the imprisoned Duchess wore a plain dark-coloured dress. The only thing
she had with her was a cross and chain. Deprived of her duchy and power,
and amrt from her husband, the costume served to suggest her decline in
status and dejection. An /her example was Ferdinand's costume in Act V,
scene ii: a torn lurex suit under a loose gown. The disorder in the
costume reflected his madness.
Not only the costumes but the setting was eclectic. It was designed
to suggest a certain image to the audience rather than to look realistic.
The setting was made of grilles and walls, which formed a U-like shape,
with the back wall squared and the front spreading towards the audience.
The walls were 'high, dark, grated 1 , looking like 'massive stone
slabs'. 0 The grilles, which looked like trellis-work screens, made up
part of each side wall. At the end of the side walls, there were other
walls, which were slightly thrust towards centrestage and which must have
given the impression of enclosure. The floor was black, partly spangled
with gold. The overall structure of the setting must have given the
impression that the characters were confined in a dark place. The
association of the setting with a prison would have been easy for the
audience; the programme had already shown an illustration of a prison. The
lighting, on the other hand, emphasized the darkness; in most of the
important scenes follow-spots were used to pick out the characters from the
surrounding gloom. The setting was a permanent one, which represented all
the locations of the play. Sometimes designs were projected on the
backwall to suggest the change of locations. 91 It was clear from the
 79

setting that the director aimed to suggest symbolically that the world of
the play was a prison.
Two devices made it clear that it was an aristocratic society which
was expressed as a prison. The first device was on the back wall. There
was a small door on each side of the back wall. The doors were painted
gold and looked like trellis-work screens. They were usually used for
entrances and exits. When they were kept open the audience's view was
disturbed by a pair of partitions, which were also painted gold and looked
like trellij(work screens (see plate VIII). They were angled in the middle
and placed behind the doors. The device suggested that there was no exit
from the world of the play even though there seemed to be one, and that the
characters were bound by the house of Aragon, the power and authority of
which were implied by the gold colour. Another device, which was more
conspicuous, was a pair of large golden partitions, each of which was
placed beside each side wall. Each partition was angled near one et2 the
edges. One side, which looked like a trellis-work screen, made up part of
each side wall. The other side, latticed, was much longer. They were
presented to the audience in some of the crucial scenes, in which the
partitions were moved centrestage, slightly directed towards the audience.
In these scenes the partitions represented the border between two different
worlds; for example, they served as the gate of the shrine in Act III,
scene iv, and as prison bars at the beginning of Act IV, scene i.
The partitions had another function. In some scenes they were moved
to 'cut ofFan interior scene'. 22 For example, in the wooing scene, it is
certain that they were used instead of 'the arras 1 in the original text
(I.ii.280 s.d.). The prompt-book indicates that Cariola is 'upstage',
while the partitions were moved downstage with some space between them.
 80

The device might have had a theatrical effect; the Duchess knew that
Cariola was behind the partitions, while Antonio did not; the audience knew
that, and while the Duchess wooed Antonio, the latticed partitionx.might
have enabled the audience to see Cariola watching them. The partitions hid
another thing in the same scene; one of the production photographs shows
that a bed was placed upstage, though this is not recorded in the prompt­
book (see plate VI). The bed suggested to the audience the Duchess's
desire to consummate her marriage, before she said, '1 would have you lead
your fortune by the hand, | Unto your marriage bed 1 (I.ii.408-09). It must
have been effective; when it was supposed that Antonio did not notice the
bed, the audience was able to see it, and to notice the Duchess's desire
and her private self as a woman, which was not revealed to Antonio until
she confessed her affection for him.
The partitions were used in a similar manner in Act III, scene ii,
when the Duchess falsely accused Antonio in front of her officers. The
Duchess, Antonio, the officers and Cariola were in front of the partitions,
which hid the bed. Here again the audience was able to see the bed through
the partitions. During the accusation the Duchess played her role as a
duchess, showing her public self to the officers, who were not able to
imagine that Antonio and the Duchess were married. The audience, on the
other hand, had seen Antonio and the Duchess as husband and wife at the
beginning of the scene. In the scene of the false accusation it became
clear to the audience that the partitions hid not only the bed but the
Duchess's private self, symbolized by the bed, from members of the public
world, for example, the officers. In these scenes the partitions worked
effectively for complex theatricality.
The furniture was in harmony with the costumes and the settting in
 81

most cases; most pieces were dark-coloured and were designed to express the
users 1 social status. For example, the desk and the chairs used by the
Duchess and Antonio in the wooing scene were elegant and elaborate. The
desk was covered with a dark green material, which was fixed with gold
rivets on the edges. It was supported by a pair of two semi-circular legs,
which were also ornamented with gold rivets. Each of the chairs was made
of two pairs of semi-circular pieces of wood. Each pair, symmetrically
joined at the centre, was used to make up one side of the chair, and the
two sides were fixed by horizontal bars. The chair was also ornamented
with gold rivets. These rivets, glittering in the dark background,
emphasized elegance. The bench in the apricots scene, on the other hand,
was made of scarcely planed wooden planks, and suggested that it was used
by common people.
The furniture had another affinity with the costumes in that some
pieces had extraordinary colouring or shapes. For example, the Duchess's
bed, used in the wooing scene and the bedroom scene, was red. As I have
suggested, the bed was designed to symbolize the Duchess's private self,
especially her love and passion for Antonio. The colour of the bed seems
to have emphasized this aspect. Another example was the Cardinal's throne,
which was all golden, with the exception of red armrests (see plate VII).
Two stools attached to the throne were also golden. The throne was Gothic
in style, though rather exaggerated; its back was made of tall bars pointed
h
at the top, which were supported by another bar, bent at the centre with its
acute angle directed upwards. The throne was used along with the
Cardinal's gaudy robe in Act II, scene iv, and scene v, the scenes of the
Cardinal's rendezvous with Julia and the plot. The throne was seen again
in Act V, scene ii, in which the Cardinal murdered Julia after having
 82

revealed to her the murder of the Duchess. The golden and quasi-Gothic
throne not only indicated the owner's high rank. With high artificiality
and coldness conveyed by its geometric and metallic appearances, the throne
contributed to presenting the Cardinal as a man who lacked warmth and who
would plot anything and carry it out to preserve the family honour and his
own honour. It seems that, as with the costumes, the extraordinariness of
some of the pieces of furniture indicated factors which caused a tragic
result in the play: the Duchess's intense passion for Antonio, and the
Cardinal's politic and cold nature.
The setting, the furniture and the costumes contributed to the concept
that the aristocratic world of the play was in fact a prison, however
elegant and lavish it seemed, because it was under the influence of the
house of Aragon, a family which had political power. The eclectic and
symbolic nature of visual elements could be seen as the reflection of the
director's interpretation of the play. In making the audience unable to
identify the period in which these materials were modelled, the director
seems to have aimed to make the audience perceive the play's essence, which
he considered modern and which could be identified with existentialism.
00
The text used for the production was the New Mermaid edition. J The
prompt-book is made of foolscap-sized loose leaves. Two pages of the
printed scripts, cut out from two texts, are pasted on the right-hand side
of each of the right pages, with the exceptions of pages 88, 94 and 100 of
the prompt-book, on each of which only one page is pasted. Some simple
directions for modes of entrances and exits are written in the script
(e.g., 'U/R 1 , which means 'upstage right', beside the original stage
direction 'Exit'). There are detailed directions for the cues for doors,
 83

grilles, trucks and lighting in the margin. All the stage business is
written on the left-hand pages.
The performed text was 2,467 lines long as against 2,864 lines in the
full play. Twenty of the deleted lines are marked unclearly.
There are some reattributions of speakers. Grisolan is removed from
Act I, scene ii, so the laughter of Roderigo and Grisolan (line 42) is
attributed to Roderigo alone. In Act IV, scene ii, some lines of the Mad
Astrologer, the Mad Doctor and the Mad Priest were reattributed to the Mad
Broker, the Mad Taylor and the Mad Farmer respectively. This might be
explained in terms of dramatic impact; the impression of the Duchess's
being surrounded by the madmen could have been stronger when more of them
spoke. There is some confusion in the final scenes. Roderigo*s name is
crossed out on line 19 in Act V, scene iv; it seems as if he were removed
from the scene and his lines were reattributed to Grisolan. But his line
in Act V, scene v, is retained. The cast list resolves the problem by
making it clear that Grisolan was eventuallyremoved from the dramatis
personae in this production. The confusion in Act I, scene ii, and Act V,
scene iv, and scene v, suggests that the director decided at a later stage
which of the minor characters, Roderigo or Grisolan, he would remove.
Some single words are changed for a variety of reasons. In Act III,
scene i, when Antonio says that Ferdinand looks dangerous, Delio asks,
'Pray why?' (line 20). Then Antonio describes how Ferdinand behaves
instead of answering the question. In this case 'why' is changed into
'how*. Emendations like this are made to clarify the text. It is
sometimes difficult to see why a word is changed; both the original word
and the new word make sense in the context. But in that case the new word
was probably considered to be more comprehensible to the audience. In
 84

Ferdinand's 'If thou do love him, cut out thine own tongue | Lest it bewray
him* (III.ii.109-10), 'bewray' is changed into 'betray', which is more
familiar. There is a case of a complete substitution of one word for
another because of its obscurity: 'sound' in the Duchess's 'Shall I sound
under thy fingers?' (ll.i.129) was changed into 'swoon*.
The prime aim of the cuts seems to be to shorten the text, though in
some cases it is possible to conjecture why specific lines were omitted. A
typical abbreviation is the removal of the Cardinal's lines in which he
narrates a fiction to the noblemen about the cause of Ferdinand's madness
(V.ii.87-98). Other cuts seem to fall into different categories. A few
lines, which describe stage business, are cut probably because they were
considered unnecessary: for example, Bosola's 'Some of your help, false
friend [i.e., his lantern]: oh, here it is* (ll.iii.54), as he held out a
lantern to pick up the paper which Antonio had dropped. More lines are cut
in passages in which the characters have a long conversation over one
subject but do not develop it. For example, at the beginning of Act I,
scene ii, Castruchio advises that a ruler like Ferdinand should not go to a
battlefield in his own person (lines 11-12). When Ferdinand asks the
reason, Castruchio says:
It is fitting a soldier arise to be a prince, but not necessary a
prince descend to be a captain! (lines 14-15)
No, my lord, he were far better do it by a deputy, (lines 17-18)
These lines are an expansion of what has been said a few lines before;
Castruchio discusses the subject in detail, but does not give an answer
until lines 22 and 23. Lines 14 to 21, which include the lines above and
Ferdinand's replies to them, are removed. Lines are also removed in
passages in which there is no change in the characters' action even when
 85

the subject is developed. An example is found in Act V, scene ii, in which

Julia asks the Cardinal to tell her what troubles his mind. When the
Cardinal refuses to tell her for the second time, she begins to persuade
him to do so, until he makes a compromise and says that he has 'committed |
Some secret deeds' (lines 247-48). In this case out of sixteen lines which
include the Cardinal's refusals and Julia's persuasion, thirteen lines
(lines 234-46) are removed.
Some cuts are made for the convenience of modern audiences. Lines are
omitted which refer to myths, medical or scientific knowledge and customs,
which are now forgotten or unfamiliar. For example, the Duchess's 'I am |
So troubled with the mother 1 (II.i.119-20); Bosola's reference to 'Pluto,
the god of riches' (Ill.ii.243); and the Mad Astrologer's satire of making
a woodcock, which was believed to be brainless, a pattern for a crest.
But some references of this sort are retained in scenes where they made an
obvious dramatic impact; one example is one of the Danae references
(I.ii.168-69) when Bosola compares his reward to the golden rain and his
task to thunderbolts; another is part of Paris's choice (III.ii.36-40)
spoken in the domestic happiness of the bedroom scene.
Interpretative cuts are made as well. Some lines are removed which,
in performance, might have reduced the tension of the scenes in which they
were placed, or when they might have even provoked the audience's laughter.
The best example is in Act V, scene v, when the Cardinal, threatened by
Bosola, cries for help, but is ignored by the noblemen, who think that the
Cardinal cries >n jest as he has told them beforehand. All the lines of
the noblemen during Bosola's assault upon the Cardinal are omitted. So are
the Duchess's lines when she hastily plans to let Antonio escape from her
palace after Ferdinand has detected her marriage:
 86

our weak safety

Runs upon enginous wheels: short syllables
Must stand for periods. (III.ii.176-78)
The lines might have been regarded as lengthy in this context.
Some interpretative cuts affect characterization. The presentation of
Antonio is shaped by such cutting. Though he easily obtains the audience's
sympathy in the first act, he is not always sympathetic in Act II and Act
III. For instance, when he finds Bosola in ^T^ darkness just after the
Duchess has given birth, he says in his aside, 'This mole does undermine
me' (Il.iii.14) and 'This fellow will undo me' (ll.iii.29). He even abuses
Bosola with rough language:
You are an impudent snake, sir,
Are you scarce warm, and do you show your sting? (II.iii.38-39)
In Act III, scene ii, he appears from the room in which he has been hiding
while Ferdinand has been with the Duchess. Finding the dagger handed by
Ferdinand to her, Antonio says:
turn it towards him, and
So fasten the keen edge in his rank gall. (III.ii.152-54)
When Antonio is absent, there are commentators whose references are not
always consistent, even though some of them are his enemies. In Act V,
scene ii, the Cardinal says that Antonio:
account[s] religion
But a school-name, for fashion of the world. (V.ii.130-31)
The impression of Antonio is inconsistent; in some scenes his words and
behaviour give the impression that he is a coward. The Cardinal's comment
sounds groundless considering Antonio's attitude towards religion in Act
III, scene v, in which he consoles the Duchess, referring to Heaven's hand
(d\ ,x dv controls human beings (lines 59-63, 79-80). These lines that may make
him look unsympathetic are removed.
 87

The Duchess, the central figure, loses only twenty-four lines

throughout the play. A new line, 'I counsel safely 1 , is attributed to her
when Antonio's 'You counsel safely' (lll.v.58) is removed. Most of the
cuts are made in Act 111; eleven lines in scene ii, and ten lines in scene
v. With a few exceptions, most of them seem simply to have been made to
shorten the text, and are not lines which affect the course of events: for
example, 'So shall you hold my favour. I pray let him' (Ill.ii.190), when
the Duchess falsely accuses Antonio, trying to let him escape. Less
explicable is the omission of the lines tvkci* include 'You had the trick, in
audit time to be sick, | Till I had sign'd your Quietus * (III.ii.186-87);
the word 'quietus', reminding the audience of the wooing scene in which the
Duchess first uses the word, would have had dramatic effect. In Act III,
scene v, she loses lines about her dream, which is emblematic and
unfamiliar to modern audiences. In Act IV, scene i, she loses only one
line, 'Puff! let me blow these vipers from me' (line 90), which may sound
absurd in performance. In Act IV, scene ii, the climactic scene, she
retains all her lines. The Duchess's lines are lost mainly for
convenience. The director probably did not find it necessary to make
interpretative cuts to her lines. Unlike Antonio, the impression of the
Duchess is consistent; throughout the play she is described as a
sympathetic woman who loves her husband and children even in her own
adversity.
The most significant interpretative cut is made in Act III, scene iii.
The following passage is removed:
FERDINAND: Write to the Duke of Malfi, my young nephew
[the Duchess] had by her first husband, and acquaint him
With's mother's honesty.
BOSOLA: I will. (68-70)
 88

This is one of the most problematic passages in the original text; the
reference to the existence of the Duchess's legitimate son produces some
contradictions. One of them is Ferdinand's motive for the murder of the
Duchess. He says that he has had her murdered because he would have gained
'An infinite mass of treasure by her death' (IV.ii.279). In fact it is
impossible for him to do so; her legacy should go to her son by her first
marriage. Ferdinand's motive not only fails to justify his fierce anger
against the Duchess's second marriage and his torture; it fails to prove
logical. Another contradiction is found at the end of the play, when
Delio, introducing the eldest son of the Duchess and Antonio, says that the
noblemen must make their efforts 'To establish this young hopeful gentleman
| In's mother's right* (V.v.111-12). This passage inevitably raises the
question of what the Duchess's legitimate son would do if Antonio's son was
to inherit the duchy. The ending of the original play makes the audience
wonder whether peace and restoration of order are suggested. The omission
of the problematic passage indicates the director's efforfr to make the play
more straightforward.
Other significant omissions are made in Act IV, scene ii. From the
Madmen's song the following lines are removed:
At last when as our quire wants breath,
our bodies being blest,
We'll sing like swans, to welcome death.
and die in love and rest, (lins 70-73)
And so are Bosola's lines from his dirge:
Much you had of land and rent,
Your length in clay's now competent.
A long war disturb'd your mind,
Here your perfect peace is sign'd. (lines 179-82)
Without these lines, which refer to the rest and peace of mind brought by
death, the song merely suggests that life is dominated by disorder
 89

symbolized by the howls of 'ravens, screech-owls, bulls and bears 1 (line

66); the dirge emphasizes the horror and solitude in dying, by means of the
image of darkness and the implication that life is vain and that nothing
awaits the Duchess after her death. The song and the dirge focus the
audience's attention on the hopelessness of this world. But as a result of
the cutting the Duchess becomes the only character that speaks about Heaven
and believes that there is rest after death; for her heaven is the place
for reunion with her husband and children, who she believes are dead. Thus
the omission of the lines cited above emphasizes the contrast between what
the song and the dirge suggest — darkness and pessimism in the world of
the play — and the Duchess's calm and courage.
Some lines in which characters generalize or moralize are also cut.
For example, the following lines are removed:
They that think long, small expedition win,
For musing much o'th end, cannot begin. (V.ii.117-18)
Bosola delivers these lines after he pretends to accept willingly the
Cardinal's offer to employ him as a spy. The lines were probably regarded
as ponderous. The omission of the following lines at the end of Act II,
scene iv, may be more interpretative:
They pass through whirlpools, and deep woes do shun,
Who the event weigh, ere the action's done, (lines 82-83)
These generalizing lines are uttered in uneasiness, when Delio hears about
Ferdinand's anger and feels anxious about Antonio's safety.

In the following section I will describe the way the play was staged
and examine how the director's interpretation was reflected in the acting.
The proceedings are reconstructed from the prompt-book, the production
records including the production photographs, and the reviews.
 90

The performance began with a wordless prologue, which was the

director's invention. The prompt-book's account, though not detailed,
shows how the prologue was performed. After a fanfare all the characters
who belonged to the aristocratic society — the Duchess, the Aragonian
brethren, the noblemen, Julia, the Duchess's ladies-in-waiting, her
officers, Antonio, and Delio — 9SJ appeared through downstage sidewalls.
After a short series of dance- like movements they made an exit. A more
detailed description of the prologue is provided by Ann Leslie, who
recognized its significance in the production:
The stage is a huge, black empty cavern. Suddenly, two thin-throated
trumpets lift up their aching mouths to the black vault above and
utter a despairing cry of magnificent, ragged beauty, a yelp of pride
and pain. A window opens to reveal the Duchess flanked by her two
brothers, like an icon glistening with red and black and gold, her face
already waxen with doom. These are Webster's "three fair medals, cast
one figure, of so different temper" whose ancient tragedy about to be
celebrated, is a pagan parable of the forces of darkness overwhelming
the forces of light. '
It is certain that two details of the prologue reminded the audience of the
programme and the poster: the colour scheme of black, red and gold; and the
positioning of the Duchess flanked by her brothers, which was the same as
that of the photographs of the three in the poster. The consistent use of
these two impressive details would have established the Aragonian brethren
as the focus of the following action.
The play proper began with the conversation of Antonio and Delio,
during which Bosola made his first appearance. He emerged from upstage and
walked towards the left-hand side of the proscenium arch. He encountered
the Cardinal, who appeared from the left-hand sidewall downstage and walked
towards downstage centre. Bosola 's 'dark workman's clothes 1 , made a
sharp contrast to the Cardinal's scarlet cassock, indicating Bosola 's rank
in the aristocratic society of the play and the economic necessity which
 91

compelled Mm to be a villain. Bosola had been suffering from the neglect

of the Cardinal, for whom he did his service. He expressed his desperate
longing for reward in kneeling to the Cardinal, as he exclaimed^ 'Miserable
age, where only the reward of doing well, is the doing of it! 1 (I.i.32-33);
there was nothing ironical in his behaviour. The Cardinal responded to
Bosola hypocritically and coldly; he made the sign of the cross to Bosola
and went away. Here Bosola was presented as a victim of the Cardinal's
ingratitude, who thus deserved the audience's sympathy. From the beginning
it was clear that this Bosola challenged some of the audience, who had
expected 'sinister excess*. This interpretation of Bosola had the
advantage of explaining away Antonio's contradictory comments on him before
and after his plea for reward. Though Antonio called Bosola 'The only
court-gall' (l.i.23) on his entrance, he admitted later that he had heard
about Bosola's bravery (I.i.75-76). The change in Antonio's attitudes
towards Bosola could be justified by the explanation that Bosola's
desperate plea had drawn sympathy from Antonio.
As Castruchio, Silvio, Roderigo, and, a little later, Ferdinand
entered from upstage at the beginning of Act I, scene ii, Antonio and Delio
bowed to them and stood apart. Next to the noblemen two of the Duchess's
officers began to collect jousting gear. The business suggested that the
noblemen had just returned from a joust. It enabled the audience to
anticipate the following conversation about the game. At the same time the
jousting gear contributed to an aristocratic atmosphere. At this point
another piece of business served to reinforce it: glasses of drink were
served to the noblemen.
In this scene Ferdinand made his first appearance in the play proper
and revealed much of his character. Ferdinand's influence on the
 92

atmosphere of the court was also established. Ferdinand showed his

arrogance when he threw a jewel to Silvio, bidding him to give it to
Antonio as the reward for having won the game. The conversation between
Ferdinand and the noblemen was accompanied by laughter from the latter.
Hie noblemen were anxious to please Ferdinand, who was not only arrogant
but whimsical. When Silvio delivered a bawdy joke, which made Roderigo
laugh, Ferdinand, after a pause, rebuked Roderigo for the laughter, and
claimed that the courtiers should laugh only when he laughed. The pause
must have raised embarrassment among the noblemen, who recognized the
sudden change of Ferdinand's mood. But they still made efforts to please
Ferdinand; in spite of his warning, all of them laughed at his joke.
Through the use of comedy the audience could feel the atmosphere of the
court, in which the courtiers' first concern was to flatter the members of
the house of Aragon, who ruled them.
All three members of the house of Aragon were present at the entrance
of the Cardinal, and of the Duchess, who was accompanied by Cariola. The
Duchess wore a black veil, which showed her status as a widow. Before
Antonio delivered the line 'three fair medals, cast in one figure*
(I.ii.110-11), the affinity of the three as siblings was suggested by their
costumes (see plate V). The Cardinal wore a scarlet cassock; the Duchess
used the same colour for her bodice and skirt; she wore lurex for the
sleeves and underdress; Ferdinand also wore lurex for his shirt and tights.
Antonio began to describe the nature of the siblings. The first subject
was the Cardinal. As a result of the cutting of lines which describe the
Cardinal as a corrupt churchman, prominence was given to his evil nature as
an aristocrat inclined to jealousy and plots. Seeing Cariola turn to
Ferdinand, Delio shifted his attention to him and abruptly asked about
 93

Ferdinand. Antonio, after describing Ferdinand's character, turned back

his subject to the Cardinal, who was Ferdinand's twin brother 'In quality*
(I.ii.94). The Duchess's movement downstage gave a reason for Antonio to
describe her before being asked. The audience, however, was led to look at
all the siblings before it focused its attention on the Duchess. On
Antonio's 'You never fix'd your eye on three fair medals' (l.ii.110),
Ferdinand and the Cardinal, who had been next to the Duchess, walked away
and left her near the right-hand side of the proscenium arch. Looking
between the Duchess and Ferdinand, Antonio went on speaking. At the end of
the line, the audience saw the Duchess and her brothers standing apart;
when its attention was equally on the 'three fair medals', it was reminded
again that the Duchess and her brothers belonged to the same family,
however different she might be from them in nature.
Antonio ceased to be a mere narrator while describing the Duchess's
nature. He suggested that he had an unrequited love for the Duchess, when
he drifted upstage, speaking that her look would make one 'dote | On that
sweet countenance' (I.ii.119-20). This manner of revealing his affection
for her must have created a sympathetic impression.
After the Duchess, her attendants and the courtiers left the stage,
Bosola reappeared to see the Cardinal and Ferdinand. The Cardinal left on
finding Bosola and Ferdinand talked to him. When Bosola knew that
Ferdinand wanted him to be a spy to watch the Duchess, the dilemma of a
conflict between his poverty and his conscience was clearly indicated; he
threw away the money offered by Ferdinand and made to leave. Ferdinand
stopped him with an offer of a position at the Duchess's palace. Seeing
him come back, Ferdinand picked up the money and gave it back to him.
Bosola*s recognition of financial necessity, which made him suppress his
 94

conscience, made his line 'I would have you curse yourself now 1 (l.ii.192)
sound bitter, as he received the money. The audience's sympathy with him
must have been reinforced.
The Aragonian siblings reappeared after Bosola's exit. The Cardinal
and Ferdinand warned the Duchess not to remarry without their consent. It
was in this scene that Ferdinand revealed a touch of his obsession about
the Duchess's remarriage. He gave prominence to the word 'widow* in 'You
are a widow' (I.ii.214), which suggested his suspicion that the Duchess,
who already knew 'what man [was]' (I.ii.215), might remarry just for
pleasure. Ferdinand's strong objection to the mere idea of her remarriage
surprised the Cardinal, who, on Ferdinand's 'Marry? they are most luxurious
| Will wed twice* (I.ii.218-19), dropped the Duchess's hand, which he was
about to kiss. The Duchess, after watching the Cardinal leave, turned back
to Ferdinand and discovered that he had pointed a dagger at her. The
gesture indicated Ferdinand's irrational objection to her remarriage. The
attitude of her brothers, especially that of Ferdinand, however, resulted
in confirming her resolution to remarry. But she was aware that the action
which she would take was unusual and might be dangerous for a woman of her
rank. Stopping Carlo la, who was about to send for Antonio, the Duchess
said:
wish me good speed
For I am going into a wilderness,
Where I shall find no path, nor friendly clew
To be my guide. (l.ii.277-80)
The production photographs show that the Duchess had unveiled her face
before Antonio appeared, though the prompt-book has no evidence of this
business. The action made it clear that the Duchess was determined to stop
mourning her dead husband and to enter another married life, though she was
 95

aware of the danger.

Antonio appeared. He was always conscious of his rank; he seated
himself when directed by the Duchess to do so. Ignorant of her true
intention, he took her words 'What's laid up for tomorrow* (I.ii.285)
literally. When he stood up to fetch an account book at the Duchess's 'I
look young for your sake. | You have tane my cares upon you' (I.ii.288-
89), his uprightness as a steward made him look even comic. In spite of
his love for her, when he began to realize that she wanted to marry him,
his class-consciousness caused him embarrassment, which was expressed
through pauses placed before 'You have made me stark blind* (I.ii.328) and
'There is a saucy and ambitious devil | Is dancing in this circle'
(I. ii. 329-30). The consciousness made him kneel to her as he fully
recognized her intention. Now her proposal of marriage made him agonize.
He sat down, with his head in his hands. His attitude towards the Duchess
did not change until she knelt to him (see plate VI) and '[led] his
nerveless hand to her bosom'. The Duchess's business strongly suggested
her eagerness to make him feel equal to her and her desire to be regarded
as a woman, not as a duchess whom he served. This led Antonio finally to
accept her proposal. But the expression of fear and anxiety was still seen
in his face even when the two knelt down and vowed to marry, taking each
other's hands. That must have left the audience in uneasiness before
Cariola referred to the Duchess's 'fearful madness' (I.ii.419).
During Act II, scene iv, and scene v, in which the audience's
uneasiness was magnified, the director's emphasis was on the Cardinal, who
Q.
represented the house of Aragon, the honour of which was stained by the
Duchess's childbirth. Act II, scene iv, opened with the rendezvous of the
Cardinal and Julia. She appeared a little later and stood stage right,
 96

barefoot. Told to sit down by the Cardinal, she seated herself on his lap,
indicating their intimacy. But it was rendered doubtful as the Cardinal
implied that he did not trust women in general. Unable to bear to listen
to him, Julia stood up and turned away. He also rose and stood next to her
to stop her. Julia's protest against his arrogant attitude delayed the
Cardinal's notice of a servant, who had entered a few moments before to
inform him that Delio had arrived. Hearing that, the Cardinal made his
c;
exit. One of the production photographs show^the Cardinal talking to
Julia. Sitting on one of the stools attached to the throne and leaning
towards Julia, who was seated on the throne, he fully expressed his lust
both with his facial expression and gesture. Thus in Act II, scene iv, the
Cardinal's lust and his cruelty towarjis women were established.
The exit of Delio, who felt anxious about Antonio's safety, was
followed by the entrance of the Aragonian brethren, which opened Act II,
scene v (see plate VII). Ferdinand appeared first and sat down on the
left-hand side stool. The Cardinal, a moment later, entered. He sat down
on the throne and asked Ferdinand what had enraged him. Ferdinand's loss
of self-control was suggested in his restless and exaggerated movements
while narrating the Duchess's childbirth. Condemning the Duchess's
conduct, Ferdinand stood up, walked around the throne, and knelt to the
Cardinal. Then Ferdinand sat down on the right-hand side stool to wipe his
tears. He stood up again, walked behind the throne, and knelt down again
to ask the Cardinal to say something to prevent Mm from being overwhelmed
by his imagination. Ferdinand's rage reached its climax on the Cardinal's
'You fly beyond your reason* (line 47); he grabbed the Cardinal's arms and
lifted him up, exclaiming, 'Go to, mistress!' (line 47), as if he saw the
Duchess, instead of the Cardinal, in front of him. The Cardinal, unable to
 97

endure Ferdinand's rage, turned to him and held him. The Cardinal
persuaded Ferdinand to be rational, to which Ferdinand replied, shivering,
'Have not you | My palsy?' (lines 55-56). The Cardinal released Ferdinand
and circled around the throne, continuing his persuasion. But it did not
work. Ferdinand was still obsessed by his raving imagination; kneeling
down, he suddenly referred to sin in his family, which Heaven would
revenge. The Cardinal knelt down to stare at him, fearing that Ferdinand
might be losing his sanity. Seeing Ferdinand still deep in his rage, the
Cardinal gave up his persuasion and made to go; at this moment Ferdinand
calmed down temporarily, saying, 'Nay, I have done' (line 74). At the end
of Ferdinand's speech, the Cardinal took his hands as if to encourage him,
and they left the stage separately.
The director gave prominence to the Cardinal through the use of his
gaudy costume, which was used only in Act II, scene iv, and scene v. It
must have attracted the audience's attention to him, even when Ferdinand's
rage was highlighted in Act II, scene v. The costume enabled the audience
to acknowledge the Cardinal's significance in this production. The visual
effect emphasized many aspects of the Cardinal revealed through his lines
and business: his lust, distrust of women, cruelty to them, calm and
rationality even in his anger. Through this emphasis the director
established the image of the Cardinal as a cold and politic aristocrat and
the representative of a powerful and corrupt family.
Ferdinand reappeared in the Duchess's palace to witness her married
life, which opened Act III, scene ii. The Duchess appeared, led by
Carlola, who had a candlestick. Antonio accompanied them. They first
entered the Duchess's chamber, which was furnished with a table and a
chair; the two partitions, moved towards centrestage, served as walls
 98

between the chamber and the bedroom. Antonio became playful in the relaxed
atmosphere; he knelt down, kissed the Duchess's dress and asked her to
allow him to sleep with her. The Duchess, being undressed by Cariola,
replied to him with jokes. She was playful as well; at his joke of
'Labouring men* (line IS), the Duchess, understanding its sexual innuendo,
went to the bedroom to kiss him. While Antonio asked for the second kiss,
she went back to the chamber and kissed him through the wall. These pieces
of business fully conveyed domesticity and their mutual affection. The
bedroom scene was performed so movingly that Frank Marcus reported that
'[he] [had] never seen so much humanity extracted from Webster*. ^
While the Duchess, seated on the chair, talked to Antonio, who she
supposed was near her, Ferdinand appeared upstage and walked slowly and
noiselessly towards the Duchess. He held a dagger, probably the same one
as he had used in Act I, scene ii. He could have shocked both the Duchess
and the audience when he placed the dagger on the casket on the table. But
his attitude to her after she noticed him mainly suggested that he was
overwhelmed by the shock of his discovery, rather than that he turned
violent. On 'Virtue, where art thou hid?' (line 72) right after he showed
the dagger, he sank down and approached the right-hand side of the table on
his knees. The Duchess stood up and came to his left. On 'Pursue thy
wishes' (line 80) he managed to stand up, walked towards the left-hand side
partition, and hung on it. The Duchess followed him to tell that she was
married, to which he reacted pathetically; he crawled along the partition
as he told the Duchess's unknown husband not to reveal his identity to him,
then turned to the Duchess to rebuke her; a few moments later he knelt down
behind her while accusing her of lechery. It seem<S that Ferdinand's
pathetic attitude remained unchanged up to his exit; there is no indication
 99

of violence in the prompt-book's account of him in the scene.

There was an interesting point in performing the scene. Throughout Act
III, scene ii, the director used the chamber and the bedroom so that the
audience would become aware of the encounter and intermingling of the
public and the private. First the private life of the Duchess in her
marriage was presented in the chamber, the place for her public life,
instead of the bedroom. The Duchess's affectionate address to Antonio was
also made in the chamber. It is as if the chamber was turned to an
extension of the bedroom, in the domestic atmosphere at night, when the
Duchess and Antonio were free from their public roles. The second case,
the scene of the Duchess's false accusation, was more complicated. The
accusation was made publicly, in the chamber and in the presence of the
officers, who had assembled in front of the wall. The Duchess and Antonio
assumed their public roles, a duchess and her steward. But they
acknowledged their mutual affection under the guise of official exchange,
through lines like the Duchess's 'For h'as done that, alas! you would not
his-
think of (line 191), Antonio's 'I am all yours' (line 205), andj^what 'tis
to serve | A prince [a pause] with body and soul' (lines 207-08). All the
while the officers were supposed not to be able to see the bedroom just
behind the walls. They were also supposed not to be able to imagine the
relationship between the Duchess and Antonio. The audience, however, was
able to see both the bedroom and the chamber, while it appreciated the
subtle exchange which implied their private relationship. Act III, scene
ii, is the scene of the encounter of the private and the public; the
Duchess's private life is threatened by the forces of the public world,
represented by the Aragonian brethren, the rulers of the world of the play.
It seems certain that the setting in the scene was intended to highlight
 100

the encounter of the two worlds and to suggest the subsequent conflict
caused by it.
There was an interval between Act III, scene iii, and scene iv. This
positioning of the interval seems to suggest the director's emphasis on the
conflict of the private and the public, which had been shown in Act III,
scene ii. Act III, scene iv, can be considered as the turning point of the
play. In Act III, scene iii, the Cardinal and Ferdinand are about to carry
out their plot against the Duchess; the action which enables them to
destroy the Duchess's married life is yet unrevealed. In the next scene
the Duchess is banished as her secret marriage is made public by the
Cardinal; the conflict is over and the power of the public destroys the
private. The fact that the first part ended with Act III, scene iii, must
have left the audience in a state of tension caused by the anticipation
that it would see the Duchess destroyed by the house of Aragon.
Act III, scene iv, was performed in a solemn and ritualistic manner.
It began with the appearance of two pilgrims. They genuflected in front of
the partitions, which now served as the gate of the shrine of Our Lady of
Loretto. Ihe statue of the Virgin was placed in front of the centrejstage
door; the statue, which looked menacing rather than graceful, contributed
to the creation of the solemn atmosphere. The pilgrims were impressed by
the shrine's grandeur; one of them praised the shrine after looking at it
for a while. They waited for the Cardinal to appear. The Cardinal
appeared with his attendants, including the Dignitary of the state of
Ancona. All the following stage business was made in a form of dumb show
while a song was sung to celebrate the investiture. At the beginning of
the song, the Duchess appeared, accompanied by Antonio, their two children,
and Cariola with a baby in her arms. The monks took out the armour and
 101

robed him. One of the monks placed a sword on the Cardinal's left shoulder
when the investiture was almost finished except for the plumed helmet. The
Cardinal, fully armed (see plate VIII), held a sword in his hand and
covered his face with the visor of his helmet. The Duchess approached the
Cardinal and knelt. The Cardinal held her left hand and snatched off her
wedding ring. At this moment the Dignitary, who had been standing behind
the Cardinal, raised his left hand, with a sceptre in his right hand. It
was as if he gave official approval of the Cardinal's decision. After that
the Cardinal and his attendants left the stage. The Duchess and her family
were left inside the shrine.
Act III, scene iv, was a counterpart of the prologue of the first
part, in that it was placed at the beginning of the second part, performed
in silence for the most part, putting the emphasis on visual impact,
including the setting and the business. Both of them had a symbolic
meaning. This time, however, the scene established the nature of the
religious world of the play and its relationship with the house of Aragon.
They were suggested first by the setting; in addition to the large
partitions centrestage, the small ones were placed behind the upstage
doors. The small partitions, which had been seen in the court scenes in
Act I, scene i, at the beginning of Act I, scene ii, and in Act III, scene
i, conveyed the concept that the shrine, a religious place, was similar to
the court in that it was another gilded prison. The presence and the stage
business of the Dignitary suggested what made the religious place a prison,
like the court: the influence of the house of Aragon through the Cardinal.
The fact that he had been standing behind the Cardinal throughout the
investiture indicatedThis powerlessness and his position merely as one of
the Cardinal's attendants in spite of his title. Thus the director
 102

succeeded in giving a new interpretation to the dumb show, the original

meaning of which is lost and which tends to be removed in modern
productions. ^
In the performance of Act IV, in which the Duchess was imprisoned, the
settings emphasized the image of prison. At the beginning of Act IV, scene
i, the two large partitions were moved and closed centrestage. Behind the
'bars' the Duchess was seated on a stool stage left; Cariola was asleep on
the floor of the prison; a guard watched them stage right. Ferdinand and
Bosola appeared down stage, that is, outside the prison. Ferdinand told
Bosola to carry out the plan to torture the Duchess. After his exit Bosola
entered the prison through the opening between the partitions, which were
being moved outwards. He allowed the Duchess to go outside the prison.
Being told that Ferdinand wanted to visit her in darkness, the Duchess told
the guard to remove the lights. Then she woke up Cariola, who left the
prison, guarded by Bosola. At this moment there was a blackout; the
audience was only able to hear the voices. The Duchess knelt, hearing
Ferdinand's footsteps. Ferdinand came next to her when he knew where she
was as she replied to his 'where are you?' (line 29). In reply to the
Duchess's plea for pardon he knelt to her and held out a dead man's hand,
which the Duchess grasped, thinking that Antonio had held out his hand.
When she wondered about the coldness of the hand, Ferdinand stood up,
leaving it to her. Realizing that the hand was severed, the Duchess
dropped it in fright. Ferdinand left after perceiving her reaction, and
the stage was lit. Right after that the waxworks were presented.
At the beginning of the waxworks scene the original stage direction
reads 'behind a traverse, the artificial figures of ANTONIO and his
children; appearing as if they were dead' (IV.ii.55). In this production
 103

it is not made clear in the prompt-book whether the figure of Antonio was
shown alone or with the figures of the children. It is likely, however,
that the figure of Antonio was presented alone; the only article that
describes the scene in detail refers only to the the figure of Antonio:
'the [...] scene of her lovers [sic] apparition. . . broken on the wheel
and drenched in blood*. In presenting the figure no 'traverse 1 , or
curtain, was used; the presentation was prepared in the darkness during
Ferdinand's visit. The figure was placed in front of the upstage centre
door. When the stage was lit, the audience was able to see the figure
before Bosola, on reappearing, held and turned the Duchess to face upstage
so that she could see it. It seems that the presentation of the figure of
Antonio alone was made to prevent the following lines of the Duchess in the
next scene from sounding contradictory:
I pray thee look thou giv'st my little boy
Some syrup for his cold, and let the girl
Say her prayers, ere she sleep. (IV.ii.200-02)
It is clear that Richard Pasco, who played Antonio, also played the figure,
for his name is listed in the 'Production photocall' for the waxworks scene
along with the names of Judi Dench as the Duchess, Geoffrey Hutchings as
Bosola.
The Duchess's stage business after seeing the waxwork conveys her
anguish as she was made to believe that her husband was dead. On seeing
the figure, she broke away fromTBosola and staggered for a few moments.
She abused and attacked a servant, who had just appeared and wished her a
long life in his salutation. The Duchess's 'I'll go curse' (line 94)
surprised Bosola, who held her arm. After delivering 'I could curse the
stars' (line 95), she collapsed on the floor and was awkwardly supported by
Bosola, but still continued her curse to the universe and her brothers.
 104

Her agony, presented in this way, made a striking contrast to the dignity
and courage she showed in the face of her executioners.
In Act IV, scene ii, the image of prison was reinforced by means of
the grilles on the side walls and a square pattern projected on the upstage
centre door. The partitions, which had divided the prison and the outside
world in the previous scene, were not seen. Here the whole stage was
presented as a prison. The contrast of light and darkness was brought to
the maximum and 'the Duchess's prison [was] shaded by deep Rembrandt-like
lighting tones'. Though the prompt-book has no detailed accounts of the
madmen scene, the production photographs give us a general idea of how it
was performed. As a servant who controlled the madmen cracked a whip, they
emerged from the upstage doors and sang 'in close harmony*. Having
finished the song and the conversation, the madmen surrounded and caught
the Duchess and Carlola, who struggled to escape, and danced hand in hand
in a circle (see plate IX). The photographs suggest that the production
highlighted the unexpected liveliness of the scene rather than its horror.
The madmen scene, in terms of dramatic impact, became 'merely a
comparatively harmless mirror image of the world [the Duchess]
[inhabited]'. 37
The exit of the madmen was followed by the climactic scene: the death
of the Duchess. After following the madmen upstage and watching them exit,
the Duchess turned back and found Bosola in disguise seated on one of the
stools stage right. He tried to prepare the Duchess for her death in
impressing the vanity of human existence on her. The fact that the whole
setting now indicated a prison must have drawn the audience's attention to
the comparison of a human body to a prison. Then Bosola referred to the
care which accompanied high rank. He intended to convince the Duchess not
 105

only of the vanity of this world but of her identity as 'some great woman 1
(IV.ii.133) — the identity which had been emphasized from the beginning.
The Duchess replied to him 'with her intensely whispered "I am Duchess of
Malfi — still1" (lV.ii.139). 38 Critics offered a variety of response to
the delivery of this line. Benedict Nightingale wrote:
Indeed, a strong white light is exactly what she seemed to radiate at
times, so much so that she had no need to emphasise that traditional
assertion of the character's emotional integrity, 'I am the Duchess of
Malfi still', and could simply drop it into the conversation as an
obvious fact, of which others should scarcely need reminding.
For Nightingale the strength of the 'white light 1 suggested the Duchess's
conviction of her identity. Peter Ansorge also asserted that the delivery
reflected her strong conviction, but he regarded it as 'an appeal of help
to her captors', considering the situation in which the Duchess was
placed. The intonation of the delivery led Ronald Bryden to offer a
totally different interpretation that:
Judi Dench [gave] the play's most famous line a new, wondering
reading, turning it almost into a question.
This wide range of interpretations seems to suggest that the line was
delivered not to indicate the Duchess's strong conviction of her identity;
rather in order to allow the audience the interpretation that the Duchess
became uncertain of her identity, at least at this moment, and that she
attempted to preserve it desperately.
The executioners, who wore dark-coloured sack-like masks with eye
holes, would have looked menacing as they moved downstage to strangle the
Duchess. After taking Cariola away, they set the noose of a rope around
the Duchess's neck. The executioners stood to her right and left, holding
the ends of the rope, and started to pull it, encouraged by her 'Pull, and
pull strongly' (lV.ii.226). But on her 'Yet stay' (lV.ii.228), they
 106

stopped pulling the rope and released the Duchess, who knelt to be admitted
to heaven. But her defiant expression shown in one of the production
photographs seems to suggest not that she had learnt Christian humility,
which Bosola intended to teach her, but that she wanted it to be known to
her brothers that she had never lost her courage in spite of their torture
on her. Her self-restraint was evident right to the end. As a result this
presentation of the Duchess did not draw sympathy from all members of the
audience. For example, B.A. Young sarcastically reported that '[he] [had]
never seen a woman strangled with so little distress 1 .
Ferdinand appeared on stage to face the Duchess's death. The director
paid much attention to the moments before Ferdinand collapsed into madness;
the accounts in the prompt-book are detailed during Ferdinand's self-
analysis of his motives for the murder. He appeared upstage and, after a
pause, asked Bosola, 'Is she dead? 1 (lV.ii.251). Hearing that she was
dead, Ferdinand began to walk slowly to the Duchess's body, which was
placed downstage. His attention was on her body alone; Bosola's reference
to her children, who had also been murdered, did not stop Ferdinand. When
he arrived next to the Duchess's body, Bosola told Ferdinand, 'Fix your eye
here* (lV.ii.255), to remind him of the sin of murder. A pause before
Ferdinand's reply, 'Constantly' (lV.ii.255), again suggested that his
attention had been on the Duchess's dead body before Bosola told him so.
His line, 'Cover her face. Mine eyes dazzle: she di'd young' (lV.ii.259),
was delivered after a long pause, and 'as if it were newly-thought'^; it
if
was asjhe had realized that the Duchess was dead at this very moment. Then
Ferdinand referred to the fact that he and the Duchess were twins for the
first time. This fact had already been given prominence by the description
in the cast list; here a pause after Bosola's line 'It seems she was born
 107

first 1 (IV.ii.263) and the removal of his lines after the line drew the
audience's attention to the fact. The prominence on the fact seemed to
suggest that the blood ties between Ferdinand and the Duchess mattered to
Ferdinand, but not in terms of the family honour. Ferdinand raised the
Duchess so that her head rested on his lap, and he saw her face again. And
then he began to analyse the reason why he had her murdered. Some marked
pauses here indicate what he became aware of in the self-analysis; first he
rebuked Bosola for not having pitied her and not having saved her
'innocence 1 (lV.ii.272) from his revenge; remembering that it was he who
ordered Bosola to murder her, Ferdinand admitted that he had been
'distracted' (lV.ii.273); then he began to examine his motive for the
murder and he concluded that '[the Duchess's] marriage* (IV.ii.280) was the
ultimate cause. The business and the reading suggested that the director's
emphasis was laid on the process in which Ferdinand became aware of his
responsibility for the Duchess's death and of the true cause for the
murder. The question of whether his obsession with the Duchess came from
incestuous love for her was not explained.
Ferdinand was seen totally mad in Act V, scene ii. At the beginning
of the scene the Doctor and Pescara appeared, talking about Ferdinand's
disease. Ferdinand appeared upstage, accompanied by the Cardinal and
followed by Malateste. His insanity was evident in his torn lurex suit and
his unkempt hair. He walked next to the left-hand side of the proscenium
arch, emphasizing his inclination to solitariness. He also showed an
aversion to being followed; he was startled by his own shadow following
OY\
him. He ran around/^the stage to catch it and even tried to roll it up.
Pescara, who had been watching Ferdinand upstage, approached him and asked
him to rise. Ferdinand, instead of doing so, lay flat on the floor to
 108

watch an imaginary race of snails. The Cardinal, unable to endure to see

him in this state, had Malateste and Pescara lift him up. The Doctor,
then, approached his patient to give him treatment. He attempted to give
'mad tricks 1 (line 58) to him with a salamander's skin, which he presented
to Ferdinand, but in vain; Ferdinand ran away towards the Cardinal's
throne, crying, 'Hide me from him' (line 64). The Cardinal seized him to
keep him quiet. The Doctor, in order to make Ferdinand obedient by
frightening him, stood on the opposite side of the throne, faced him,
holding a fly swatter, and T spanked his patient. Ferdinand, in his
sudden change of mood, dived on the Doctor. Pushing the Doctor down on the
floor, Ferdinand bit him in the face, as if he thought himself a wolf in a
fit of lycanthropia. It is clear that the scene was performed so that the
audience would find it funny rather than horrifying; the production
photographs indicate the emphasis on the burlesque Doctor and on the comic
presentation of Ferdinand's behaviour, especially in his attack on the
Doctor. This scene is comic even in the original text, but it also conveys
the seriousness in Ferdinand's insanity. In this production he was 'turned
completely to ridicule*.
After Ferdinand, the Doctor, and the noblemen left the stage, the
Cardinal ordered Bosola to kill Antonio and left. Then came another scene
which can be regarded as comic relief: Julia's wooing of Bosola. Julia
approached him with a pistol in her hand. As soon as he understood that
she was in love with him, Bosola took the pistol from her on 'Come, come,
I'll disarm you* (V.ii.161), and kissed her in his embrace. His quick
reaction must have provoked laughter from the audience. Julia returned his
kiss and forced him next to the right-hand side of the proscenium arch so
that no one would disturb their growing intimacy. Bosola, thinking of
 109

becoming more intimate with her to draw information from her about the
Cardinal, took her downstage right and laid her down to seduce her. His
reference to the Cardinal at this moment must have drawn I more laughter
from the audience. In the original text Julia's wooing is comic in her
rashness and Bosola's response of self-interested purpose. But at the same
time it reminds the audience of the Duchess's wooing and provides an
opportunity to think about what makes the two wooing scenes different;
Julia's self-definition as one of 'the great women of pleasure 1 (V.ii.189)
makes the audience realize that Julia wants mere 'pleasure*, lust, and that
the Duchess wanted not only 'pleasure' but affection, which was more
important to her. As a result of the removal of lines in which Julia
describes herself, her wooing functioned genuinely as comic relief here.
But the scene, performed in a comic manner, made a contrast to the
following scene of the Cardinal's murder of Julia.
Seeing the Cardinal appear, Julia approached him and asked what
troubled him. After her short persuasion the Cardinal, sitting down on the
throne, said that he had 'committed | Some secret deed* (V.ii.247-48).
Hearing the word 'committed' Julia knelt in anticipation of hearing what he
had done, which might be dreadful; knowing that he would not tell her more,
she became frustrated. She continued her persuasion. The Cardinal finally
gave up; he stood up and held her from behind on 'No more; thou shalt know
it' (V.ii.263). After revealing his secret, the Cardinal brought a Bible,
on which Julia placed her hand and swore. The Cardinal removed her hand
and told her to kiss the Bible. Though embarrassed, she obeyed and was
poisoned. While Julia was in her death throes the Cardinal watched her
calmly. As Julia collapsed next to the throne and died, the Cardinal made
the sign of the cross over her body. The stage business epitomized the
 110

Cardinal's callousness, confirming the impression of Julia as 'the most

genteel whore, cooing like a dove in a cage of hawks'. '
Act V, scene v, opened with the Cardinal's monologue, which echoed the
prick of conscience which he had suggested in the previous scene. Entering
through the right sidewall downstage, the Cardinal delivered the monologue
while walking downstage. He met Bosola and the Friend of Antonio, who
entered through the left proscenium. Bosola, on seeing the Cardinal,
walked toward him, while the Friend stood aside. The Cardinal watched
Bosola in silence and noticed 'some great determination' (line 9) in his
ghastly look. Bosola showed a dagger to the Cardinal and declared that he
would kill him. Seeing the Friend attempt to ask for help, Bosola killed
him before stabbing the Cardinal. The prompt-book here reads 'Bosola
SHOOT' him. This enabled Bosola to kill him while holding the Cardinal.
Then Bosola stabbed the Cardinal, who collapsed downstage right. Hearing
the Cardinal's cry, Ferdinand appeared upstage, with a sword in each hand.
In his insanity Ferdinand took his brother for his enemy and wounded him;
then he stabbed Bosola. After that he advanced downstage, knelt down, and
triumphantly held up one of his swords with the blade downwards, as he
delivered his speech. During the speech Bosola stole up to Ferdinand and
stabbed him from behind. Hearing the noise, Roderigo, Malateste and
Pescara appeared. When/asked what had happened, the Cardinal, in his dying
— _r

moments, crawled centres tage towards Ferdinand's body and embraced it,
saying, 'Look to my brother' (line 86). The two brothers, 'bathed in red
as if physically deliquescing in their own blood and their victim's
blood', symbolically indicated the bond between them: their blood ties
and evil in them, which had made them shed otherjs blood and now their own.
After the Cardinal and Bosola had died, Delio appeared upstage with the
 Ill
eldest son of the Duchess and Antonio. The two advanced downstage, looking
at the corpses in front of them (see plate X). Delio asked the noblemen
for assistance to let the son inherit the duchy, which was to be promised
because (in this production) the Duchess did not have any children by her
former husband. There was, however, no indication of hope in the future in
the society of the play; the emphasis on the image of prison in the ending
as in the beginning suggested that the society would remain prison-like.

Visually the production was successful; Farrah's set and costumes were
highly praised. Criticism of the directorial skills concentrated on two
points. The first was the pace, which was ponderous in the second part.
In his review entitled 'Vintage tedium1 , David Isaacs argued that
Williams's miscalculation of the pace was the most damaging to the whole
production, which became, in his words, 'the theatrical bore of the
year'. Gareth Lloyd Evans, in pointing out Williams's errors, commented
on the pace that:
[One of his errors was] completely to have misjudged the pace of this
difficult play. The second half [became] slower and slower when every
nerve and sinew of its language and incident cried out for speed.
This production [dropped] dead in a ruck, bored, I suppose by its own
inactivity. ->u
The second point, which attracted more attention, was laughter from the
audience in the scene of the successive murders. Harold Hobson reported
that this scene was 'greeted by the audience with roars of unwanted
laughter. '^ Most critics who referred to this fact thought, like Harold
Hobson, that Williams had unnecessarily provoked much laughter. Only one
reviewer argued that Williams succeeded in cutting giggling to a minimum
Each reviewer who criticized the laughter attempted to analyse why this
scene of the murders evoked laughter instead of horror. Some argued that
 112

it was because people were so used to scenes of violence and murder on

CO
television and in films that such scenes looked stupid to them. Others
argued that the director was responsible for the laughter. For example,
Harold Hobson attributed it to the director's emphasis on humour in the
earlier scenes, which was successful but which made the audience unable to
appreciate the seriousness and horror suggested by the director in the
later scenes:
[Williams caused] the audience to find much of the early dialogue
legitimately amusing. But in the end his search for humour [defeated]
him. It [gathered] such momentum that when he [wished] to be serious,
and even tragic, the play [had] already passed the boundaries of
burlesque.^
More reviewers, however, argued that it was in the second part that the
director made a mistake. They pointed out his lack of care in blending
horror and humour in dealing not only with the final scene but with the
madmen scene and the Doctor scene in Act V, scene ii. Gareth Lloyd Evans
argued that
[Williams f s other mistake was] to have been insensitive to the
grotesqueries of Jacobean horror and bloodshed — we may laugh at its
excesses but our laughter should be chilled.
What the performance of these scenes suggested was, however, the director's
deliberate playing down of horror rather than exploration of humour or the
failure to bring out horror.
The director's attitude towards the aspect of horror affected the
evaluation of the whole production. Those who thought of the play in terms
of obsession and madness, which generate horror, were dissatisfied with the
production. A typical example of this sort of reaction was John Barber's
review entitled 'This Sane Duchess of Malfi won't Do*. After praising the
production for being 'clear and forthright' and for '[u]sing no quirkish
directorial tricks' in unfolding the story, Barber criticized that:
 113

the company [did] not [recognise] the central difficulty of

Webster [....] Webster's strength lies in his poetic obsession with
death, shrieking madmen and diabolical torturers [....]
Stratford [gave] us all the realistic detail [in the play....]
But Webster s realism is only half the man. He also freezes the
blood. The actors need to be steeped in his frightening obsession
with evil.
Barber concluded that Williams's production was 'a sane production of a mad
play*. For critics like him the production was a failure.
The aspect of horror itself was not what the director intended to
focus on. As the setting and the ritualistic movements in some scenes
suggest, he intended to emphasize what generates this aspect — the blood
ties in a powerful family, which affect not only the politics but the
members of the family. In paying attention to the symbolism in the setting
and some ritualistic scenes like the prologue, only a few critics noticed
the emphasis on the familial and political aspects. For example, Frank
Marcus understood that the 'cage-like settings'^' contributed to the
presentation of the Aragonian brethren, who live in a elegant but closed
world and who are the subjects of people's attention. The prologue made
Gordon Parsons realize that the emphasis was on the blood code of the
Aragonian siblings.
The fact that the director did not emphasize horror was not the only
reason for the reviewers' general dissatisfaction. Some disagreed with the
director's interpretation of the play, thinking that it led him to neglect
the significance of the aspect of horror and to avoid emphasizing it. For
example, Ronald Bryden mentioned two possible interpretations of the play:
Either you believe 'The Duchess' a profound and truthful
statement about the human condition, that evil reigns inexorably and
inexplicably at the heart of things. Or else you consider that it can
be given a human explanation, traceable through the tangle of ordinary
men s mixed motives [....]
He thought that Williams had chosen the second interpretation and then
 114

discussed how the director's interpretation of the play had affected that
of the scenes of horror:
It [was] good to see an attempt [...] to account for its motorway
pile-up of corpses and dismembered limbs in terms of character, as a
result of analysable human emotions and errors. The first step
towards preventing a recurrence of Auschwitz [was] to recognise it as
the work of man, not devils or metaphysical abstractions."
Bryden, however, thought that the director had made a mistake in choosing
this interpretation and that it was because evil in Webster's tragedy was
inexplicable in human terms. 60
The evaluation of the actors' performance was of secondary importance
to most critics, who concentrated on Williams's attitude towards the
aspect of horror; they tended to comment on the actors' performance only
in passing. But even reviewers who were harsh on the directorial skill
valued the acting highly. Criticism concentrated on characterization.
Judi Dench's Duchess was unanimously praised. She was most successful
in the bedroom scene, in which she, along with Antonio, fully attracted the
audience's sympathy in extracting to the maximum the warmth and the mutual
affection between man and wife. The success of the scene seems to have
proved Bryden's analysis that the director had intended to give 'human
explanation' to the events of the play and to 'present [the characters] as
people', 1 not as mere vehicles for the plot or the theme. But the
director seems to have given a different characterization to the Duchess in
the scene of her death, in which she 'kept [the audience] at a distance'^
with her stoicism and defiance. Though this dignified Duchess still
attracted the audience's attention, she also alienated the audience. It
seems that the director interpreted the Duchess in this scene as an
embodiment of 'the spirit of greatness' (I.ii.417), no longer an ordinary
human being as she was in the bedroom scene. The director might have used
 115

the delivery of 'I am Duchess of Malfi still 1 (IV.ii.139), which was

indicative of the Duchess's uncertainty of her identity and which could
have drawn the audience's sympathy, to bridge the gap of the two different
images of the Duchess before and after the torture. The delivery of the
line, however, did not have much influence on the reviewers' interpretation
of the Duchess in the scene; her dignity and courage in her last scene
became the main subject of the evaluation.
Richard Pasco's Antonio was well liked. The director's careful
cutting of the lines in the original text for the character and Pasco's
performance contributed to a 'strong, coherent [characterisation]'"^ for
Antonio, who, in the original text, gives an inconsistent impression and
who can appear to be unsympathetic in some scenes. Pasco's Antonio became
sympathetic in every way; he was 'an infinitely touching portrait of a
good, loving man whose virtue [had] nothing of the prig of it 1 . But to
other reviewers he appeared 'emptily pathetic'. -*
The Cardinal, played by Emrys James, was generally praised. It seems,
however, that the success was the result of the change in the director's
approach to the figure, different from that to the Duchess and Antonio.
This is proved by the prompt-book's accounts, in which the director did not
give the figure original interpretation; the image of the Cardinal
constructed from the accounts is a cold and politic aristocrat and a
corrupt clergyman: expansion of the image in the original text. In other
words, the director did not attempt to present the Cardinal as a human
being who deserved the audience's sympathy. Bryden's comment seems to
summarize the director's approach to the Cardinal: '[James's Cardinal
succeeded] by making no attempt at explanation — explanation to make
him look human to the audience.
 116

Michael Williams 's Ferdinand was severely criticized by reviewers who

chose to comment on him in detail. At the beginning this Ferdinand
appeared to be successful with his 'tightly controlled face and
somnambulant gait 1 "' and a suggestion of the presence of evil through 'the
drag and clank of the spurs [he] wore throughout, a chilling noise'. ° But
he proved to be disappointing, especially after the collapse into madness.
A close examination of the accounts in the promptbook and the reviews
suggests that the reviewers' disappointment was caused by the director's
failure in the characterization; the director attempted to express quite
overtly Ferdinand's obsession with the Duchess and his madness in the later
scenes: for example, with the restless movement in Act II, scene v, while
Ferdinand reported the Duchess's 'loose* (II. v. 3) conduct, and with the
indication of insanity — shouting, diving on the Doctor, and 'lurking in
the corridors carrying a dead rabbit'"^ — caused by lycanthropia, which
made him think himself to be a wolf. These pieces of business resulted in
making Ferdinand look merely ridiculous. It was as if the director had
emphasized Ferdinand's obsession and madness almost to the point of
caricature in order to make the audience recognize them. The director
failed to explore the importance of Ferdinand's obsession with the Duchess
and his madness; they are important in that they make the aspect of horror
emerge on stage in driving Ferdinand to inflict the mental torture of the
madmen on the Duchess, and that they contribute to the tragic result of the
play.
Critics' opinions were divided on the portrayal of Bosola, played by
Geoffrey Hutchings, who presented the character as the victim of the
Cardinal, and later, of Ferdinand; Hutchings 's Bosola was a man who was
virtuous by nature, but who was manipulated by the Aragonian brethren and
 117

forced to do evil solely because of poverty. He was 'a bluff, crudely

unimaginative opportunist to critics who had expected Hutchings to
emphasize Bosola's 'cynical intelligence which leads him on to his own
downfall'. Those who approved of this Bosola, on the other hand, praised
Hutchings for having avoided overacting. The reviewer for the Sunday
Mercury was the only one who valued his performance in terms of
characterization; this reviewer thought that the remarkable point of
Hutchings 1 Bosola was that he was *[t]he most ordinary in [the]
extraordinary peopleyat court and that he '[remained] always human 1 . The
director's attempt to present a new characterization for Bosola was thus
successful to some extent. It seems, however, that this characterization
was made at the expense of the exploration of Bosola's personal development
in Act IV, scene ii. In the original text it is not until he is denied his
reward for performing his task of murdering the Duchess that he becomes
aware of his self-deception; he has believed that advancement at court will
make up for repressing his conscience and being a wicked man's agent. The
following lines, which were removed in this production, make it clear that
Bosola begins to recognize the self-deception at this very moment:
I stand like one
That long hath tane a sweet and golden dream.
I am angry with myself, now that I wake. (iV.ii 11.317-319)
This removal suggests that Bosola had not been guilty of self-deception and
that he had already been aware of the prick of conscience before
Ferdinand's denial of the reward. The denial only prompted Bosola to
behave according to the dictates of his conscience. As a result f [t]he war
within him did not take place*.

The reconstruction of the production suggests that the director's

 118

existentialist interpretation led him to use two different approaches in

staging the play. On the one hand, he made the visual elements symbolic
and even unrealistic to indicate his approach. On the other hand, he
decided to emphasize the true-to-life aspects of the main characters as
much as possible in order to make their agony over the helplessness of the
world look convincing to modern audiences. Even the Cardinal, who was
treated as a symbol rather than as a human being, was given reality in his
death throes, in which he made an expression of fear, agony and distress
for the first time. The aim led to the emphasis on the blood ties of the
Aragonian siblings and on the family honour as the cause of the tragedy,
not on the exploration of the characters 1 psychology, which is not always
life-like.
The director's attempts, however, did not fully involve his audience.
While the symbolism of the setting stirred the audience's expectation and
imagination, the director's attitude towards the acting was not successful
to all the main characters. It made the Duchess, especially in Act III,
and Antonio look convincing — characters whose behaviour and emotions look
natural and realistic to modern audiences. But for a character like
Ferdinand, who is incredible and inexplicable in terms of reality, the
approach proved failure. It resulted in a failure to explore the
importance of the power of evil and madness; it is the description of evil
and madness which suggests the extent of Webster's imagination and which
stimulates the audience's imagination. It can be argued that the director,
in attempting to make the play look straightforward and realistic and to
avoid sensationalism, underestimated the audience's imagination.
 119

NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
1. Taken from the title of a review by John Barber in Daily Telegraph, 16
July 1971.
2. Clifford Williams, born in 1926, began his career as a director in
1950 of the Mime Theatre Company. He had directed many plays for the
RSC since he joined the company in 1961. He directed Oh! Calcutta!
shortly before he directed The Duchess of Malfi.
3. Farrah (Abd 'Elkader) was born in 1926 in Algeria. He designed his
first production in 1953. Since then he had designed more than 300
productions, some for the RSC, of which he was an associate artist.
4. Marc Wilkinson, born in 1929, had composed music for numerous
productions since 1962, when he wrote incidental music for Richard III
at Stratford-upon-Avon. He was director of music of the National
Theatre until 1974.
5. Calculated from the performance timings. All the production records
including this are held at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-
Avon.
6. 'The Director who Plays for Success in Stages 1 , interviewed by Judith
Cook, Birmingham Post, 3 July 1971.
7. Ferdinand refers to the fact that 'She and [he] were twins' on line
261 in Act IV, scene ii. All references to the original text are from
The Duchess of Malfi, ed. by Elizabeth M. Brennan, the New Mermaids
(London: Ernest Benn, 1964).
8. Brennan, p. 3.
9. The production photographs were taken by Tom Holte and Nevis Cameron.
They are included in the production records, and were consulted at the
Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon.
10. One of the pages of the prompt-book contains a direction of the
entrance of the madmen, with which the names of eight actors playing
the parts are recorded; and some of the Mad Priest s lines (lV.ii.110-
11) are attributed to the Mad Farmer.
11. See note 7.
12. The Tragic Satire of John Webster (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1959), p. 79.
13. The Complete Works of John Webster, edited by F.L. Lucas, 4 vols
(London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), I, 39.
14. John Webster and the Elizabethan Drama (London: Sidgwick & Jackson,
1916), p.
 120

15. 'Whispers of Immortality', in Poems (Richmond: L. & V. Woolf, Hogarth

Press, 1919), pp. 77-78 (p. 77JI
16. Though the production records listed the wardrobe plot in 1975, the
plot is currently missing.
17. The colour slides, taken by Tom Holte, were consulted at the
Shakespeare Centre and the Shakespeare Institute, Stratford-upon-Avon.
18. Programme.
19. J.C. Trewin, *The Duchess of Malfi', Birmingham Post, 16 July 1971.
Hereafter referred to as 'Trewin'.
20. Don Chapman, 'Ponderous Production 1 , Oxford Mail, 16 July 1971.
21. B.A. Young, 'The Duchess of Malfi*, Financial Times, 16 July 1971.
Hereafter referred to as 'Young'.
22. Ibid.
23. See note 7.
24. Brennan, p. 70.
25. Anne Dyson, who played the Old Lady in Act II, scene i, is listed in
the prologue. But it is not clear whether she appeared in the
prologue dressed as the Old Lady, who seemed not to belong to the
aristocratic society.
26. The word 'assembly', used in the prompt-book and the production
records, probably refers to the offstage space behind each sidewall.
It seems t t the actors arrived or left the space through the end of
the sidewalls at directions like 'Exit (or Enter) PS (or OP)
Assembly'.
27. 'Theatre', Punch, 28 July 1971. Hereafter referred to as 'Leslie'.
28. P. W., 'A Tidy Murder', Sunday Mercury, 18 July 1971. Hereafter
referred to as 'P. W.'
29. Felix Barker, 'The Duchess of Malfi*, Evening News, 16 July 1971.
30. Ronald Bryden, 'Blood-Soaked Circus', Observer, 18 July 1971.
Hereafter referred to as 'Bryden'.
31. 'Fruit Crumble', Sunday Telegraph, 18 July 1971. Hereafter referred
to as 'Marcus'.
32. For example, in the RSC productions, the dumb show was omitted in the
Donald McWhinnie production both at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre
and at the Aldwych Theatre in 1960 and 1961, and in the Bill Alexander
production at the Pit Theatre in 1990 (the dumb show was performed at
the Swan Theatre in 1989 and 1990).
 121

33. W.T. S.. 'Great Care Lavished by Comapny... But it Just didn't
Succeed , Gloucester Citizen, 16 July 1971.
34. Included in the production records.
35. Peter Ansorge, 'The Duchess of Malfi*, Plays and Players, 18, no. 12
(September 1971), 26-27, 62 (p. 26). Hereafter referred to as
'Ansorge'.
36. Young.
37. Marcus.
38. Sarah Eily-Wood, 'The Duchess of Malfi Fails to Take Fire',
Stratford-upon-Avon Herald, 23 July 1971.
39. 'RSC Ascendant', in Theatre 1972, ed. by Sheridan Morley (London:
Hutchinson, 1972), pp. 63-75 (p. 66).
40. 'RSC Ascendant', p. 62.
41. 'Blood-Soaked Circus*.
42. 'The Duchess of Malfi*.
43. Trewin.
44. This stage business is recorded by Irving Wardle, in 'The Duchess of
Malfi', The Times, 16 July 1971 (this article is referred to as
'Wardle' hereafter), and by Ann Leslie. The prompt-book has no
account of the business and the reviews do not make clear whether
the Doctor spanked Ferdinand with the fly swatter.
45. Wardle.
46. This stage business is recorded by P. W..
47. P. W.,
48. Leslie.
49. 'Vintage Tedium', Coventry Evening Telegraph, 16 July 1971.
50. 'Duchess of Malfi*, Guardian, 16 July 1971.
51. 'Theatre in Britain*, Christian Science Monitor, 26 July 1971.
This article is hereafter referred to as 'Hobson*.
52. Young.
53. For example, *Milton Shulman at Stratford*, Evening Standard, 16 July
1971: 'Perhaps the telly has made us sup so long and so often on tales
of violence that these Elizabethan tragedies of blood are now more
likely to raise a giggle than a shudder'.
 122

54. 'Theatre in Britain 1 .

55. 'Duchess of Malfi'.
56. These quotations are from 'This Sane Duchess of Malfi won't Do'. See
note 1 for reference.
57. 'Fruit Crumble'.
58. 'Linked by Blood Code', Morning Star, 19 July 1971.
59. These quotations are from "Blood-Soaked Circus*.
60. Ibid. Bryden's interpretation of the play is shown clearly by the
following passage: 'Webster's tragedy doesn't really understand evil.
It only celebrates it, like the Chamber of Horrors at Tussaud's, as
something to confront and bear with the Duchess, therapeutic only as
nightmare*.
61. Ibid.
62. Charles Lewson, 'Sick Stallion', Listener, 22 July 1971. Hereafter
referred to as 'Lewson'.
63. Bryden.
64. Leslie.
65. Wardle.
66. 'Blood-Soaked Circus'.
67. Lewson.
68. Nightingale, p. 66.
69. Wardle.
70. S.ErW., 'Stratford Malfi Ends in Bathos', Stage, 22 July 1971.
71. Ibid.
72. These quotations are from P. W.•
73. Lewson.
 The Duchess of Malfi

1971

V. the Aragonian siblings

VI. the wooing scene
VII. the Cardinal and Ferdinand in Act V, scene ii
VIII. the Cardinal's investiture
I.. the madmen scene
.. the ending
PLATE V
PLATE VII
PLATE VIII
PLATE IX
PLATE X
 CHAPTER 3

tableaux Talk' 1 (1989)

The Duchess of Malfi was staged by the Royal Shakespeare Company for
the third time in 1989 after an interval of eighteen years. It was
o
directed by Bill Alexander. The production opened first at the Swan
Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, on 6 December 1989, and ran for thirty
performances up to 26 January 1990. It transferred to the Newcastle
Playhouse Theatre (hereafter referred to as the Playhouse), Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, and then to the Pit in the Barbican Centre, London. At the Playhouse
it opened on 13 February 1990 and ran for 15 performances up to 3 March
1990; at the Pit, it opened on 1 May 1990 and ran for forty-seven
performances up to 1 September 1990. The music was composed by Guy
Woolfenden, and the settings and costumes were designed by Fotini Dimou.
In this chapter I will mainly discuss performances at the Swan and the Pit
(I will refer to the playing time at the two theatres later).
Bill Alexander's view of the play was entirely different from those of
the directors of the two previous RSC productions. Both Donald McWhinnie
and Clifford Williams regarded The Duchess of Malfi as a modern play fit
for twentieth-century audiences, especially those of the post-war period,
in which scepticism and existentialism permeated the world. It is clear
that, in their productions, the historical and social background of the
period in which the play was composed was considered necessary only for
helping the audience understand the plot of the play. The primary aim in
staging the play was, for both directors, to make the audience appreciate
their interpretations based on modern thoughts: how one can live in a world
 124

where undeserved suffering is imposed on one and where there is nothing

absolute to rely on.
Bill Alexander did not apply modern or existential interpretations to
the play. My interview with him makes it clear that he explored the
characterization of the main figures, whose behaviour was highly affected
by their circumstances. In offering his interpretation of the play, he
said as follows:
It is [an] atmospheric and very claustrophobic play. It talks about a
very small, courtly world, in which everyone knows what everyone else
is doing, and that's what adds [the] dramatic tension of how on earth
can the Duchess think she can hide something as extraordinary as
having a family from that closed world.
The Duchess became the focus of attention, but it was not because of the
manner in which she endured the ordeals imposed by her brothers, but
because of the fact that her rank as a duchess made her a person most
affected by the circumstances. The exploration of the main characters of
the play, therefore, resulted in giving high prominence to the
circumstances in which they were placed. As The Duchess of Malfi was based
on historical facts and was influenced by the circumstances of the period
in which it was composed, the circumstances of the play needed two
examinations: examination of the Aragonian rule of Naples in the
Renaissance era and that of the historical, cultural and social background
of seventeenth-century England.
As a result of the decision to emphasize the circumstances of the
play, Bill Alexander faced problems different from those faced by McWhinnie
and Williams. References in a classical play to its social and cultural
background always cause difficulties in modern audiences and directors, who
make efforts to understand the significance of the references. It is
especially difficult for them to imagine the atmosphere of an aristocratic
 125

society. In the case of The Duchess of Malfi, the main characters are not
only aristocrats but members of a royal family. To grasp the power and
authority of the family at the top of the mundane world, though essential
for full appreciation of the play, is more difficult. But the social
background was inseparable from Bill Alexander's interpretation of the
play. He needed to present the background to his audience, and at the same
time, to make it clear that the emphasis on the circumstances was made for
the exploration of the main figures, especially the Duchess.
In attempting to solve the problems, the director decided to use the
programme in order to initiate his audience both into his interpretation of
the play and into the situation in which its characters were placed. The
former is suggested by the cover of the programme. It contains a picture
of the Duchess's face, partly tinted by greyish red and green. The Duchess
is shown looking outside from behind a curtain. The left half of her face
is hidden by the curtain which she draws. Her expression suggests fear.
Well-informed members of the audience, who knew the plot of the play, would
have understood of what the Duchess was afraid: a fear of having her secret
marriage to her steward revealed to the outside world. The choice of this
picture for the cover of the programme suggests what the director intended
to highlight: the Duchess's struggle against the restrictions imposed by
her royal family and society, both of which do not allow her to marry for
love or to have a purely private life.
An essay by Lisa Jardine, printed in the programme, provides the
audience with pieces of knowledge of the house of Aragon and the period in
which the play was written. The essay is divided into three sections: 'The
House of Aragon', 'Marriage and English Protestantism', and 'Remarriage,
Rank, and Social Mobility'. The first section deals with the Aragonian
 126

rule of Naples, and with the significance of marriage alliance to the

family. This section not only helps the audience understand the plot of
the play but establishes the importance of the 'Aragonian imperialism 1 in
the play. The second and the third section reveal that the play strongly
reflects the religious and social circumstances in the seventeenth-century
England. In the second section Jardine comments on the 'Englishness' of
the Duchess's marriage to Antonio; for example, per verba de praesenti was
then an acceptable form of marriage in England and the description of the
Duchess's married life was based on the English protestants 1 marriage
ideals. The third section refers to two phenomena, thought to indicate the
existence of the 'disturbance of natural order 1 . One was the marriage of a
low-ranking man to his master's wealthy widow, like that of Antonio to the
Duchess. The other was the existence of men 'with no fixed [masters]: the
masterless [men] 1 , like Bosola. The essay concentrates on introducing the
audience to historical facts which had influence on the composition of the
play. There is no reference in the essay to the literary aspect of the
play, such as how Webster changed the source story in composing his play.
It can be said that the essay established for the audience the director's
intention: that he wanted the audience to see the play first and foremost
in its historical context.
A significant feature of the production was that it was performed in
playhouses smallest of all the theatres used for the play by the RSC. The
Swan Theatre houses 430 people. It is a Jacobean-style playhouse with a
thrust stage, surrounded by the auditorium which has two galleries. Not
only the size but the structure of the Swan causes intimacy between the
actors and the audience; one reviewer approved of this 'galleried
intimacy 1 . The Pit is much smaller; it houses approximately 200 people.
 127

But this impression is produced by its structure as well as its actual

size. Its structure reduces the distance between the actors and each
member of the audience; there are no galleries due to the low ceiling; and
both the acting area and the auditorium are on the same level. As a result
the intimacy between the actors and each member of the audience becomes
stronger than at the Swan.
Having seen performances both at the Swan and the Pit, I had an
impression that this intimacy worked positively in <»fafj»'ng The Duchess of
Malfi. The impression was strengthened when I saw the Pit performances,
which I found more successful than those at the Swan in terms of tension.
The experience led me to think that the intimacy between the actors and the
audience, which was intensified in smaller theatres, corresponded to the
atomosphere of the play. The play is about an aristocratic world, in which
the inhabitants are confined physically and mentally. Even those who try
to escape from the society, like the Duchess, do not think of abandoning
the way of life they have led. The action takes place indoors, in
locations such as the Duchess's palace and the shrine at Loretto, or at
night, or both. This is probably the reason why the adjective
'claustrophobic 1 is often used to describe the play. This word can also be
applied to describe the atmosphere of theatres like the Pit.
When I asked Bill Alexander how the change of theatre affected the
performances, he answered as follows:
[l]n my own view, this production worked better in the Pit than in the
Swan. I think the Swan is a remarkable theatre, but it is quite [a]
problem in getting focus in the Swan, because the sight line is
sometimes not very good; you have a very, very high audience that you
have to play to; it's a very deep thrust, which means a lot of [the]
audience are some way behind the action. Even though the Pit is not a
very attractive theatre, just to go in and look at; it is very well
focused on the acting area, and I thought that it was a better theatre
for that play.
 128

He made this remark after defining the play as 'atmospheric and very
claustrophobic 1 . These remarks suggest that he believed small theatres
more suitable for performing the play because of its claustrophobic nature.
Among the actors and staff of the RSC involved in the production of
the play, Bill Alexander was the second to notice that a small theatre
corresponds well to the nature of the play. As far as I know the first was
Peggy Ashcroft, who played the Duchess in 1960 and 1961. In an interview
for Shakespeare Survey published in 1988, she compared the Shakespeare
Memorial Theatre and the Aldwych Theatre with the Haymarket Theatre, in
which she had first played the role in the George Rylands*s production in
1945, and commented as follows:
[l]n the second production, where we played on a very open set, I
missed that claustrophobic feeling that we had in 1945 and that I
think is so essential to the play.
She recognized more explicitly than Bill Alexander did the significance of
claustrophobic atmosphere either in the size of theatre or setting in
staging the play. It appears to me that this impression of hers was proved
true in the Alexander production.
When the production transferred to the Pit, the upper level of the
setting was lost. But in both the Swan and the Pit the function of the
settings remained the same; they highlighted the action of watching. A
pair of conspicuous devices gave prominence to the audience's observation
of the characters of the play: on stage stood two gilded frames, the
carving on which made them look like picture frames. The larger frame
consisted of a pillar at each end of the central acting area and a lintel.
The smaller one was used as the central archway (see plate XI). Each of
the frames made the characters on stage look like portraits in picture
frames. This effect was particularly evident when the characters held
 129

their movements for a few moments, as in the court scene in Act I, scene
ii. In such scenes the stage was transformed into 'a gallery of
tableaux 1 . The device served to emphasize a theatrical awareness through
its non-naturalistic presentation of the characters.
The change of the size of theatre affected the impact of each of the
frames on the audience. In the Swan the two pillars reached to the top of
the second gallery, making the frame huge. In the Pit the pillars became
lower and made the frame smaller, thus causing the frame to lose the impact
which it had had at the Swan. The reduction in size of the settings,
however, did not work completely negatively; the smaller 'picture',
provided by the archway, concentrated the audience's attention and gave the
impression that the world of the play was compressed.
Another device — eye-shaped reliefs set in gilded ironwork —
reminded the audience that the action of watching was a significant part of
the play; it is Bosola's spying upon the Duchess which makes the plot
proceed. In the Swan the reliefs were set so that they would surround the
stage: on each side and at the centre of the second gallery, on each side
on the first gallery, and on the left-hand side pillar beneath it. The
reliefs gave the impression that not only the Duchess but all the other
characters on stage were stared at by the 'eyes'. In the Pit, in which the
low ceiling allowed only one gallery, their strong impression was lost, as
was the impact of the large frame. However, the emblematic effect of one
of the reliefs compensated for this loss. It was set at the centre of the
lintel of the archway upstage centre (other reliefs were set as in the
Swan: on each side of the gallery and on the left-hand side pillar). In
both theatres the reliefs symbolically emphasized one of the aspects of
life in the closed courtly world; everyone watched everyone else, and would
 130

detect others' 'darkest actions' (I.ii.235) and 'privat'st thoughts'

(I.ii.235). The reliefs, combined with the double frame structure, made
the audience conscious of the fact that it watched some of the characters
watch other characters.
The settings also had the function of conveying the elegance in the
aristocratic society, as those in the previous productions had done. For
example, the settings were painted in gold and black; the large frame, the
ironwork and the archway were gold, and other parts of the settings black.
The design was intricate in detail, though not lavish. The ironwork had a
geometric and symmetrical pattern, and the inside of the side entrance at
each side of the acting area was framed with metal bars. But elegance was
not overemphasized and there was not much decoration in the settings. This
was the same with the furniture. Props like chairs and tables were rather
plain. When elegance was emphasized, it was connected with the corruption
of this society, especially that of the Cardinal. This was suggested by a
large jewelled crucifix hung from the ceiling, used to indicate the
Cardinal's lodging in Act II, scene iv; and by a large carved lectern,
which held a Bible with which the Cardinal poisoned Julia in Act V, scene
• *
11.
The costumes were loosely Renaissance (see plate XI). Male
characters wore doublets, waistcoats and breeches. Female characters'
costumes were dresses with boned bodices. Accessories, jewellery and the
design of the costumes were used to indicate the difference in rank of the
characters. For example, in the court scene, Ferdinand was the only
character to wear a long and jewelled waistcoat over his doublet. The
noblemen and servants were distinguished by red embroideries in the
noblemen's costumes, while the servants wore plain black doublets. In the
 131

court scene the Duchess wore a dress which was ornamented with pearls, and
which had embroidery on the shoulders and the stomacher. She also wore
long gloves without fingers and a long pearl necklace. Cariola's dress was
grey and she wore no jewellery. But as in the settings, the display of
elegance in the costumes was restrained. Grey and black were the dominant
colours, and other colours were used only partly and temporarily; apart
from the Cardinal's robe, red was used in embroideries in the costumes of
the noblemen and of the Duchess's ladies-in-waiting; the Duchess wore a
conspicuous russet dress only in the court scene. It seems that both the
settings and the costumes were designed not to attract the audience's
attention too much, while they fulfilled the function of conveying the
aristocratic atmosphere.
*- There are two prompt-books for the production. The one was used
both for the Swan and the Playhouse, as suggested by its title on the
cover: 'Duchess of Malfi / D.S.M. — / Stratford + / Newcastle / Prompt
Copy*. But it is made clear by a video tape which records one of the
performances at the Swan, 1 J^ that the prompt-book presents the director's
later editing of the text for the Playhouse; and that he made further
deletions and emendations to the script after the performances at the Swan.
The video tape reveals that cuts and emendations for the Swan comprised a
small part of those marked in the prompt-book. Therefore my later
discussion on cuts and emendations for the Swan is based on the text
recorded in the video tape, not in the prompt-book. The other prompt-book
was used only for the Pit. As no performance at the Pit was recorded, this
prompt-book is the only material that provides the information on the cuts
and emendations for the theatre. Hereafter the prompt-book for the Swan
and the Playhouse will be referred to as the first prompt-book, and that
 132

for the Pit as the second prompt-book.

Both prompt-books are made of A4 sheets. The scripts of the text are
not pasted on the sheets but photocopied. The text used for the production
was the New Mermaid edition. There are several differences in structure
between the two prompt-books. The first prompt-book's spine is on the
right-hand side of the title page. One page of enlarged photocopied script
makes up each left-hand side page. On a wide margin on its left-hand side,
there are cues for lighting, music, sound effect, and furniture. Several
pieces of stage business are also written in the margin and within the
text. Most of the stage business is written on the right-hand side pages,
and the characters' positions and movements are indicated in two diagrams
photocopied on the right-hand side on each of the pages. Cues, stage
business and directions for the Swan remained even after the considerable
additional deletions were made for the Playhouse. / Act and
scene divisions are indicated by tabs.
The second prompt-book has its spine on the left-hand side of the
title page. One page of enlarged photocopied script comes on the right-
hand side. Only simple markings are made in the right-hand side pages.
Each left-hand side page is divided vertically into three sections. The
section on the right-hand side is for cues for lighting, music and sound
effect. The small section in the middle contains directions for personal
props, cues for the opening and closing of the curtains, and the
description of the lighting and the sound effect. The largest section on
the left-hand side is for stage business. Two diagrams of the stage are
also photocopied in this section.
In the following section I will discuss cuts and emendations for the
Swan and for the Pit; and what led the director to make further changes for
 133

the latter. Due to the lack of a recording of the performed text at the
Pit, comparisons will be made between the text recorded in the video tape
and the text in the second prompt-book.
Out of the 2,864 lines of the original text only lf\ lines are cut in
the performed text on the video tape. In most cases one line consisting
of a few words is deleted. There are eleven cases of cuts of more than one
line. As a result of these small deletions the edited text for the Swan
gave the impression of being intact. These cuts seem to have been made for
a variety of reasons. Some deleted lines refer to topical allusions and
the customs in those days, which are difficult for modern audiences, such
as Julia's reference to broths made from gold coins for medicinal use
(II.iv.65-66); a servant's description of a farmer, who became mad because
he failed to gain a fortune with his harvest (IV.ii.56-57), and Bosola's
reference to leeches used for blood-letting (V.ii.310-12).
Other lines ftre deleted to increase the tension of the scene: for
example, Delio's remark that he will take Antonio's son to the Cardinal
(V.iii.50-53), which is made right before Antonio parts with Delio to visit
the Cardinal for reconciliation; and Pescara's remark that Delio has
brought Antonio's eldest son (V.v.105-07), which is made between Bosola's
death and Delio's arrival for concluding the play.
A few deletions were necessitated by the external conditions of the
theatre, such as the settings and legal constraints upon the hours children
can work. ' For example, 'i'th'rushes 1 (V.i.88) referring to the place in
which Bosola has hurt the Cardinal and Ferdinand is cut; in this production
Bosola stabbed them on the bare stage. Delio's 'this young hopeful
gentleman' (V.i.lll) is changed into 'Antonio's young son and heir',
because the child who played the son was not able to appear on stage at the
 134

Swan at the end of the approximately three and a half hours performance.
The director also made changes of single words and insertions of
words. The former can be classified in several categories: changes into
their modern forms, for example, 'chirurgeons'' (I.ii.32) into 'surgeons 11 ;
and changes to make the context clearer to modern audiences, for example,
'sound 1 in the Duchess's 'Shall I sound under thy fingers?' (II.i.119) into
'swoon', and 'cultures' in Ferdinand's '[the Duchess's] guilt treads on |
Hot burning cultures' (III.i.56-57) into 'coulters'. There are two cases
of insertions of words. One is Delio's 'I know [Bosola] seven years in the
galleys' (I.i.69), which \ s changed, with a deletion, into "This fellow
spent seven years in the galleys'. The other is Delio's 'I knew him [i.e.,
Bosola] in Padua' (III.iii.40), to which 'of is inserted after 'knew'.
These emendations seem to have been made to help the audience understand
the text.
There are two cases of transposition of lines. Antonio's 'More
earthquakes?' (III.ii.155) } ,s transferred after the Duchess's lines
(III.ii.155-57), in which she laments the insecurity of her life. A
knocking off-stage Js added between the Duchess's lines and the tranposed
A.
lines. The transposition emphasized Antonio's fright, which made him
unable to speak much, and increased the tension. The other is the
Duchess's line: 'I should learn somewhat, I am sure' (IV.ii.23), which < s
changed to ' I am sure I should learn somewhat'. This transposition was
made probably to make the sentence less confusing; 'somewhat' is the
antecedent of 'I never shall know here' (IV.ii.24) at the beginning of the
next line.
There is one case of reattribution of speakers. The Mad Lawyer's
'Hast?' (IV.ii.88), in reply to the Mad Astrologer's 'I have skills in
 135

heraldry 1 (IV.ii.87), is spoken by the Duchess. In performance, the Mad

Astrologer spoke his line, turning to the Duchess, who replied to him while
making efforts to stay calm. The Duchess's involvement in the madmen's
lines emphasized the contrast of the Duchess's sanity and the madmen's
insanity.
In the second prompt-book 242 lines are deleted. The deletions
include almost all deletions in the performed text in the video tape. 1 ft
There are more deletions consisting of more than one line than in the video
tape. Some of them are large, such as the deletion of one whole scene (Act
III, scene iv). I was able to discuss these changes in an interview with
Bill Alexander.
The first reason he mentioned was the time limit imposed on the
performances at the Pit:
There is a [bit more] of time limit in the Pit, purely because in
London an audience would tend to have to go and catch public
transport, and in Stratford most people who see a play stay for the
night. So my experience is that If've] often had to cut the play when
it's moved to London. And the second point is that it was also a
slight change.... It wasn't a change of interpretation exactly.
[Alexander's emphasis]
These words suggest that the director made deletions mainly to shorten the
text and not for interpretative reasons. Some deletions seem to have been
made purely for this purpose, such as that of the Cardinal's explanation of
Ferdinand's madness (V.ii.87-99). But many of the other deleted lines have
certain characteristics; they are difficult for modern audiences to
appreciate. It seems that the audience's reaction to the performances at
the Swan led the director to cut such lines. In fact the director,
referring to the deletion of lines about Antonio's citadel, said, 'I felt
the audience didn't follow that scene'.
Many lines which refer to myths, historical figures and customs now
 136

forgotten or lost are deleted: for example, Bosola's references to Danae

(II.ii.18-20) and Pluto (III.ii.243-47), Antonio's reference to
metamorphoses in the Greek myth (III.ii.25-32), the Duchess's reference to
Portia (IV.i.73-75). Some of the expressions which would have been
familiar or proverbial in the seventeenth century are also deleted: for
example, Bosola's lines that the death of the Duchess is 'direful to my
soul as is the sword | Unto a wretch hath slain his father' (IV.ii.360-62)
and his 'Security some men call the suburbs of hell, | Only a dead wall
between' (V.ii.332-33).
Bill Alexander cut some lines which had been of significance in the
previous RSC productions. The first case is the deletion of Bosola's
attack on man's vanity, out of which man decorates himself in spite of the
fate of dying and rotting (II.i.47-63). In the second case the director
cut lines which refer to the confiscation of Antonio's citadel by the
Aragonian brethren, to Delio's unsuccessful plea to the Marquis of Pescara
for the citadel, and to Julia's success in obtaining it (V.i.5-13, 15-59).
It is true that these passages are particularly difficult for modern
audiences; the first refers to a way of thinking which is now extinct, and
the citadel episode to the possession system which allowed a steward to own
something of political or military value. But these passages are
significant. The first passage reveals some of Bosola's character as one
who attacks man's vanity, as well as a sarcastic man. At the same time the
passage establishes scepticism about the superiority of man — one of the
themes of the play. The passages about the citadel reveal the corruption
of the court; knowing that the Aragonian brethren have confiscated the
citadel illegally after they banished Antonio, Pescara willingly gives it
to Julia as soon as he reads the Cardinal's letter for her. It appears
 137

that the director reduced the complexity of the play in cutting these
lines.
To shorten the playing time was not the only purpose of the cuts.
When I asked what was the reason for cutting Act III, scene iv, in which
the Cardinal's investiture is presented in the form of dumb show, the
director replied:
I wanted to change the rhythm of the second half. I wanted the second
half to move at a quicker pace, and I therefore decided to abandon the
whole kind of choreographic and the statuesque nature of that scene.
I also believe it would seem probably meant much more to the Jacobean
audience, who [was] used to conventions of masques, conventions of
that kind of symbolist way of telling a story than a modern audience.
I did it, however, with some hesitation, because I think that it is in
a way quite a remarkable scene and quite a remarkable theatrical
device. It's very much the turning point of the play; but I just felt
that I hadn't made it work in the original production, that I could
not think of a way to improve it, but I could think of a way by
removing it, to actually make the second half more fluid.
IAlexander's emphasis]
These words suggest that the reconsideration of the rhythm of the
performance, which led to the deletion of Act III, scene iv, was another
result of the audience's reaction to the performances at the Swan. The
director's remark that he cut the scene 'with some hesitation 1 and another
remark of his that he considered the original text a 'brilliantly
constructed play, with a natural flow to it' imply that he decided to draw
a better reaction from his audience at the Pit in spite of his respect for
the rhythm of the original text.
After referring to the deletion of Act III, scene iv, the director
made an additional remark that he made more cuts and emendations to change
the rhythm of the second half of the play in performance: ' [A] lot of work
I did in the second half was to make it move quicker, the second half of
the play which I think had been over-long in Stratford'. Though he did not
specify other cuts or emendations made for the purpose, the examination of
 138

the second prompt-book reveals additional cuts. It seems that the deleted
lines include, for example, part of the Cardinal's persuasion of Julia not
to ask him what has happened (V.ii.254-62); and generalizing sententiae
such as Bosola's ! We value not desert, nor Christian breath, | When we know
black deeds must be cur'd with death 1 (V.iv.39-40), as he believes that
Ferdinand wants to have him murdered in order to conceal the murder of the
Duchess. The director seems to have been successful in changing the
rhythm; the deletion of the Cardinal's lines emphasized the impression that
Julia did not give him time to speak as she vigorously asked him to reveal
his secret; the deletions of Bosola's sententiae contributed to maintaining
tension.
Some deletions were made probably to remove remarks which can be
judged ridiculous from scenes which should be genuinely tragic by modern
standards. For example, the word 'again' in Bosola's 'Oh, she's gone
again' (IV.ii.348) is cut. Bosola speaks this line as he witnesses the
Duchess's death after her temporary fas?sO36it#f<0fl» Another case was the
deletion of the dying Antonio's 'Their very names | Kindle a little fire in
me' (V.iv.57-58). Antonio makes this remark as Bosola, after mistakenly
stabbing him, refers to the Duchess and her children in order to prompt
Antonio's inevitable death by revealing that they have been murdered.
These deletions seem to have been justifiable; at the Swan I heard members
of the audience giggle at Bosola's 'again 1 and at the contrast of Antonio's
'a little fire' of life and his family's death revealed by Bosola.
The director's consideration for the rhythm of the performances can be
discerned not only in the deletions but in one category of emendations:
transpositions of lines. Two cases are found in the second prompt-book.
One had been introduced at the Swan: the transposition of Antonio's 'More
 139

earthquakes? 1 (III.ii.155) after the Duchess's lines (III.ii.155-57). The

other is the transposition of the Cardinal's 'Where are you? 1 and his
servants' 'Here 1 (V.ii.221) after Bosola's 'Tomorrow I'll expect
th'intelligence [by Julia]' (V.ii.213). The transposed lines are spoken
off-stage. The deletion of Julia's 'get you into my cabinet' (V.ii.214),
already introduced at the Swan, and this transposition gave the implication
that the Cardinal's voice prompted Julia's reply to Bosola, 'Tomorrow? ...
You shall have it with you now' (V.ii.214-15). 20 As a result the action
developed more speedily.
Other emendations such as changes of single words and phrases indicate
the director's attempt to make the sentences clearer. In the second
prompt-book the director cancelled several changes, such as 'audience' from
'conference' in the Duchess's 'private conference with [Ferdinand]'
(III.i.46), and 'behind' from 'after' in Ferdinand's 'I'll crawl after'
(V.ii.50). On the other hand some changed words are added; for example,
'Bermoothas' (III.ii.266) was changed into its modern form 'Bermudas', and
'bewray 1 (III.ii.110) into 'betray', which is more familiar. It seems that
the director was careful in making the changes more appropriate, while
trying not to make fussy changes.
There is one instance of an addition, which is less explicable than
those already made at the Swan; in Ferdinand's parable of Reputation, Love
and Death, 'oh my dariing' is inserted after '"Do not forsake me [i.e.,
Reputation]"' (III.ii.132). As the original sentence is clear enough, this
seems unnecessary.

In the following section I will describe how the production was

performed at the Swan and the Pit. The reconstruction will be made from my
 140

memory of the performances, the prompt-books, production records, 21 the

video tape of a performance at the Swan, and reviews in newspapers and
periodicals. Though the performances at the two theatres were essentially
the same, there were several differences in the positioning of the
characters and in the acting. Some differences were caused by the change
of the size of theatre, and others by changes of the actors 1 or the
director's interpretations of their roles. I will refer to the differences
which I found notable or significant.
Before the performance began, the stage was dimly lit in pale blue
light. In the middle of the stage on the black floor stood a black stool
decorated with gold rivets. A jewel was placed on the stool. The
atmosphere of the world of the play was immediately established;
aristocratic, wealthy, elegant but closed; and it lacked warmth.
Suddenly the stage became dark, as a minor tune played on a clarinet
was heard. A few seconds later, the characters appeared quietly. The
Duchess stood under the archway, flanked by the Cardinal and Ferdinand.
She was wrapped in a black cloth. Next to each pillar of the archway stood
Antonio and Cariola, looking at the Aragonian siblings. The noblemen stood
separately in front of the two side entrances. A ritualistic atmosphere
was emphasized by the tableaux effect provided by the archway and the sound
of cymbals. As one of the noblemen approached the Duchess and knelt in
front of her, she held out her right hand, which the nobleman kissed. The
ritualistic atmosphere reached its climax as the sound of cymbals became
louder and the nobleman rose, clutched the Duchess's black cloth and
removed it. The Duchess, now seen to be dressed in a jewelled gown, posed
with her arms out-stretched. The tableau '[burst] into life 1 , as she was
applauded by those around her.
 141

The ritualistic removal of the black cloth implied that the Duchess
had just finished mourning her dead husband, and that she was now to return
to her normal life. The lavish dress not only indicated the Duchess's high
rank; with its low neckline, the dress transformed the Duchess from an
almost lifeless figure into ! a merry widow, a Titian haired temptress with
00
a passionate need to love'. Thus the opening served to present the
Duchess's two identities, which was in conflict with each other in the
course of events of the play: the identity of a high-ranking person, whose
behaviour is watched by the public, and that of a woman who asserted her
sexuality.
Blue light and music marked the beginning of the play proper. Quick
strokes of percussion made the audience anticipate the underlying tension.
The play began with Antonio standing alone upstage. A man's voice
attracted Antonio's attention. He turned upstage right and recognized his
friend Delio. Antonio expressed his delight and relief in seeing his old
friend welcome him back from France. The two started to walk towards each
other, while Delio continued to talk to Antonio. Their movements were
interrupted for a moment on Delio's 'you return | A very formal Frenchman,
in your habit' (I.i.3), when Grisolan, who had been walking downstage from
upstage left, passed by Antonio, looking suspiciously at his French
costume. This small piece of stage business emphasized one aspect of this
society; it was closed to the outside world.
Seeing Bosola appear downstage left Antonio began to introduce members
of the Aragonian court to Delio. This was done in a non-naturalistic
manner; Bosola froze for a few moments as Antonio described his character
walking around next to him. This 'non-naturalistic theatrical device' 2^
introduced not only Delio but the audience to the unknown man living in the
 142

aristocratic world.
After Antonio's speech Bosola walked downstage centre, as if he had
come back to life from a waxwork model, and met the Cardinal, who appeared
upstage right and walked downstage. This scene served to introduce Bosola
directly to the audience. Bosola complained to the Cardinal, who had not
rewarded Bosola's service for him. As the Cardinal made to leave on 'You
enforce your merit too much' (I.i.34), Bosola grabbed his arm to stop him,
exclaimingf 'Slighted thus?' (I.i.38). The Cardinal expressed annoyance at
Bosola's complaint as well as contempt on 'Would you could become honest 1
(I.i.40), and made an exit, ignoring Bosola.
From the beginning the two Bosolas — played by Nigel Terry at the
Swan and Stepen Boxer at the Pit — defined their different interpretation
of the role. In the director's view, Terry's Bosola emphasized the
or
character's soldierly aspect, while Boxer's Bosola was more scholastic. J
Terry appeared with his hair plaited at the top of his head. As an
o/r
indicator of Bosola's past as a slave in the galleys, the plait served to
stress the physical rather than mental suffering he had received.
Robustness deriving from his past was reflected in Bosola's speech, which
straightforwardly expressed the character's anger in being neglected. On
the other hand Boxer was presented with a large scar on one of his hollow
cheeks and a cynical facial expression, which suggested 'a deprived soul,
plausibly soured by years in the galleys'. 77' This Bosola also stressed
sarcasm in his acting; he spat out his last line about the positions at
court and made an exit, thrusting aside the noblemen who were gathering
under the archway.
As Ferdinand and the noblemen arrived, Antonio and Delio stood aside
to observe them; Antonio downstage right, Delio downstage left. Hearing
 143

that Antonio had won the joust, Ferdinand ordered a servant to give him a
jewel. The servant picked up the cushion of the pre-set stool, and carried
it towards Antonio, who bowed and received the jewel. The noblemen's
applause followed it. This scene suggested their fondness of ceremony.
The following stage business revealed that this inclination derived from
their obsession with appearances. While Ferdinand was talking to some of
the noblemen, the servant stood upstage, holding a large mirror, into which
other noblemen glanced to check how they looked.
Ferdinand talked to the noblemen, who reacted to his words with
sycophantic laughter. Ferdinand was cheerful at first; he laughed at his
own bawdy joke about Castruccio's wife Julia. When Grisolan and Roderigo
laughed at Castruccio's bawdy joke, however, he changed his mood and
rebuked the two in a quiet but stiff voice. After he told the noblemen not
to laugh unless he told them to, Castruccio's placating lines prompted the
conversation. When Ferdinand delivered another joke, the noblemen showed
embarrassment; they were unable to decide whether to laugh or not. Their
embarrassment provoked the audience's laughter. This use of comedy
effectively conveyed the atmosphere of the Aragonian court under a powerful
but whimsical ruler Ferdinand.
Silvio's announcement of the arrival of the Cardinal and the Duchess
was accompanied by solemn music, which emphasized the formality of the
OQ
occasion. The Duchess appeared on the first gallery with the Midwife ° and
Cariola. The Cardinal appeared upstage centre and advanced downstage.
Ferdinand, accompanied by Silvio, approached the Cardinal. Silvio knelt
and kissed the Cardinal's ring. It was at this moment that the second
tableau was presented. The Aragonian brethren and the noblemen stood still
when Antonio advanced and began to walk among them, describing the
 144

Aragonian siblings' nature for Delio. Antonio delivered his lines next to
the Cardinal, who blessed Silvio in a low voice (see plate XII). It was as
if the whole stage were transformed into a museum or a waxwork gallery, and
on
Antonio were a museum guide. ^ The alienating effect of the device placed
the audience in the position of Delio, a newcomer to the Aragonian court,
who was being introduced to this unknown world.
As the Cardinal walked towards Ferdinand, Antonio approached Ferdinand
and described his nature standing next to him. Then Antonio looked at the
Cardinal, who approached Julia, and referred to him again. During all this
Antonio's criticism of the Aragonian brethren's evil nature made his
delivery vigorous. After describing the brothers' characters, Antonio
looked up at the Duchess in the gallery. At this moment a hypnotizing
piece of music was played on keyboard and a cello, as if to imply the
Duchess's gracious nature. When Antonio began to describe her, she
appeared at the centre of the gallery. As Antonio continued to speak,
looking at her, his unrequited love for her made his voice increasingly
rapturous, until Delio, who was amazed at Antonio's rapture, stopped him.
After Antonio and Delio left the stage, the Duchess was introduced
directly to the audience. She descended the gallery and walked downstage
through the archway. A piece of music, made lively with percussion,
functioned as a flourish for the Duchess's return to court (it was also
played at her exit). Her entrance was applauded by the noblemen. Silvio
served as their representative in kneeling in front of her for a salutation
(see plate XI). The Duchess's behaviour during her first appearance at
court after her husband's death suggested her consciousness of her new
position as a ruler. As Ferdinand approached her to submit a petition, she
briefly replied, 'To me, sir?' (I.i.134), indicating in it her excitement
 145

at dealing with a petition for the first time. She accepted the petition
and decided to hire Bosola. She was excited, this time, at the fact that
she was given the power to control household matters. The Duchess's
efforts to behave like a ruler were evident also in her attitude towards
the noblemen. Hearing that Silvio was to visit Milan, she clapped her
hands and ordered coaches to be brought in a loud and dignified voice. She
left, holding Silvio's arm to see him off.
The exit of the Duchess and the noblemen was followed by the encounter
of Ferdinand and Bosola. The Cardinal, avoiding Bosola, made to ascend the
gallery. Bosola, seeing him going, talked to Ferdinand instead. Ferdinand
expressed his contempt of Bosola most clearly as he offered money to him;
on 'There's gold 1 (I.ii.167), he emptied a small bag, letting gold coins
drop on the floor. The sound of the dropping coins increased the
disturbing effect of this stage business. Bosola responded to Ferdinand's
arrogance with the sarcastic delivery of 'So: | What follows?' (I.ii.167-
68). Ferdinand laughed at Bosola's 'Whose throat must I cut?' (I.ii.170)
and told Bosola to spy on the Duchess, already implying his obsession with
his sister with the emphasis on 'a young widow 1 (I.ii.176). Bosola
rejected the offer contemptuously, looking down at the coins and kicking
them, on 'Take your devils | Which hell calls angels' (I.ii.184-86).
Though Bosola made to go, he was stopped by Ferdinand's offer of an office
at the Duchess's palace. Bosola suggested that he accepted the offer by
picking up the coins 'to avoid ingratitude' (I.i.194). But he continued to
criticize Ferdinand's intention to corrupt him with money, as if to imply
that it were the only resistance he had. The interview establ^hed Bosola's
efforts to protect his dignity and moral integrity even though he was a
low-life man and needed to accept working as a spy.
 146

After Bosola left, the Aragonian siblings reappeared. The Duchess

advanced centrestage, the Cardinal upstage rigjht and Ferdinand upstage
left. In forbidding the Duchess to remarry without their consent, the
brothers made a distinctive contrast. The Cardinal moved little, and he
delivered all his lines menacingly but calmly. Ferdinand became
increasingly emotional and raised his voice. When the Cardinal tried to
speak more after telling the Duchess never to marry a lower-ranking man,
Ferdinand interrupted him with 'Marry? they are most luxurious, | Will wed
twice 1 (I.ii.218-19), and indicated utmost disgust at the very idea of the
Duchess's remarriage. The Cardinal's '0 fie!' (I.i.219), delivered as he
frowned at Ferdinand, seemed to suggest that he could not bear to see
Ferdinand's emotional attitude. Ferdinand followed the Duchess, as he
became more excited. The Duchess protested at her brothers', especially
Ferdinand's persistent warnings with 'This is terrible good counsel'
(I.ii.232), indicating uncontrollable anger, not sarcasm. The brothers,
however, ignored her and continued to warn her. Not only Ferdinand but the
quiet Cardinal physically menaced the Duchess when he left. As the Duchess
rose after kissing the Cardinal's hand, he grabbed her arm, pulled her
towards him to give her his last warning: 'Wisdom begins at the end:
remember it 1 (I.ii.247).
The Duchess, left alone with Ferdinand, expressed her defiance against
her brothers by clapping her hands as if to applaud their speeches.
Ferdinand made her turn to him with 'You are my sister' (I.ii.249); the
next moment he drew a dagger to show it to her on 'This was my father's
poniard' (I.ii.250). This stage business seemed to suggest that his
concern with family honour made him object to the Duchess's marriage. But
his attitude to her at his leave taking suggested more than that. He
 147

embarrassed the Duchess by stepping back to avoid her kiss, though a moment
later, he laughed and kissed her on the cheek. As he made to go he
delivered a bawdy joke, which made the Duchess laugji, and then denied its
bawdy meaning to embarrass her. With the stressed delivery of his last
words, 'lusty widow 1 (I.ii.259), he maliciously suggested that the Duchess
would not be able to resist sexual temptations at court. This manner of
his leave taking suggested that Ferdinand's sexual obsession with the
Duchess led him to object to her marriage.
Ferdinand's final words provoked the Duchess's defiance in delivering
'Shall this move me?' (I.ii.260), and confirmed her resolution to carry out
the marriage proposal to Antonio. She pulled one of the curtains, as if to
create a private space which was out of control of her 'royal kindred'
(I.ii.260). But she was aware of what the intended marriage would
endanger. After pulling the other curtain, she turned to Cariola, who had
been attending her, and referred to 'More than [her] life, [her] fame'
(I.ii.270) in a quavering voice. A pause after 'For I am going into a
wilderness* (I.ii.278) emphasized her fear of doing what was forbidden to a
woman of her rank.
Antonio appeared, hearing the bell which the Duchess rang before she
had Cariola stand behind the curtains. His sight increased her
nervousness; she touched the edge of one of the curtains, watching Antonio
cross the stage and sit down. She delivered 'Are you ready?' (I.ii.281)
after a long pause, causing embarrassment in Antonio. On the Duchess's
enquiry about 'What's laid up for tomorrow' (I.i.286), Antonio rose to
fetch an account book, but was stopped by the Duchess, who was delighted by
his 'your beauteous excellence' (I.ii.287). Bowing to the Duchess's thanks
to him, Antonio walked backwards until she stopped him again. As the
 148

conversation went on, the two came to talk facing each other. But Antonio
never forgot his position as a steward in spite of his increasing
friendliness. Seeing this, the Duchess began to hint at her affection for
him. On 'If I had a husband now, this care were quit 1 (I.ii.301), she
looked at him meaningfully, then led him to refer to marriage. Antonio's
affection for her intrigued him in the conversation; he spoke circling
around her. His delivery of lines on the Duchess's marriage in prospect
reflected the intensity of his love for her. The Duchess's laughter to his
words suggested her excitement and nervousness in bringing the subject
gradually to her proposal. Her reaction made Antonio enjoy the
conversation and even find delight in teasing her. Asked by the Duchess
how he thought of marriage, Antonio delivered a negative view of marriage,
looking at her mischievously.
The disappointing view led the Duchess to suggest her intention more
directly. She took off her wedding ring, ostensibly to cure Antonio's
bloodshot eye. As he bowed and held out his hand, she put the ring on the
palm, saying that she vowed to give the ring 'But to [her] second husband'
(I.ii.326). Antonio was startled at her words and raised his head. His
reaction provoked the audience's laughter. Antonio managed to return the
ring to her. But the Duchess expressed her firm resolution to propose to
him by putting the ring on his finger. The action made Antonio kneel. He
resisted when the Duchess tried to raise him. He rose, rejecting her
proposal. As the Duchess continued, he exclaimed in total embarrassment,
'0 my unworthiness!' (I.i.347). Though irritated by the rejection, the
Duchess tried to convince Antonio of his worth. Antonio stepped away from
her and suggested his rejection, saying that he had never received wages
from virtue. The Duchess, after delivering 'Now she pays it' (I.ii.356),
 149

began to circle upstage, frustrated by the fact that her high rank
prevented her from being wooed, and from expressing her passion directly.
But her love for Antonio finally led her to ignore the restrictions imposed
by her rank. She stepped upstage towards Antonio to confess her affection.
Seeing him trembling, the Duchess approached him, took his hand and placed
it under her collarbone, on 'This is flesh, and blood, sir 1 (I.ii.369).
This action most clearly indicated the Duchess's assertion of her
sexuality, and suggested that her affection for Antonio made sexual desire
look natural and moving.
The Duchess's decisive action made Antonio accept the proposal. The
Duchess expressed her flowing delight in a quavering 'I thank you, gentle
love' (I.ii.377) while she ran towards him, spreading her arms. After
kissing Antonio she asked him to kiss her. As Antonio tentatively held out
his arm to embrace and kiss her, she became playful; she broke away right
before the kiss to deliver 'I have seen children oft eat sweetmeats thus, |
As fearful to devour them too soon' (I.ii.381-82). Even in the happiness
Antonio, however, was concerned about the danger brought by the marriage.
He broke away from the Duchess's embrace, referring to her brothers. His
fear of having the marriage revealed was evident in his reaction to
Cariola's appearance when he and the Duchess knelt; he rose and stepped
back downstage right, exclaiming. After the exit of Antonio and the
Duchess, whose exchange provoked the audience's sympathetic laugjiter,
Cariola's lines echoed Antonio's uneasiness. She anxiously wondered,
'Whether the spirit of greatness, or of womftn | Reign most in her'
(I.ii.417-18). This remark made the audience anticipate the destruction of
the Duchess as a result of her 'spirit of greatness 1 and 'of woman 1 .
In Act II, scene i, the next scene in which the Duchess appeared after
 150

the marriage, 'the spirit of woman 1 was emphasized; she was presented as
pregnant. She appeared after Antonio set a file on the lectern upstage.
Though hidden by a loose dress, her pregnancy was evidently indicated to
the audience as she was helped by Antonio to sit on the chair. She began
to sign several pieces of paper held out by Antonio while talking to
others. Annoyed by her necklace tangling her ruff, the Duchess told the
Midwife to mend the ruff. Tetchiness which accompanied pregnancy made her
impatient with the slowness of the Midwife's mending. The Duchess stopped
signing and rebuked her. A moment later, the Duchess became apologetic,
ashamed of her inability to control herself: 'I am | So troubled with the
mother' (II.i. 119-20). Another undignified consequence of the pregnancy
was seen as Bosola offered a bowl of apricots to the Duchess. Her appetite
for apricots was unusual; as soon as she received the bowl with great
delight, she began to eat them 'greedily' (II.i.151), as Bosola expressed.
She even sipped the juice left in the bowl after eating the apricots.
Throughout her appearance in Act II, scene i, the Duchess's behaviour under
the influence of pregnancy was exaggerated so as to provoke the audience's
laughter. While suggesting the Duchess's unfitness for the position of a
ruler, this served as another piece of comic relief after the conversation
of Bosola and Castruccio, before the apricots brought on the Duchess's
labour and the scene plunged into darkness.
After the Duchess's hasty exit, Antonio stood dismayed and frozen into
inaction in the darkness. Encouraged by Delio, he managed to take action
to prevent the officers from detecting the Duchess's delivery. He had them
gather in a dark corridor, which was represented by an angled column of
light cast on the floor. Antonio appeared and made a false report of a
theft. As he told them to stay in their rooms, his efforts to conceal his
 151

fear and to make them obey the order made him behave arrogantly. He stared
at the officers and spoke forcibly. This was most evident on 'She is very
sick' (II.ii.52). The officers' obedience led Antonio to appease them, in
telling them that innocent ones would be approved in obeying the order.
But this success did not relieve Antonio's fear. When Delio appeared and
told Antonio to comfort the Duchess, Antonio broke away from him and
shouted* 'How I do play the fool with mine own danger!' (II.i.62). After
Delio left to watch the Aragonian brethren in Rome, Cariola's entrance with
the new-born baby brought temporary relief in the scene. On noticing the
baby, Antonio expressed the surprise and joy of becoming a father; smiling
awkwardly, he held out his arms tentatively to embrace him. After
returning his son to Cariola, he rushed to set a horoscope for him.
Moments of delight, however, did not last long; when Antonio and Cariola
left, a scream was heard, making the audience anticipate the sinister
nature of the events to follow.
Bosola was the first to be drawn by the scream. The frightening noise
did not prevent him from spying. Antonio appeared next, holding a
horoscope and a pistol; his distraught look and cold sweat indicated his
shock at the result of the horoscope and his fright at the scream. Antonio
nervously addressed Bosola, who had hidden himself by standing outside the
An-tGK'iO
light. Seeing Bosola appear, j^ became suspicious about Bosola's behaviour
and reproached him for ignoring the order to stay inside. Stirred by the
fear that Bosola would detect all the secret, Antonio accused Bosola of
poisoning the Duchess and of stealing the jewels. The fear robbed Antonio
of self-control and made him behave violently; calling Bosola 'an impudent
snake' (II.iii.38), he approached Bosola and caught him, unaware that he
had dropped the horoscope. Shaking Bosola, he shouted at him, 'You libel
 152

well, sir 1 (II.iii.39), until a nosebleed made Antonio let go of Bosola.

Antonio's unawareness of the loss of the horoscope drew the first step of
destruction; after Antonio's exit, Bosola picked up the horoscope and
discovered that the Duchess had given birth.
As Bosola left, speaking the conclusion drawn from the discovery that
lechery could not be concealed, Julia was seen to enter and stand under the
archway. At the Pit, her entrance was made earlier, when Bosola was
speaking the final lines of the scene. This manner of entrance suggested
more explicitly that Bosola*s words could be applied as description of
Julia's behaviour. From the beginning she made a contrast to the Duchess,
who movingly expressed her sexuality in confessing her affection to
Antonio. The Cardinal placed a chair centrestage, and knelt, looking at
Julia. Told to sit down, she walked centrestage lifting up her skirt,
straddled the chair, and leant on its back. The Cardinal kissed Julia (see
plate XIII), and talked to her placatingly, 'Thou art my best of wishes'
(Il.iv.l). The opening of Julia's rendezvous with the Cardinal shockingly
revealed that she used her sexuality only to satisfy the Cardinal's
physical desires and her own. The futility of their relationship became
clearer after that. The Cardinal began to undo the back of Julia's dress
while he revealed his distrust of women. As he began to caress Julia, she
could not bear his brutality; she sobbed and tried to remove his hand. The
Cardinal was unmoved by her tears; he removed Julia's hand and continued to
abuse her physically and verbally. Julia expressed her anger by standing
and throwing down the chair. She made to walk away upstage. But the
Cardinal was convinced that Julia was under his control. He walked
downstage, stopped her with 'You may thank me, lady' (II.iv.27), and
reminded her that he satisfied her physical desires, which her husband
 153

Castruccio could not. On his 'I pray kiss me' (II.iv.30), Julia ran back
and kissed him. Seeing Julia's obedience, the Cardinal revealed his
brutality again. He held Julia's arm and repeatedly forced her to thank
him. His coercive attitude remained the same throughout the rendezvous.
The scene thus made it clear that physical desire without love was futile
and that, in a male-dominated society, it allowed men to be brutal to their
women.
Act II, scene v, turned the subject to the Duchess's childbirth and
showed the beginning of the threat to her by her brothers. Ferdinand
appeared to report the Duchess's childbirth to the Cardinal. Referring to
the shock at the report, Ferdinand raised his voice. The Cardinal's advice
to '[s]peak lower' (II.v.4) worked to the contrary; Ferdinand turned to the
Cardinal and shouted^'Lower?' (II.v.4), stressing his inability to control
himself. After walking around for a moment, Ferdinand sat down on the
chair, groaning, 'Rhubarb, oh for rhubarb' (II.v.12). Agony rather than
indignation was dominant in Ferdinand's reaction to the report, when he
clutched his stomach in the chair and took out a handkerchief to wipe his
tears while walking around. The Cardinal reacted differently to the
report. Though he clearly expressed anger by crushing the letter and
walking around, his anger was restrained; he referred to the Duchess's
conduct in a low voice. As the two continued to talk, Ferdinand became
increasingly pathetic. Tortured by the vision of the Duchess 'in the
shameful act of sin' (II.v.41), he moved his legs idly while seated,
suggesting that the Duchess mentally dominated him. The Cardinal made his
efforts to encourage Ferdinand to control himself. Stage business such as
putting his hand on Ferdinand's shoulder suggested the Cardinal's concern
with him as an elder brother as well as the concern with the family honour,
 154

which might be damaged by Ferdinand's uncontrolled behaviour. But the

Cardinal's encouragement did not work. He expressed irritation with 'Chide
yourself (II.v.59) in a loud voice. At this advice, Ferdinand seemingly
calmed down, as he began to speak quietly. But the calm proved false when
Ferdinand referred to 'some sin in [the Aragonian brethren], Heaven doth
revenge | By [the Duchess]' (II.v.66-67). Finding it impossible to make
OQ
the 'schizophrenic' JU Ferdinand gain self-control, the Cardinal made to
leave. He expressed a remaining fragment of fraternal affection as he
kissed Ferdinand's hand before leaving. Left alone, Ferdinand concluded
the scene as he left the stage through the archway with 'I'll find
scorpions to string my whips, | And fix her in a general eclipse' (II.v.79-
80). It appeared as if he tried to shake off his obsession with the
Duchess in driving himself to revenge. Throughout the scene Ferdinand
suggested how he was affected by his subconscious sexual obsession with the
Duchess.
Act III, scene ii, presented the happiness and harmony in the
Duchess's marriage, which were symbolized by a toy horse on the floor (see
plate XIV). The scene, however, began with the suggestion of the
insecurity of the Duchess's married life even before Ferdinand's invasion.
The closed curtains so^^ested the Duchess's bedroom, a private place. The
music played at the beginning of the performance was heard again. The
Duchess was having her hair combed by Cariola upstage left, while servants
and maids placed a carpet centrestage. Suddenly children's laughter
interrupted the music for a moment. Uneasiness was produced as the
I"
servants exdessed suspicion at the laughter. With the servants' exit the
atmosphere changed, as the Duchess, Antonio and Cariola were able to relax
and be playful. Antonio surprised the Duchess, as he sneaked behind her
 155

and put his hands on her neck. After requesting the Duchess to allow him
to sleep in her bedroom Antonio lay on the downstage side of the carpet,
taking his jacket off, as if he was ready to sleep. Cariola took part in
the playfulness, when she asked Antonio why he rose early after sleeping
with the Duchess and was hit by the Duchess. At Antonio's joke on
'Labouring men' (III.ii.18), the Duchess walked towards him, knelt between
his spread legs and kissed him. After another kiss, she lay next to
Antonio. This relaxed atmosphere led Antonio to try to tease the Duchess,
when she returned to the table and began to comb her hair, looking into a
mirror. Antonio made Cariola leave the bedroom; he also left secretly
after stroking the Duchess, who was concerned with the change of the colour
of her hair.
Ferdinand appeared through the gap of the closed curtains and advanced
a few steps unnoticed. Getting no reply from Antonio, the Duchess stopped
talking and looked round, until she found Ferdinand standing behind her.
Seeing Ferdinand draw his dagger, the Duchess tried to recover from her
fright and to behave 'like a prince' (III.ii.71). Ferdinand accused the
Duchess in alternating moments of quietness and violence, as he had reacted
to her childbirth. He advanced to her and directed the handle of the
dagger towards her on 'Die then, quickly' (III.ii.71). A moment later the
threat dwindled as Ferdinand withdrew the dagger. But when the Duchess
tried to speak, he intimidated her again by shouting, 'Do not speak'
(III.ii.75), and pointing the dagger at her. The most violent fit seized
Ferdinand when the Duchess confessed that she was married and suggested
that he see her husband; after relieving the Duchess with his quiet
consent, Ferdinand held her arm and forced her to kneel on the carpet with
his arm around her neck. The stage business shockingly conveyed his
 156

aversion at accepting what he regarded as the Duchess's sexual liberty.

Ferdinand gradually became calm as he told the Duchess's unseen husband and
her not to reveal the husband's identity to him. Finishing his warning
Ferdinand knelt on all fours, as if to suggest that he had lost all his
strength. The Duchess reacted to Ferdinand's pathetic behaviour gently.
Allowing him to place his head in her lap and stroking him, she protested
her right to marry face to face to Ferdinand, as if speaking to a child.
The stage business suggested the original relationship of the two, in which
the Duchess was dominant. The Duchess's attitude towards Ferdinand led him
to show violent fits and childish display of fraternal affection at the
same time. The Duchess's reference to her reputation invited Ferdinand's
fit, which made him growl> 'Dost thou know what reputation is?'
(III.ii.120). Then he took the Duchess's left hand and indicated with her
fingers Reputation, Love and Death in his parable. Speaking the moral of
the parable that reputation is irrecoverable once lost, he became enraged
and made to go. The Duchess shouted her last protest why she must not
marry, suggesting not only her desire to live as a woman but sorrow in
being rejected by her brother with whom she had been close. Ferdinand
ignored her and left through the curtains, repeating his vow that he would
not see her again.
The threat to the Duchess's private world continued after Ferdinand's
exit. Not recovering from the shock at Ferdinand's invasion, the Duchess,
Antonio and Cariola were frightened by violent knocks, which announced the
intrusion of the outside world. Knowing that Bosola visited her, the
Duchess took action to avoid destruction. She brought in her officers and
falsely accused Antonio to enable him to escape. In spite of the public
nature of the accusation and the ostensibly contemptuous tone in the
 157

Duchess's lines, she and Antonio managed to express their affection to each
other. During their conversation they exchanged meaningful looks, taking
care not to be noticed by the officers standing upstage. The secret
exchange of affection was concluded by Antonio's stressed delivery of 'what
'tis to serve | A prince with body and soul' (III.ii.207-08) in reply to
the Duchess's declaration to dismiss Antonio. During the false dismissal
the Duchess and Antonio made their efforts to secure their private
relationship in the face of the destructive force from the public world.
Act III, scene iv, is the turning point of the play in that it
publicly confirms the destruction of the Duchess. The political
significance of the house of Aragon necessitates the public display of the
banishment of the Duchess, who rebels against the social code and who
neglects her duty as a ruler and as a member of the family. The scene is
intended to establish the public and political nature of the banishment by
means of the ceremonial and non-naturalistic presentation: the dumb show,
during which the Cardinal's investiture and the Duchess's banishment are
01
performed. At the Swan the director emphasized the 'statuesque nature' Ji
x
of the scene in combining the archway and tableau/ provided by the actors.
The location — the shrine of Our Lady of Loretto — was suggested by a
statue of the Madonna placed above the archway. Sombre music made the
audience anticipate the banishment. Two pilgrims appeared downstage right
to observe the ceremony. The Cardinal entered through the archway and
stopped in front of it. The archway transformed the investiture and the
banishment into a series of tableaux, in which the Cardinal symbolized the
authority and power of the house of Aragon. While monks sang in
celebration, servants disrobed the Cardinal and placed his cap and cassock
on one of the stands. Then they took pieces of armour from the other stand
 158

and armed the Cardinal. The Duchess and her family appeared after the
investiture was completed. As the Duchess advanced and knelt in front of
the Cardinal, he snatched off her wedding ring and left the shrine through
the archway. The Duchess and her family rose to follow the Cardinal, but
stopped under the archway. They presented a tableau to symbolize the
banishment. The Duchess and Antonio remained there to provide f a
oo
compositional fugitive image |J<6 at the beginning of Act III, scene v.
Though the dumb show was entirely cut at the Pit, the archway retained its
function of symbolizing the banishment; the Duchess and her family appeared
under the archway, while sombre music was played.
The characters were back to life, as they appeared on stage at the
beginning of Act III, scene v. The Duchess was accompanied by Antonio, her
oo
children, ° Cariola, the Midwife, and two servants — the 'poor remainder 1
(III.v.3) of her train. They rested, putting down two bundles, all that
they possessed now. The Duchess sat on one of them centrestage, exhausted.
As she began to sob, overwhelmed by the reversal of fortune, Antonio showed
consideration as a husband by sitting next to her and embracing her. But
the public world continued to interfere with the family. Seeing Bosola
appear, the Duchess found enough strength to confront him. She snatched
Ferdinand's letter offered by Bosola, and expressed her anger at the
Aragonian brethren's intention to murder Antonio, by crushing the letter
and throwing it down. Antonio reacted pathetically to the letter; he stood
gazing upwards but at nothing. It was not until Bosola turned to Antonio
that Antonio assumed strength; declaring that he would not see the
Aragonian brethren, he picked up the letter and threw it at Bosola.
The familial bond of the Duchess's household was emphasized again,
after Bosola's threat to Antonio led the Duchess to suggest that Antonio
 159

escape with the eldest son to avoid ambush. Antonio embraced the Duchess
on accepting her advice. Then she knelt in front of the son to bid
farewell. The young son, who scarcely seemed to be able to understand what
his mother told him, embraced her, and this sight stressed the cruelty of
the situation. For a moment the Duchess displayed aristocratic pride,
which made her forget the sorrow of parting; at Antonio's advice to bear
all the hardship, she broke from him and the son, shouting, 'Must I like to
a slave-born Russian, | Account it praise to suffer tyranny?' (III.v.73-
74). But her pride was absorbed by the consciousness that the parting was
Heaven's will; sorrow dominated the Duchess again. Antonio consoled the
sobbing Duchess, taking her hands, and asked her to be a good mother to the
remaining children. The Duchess's affection for Antonio made her stop him
and kiss him, as Antonio made to go with the son. After parting with
Antonio and the eldest son, the Duchess embraced her daughter and sat on
the bundle with her, next to Cariola. On 'My laurel is all withered'
(III.v.90), she collapsed and was comforted by Cariola.
The approach of armed men, however, changed the Duchess from a
lamenting wife to a defiant figure. She rose, ready to welcome her ruin,
and confronted Bosola, who wore a helmet with the visor down, with ' I am
your adventure, am I not?' (III.v.95). The Duchess's defiance gave her
strength to behave as a representative of her household; seeing Bosola
approach the children, the Duchess held out her arms to protect them, as
the remaining members of the household gathered behind her. But
resignation began to emerge in the Duchess, when she realized her
helplessness. Robbed of her duchy and authority, she had no power. Her
only resistance to her brother's agent was verbal, 'Were I a man, | I'll'd
beat that counterfeit face into thy other — ' (III.v.116-17), but she was
 160

ignored before finishing her intensely uttered lines. By the end of Act
III, scene v, when she narrated the parable of a salmon and a dog-fish,
seated on the bundle, the Duchess had totally resigned herself to her fate.
There came an interval, which concentrated the audience's attention on how
the Duchess faced the fall of her fortune and her death.
Act IV, scene i, began with the suggestion that the Duchess's palace
became her prison; bars which had been behind the left-hand side entrance,
were set under the archway. Blue light shining upstage cast a magnified
shadow of the bars on the floor. Darkness accompanied the claustrophobic
atmosphere. A lantern, placed by Cariola on the floor when she appeared
with the Duchess, served to emphasize the surrounding darkness. The
Duchess in a plain blue dress had no jewellery or accessory, suggesting the
decline of her status. Both the Duchess and the audience were enclosed in
darkness, as the stage was plunged into blackout as the Duchess asked
Cariola to remove the lantern for Ferdinand's visit. His entrance was
announced by the Duchess's 'he's come 1 (IV.i.29). His movement from
downstage left towards upstage could be roughly detected by following his
voice. The Duchess's breaths as Ferdinand approached to condemn her
suggested her heightened tension and awe. Ferdinand's offer of
reconciliation took her breath. The Duchess grasped a hand offered by
Ferdinand with excitement, believing that Antonio had come. When the
Duchess groaned with horror, Ferdinand left, ordering light to be brought.
The audience knew what horrified the Duchess, when a lantern was brought in
to reveal a severed hand thrown downstage. Having been placed in the same
circumstance as the Duchess had been, the audience not only became
horrified at the sigjit but sympathized with the Duchess in sharing her
shock.
 161

Also in the waxworks scene the audience was shocked and then became
involved with the Duchess. As the curtains were opened with a loud crash
of cymbals, the figures of Antonio and his eldest son were revealed on the
first gallery. They appeared to be hanged from the ceiling. The audience
was made to believe that they were corpses until Ferdinand revealed that
they were in fact waxworks. Shock provoked by the presentation made the
audience become involved with the Duchess's reaction to what she believed
the bodies of her husband and son. What made the scene different from the
dead hand scene, however, was the theatrical effect; the audience, who were
aware that actors played what looked like corpses, were later informed that
the actors played waxworks which appeared to be human bodies.
The impact of the waxworks made the Duchess unable to stand; falling
on her knees and supported by Cariola, she groaned and sobbed. Then she
ran upstage and tried to climb the bars, on 'If they would bind me to that
lifeless trunk, | And let me freeze to death 1 (IV.i.68-69), only to be
stopped by Cariola and Bosola. In an hysterical state, the Duchess ran
downstage and wished for death. Detecting despair in the Duchess's lines,
a startled Bosola held the Duchess's arms and reminded her that she was a
Christian. The Duchess collapsed on the floor, losing strength. This
sight evoked Bosola's further sympathy; he knelt next to her and tried to
encourage her. But the Duchess hysterically hit Bosola, repeating 'Puff!'
as if to blow 'vipers' (IV.i.90). Her response to the servant who greeted
her with an invocation for her long life was to curse him with death. She
went so far to curse nature and the universe; the profanity was emphasized
when she stood, holding her arms upwards, as if to declare her curse to the
world. She sobbed while wishing her brothers to be forgotten by churchmen
and punished by Heaven, reminded that it was they who were directly
 162

responsible for her misery. Her hatred of her brothers was mixed with
despair, and it made her run away, on 'It is some mercy when men kill with
speed' (IV.i.109).
Ferdinand and Bosola appeared after the exit of the Duchess and
Cariola. In his harsh rejection of Bosola's suggestion that he stop
torturing the Duchess and that he let her live a penitent life, Ferdinand
revealed that the success in torturing the Duchess did not calm but stirred
his desire to make the Duchess mad. He was increasingly excited as he
narrated how the madmen should torture the Duchess. This suggested
Ferdinand's latent madness, which became clear after the Duchess's death.
At the beginning of Act IV, scene ii, one of the madmen's cry off­
stage made the audience anticipate Ferdinand's plan to release the madmen.
The frightening cry did not upset the Duchess, who asked about the noise,
while seated on a chair. Her apathy made a contrast to Cariola's anger as
she looked through the closed curtains and reported the madmen's presence;
paralyzed by the misery and the supposed murder of her husband, the Duchess
was robbed of anger or defiance, and was reduced to tears. It seemed 'as
if the sluices of life itself had been opened 1 . ^
The metallic noise behind, however, startled the Duchess. Looking
upstage, she saw a nurse open the bac and stand in front of the curtains.
The nurse, indifferent to the Duchess's misery and interested only in
performing her task perfectly, explained what 'sport' (IV.ii.40) Ferdinand
offered and described each madman in detail. As the Duchess gave a
resigned consent, the nurse ushered in the madmen one by one, using her
stick to admit their entrance. Six madmen advanced to surround the
Duchess. They frightened not only the Duchess but the audience. Their
pale complexions and ragged costumes made them look ghostlike. Some of
 163

them carried props, which indicated their former occupations, but which
also emphasized their madness. The Mad Priest held a Bible, which he
continued to flick through when he did not sing or dance; the Mad Tailor
had a framed embroidery, which he treasured, and entrusted to the Duchess
while he danced. The madmen were, however, controlled by the nurse to
behave in order. They sang, as the nurse clapped her hands and conducted
with her stick. When one of them began to shout and sob and sank down, the
nurse hit him to make him join in the chorus again. The madmen were
allowed to display their madness for a while; indulged in their wild
imagination, they talked nonsense and two of them fought. But order was
imposed on them again when the nurse made them dance in a circle around the
Duchess. At their exit the Mad Doctor was punished as he remained in front
of the curtains, pointing at the Duchess; hit by the nurse, he ran away.
The nurse's control over the madmen contributed to the audience's
impression that they were entertaining as well as frightening. This
treatment of the madmen lent detachment, enabling the audience to see the
scene as a series of tableaux of madness, while not denying an involvement.
Bosola secretly entered during the madmen's dance. He wore glasses
and a hooded overcoat to hide his identity. After the madmen and the nurse
left, he attempted to persuade the Duchess to be prepared for death. For
that purpose Bosola reduced her to 'some great woman 1 (IV.ii.133), whose
features were white hair and wrinkles caused by the care which accompanied
her rank. Stroking the Duchess's forehead and hair, he emphasized the
physical effect of the care. The Duchess grabbed his arm on 'I am Duchess
of Malfi [a pause] still' (IV.ii.139). Harriet Walter, who played the
Duchess, delivered the line differently at the Swan and the Pit. At the
former she delivered it in a quavering voice, 'as if trying to persuade
 164
or
herself of who she [was]' ^; at the latter she made the line sound more
defiant and suggested the Duchess's will to assert her princely identity.
According to the director, the change in delivery of the line suggested the
development in Harriet Walter's interpretation of how the Duchess saw
herself, and of her growth during the ordeal. In my interview the director
explained to me that the line basically indicated the Duchess's revelation
of her identity:
It is as if at that point of her life she [was] reminded of the pride,
of what [was] beyond her point of woman and mother, and actually
[came] to her sense of herself, that [was] [a] both personal and
public figure.
He also explained the difference in the interpretation of the line at the
Swan and the Pit; at the former the Duchess 'was discovering' that she was
a duchess, and at the Pit she spoke the line 'as if holding on something
and being defiant'. It £e&m&£ to me that, at the Pit, the character's
uncertainty of her identity was less emphasized, and that more stressed was
her will to resist with defiance not only Bosola's crude description of her
but all the ordeaL imposed on her.
^A.
The Duchess's defiance was tested when a coffin, brought downstage
centre, made her realize that she was to be murdered; on the coffin were
placed nooses, a shroud, a bowl of powder, a cross and chain, and a bell.
The Duchess showed fear when she knelt facing the coffin and declared her
obedience to the command of death. But she showed self-control when she
hugged Cariola and calmed her. Further suggestion of the Duchess's
imminent death was made by Bosola, who prepared the Duchess for burial, as
instructed by a dirge which he narrated. He put the shroud around the
Duchess's shoulders, sprinkled a pinch of powder over her hair, and put the
cross and chain around her neck. Bosola's stage business suggested that
 165

the society's obsession with ceremony permeated its inhabitants on all

occasions. At the end of the dirge executioners appeared. The
executioners shocked not only the Duchess but the audience; their white
masks with slits for eyes and mouths, standing out in the semi-darkness,
made the audience anticipate the ferocity of the execution. In the face of
the executioners the Duchess was still able to control herself. Stopping
the executioners from dragging away the sobbing and crying Cariola, she
0/1

hugged her to bid farewell. The 'unbearable tenderness' 00 which the

Duchess showed in asking Cariola to look after her children established her
as an affectionate mother for the last time.
After Cariola was taken away, the Duchess struggled to conquer her
fear of dying. When Bosola, sitting on the coffin, showed a noose to her
and asked, 'methinks, [...] | This cord should terrify you?' (IV.ii.209,
211), the Duchess clearly indicated fear with a pause before her 'Not a
whit' (IV.ii.211) and a stiff facial expession. But she managed to control
the fear. The Duchess encouraged the executioners to pull the noose around
her neck, with a loud and declarative voice. Even after kneeling with
humility to be admitted to heaven, the intensely whispered lines, 'Come,
violent death, | Serve -for mandragora to make me sleep' (IV.ii.231), and her
signal to the executioners to pull the rope suggested that defiance had
become dominant in her. Her display of defiance was made more explicitly
at the Pit, and this served to make the contrast sharper between the death
of the Duchess and that of Cariola, who clutched onto life until
oy
strangulation robbed her of all power. It seemed, however, that it was
the process in which the Duchess struggled to conquer her fear of dying,
which attracted the audience's sympathy with her up to her end. The
Duchess's agony of death, realistically expressed by the flailing of her
 166

arms, served to confirm the audience's sympathy.

After the strangulation Bosola suggested the prick of conscience,
which had been suppressed until then, in staring at her body left on a
chair and at her children's behind the curtains. When Ferdinand appeared
Bosola tried to make him realize the cruelty of the murders. Seeing
Ferdinand show no reaction to the children's bodies, Bosola held up the
Duchess's head towards Ferdinand. After watching her face with her eyes
open, I Ferdinand spoke 'Cover her face. Mine eyes [a pause] dazzle'
(IV.ii.259), and indicated his agony at the sight of the Duchess's body,
which suggested how cruelly she had been murdered. The rest of the line,
'she di'd young 1 (IV.ii.259), spoken as Bosola covered her face with the
edge of the shroud, suggested that at this very moment Ferdinand realized
that the Duchess was dead.
The sight of the Duchess's cruel death haunted Ferdinand; he had the
shroud removed and stared at her face again. The Duchess's face led
Ferdinand to examine what had caused him to have the Duchess murdered.
Reaching the conclusion that her marriage was the cause, Ferdinand closed
her eyes. The stage business suggested that he was able to be kind to her
when he became conscious, though vaguely, that the Duchess's marriage had
distorted his love for her. Then he attempted to convince himself that it
was Bosola, not himself, who was responsible for the murder. Ferdinand's
desperate efforts to deny his responsibility for the murder were evident
when Bosola, angry at Ferdinand's denial of reward to him, reminded
Ferdinand of his order to murder the Duchess. Trying to deny his own
authority in the murder, Ferdinand claimed in shouts that the Duchess's
death was not decreed by 'any ceremonial form of law' (IV.ii.294) or 'a
complete jury' (IV.ii.295). Bosola continued to accuse Ferdinand in
 167

pointing at the Duchess's body on 'who shall dare | To reveal this? 1

(IV.ii.302) and in warning that Ferdinand would be charged at the discovery
of the murder. Ferdinand, however, ignored Bosola and made to go.
Ferdinand's madness began to become evident when Bosola again accused him
for denying the reward. Exclaiming '0 horror! 1 (IV.ii.308), he crouched on
the floor, as if to hide himself from Bosola. After that Ferdinand ceased
to react to what Bosola did or said. Ferdinand stood up on 'I'll go hunt
the badger by owl-light 1 (IV.ii.328) and slowly left the stage through the
archway on ''Tis a deed of darkness' (IV.ii.329), suggesting his complete
plunge into madness.
Ferdinand's denial of the reward first caused anger in Bosola; he
kicked Ferdinand who was crouched on the floor. After the explosion of
anger, Bosola expressed disgust at the fact that he had blindly devoted
himself to advancement at court, on 'I am angry at myself (IV.ii.319).
Ferdinand's rejection of him in madness evoked in Bosola the desire to be
recognized; Bosola fiercely pulled him round and complained to him in vain.
It was after going through a variety of emotions that Bosola became clearly
conscious of the prick of conscience. Left alone, he clapped his hands, as
if to wake himself up from 'a sweet and golden dream' (IV.ii.318) or a
'painted honour' (IV.ii.330). On seeing the Duchess stir and twitch,
Bosola's decision to let his conscience rule him drove him to make efforts
to revive the Duchess; he loosened the rope around her neck and gave her a
kiss of life. When the Duchess opened her eyes, he knelt in front of her.
He embraced her, reporting that Antonio was alive, as if to cling to the
celestial guide 'To help [him] up to mercy' (IV.ii.343). The Duchess
smiled at the news; a moment later, she leant on the chair and ceased to
move. Her eyes, left open, suggested that she had died. On confirming her
 168

death, Bosola buried his head into the Duchess's hair and sobbed. This
display of sorrow convincingly presented Bosola as a man who had the
00
possibility to become 'a strong moral centre*.
Tension was sustained after the Duchess's death, by the prominence
given to the consequences of the Duchess's murder to the main figures. In
Act V, scene ii, the consequences to Ferdinand were presented. Ferdinand
appeared through the closed curtains, watched by the Doqor, the Cardinal
A
and the noblemen. Bells heard right before Ferdinand's entrance suggested
the complete destruction of Ferdinand's personality. It was also indicated
r

by Ferdinand's ghastly look. He showed an aversion to being followed.

Seeing his shadow cast on the curtains, he jumped at it and fell on the
floor. He also suggested his suppressed conscience. As he was forced to
rise by the noblemen, who responded to the Cardinal's shout, 'Force him up 1
(V.ii.52), Ferdinand pleaded to the noblemen to 'Use [him] well 1 (V.ii.53)
in a loud voice, claiming that he would not confess what he had done.
After that Ferdinand's aversion to being followed developed into fear;
running away from the Doctor, who attempted to play 'mad tricks' (IV.ii.58)
to cure him, Ferdinand crouched on the floor. In an effort to hide
himself, Ferdinand tried to pull the edge of his long nightshirt towards
his head. The Doctor approached him, and made him dance in raising him and
holding his arms. A moment later Ferdinand attacked the Doctor, I plunging
at him and hitting him. In the end Ferdinand left, staggering through the
curtains. In spite of its potential for comedy, the scene was taken
seriously by the audience, until Pescara evoked laughter when he told the
Doctor that Ferdinand was not afraid of him.
Julia entered to woo Bosola, when he was left alone. This scene was
played with some seriousness, though it could have been played purely as
 169

comic relief, as in the previous RSC productions. Julia appeared through

the curtains, pointing a pistol at him. She arrived next to him after
circling around him, as if to examine how attractive he was. On
understanding that she was in love with him, Bosola pulled her close to him
and removed her pistol. During her ardent wooing of Bosola, which followed
the embrace, Julia showed little playfulness. Kissing and holding Bosola,
or staring at him, she was eager to know whether she would succeed in the
wooing. Her attitude conveyed the seriousness of her desire to escape from
her futile relationship with the Cardinal, while it also suggested how she
was dominated by passion.
Julia succeeded in proving her love for Bosola when she persuaded the
Cardinal to confess the murder of the Duchess. But this resulted in the
Cardinal's decision to murder her to prevent the secret from being
revealed. He made Julia kneel in front of the lectern which held the
poisoned Bible. After caJn&$inQ and kissing her, the Cardinal made her
kiss the Bible. He crossed himself while she kissed the Bible; this stage
business suggested his conscience in carrying out the murder. As Julia
raised her head, detecting the taste of poison, the Cardinal pushed her
head down onto the Bible. Julia's cry stressed the brutality of the
murder. Bosola appeared, hearing the cry. At the Swan, he showed kindness
to Julia when he ran towards her, exclaiming, 'For pity-sake, hold'
(V.ii.287). At the Pit it seemed that Bosola's function was to suggest
that the Cardinal's brutality to Julia was a reflection of men's general
attitude towards women in this society. Bosola appeared silently and
walked slowly towards the Cardinal and Julia, after Julia's cry had
informed him of the poisoning. To Julia in her death throes Bosola spoke
'Oh foolish woman' (V.ii.282) contemptuously. There was no warmth in
 170

Bosola's attitude towards Julia. Julia's death, observed by men who had no
sympathy for her, established her as a victim of this male-dominated
society.
The suggestion of death and destruction continued in the following
scenes; bells were heard again at the appearance of Antonio and Delio in
the ruined fortifications, and at the appearance of the Cardinal and the
noblemen in the Cardinal's lodging. The ominous sound made the audience
anticipate the destructive forces which were prevalent in the world of the
play. After the exit of the noblemen and then of the Cardinal, the stage
became dark. Two diagonally crossing columns of light cast on the floor
suggested the change of location: corridors. The ominous anticipation was
realized when Bosola stabbed Antonio, mistaking him, in the darkness, for
an assassin hired by the Cardinal to kill him. On recognizing Antonio as
Antonio's servant brought in a lantern, Bosola painfully delivered 'We are
merely the stars' tennis-balls, struck and banded | Which way please them 1
(V.iv. 53-54), recognizing the irony that he had stabbed the very man whom
he had wanted to save. The following exchange between Antonio and Bosola
confirmed how powerless men were in the world of the play. The news of the
murder of the Duchess and her children made Antonio realize the vanity of
'Pleasure of life' (V.iv.66). Antonio laughed at his efforts to reunite
his family, which were rewarded by grief and death. After witnessing
Antonio's death which was marked by despair, Bosola rose to kill the
Cardinal. Bosola's words, 'I'll be mine own example' (V.iv.81), directed
at Antonio's body, conveyed his isolation now that he had nobody with whom
he could have a human relationship.
In the final scene, Act V, scene v, the archway was used to transform
the whole scene into a series of emblematic tableaux. After thunder was
 171

heard, the Cardinal, holding a book, appeared and stopped under the
archway. After referring to a passage on the fire of hell in the book, he
shut it to stop thinking about hell. But his conscience continued to haunt
him; his gestures as he advanced centrestage conveyed his agony, which
showed him the illusion of 'a thing arm'd with a rake 1 (V.v.6). Bosola and
the servant, who carried Antonio's body, appeared through the archway.
While the servant leant the body against the inside of the left-hand side
pillar of the archway, Bosola advanced to declare to the Cardinal that he
would murder him. When it was clear that the Cardinal's offer of wealth
would not change Bosola's mind, the Cardinal sank down on the floor out of
fear, crying for help.
The Cardinal's voice drew the attention of Pescara, Roderigo,
Malateste and Grisolan. At the Swan they appeared on the first gallery.
The positioning enabled the audience to see the noblemen's reaction to the
Cardinal's cries and Bosola's threatening of the Cardinal at the same time.
This was effective in emphasizing the irony that the noblemen, as they had
been told beforehand, believed that the Cardinal cried in jest, while he
did so in earnest. At the Pit the noblemen's appearance in the gangways at
the top of the auditorium caused the scene to lose its ironic I emphasis.
But this positioning, which allowed the audience to hear the noblemen from
their midst, served to emphasize the alienating effect.
After the noblemen's exit, the acting involved the audience in the
scene and made the audience recognize the scene as tragic, though it
clearly presented the anticlimactic and farcical nature of the scene,
indicated in the original text. Seeing the servant make to leave to call
for help, Bosola killed the servant, who fell to the inside of the right-
hand side pillar of the archway. As Bosola approached, the Cardinal lost
 172

all his dignity; he clung to Bosola to beg for mercy. Only when stabbed
did the Cardinal resist death; he now clung to Bosola, making him fall to
the floor. The resistance served only to emphasize how the fear of dying
reduced the Cardinal to a powerless and pathetic man. Hearing the noise,
Ferdinand appeared through the archway. Imagining himself in a
battlefield, he wore a breastplate over his nightshirt. Ferdinand's
appearances and his eagerness to take part in the imaginary fight made him
look ridiculous. Stabbing the Cardinal and Bosola, Ferdinand rose
triumphantly; and he spoke his nonsense, which he called 'philosophy 1
(V.v.61), confidently. Tragedy took the place of ridiculousness only when
Bosola's stabbing stirred Ferdinand's sanity, and made Ferdinand realize
that his sister was 'the cause' (V.v.70). The manner of Ferdinand's death
was undignified; he died sitting, with his legs out-stretched and his head
lolling forward.
The noblemen appeared upstage, laughing at Pescara, who descended to
visit the Cardinal. The sigjht of the successive murders made them freeze
for a moment, and then run to the Aragonian brethren. Pescara approached
the Cardinal and asked what had happened. The Cardinal cried, 'Look to my
brother' (V.v.86), as if to divert Pescara's attention from himself rather
than to ask Pescara to take care of Ferdinand. The Cardinal's self-disgust
was clear, when he asked Pescara to forget him after his death. The
Cardinal was stripped of any dignity. He crawled across the stage, crossed
himself and collapsed to lie next to Ferdinand's body. His death evoked
little sympathy in the audience, though he showed his fraternal affection
to Ferdinand for the last time in caressing his body. The miserable death
of the Aragonian brethren served to convince the audience that their lack
of integrity had invited the consequences. Bosola's death was marked by
 174

the Duchess's murdered son sang a requiem to the tune. The voice,
lingering for a few seconds in the darkness, confirmed the sorrow at the
fact that integrity was not able to survive in the corrupt world. At the
same time, however, the voice from another world convinced the audience
that the Duchess and her family were given a place of rest after their
death. The ending left the audience in a mixture of sorrow and relief, in
offering the conclusion that the Duchess's conflict with her society would
be resolved by her eldest son and that her integrity was finally rewarded,
though painfully. The audience was convinced that at the end of the play,
'Instead of melodrama, [the audience] [got] tragedy'. ^
It seems that the success of this production derived from the fact
that the director understood the complexity of the original text. As he
perceived, what makes the play difficult for modern audience is forgotten
theatrical conventions, such as 'conventions of masques, conventions of [a]
symbolist way of telling a story'. The Cardinal's investiture is not the
only example of this kind of convention. It has been pointed out that
Antonio's description of the Aragonian brethren and scenes which can be
judged as grotesque by modern standards, such as the madmen scene, were
/ Q
also designed for emblematic and symbolist effects. Such scenes are
juxtaposed with scenes which are realistic and psychologically plausible.
It seems that it was to make the audience understand the juxtaposition that
the director took non-realistic approaches both in the settings and the
acting: the two golden frames which dominated the acting area and the
tableaux produced by the actors in significant scenes. These features made
the audience recognize the symbolic aspect of the play, and prevented the
dead hand scene, the madmen scenes and the murders in the final scenes from
being considered solely grotesque or risible. On the other hand, the
 175

acting, supported by the director's understanding of the cultural and

social background of Jacobean England, involved the audience in the
psychology of the Duchess, the central figure, who was most affected by her
society. The balance of symbolism and realism was maintained up to the
end. It resulted in an imaginative production. It can be argued that Bill
Alexander's respect for the original text in terms of its structure and of
cultural context made it possible for the director to appeal to the
audience without distorting the essence of the play.
 176

NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
1. Taken from the title of a review by Georgina Brown in Independent, 3
May 1990. This article is hereafter referred to as 'Brown'.
2. Bill Alexander, born in 1943, began his directing career as a trainee
director at the Bristol Old Vie in 1971. After working at the Royal
Court, he became a resident director for the RSC, for which he has
directed plays including Factory Birds, Henry IV Parts I and II, A
Midsummer Night's Dream, and Cyinbeline.
3. Guy Woolfenden was born in 1937. Since 1962 he has been Music
Director for the RSC, for which he has composed more than 150 scores.
4. Fotini Dimou was trained at Ecole des Beaux Arts, Brussels and the
Central School of Art and Design, London. She has worked extensively
for five years as a costume and set designer in New York City and
regional theatres in the USA.
5. The interview took place at the Barbican Centre, London, on 3 May
1990. Unless otherwise indicated, all the director's remarks are
taken from this interview. Hereafter referred to as 'Alexander'.
6. All quotations in this paragraph are taken from Lisa Jardine's essay
in the programme.
7. Jane Edwardes, Time Out, 13 December 1989. Quoted from London Theatre
Record, 9 (1989), p. 1741, the title of the article is unknown.
Hereafter referred to as 'Edwardes'.
8. Peggy Ashcroft, 'Playing Shakespeare', interviewed by Inga-Stina
Ewbank, Shakespeare Survey, 40 (1988), 11-19 (p. 19).
9. Kate Kellaway, 'The Duchess of Malfi 1 , Plays and Players, no. 44
(August 1990), 37. Hereafter referred to as 'Kellaway'.
10. These references are from The Duchess of Malfi, ed. by Elizabeth M.
Brennan, the New Mermaids, second ed. (London: Ernest Benn, 1983
(first ed.> 1964)). This edition was used for the Alexander
production.
11. For example, Kellaway: 'Fotini Dimou's [...] design is, loosely,
seventeenth-century'. And J[ill] P[earce] wrote in 'The Duchess of
Malfi, director Bill Alexander, RSC, Barbican Pit, 16 May 1990, centre
front', Cahiers Eli&abethains, no. 38 (Octobre 1990), 94-95: 'the
boned bodices of the Elizabethan dress [...]' (p. 94).
12. The prompt-books for the Alexander production were consulted at the
Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon.
13. The video tape records a performance at the Swan on 18 January 1990.
It was consulted at the Shakespeare Centre.
 177

14. In the first prompt-book 199 lines are deleted, while 40 are cut in
the performed text of the video tape. Some deletions were made only
at the Swan (See note IB below).
15. See note 10.
16. A brief note, 'cut 13/12/89', beside the markings of deletion of
V.ii.310-12, suggests that a small number of additional cuts may have
been made during the performances at the Swan and the number of the
deleted lines may have changed.
17. Alexander: '[Antonio's son] didn't appear in the Swan, because there
was restriction about the hour to which we could keep children in the
theatre.'
18. Some of the cuts and emendations in the performed text of the video
tape are not recorded in either prompt-book. Many of them are
deletions and changes of one or two words. The deletions of II.iii.54
and of Bosola's lines T< V.ii.83-84JJare notable among them.
19. Alexander. The average recording time was, according to the stage
manager's report, three hours and nine minutes at the Swan, and three
hours and six minutes at the Pit.
20. The insertion of 'now' had been introduced at the Swan.
21. The production records were consulted at the Shakespeare Centre.
22. Brown.
23. Ibid,
24. Alexander.
25. Ibid.: 'I think the main difference between Stephen and Nigel was that
Nigel was someone very much of a soldier and with Stephen, who was
more a scholar.... So there was more of the sceptical scholastic
quality in Stephen, and more of the brutal... more powerful man in
Nigel'.
26. Michael Coveney, 'The Duchess of Malfi', Financial Times, 8 December
1989: '[Bosola's] time in the galleys is indicated by the ferocious
triple plait into which his hair is wrenched'. This article is
hereafter referred to as 'Coveney 1 .
27. Brown.
28. The Old Lady in the original text is retained in both prompt-books,
but she was changed into the 'Midwife' in performance.
29. The director aimed to produce this impression. This device was, in
the director's own words, 'effective to introduce the world of the
court and the outsider'. He wanted the characters to 'appear like
moving exhibits in a museum or in a waxwork gallery'. Among the
 178

reviewers, Irving Wardle, in 'Descent into Bloody Madness 1 , The Times,

8 December 1989, pointed out that The Duchess of Malfi had 'often been
compared to a wax museum 1 , and argued that the director had emphasized
this image with the actors' tableaux and that 'Bill Alexander
[extended] these effects [of the tableaux], particularly in the
opening scenes, by changing character groups into dumb-show puppets
for Antonio [... ] to describe like a museum guide'. This article is
hereafter referred to as 'Wardle'.
30. Brown.
31. Alexander.
32. Coveney.
33. At the Swan three children appeared in Act III, scene v, while two
appeared at the Pit. The other child, a baby, was substituted by a
dummy.
34. David Nathan, Jewish Chronicle, 15 December 1989. Quoted from London
Theatre Record, 9 (1989), p. 1742, the title of the article is
unknown.
35. Wardle.
36. Edwardes.
37. Cariola's death provoked sardonic laughter in the audience with her
desperate efforts to survive. She resisted the executioners by
scratching and biting them; even after a rope was set around her neck,
she struggled to throw herself in front of Bosola and begged him to
spare her on ground of pregnancy. After the executioners dragged her
stage left to strangle her, Cariola continued to cry and resist by
kicking her legs violently on the floor until her last moment.
38. Micheal Billington, 'The Duchess of Malfi', Guardian, 8 December 1989.
Hereafter referred to as 'Billington 1 .
39. At the Swan, the lectern appeared from below when the Cardinal opened
the trap door centrestage. The sound of cymbals at this moment made
the audience anticipate the sinister nature of what happenned next:
the poisoning of Julia. At the Pit, where there is no provision for a
trap door, the lectern had been placed stageleft at the beginning of
Act V, scene i.
40. Alexander: 'The voice that you could actually hear at the end was
intended to be the voice of the dead son rather than the Duchess
herself. It was a small voice singing [a] requiem, and it wasn't
intended to remind one of the Duchess, and had an effective requiem
for her death, but [it was] also [intended] to speak of her
continuance in a form of this other son, who we see in front of us'.
41. Billington.
 179

42. Alexander.
43. Catherine Belsey, in 'Emblem and Antithesis in The Duchess of Malf1',
Renaissance Drama, n.s. 11 (1980), 115-34, points out that in the
court scene Antonio's description of the Aragonian siblings '[makes]
no attempt to account in terms of motive or past experience for the
qualities [it identifies], nor [is it] offered a basis for moral or
psychological development'. About the madmen scene, Inga-Stina
Ekeblad, in "The "Impure Art" of John Webster', Review of English
Studies, n.s. 9 (1958), 252-67, analyses how the the masque of the
madmen was influenced by the tradition of the marriage masque.
 The Duchess of Malfi

1989

XI. the court scene

XII. Antonio describing the Aragonian brethren
XIII. the Cardinal and Julia
XIV. the bedroom scene
PLATE XI
PLATE XII
PLATE XIII
AIX
 CONCLUSION

This survey of the three productions of The Duchess of Malfi by the

Royal Shakespeare Company suggests that problems experienced by the three
directors were essentially the same as those which had often been
identified — how to present the play's realistic aspect and the symbolic
and metaphysical aspect and keep a balance between them; and how to prevent
the audience from feeling the slackening of tension at the end of the
performance.
The directors' efforts to display both the realistic aspect and the
symbolic aspect were revealed by the settings of all the productions.
While their primary function was to suggest the aristocratic atmosphere,
some pieces of funiture were used metaphorically as well. In the McWhinnie
production the furniture, props and costumes looked sumptuous and
realistic. But the fountain, given prominence when Antonio compared a
monarch's court to a fountain, symbolized peace and harmony at the
Duchess's court. The Cardinal's throne and a chest stood for a monument
and a tomb in Act V, scene iii, and resumed their primary function during
the successive murders in Act V, scene iv, and scene v. The use of the
props seemed to suggest that the house of Aragon's power led to the
destruction of the characters. In the Williams production the setting,
though eclectic, was realistic in that it established an aristocratic
atmosphere, and suggested that the social code of the society was beyond
outsiders' understanding. The eclectic design, however, had a symbolic
dimension. The grilles and partitions, which looked like trellis-work
screens and which evoked the image of a prison, suggested that the
Aragonian brethren's power suppressed the inhabitants of the society. The
 181

true nature of some of the significant characters was suggested by the

unusual appearance of pieces of furniture associated with them; the
Cardinal's cold nature was suggested by his geometric and metallic throne,
and the Duchess's desire to live as a woman by her red bed.
In the settings of the Alexander production, the display of the
elegance and wealth of the world of the play was restrained. The design
suggested not only how the society looked but how the society affected the
inhabitants' psychology. For example, the eye-shaped reliefs placed in
each piece of ironwork in the galleries suggested that the closed society
led the inhabitants to watch each other and make others unable to keep any
p
secret. The claustrophobic atmoshere was emphasized also by the physical
environment of the Swan and the Pit: by their small capacity and structure,
which enabled every member of the audience to sit close to the actors,
allowing close communication between them. The remarkable feature of the
symbolism of the settings was that this function was fulfilled only when
the settings were combined with the acting. The two golden frames
transformed the action into a series of tableaux, especially when the
actors froze in significant scenes.
The settings of the Alexander production thus revealed a change in
acting approach: the idea that symbolism and realism could be combined not
only in the setting but in the acting. For Donald McWhinnie and Clifford
Williams the function of the performances was to make the audience
appreciate the modernity which they perceived in the characters' thoughts
and behaviour. For them convention was to be removed in the modern stage.
The two directors attempted to make the characters' lines and action more
understandable to modern audiences by cutting lines in the original text:
lines such as those which refer to forgotten customs and ways of thinking,
 182

and those which make the impression of the characters incoherent. The two
directors aimed to involve the audience in the action of the play,
especially in the Duchess's story. Bill Alexander's approach contrasted
with theirs. He considered the juxtaposition of realism and symbolism in
the dramatic action the most significant feature of the original text, and
attempted to emphasize the juxtaposition with the acting. He retained a
fairly full text, and made the actors freeze or move in a non-naturalistic
manner in scenes of statuesque and choreographic nature. Tableaux provided
by the actors at significant moments reflected the rhythm of the original
text, enabling the audience to be at times involved, at times detached.

The treatment of another problem — how to prevent the slackening of

tension in Act V — suggested that the mastery of directorial skills, not a
change of approach, could solve the problem. Act V tends to be considered
anticlimactic; members of the audience lose interest in the play after the
death of the Duchess, who has naturally drawn the audience's attention.
The slackening of tension, which was noticed in all three productions,
seems to have been partly a result of the loss of interest. But it is also
true that Act V is anticlimactic in structure; it has been pointed out that
the successive murders in Act V, scene iv, and scene v, nowadays tend to
look absurd in performance. The three directors made efforts to retain the
tension and to convince the audience of the tragic nature of the final
scenes. One of the solutions for Donald McWhinnie and Clifford Williams
was to cut lines which may sound ridiculous in the scenes. The fact that
both directors cut the noblemen's lines during Bosola's attack on the
Cardinal suggests their fear that these lines would highlight the
anticlimactic nature of the final scenes. The results of the two
 183

productions were contrasting; the McWhinnie production was praised for not
provoking audience's laughter, while the Williams production was criticized
for causing unwanted laughter excessively. The results seemed to suggest
that careful acting rather than the cutting of the 'ridiculous' lines was
required to retain tension up to the end. But the significance of careful
acting was fully acknowledged in the Alexander production, in which the
director retained all lines during the successive murders. At first the
difficulty imposed by the original text was evident in the audiace's
unstifled laughter. But the laughter became much less at the Pit, and
suggested Bill Alexander's technical success in handling the final scenes.

It seems that the original text allowed the three directors only a
fixed range of interpretation of the characters, in spite of the remarkable
change in approaches to the play. But in the Alexander production it was
suggested that the interpretation of the Duchess and Julia was widened.
Probably this change was influenced by feminism, which contributed to a
further exploration of the position of women in the society of the play.
In all three productions the Duchess was regarded as a woman who
struggled to maintain her integrity in the corrupt world of the play. But
a difference can be discerned in the interpretation of her righteousness
between the first two productions and the Alexander production. Donald
McWhinnie and Clifford Williams viewed the Duchess as a martyr-like figure,
who was tormented and murdered because she refused to conform to the social
code imposed by a corrupt society. Bill Alexander, however, found the
Duchess not completely guiltless. His attention to her position as a ruler
enabled him to discover complexity in the description of her; she has
neglected her duty as a ruler, while attempting to retain her integrity in
 184

living as a wife and mother in secret. Bill Alexander presented the

complexity by having Harriet Walter emphasize the Duchess's identity as a
ruler, in addition to what Donald McWhinnie and Clifford Williams had
stressed — her identity as a female member of a royal family, subject to
her brothers' political activities, and a woman in love, who struggled to
break the barrier of rank to marry a lower-ranking man. Harriet Walter
suggested that the Duchess was aware of her position as a ruler when
attempting to establish her dignity in the court scene; and she hinted at
the Duchess's neglect of her duty with the perfunctory signing of papers in
the apricots scene.
Bill Alexander's discovery of the complexity in the Duchess's
character made him continue to present her as a mixture of different
identities. In Act IV, scene ii, both Peggy Ashcroft and Judi Dench
emphasized the Duchess's defiance against the tortures and the
strangulation, making the character an embodiment of 'the spirit of
greatness 1 (I.ii.417) at the end of the scene. But Harriet Walter
suggested that this spirit, even though given prominence, was inseparable
from the spirit 'of woman' (I.ii.417). 1 She emphasized the Duchess's
struggle to conquer the fear of dying and to die with defiance and dignity.
By doing so, she succeeded in drawing the audience's sympathy to the end.
It seems that the role of Ferdinand is one of the most difficult in
the play, probably due to the characterization that violent passions which
rule Ferdinand prevent him from becoming aware of what he really thinks and
feels. Reviews of all three productions suggest that the portrayals of
Ferdinand tended to appear disappointing to the audience, who expected the
character to be ominous. The role became more difficult after his plunge
into madness. Ferdinand began to draw the audience's laughter in Act V,
 185

scene ii. It seems that the performance of Ferdinand requires more careful
acting from the scene. It is true that Ferdinand's madness has a comic
potential. But the mad scene in the Williams production suggested that to
turn the mad Ferdinand into a ridiculous figure makes his behaviour in the
final act look merely ludicrous and prevents the audience from realizing
the tragic nature at the end of the play.
In spite of Ferdinand's inability to be aware of his thoughts, all
three productions explored whether he has an incestuous affection for his
sister. Some of the reviewers who seek an explanation for Ferdinand's
obsession with the Duchess consider incestuous love satisfactory enough.
But the discussion seems of little significance in performance.
Ferdinand's emotional reaction to the Duchess's childbirth, his torture and
murder of her, and his consequent madness derive from his inability to
'look at himself truthfully, to see what he is and [to] do something about
o
it 1 . It seems that the inability should be given more prominence than
Ferdinand's subconscious affection for the Duchess.
The Cardinal, in contrast to Ferdinand, is clearly characterized as a
Machiavellian and a corrupt churchman in the original text. The reviews of
the performances of Max Adrian in 1960 and Emrys James in 1971 seemed to
prove that the characterization made the Cardinal one of the easier roles
in the play. The image of the Cardinal portrayed by both actors
followed the clear characterization offered by the text. In the Alexander
production, however, the role was more complex. Russell Dixon in the
Alexander production suggested that the Cardinal 'wished [... ] he could be
left to get on his political ambitions and his sexual licence'.^ His
Cardinal was annoyed or irritated by what had nothing to do with his
wishes: for example, by Bosola's appearance and plea for reward to him in
 186

Act I, scene i; by Ferdinand's emotional and violent reaction to the

Duchess's childbirth; and by his madness in Act V, scene ii. This
interpretation gave the character a human aspect and was effective in
making his dejected death appear more natural.
The portrayals of Bosola seems to have suggested that no actor could
display all the aspects of the character, who is complex and ambiguous in
the original text. An actor playing Bosola is forced to choose and
emphasize only part of many aspects in him, especially before Bosola
becomes aware of his conscience and determines to be righteous. Patrick
Wymark in 1960 emphasized Bosola*s experience as a soldier and his
bluntness by means of the emphasis on his stout physique and his acting.
Geoffrey Hutchings in 1971 played Bosola as a man whose conscience was in
conflict with economical necessity; from the beginning he highlighted the
potential in Bosola of becoming an agent of justice. Nigel Terry in 1989
at the Swan, by emphasizing Bosola's anger deriving from the Cardinal's
neglect, portrayed Bosola as a man whose vigorous spirit was not destroyed
by a severe experience as a galley slave. In 1990 at the Pit, Stephen
Boxer's cynical facial expression established Bosola as a sarcastic man,
who was embittered by his experience as a slave.
In addition to Ferdinand, Bosola is another character whom audiences
tend to expect to be ominous. But the portrayals in the three productions
seem to have suggested that the character deserves the audience's sympathy
to some extent. His inclination to evil derives from the Cardinal's
ingratitude and his experience as a slave; and in the final scenes Bosola's
efforts to be righteous are in vain and he dies in despair. The moment at
which Bosola becomes aware of his self-deception after the Duchess's death
is crucial in involving the audience and the performance at this point
 187

seems to affect the audience's impression of Bosola thereafter.

Efforts were made in the first two productions to strengthen the
character of Antonio. The two directors cut lines which suggest Antonio's
weakness and his fear of having his marriage to the Duchess revealed.
Donald McWhinnie invented a piece of stage business to suggest the
character's strength; Antonio returned the Duchess's wedding ring to her in
the wooing scene. But these efforts did not change the general impression
of Antonio that he was pathetic and dominated by the Duchess. In the
Alexander production, Mick Ford's Antonio emphasized the gap between
Antonio's image of an affectionate husband and father in his private
married life and his image of a helpless man in public life. By
juxtaposing the contradictory impressions, Mick Ford succeeded in
establishing Antonio's innately good nature and suggesting that Antonio's
fear derived from his acute consciousness of the house of Aragon's royal
lineage and political significance. This interpretation of Antonio also
contributed to suggesting how the power of the house of Aragon permeated
the world of the play.
The change in the interpretation of Julia was one of the most
significant. In the first two productions, especially in the McWhinnie
production, she was regarded as a mere foil to the Duchess. The Duchess's
love for Antonio and Julia's amoral passion, which drives her to be the
Cardinal's mistress and to woo Bosola, was given a sharp contrast.
Patricia Kerrigan in the Alexander production, however, displayed Julia's
suffering in being subject to the Cardinal's brutal nature and suggested
her desire to escape from the futile relationship with him. This approach
prevented Julia's wooing of Bosola from becoming complete comic relief as
in the earlier productions. The treatment of Julia's death also changed.
 188

Sian Phillips's Julia in 1960 embarrassed the audience, who perceived a gap
between her amorality and the dignity at her death. Lynn Dearth in 1971
succeeded in highlighting the Cardinal's merciless nature. Patricia
Kerrigan's Julia was given a slightly different role. At the Swan she
contributed to establishing the Cardinal's brutal nature. At the Pit,
Julia was treated with no sympathy by Bosola as well as by the Cardinal and
Julia was established as a victim of a male-dominated society. In the
Alexander production the role of Julia served to indicate how women were
treated brutally in the society of the play.
The three productions of The Duchess of Malfi seem to suggest how a
classic play can be reanimated. An awareness of the play in context is
essential. To apply a modern interpretation to the play, as Donald
McWhinnie and Clifford Williams did, is to explore only part of the play.
The change in interpretation of the characters also suggests that an
understanding of the cultural and social background of the play is
significant in exploring the characters and in making the audience
appreciate the complexity of the play.
 189

NOTES TO CONCLUSION
1. These references are from The Duchess of Malfi, ed. by Elizabeth M,
Brennan, the New Mermaids, second ed. (London: Ernest Benn, 1983
(first ed.,1964)).
2. My interview with Bill Alexander, which took place (Xt the Barbican
Centre, on 3 May 1991.
3. Ibid.
 APPENDIX A
Accounts of the Performed Texts

1960-61 — directed by Donald McWhinnie

1971 — directed by Clifford Williams
1989-90 — directed by Bill Alexander
 191

1960-61 ~ directed by Donald McWhinnie.

Edition used for propmt-book: Selected Plays, Everyman's Library.
Propmpt-book consulted at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon.
First I will present how the director created new act and scene divisions
out of the original text. Act and scene divisions and line references in
the original text are standardized to the New Mermaid edition.
The original text The prompt-book
I.i.l - I.ii.212 I.I The Fountain
I.ii.213 - I.ii.419 I, ,2 The Ante-room
II.i.l - II.i.74 .. yields L ,3 The Market
II.i.74 .. And - II.ii.79 I.,4 The Garden
Il.iii.l - II.iii.76 1.5 The Chapel
II.iv.l - II.v.80 1.6 The Plot
III.i.1 - III.i.93 11.1 The Corridor
III.ii.1 - III.ii.329 11.2 The Bedroom
III.iii.1 - III.iv.43 11.3 The Fort-bridge
III.v.l - III.v.143 11.4 The Road
IV.i.l - IV.i.139 111.1 The Waxwork Scene
IV.ii.l - IV.ii.369 111.2 The Madmen Scene
V.i.l - V.i.76 111.3 Square at Milan
V.ii.l - V.ii.343 111.4 Julia's Death
V.iii.l - V.iii.56 111.5 The Fortifications
V.iv.l - V.v.120 111.6 The Last Scene
Next I will present cuts and emendations in the prompt-book. Those with
unclear markings are indicated by *.
Act and scene divisions, line references, punctuations and spelling are
standardized to the New Mermaid edition. Some of the lines and stage
directions, seen only in Everyman's Library edition, are indicated.
I.i 9 which .. - 10]
22 Insertion of I.ii.l You .. - 5 .. shall to follow .. foresee
28 Enter CARDINAL and BOSOLA (Everyman's Library)] Enter
CARDINAL
32 Miserable .. - 33]
37 with .. - 38 mantle]
42 I .. - 44 them]
44 Exit CARDINAL]
52 Could .. - 54 .. me]
56 What - 58 .. pardon?]
71 he ..- 73 .. Naples]
76 for .. - 81]
* •
I .11 1 You .. - 5 .. shall transposed to follow I.i 22 .. foresee
5 Enter FERDINAND, CASTRUCHIO, SILVIO, RODERIGO, GRISOLAN and
ATTENDANTS (Everyman's Library)] Omission of FERDINAND
5 Insertion of Enter FERDINAND after the previous s.d.
20 This .. - 21J
36 - 58]
82 where - 85 .. monsters]
 192

96 will .. - 97]
99 Then - 108]
120 but .. - 122]
143 FERDINAND: You are for Milan? (Everyman's Library) spoken
by DUCHESS
Oft - 148]
157 - 159]
196 Thus .. - 198 .. complemental]
209 Insertion of Exit to follow Away!
212 Re-enter DUCHESS, CARDINAL and CARIOIA (Everyman's
Library)] Addition of FERDINAND to follow . . CARIOLA
265 I have heard soldiers say so]
273 Thy . . - 274 . . hearty]
338 - 341]
366 You .. - 368 .. me]
388 - 389 .. flattery]
389 Kneel] Cariola!
392 per verba presenti (Everyman's Library)] Insertion of de to
follow . . veroa]
401 - 404 .. wishes]
II. i 4 Insertion of Castruccio to follow .. see
6 to . . - 7 . . ; and]
14 - 18 .. valiant]
27 ruts and fowl sloughs] furrows
32 - 35]
44 makes .. - 47 .. yourselves]
74 Addition of BOSOLA to follow Enter ANTONIO and DELIO
81 if .. - 82 . . being]———————
87 - 96]
100 a .. - 101 remov'd]
119 - 120]
164 Exit,
163 - 177]——— other side, BOSOLA (Everyman's Library)]
on the———————

II. ii 18 If .. - 20 .. them]
34 - 35 .. knowledge!]
48 Yes spoken by RODERIGO
59 - 61]
70 the stumbling of a horse]
Il.iii 33 There .. - 35 .. yourself]
39-41 .. to't]
46 for .. - 48 .. lying-in]
57 Anno . . - 58 . . night]*
66 ^
II. iv 39 Who's that?]
39 Enter SERVANT]
41 Insertion of Enter SERVANT after .. to't
II. v 11 Is't .. - 16 .. out]
 193

Ill.i 29 and .. - 35 .. people]

37 The .. - 38 .. bed]
38 Enter DUCHESS, FERDINAND, and ATTENDANTS (Everyman's
LiErary)] Enter DUCHESS, FERDINAND
57 Enter BOSOLAJ
66 CarTT. - 77]
IXI.ii 62 Enter Ferdinand behind] Enter Ferdinand*
80 Pursue .. - 82J
96 I .. - 97 .. thee]
113 - 117 .. wildfire?]
143 Insertion of 150 He left this with me to follow Betray'd,
transportation of 152 This .. - 154 to follow 150 He left this
with me and transportation of 143 how .. - 146 .. innocence
to follow 154
146 That .. - 149]
150 And .. - 152 .. much]
157 Away! - 158 .. misery]
160 Exit ANTONIO (Everyman's Library)]
161 The Duke]
161 Insertion of the lord Ferdinand after brother
171 this is cunning]
173 Re-enter ANTONIO (Everyman's Library)]
176 Our .. - 178 .. periods]
179 as]*
179 Tasso .. - 181 .. honours]
186 - 188 .. doctor]
190 - 193 .. publish]
195]
196 but .. - 198 .. humour]
199 you .. - 203 .. down]
214]
219 - 220]
232 - 235 .. livery]
237 - 238 .. follow]
243 Pluto .. - 250 .. him]
251 a .. - 258 .. oft]
258 But] Yet
270 - 273]
283 - 286 .. merit]
288 Should .. - 290]
294 and .. - 298]
309 and .. - 311 .. you]
Ill.iii 1 - 58]
Ill.iv 1 -22]
26 They are banish'd spoken by 3RD PILGRIM
29 - 32 spoken by 3RD PILGRIM
33 But by what justice? spoken by 2ND PILGRIM
33 Sure .. - 34 spoken by 3RD PILGRIM
35 - 43]
 194

III.v 7 - 10]
17 i'the field]
30-39 .. it]
49 - 50]
53 fare you well]
57-58 .. bottom]
60-63 . . order]
66 For .. - 68 .. sorrow]
94 I .. - 95 .. sudden]
105 - 106]
IV. i 16 - 17 .. heart]
17 Enter DUCHESS (Everyman's Library)]
29 Enter FERDINAND] *
72 ~=~7T. . wife]
78 - 82 .. again]
85 - 86]
90]
96]
112 - 114 .. bodies]
IV. ii 7 down] Cariola
28-31 . . easy]
31 Who] What
34 - 35 . . pitied]
36 - 37]
48 an . . - 51 . . mad]
56 ———of
Insertion
55 ^37] ——— after . . morning]
laugh————
70 - 73]*
74 FIRST MADMAN (Everyman's Library)] FIRST MADMAN (ASTROLOGER)
74 yet]*
74 draw .. - 75 .. or]
78 SECOND MADMAN (Everyman's Library)] SECOND MADMAN (LAWYER)
80]
81 THIRD MADMAN (Everyman's Library)] THIRD MADMAN (PRIEST)
83 FOURTH MADMAN (Everyman's Library)] FOURTH MADMAN (DOCTOR)
90 you .. - 91]
103 that .. - 104]
113 Here the dance consisting of 8. madmen, with music
answerable thereunto, after which BOSOLA, like an old man,
enters]*'
162 [Enter executioners with] a coffin, cords, and a bell]*
165 Addition of Kneel on the margin
290 Addition of To Ferdinand after Ha?
294 - 295 .. not-being? J
297 - 298 .. hell?]
308 0 .. - 310]
314 and your . . - 317 . . blood]
320 - 321 .. thee]*
322 Sir, - 327]
330 - 332]
339 Who's .. - 341 .. destroy pity]
342 - 343 .. mercy]
 195

346 the .. - 347 .. atonement]

348 she's gone again!]
357 My .. - 358 .. fear]
360 here .. - 362 .. father]
363]
V.i 13 You .. - 14]
47 - 49 .. me?]
55-56 .. beggars]
59 'Tis a noble old fellow]
68 for I'll go in mine own shape]
74 - 75]
76 Transposed to the end of Act V, scene iii
V.ii 27 Enter FERDINAND, CARDINAL, MALATESTI, and BOSOLA (Everyman's
Library)] Enter FERDINAND, MALATESTI, CARDINAL ——
67] and BOSOLA]
74 I .. - 77 .. Hall]
83 - 84 .. Ferdinand!]
87]
117 - 118]
125 - 140 .. take]
156 - 159 .. kissing-comfits]
161 Come .. - 164]
174 - 177 .. sunbeams]
180 - 181]
182 Insertion of BOSOLA as the speaker
194 Insertion of Kiss, turn to him, aTter .. courted you
209 - 212 .. pillowsJ
214 cabinet] chamber
216 I am .. - 218 .. seal'd]
221 - 227 .. of]
258 I pray thee yet be satisfi'd]*
259 - 260 .. them]
310 physicians .. -312 .. faster]
325 - 333 .. between]
341 there, there]
V.iii 45 Addition of Rise on the margin before Come
56 Transposition of V.i 1.92 to follow""?, own
V.iv 8 - 17]
34]*
49 Transposition of Bosola? to follow 51 .. else
51 Insertion of 4$~Bosola? to follow .. else
60 sadj glad
72-77 .. lodge]
79 0 direful misprision!]
82 - 83]
83 Exeunt]
V.v 7 Enter BOSOLA and SERVANT bearing ANTONIO's body (Everyman's
Llorary)]
17 I .. - 32]
 196

32 Exeunt, above, MAIATESTI, RODERIGO, and GRISOLAN (Everyman's

Library]
34 - 35]
52 - 61]
62 sink .. - 64]
66 - 69]-
102 - 103]
105 - 107]
 197

1971 — directed by Clifford Williams.

Edition used for prompt-copy: The New Mermaid edition.
Prompt-book consulted at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon.
Cuts and emendations with unclear markings are indicated by *.
I.i 1 to your country]
16-22 .. foresee]
37 - 38 mantle]
54 I .. - 58 .. pardon?]
65 fare you well sir]
76 for .. - 79 .. follow]
I.ii 0 Enter CASTRUCHIO, SILVIO, RODERIGO and GRISOLAN] Enter
CASTRUCHIO, SILVIO, RODERIGO
3 The .. - 4]
14 - 21]
42 spoken by RODERIGO only
82 he lays - 84 for]
85 and a thousand such political monsters]
86 but .. - 90 .. him]
103 - 104]
114 and .. - 116 .. her]*
130]
147 - 148]
158 which .. - 159]
160 For .. - 167 .. you]
194 oh .. - 198 .. complemental]
304 begin] begun
II.i 14 - 18 .. valiant]
73 I .. - 74 .. yields]
81 if .. - 83 .. wisdom]
110 Enter DUCHESS, OLD LADY, LADIES] Enter DUCHESS, OLD LADY,
LADIES and CARIOLA
119 sound] swoon
119 I am - 120]
163 Lights, there, lights!] Lights, lights, there!
166 prepar d - 167 .. and]
177 I am lost in amazement]
II.ii 18 If .. - 20 .. them]
33 gentleman o'th 1 court Repeated*
70 the .. - 71 .. cricket]
Il.iii 1 list, ha?]
6 List again]*
11 face nor body] body nor face*
14 This mole does undermine me]
28 - 29]
36]*
37-41 .. to't]
 198

46 for .. - 48 .. in]
48 this] that
54]
II.iv 67 Insertion of Madam before Your ..
82 ^"53]
II.v 31 Curs'd .. - 38 .. it]
52 this .. - 55 .. imperfection]
60-62 .. themselves]
IH.i 12 - 16 .. hasten]
20 why] how
30 For .. - 35 .. people]
38 Is going to bed]
72 Do .. - 77]
III.ii 0ANTONIO
Enter DUCHESS, ANTONIO ——
and CARIOLA] ———
Enter CARIOLA, DUCHESS,
40 'Twas .. - 42]
92 (For I am sure thou hear'st me)]
151 His .. - 154]
154 Knocking]*
158 - 159J
176 our .. - 178 .. periods]
186 - 188 .. doctor]
190]
194 - 198 .. humour]*
209 - 211]
233 thought .. - 235 .. livery]
237 - 240]
243 Pluto .. - 247]
255 - 258]
273 accomplished] accompanied
291 - 296 .. princes]
Ill.iii 5-6]
17 - 33]
43 He .. - 45 .. shoing-horn]
68-70 .. w;fl! ]
Ill.iv 6 They come]
15 - 16 Repeated*
38 Antonio]
III.v 2 Is .. - 11]
26 A letter]
42 which I present you]
56 your] our
57 - 58]
58 -Insertion
98 101J————of DUCHESS: I counsel safely
132 Dog-ship] Dog-fish
140]
 199

IV.i 2 I'll describe her]*

41 Could you] You could
90]
112 -113 .. Lauriola]
IV.ii 56 - 57]
70 - 73]
89 - 90 .. on't]
101 spoken by MAD BROKER
110 spoken by MAD FARMER
110 - 111J*
113
179 it was my masterpiece] spoken
- 182] ———— by MAD TAILOR
199 her] you
234 Some others] You
264 - 266 .. strangers]
295 did .. - 298 .. hell?]*
309 - 310]
314 and your .. - 319]
348 Oh, she's gone again]
364 that's .. - 366 .. women]
V.i 59 'Tis a noble old fellow]
V.ii 16 only .. - 19 .. try]
26-26 .. leave]
67]
70 Transposition of Can you fetch a frisk, sir? to follow 73
dormouse
73 Insertion of 70 Can you fetch a frisk, sir? to follow ..
dormouse
76 - 77 Barber-Chirurgeon's] Barber-Churgeon's
87 - 98 .. worse, and]
98 Insertion of CARDINAL: No
105 For .. - 107 .. Ferdinand]
117 - 118]
128 Set .. - 132 .. else]
139 brought] bought
158 Sure .. - 161 .. longing]
179 Insertion of Kiss after .. you
181 Insertion of Kiss after .. familiar
186 - 192 .. together]
203 if .. - 206]
208 - 212 .. pillows]
221 upon your lives]
234 or .. - 246]
259 'tis .. - 260 them]
272 Insertion of JULIA: ! after .. it
280 - 281 .. itj
282 Insertion of Why before Couldst
308 - 314J
318 Castruchio]
> . - 537 • *
 200

V.iii 25]
30-31 .. for't]
V.iv 4 - 5 .. him]
19 RODERIGO ————
34] omitted
46 Oh, I am gone]
48 .. only have ..] .. have only ..
70 Break, heart!]
82 - 83]
V.v 7 Now? Art thou come?]
18 to .. - 19 But]
19 Listen - 25]
26 You .. - 35]
52 Oh .. - 54]*
67 - 69]
79 Insertion of My lord! after .. lord?
79 0 sad disaster!]
97 Fare .. - 99 .. quarrel]
116 I .. - 118]
 201

1989-90 ~ directed by Bill Alexander

There are a number of records which indicate the change of cuts and
emendations of the original text during the performances at the Swan, the
Playhouse and the Pit: a video tape, one of the RSC Archive Recording,
which records a performance at the Swan on 18 January 1990; and two prompt­
books, the one used for the Swan and the Playhouse, the other for the Pit.
Hereafter the former will be referred to as the first prompt-book, and the
latter the second prompt-book.
Edition used for the performed text of the video tape and the prompt-books:
the New Mermaid edition.
Video tape and prompt-books consulted at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-
upon-Avon.
First I will present cuts and emendations in the performed text of the
video tape. Some of them are unclear due to the actors 1 inarticulate
delivery, and they are indicated by *.
I.i 9 which .. - 10]
69 I knew]
69 Insertion of spent to follow .. fellow
I.ii 32 chirurgeons'] surgeons'
61 horseman] rider
103-04]
268 Cariola]
336 please] must
404 build] bind
II.i 117 lady] woman
119 sound] swoon
Il.iii 53-54]
II.iv. 30 well] good
75 Sir]
65 though .. - 66 .. cullises]
II.v 21 honour's] honour
25 mean] way
IH.i 30 For .. - 35 .. people]
46 conference] audience
57 cultures] coulters
91 farewell]
III.ii 40 'Twas .. - 42]
57 softly Cariola]
145 shall] may
155 ANTONIO: More earthquakes? transposed to follow 157 .. up
157 Insertion of 155 ANTONIO: More earthquakes? to follow .. up
173 CallJ Bring
 202

Ill.iii 8 This] The

14 leaguer] camp
40 Insertion of of to follow .. knew
Ill.iv 6 They come] He comes
11 I] We
13-14]
17-22]
III.v 50 that] which
58 safely] safety*
103 Shall] Must
IV.ii 23 I should learn somewhat, I am sure] I am sure I should learn
somewhat
56-57]
Spoken by the Duchess
V.i 23 take] ask
62]
V.ii 50 after] behind
74 your frisks] a frisk
76-77 Chirurgeons'] Surgeons'
83 - 84 .. Ferdinand!]
150 Insertion of to me to follow .. confess
214 get you into my cabinet]
215 Insertion of now to follow .. you
284 hitherj
310 physicians .. - 312 .. faster]
333 Well] Now*
V.iii 50 - 53 .. However]
V.v 30 with engines]
88 i'th'rushes]
105-107]
111 this young hopeful gentlemen] Antonio's young son and heir
Next I will present cuts and emendations in the two prompt-books. Many of
them are found in both prompt-books, and they are presented with no
indications. Cuts and emendations found only in either of the prompt-books
are given comments in parentheses.
Cuts and emendations with unclear markings are indicated by *.
I.i 9 which .. - 10]
22 Enter BOS01A] (only in the first prompt-book)
56 What .. - 58 .. pardon?]
69 I knew]
69 Insertion of spent to follow .. fellow
I.ii 32 chirurgeons] surgeons
86 should] could
 203

103 - 104]
404 build] bind
II.i 6 to .. - 7 .. and] (in the first prompt-book)
6 learn .. - 7 .. and] (in the second prompt-book)
9 memory] senses (only in the first prompt-book)
44 makes] enables
44 Insertion of to to follow .. him (only in the second
prompt-book)
47 Observe .. - 63]
117 lady] woman (only in the first prompt-book)
119 sound] swoon
116 good] fair (only in the first prompt-book)
II.ii 14 The .. - 24 .. centre]
41 buttons] jacket (only in the first prompt-book)
Il.iii 0 Enter BOSOIA with a dark lantern] Enter BOS01A
9 Enter ANTONIO""with a candle, hii sword drawn] Enter ANTONIO +
Birth Chart (only in the first prompt-book,)
33 stol'n] missing* (only in the first prompt-book)
54]
II.iv 65 though .. - 66 .. cullises]
II.v 21 honour's] honour (only in the first prompt-book)
25 mean] means and way are indicated here (only in the first
prompt-book)
III.i 1 beloved] trusty (only in the first prompt-book)
12 law] prison
13 Nor in prison]
44 I will marry] it shall be (only in the first prompt-book)
46 conference] audience (only in the first prompt-book)
57 cultures] coulters
Ill.ii 25 - 33 .. but]
40 'Twas .. - 42]
57 softly Cariola]
63 take] catch (only in the first prompt-book)
110 bewray] betray
131 Insertion of on my darting to follow .. me
134 foundJ seen (only in the first prompt-book)
155 ANTONIO: More earthquakes? tranposed to follow 157 .. up
157 Insertion of 155 ANTONIO: More Earthquakes? to follow .. up
157 Insertion of Knocking to follow .. earthquakes?
160 part] fly (only in the first prompt-book)
171 Insertion of now to follow And
179 as .. - 180 .. mensognaj
181 Insertion of noise as s.d.
186 sickj ill (only in the first prompt-book)
195 year] winter (only in the first prompt-book)
204 Towards] Against" (only in the first prompt-book)
239 Flatterers .. - 240] (only in the second prompt-book)
 204

243 Pluto .. - 247]

266 Bermoothas] Bermudas
284 deed] act* (only in the second prompt-book)
Ill.iii 8 This] The (only in the second prompt-book)
14 leaguer] camp
40 Insertion of of to follow .. knew
66 You .. - 67 .. ceremony]
III.iv The whole scene is deleted in both prompt-books

IV.i 52 travel] journey

72 - 74 .. wife]
IV.ii 56 - 57]
88 Spoken by the Duchess
259 di'd] died (only in the fist prompt-book)
314 and your .. - 317 .. blood]
348 again]
360 here .. - 361 .. father]
V.i 5 The .. - 13 .. living]
15 - 59]
62]
V.ii 50 after] behind (only in the first prompt-book)
74 your] a* (only in the first prompt-book)
76-77 Chirurgeons'] surgeons 1
87 - 99]
117 - 118]
135 to know - 140 .. take]
181]
192 had .. - 194 .. courted you]
213 Insertion of 221 CARDINAL: Where are you? SERVANTS: Here
to follow .. th*intelligence
214 get you into my cabinet]
215 Insertion of now to follow .. you
215 do .. - 216 .. you]
221 CARDINAL: Where are you? SERVANTS: Here transposed to
follow 213 .. thf intelligence
254 I'll .. - 262]
277 For pity-sake, hold]
310 physicians .. - 312 .. faster]
319 to take .. - 321 .. done]
329 they .. - 333 Well]
333 Insertion of Now before good (only in the first prompt-
boo^
V.iii 12 court] space (only in the first prompt-book)
50 - 53 .. However]
V.iv 39 - 40]
57 Their .. - 58 .. me]
 205

V.v 30 with engines]

88 i'th'rushes]
105 - 107]
 APPENDIX B
Production Cast Lists

1960 — The Shakespeare Memorial Theatre

1960-61 — The Aldwych Theatre
1971 — The Royal Shakespeare Theatre
1989-90 — The Swan Theatre
1990 — The Pit
 207

1960 ~ The Shakespeare Memorial Theatre

FROM NOVEMBER 30th TO DECEMBER 7th
the governors of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre
present the
STRATFORD
-ON-AVON COMPANY
THE DUCHESS OF MALFI
by John Webster
Characters in order of Appearance
ANTONIO BOLOGNA DEREK GODFREY
steward of the household of the Duchess
DELIO Antonio's friend PETER JEFFREY
DANIEL DE BOSOLA PATRICK WYMARK
gentleman of the horse to the Duchess
CARDINAL MAX ADRIAN
FERDINAND ERIC PORTER
Duke of Calabria the Cardinal's brother
SILVIO CLIFFORD ROSE
CASTRUCCIO DONALD LAYNE-SMIIH
RODERIGO DAVID SUMNER
GRISOLAN DONALD DOUGLAS
THE DUCHESS OF MALFI PEGGY ASHCROFT
CARIOLA her woman STEPHANIE BIDMEAD
OLD WOMAN MAVIS EDWARDS
JULIA SIAN PHILLIPS
Castruccio's wife and the Cardinal's mistress
ANTONIO'S SON ROBERT LANGLEY
MARQUIS OF PESCARA JAMES BREE
DOCTOR TONY CHURCH
COUNT MALATESTI IAN RICHARDSON
Ladies, Officers, Attendants, Peasants, Madmen and Executioners
MAROUSSIA FRANK WENDY GIFFORD DIANA RIGG JULIAN BATTERSBY
DAVID BUCK CHRISTOPHER CRUISE ROY DOOlCE JAMES KERRY CLIVE SWIFT
DAVE THOMAS STEPHEN THORNE PHILIP VOSS WILLIAM WALLIS

THE ACTION OF THIS PLAY TAKES PLACE IN MALFI, ROME AND MILAN
Directed by DONALD McWHINNIE
Setting and Costumes by LESLIE HURRY
Music by HUMPHREY SEARLE Lighting by JOHN WYCKHAM

Music Adviser RAYMOND LEPPARD

The Shakespeare Memorial Theatre Wind Band:
Leader ALEC WHITTAKER
Music Director BRIAN PRIESIMAN
 208

THERE WILL BE ONE INTERVAL OF 15 MINUTES AND TO-NIGHT *S PERFORMANCE WILL

END AT APPROXIMATELY 10:30

Consultant designer on the new stage: Henry Bardon

 209

1960-61 — The Aldwych Theatre

THE DUCHESS OF MALE!
by John Webster

Characters in the order of their appearance

ANTONIO BOLOGNA DEREK GODFREY
steward of the household to the Duchess __ __
DELIO Antonio's friend PETER JEFFEREY
DANIEL DE BOSOLA PATRICK WYMARK
gentleman of the horse to the Duchess
CARDINAL MAX ADRIAN
FERDINAND ERIC PORTER
Duke of Calabria the Cardinal's brother
SILVIO CLIFFORD ROSE
CASTRUCCIO DONALD LAYNE-SMITH
RODERIGO DAVID SUMNER
GRISOLAN DONALD DOUGLAS
DUCHESS OF MALFI PEGGY ASHCROFT
CARIOLA her woman STEPHANIE BIDMEAD
OLD WOMAN MAVIS EDWARDS
JULIA SIAN PHILLIPS
Castruccio's wife and the Cardinal's mistress
OFFICER PHILIP VOSS
ANTONIO'S SON ROBERT LANGLEY
MARQIUS OF PESCARA JAMES BREE
DOCTOR TONY CHURCH
COUNT MALATESTI IAN RICHARDSON
Ladies, Officers, Attendants, Peasants, Madmen and Executioners
MAROUSSIA FRANK WENDY GIFFORD DIANA RIGG JULIAN BATTERSBY
DAVID BUCK CHRISTOPHER CRUISE ROY DOT^RICE JAMES KERRY
CLIVE SWIFT DAVE THOMAS STEPHEN THORNE WILLIAM WALLIS

THE ACTION OF THE PLAY TAKES PLACE IN MALFI, ROME AND MILAN

Directed by DONALD McWHINNIE

Setting and Costumes by LESLIE HURRY
Music by HUMPHREY SEARLE Lighting by JOHN WYCKHAM

Music Adviser RAYMOND LEPPARD

The Shakespeare Memorial Theatre Wind Band:
Leader ALEC WHITTAKER
Music Director BRIAN PRIESTMAN
Choreographer PAULINE GRANT

THERE WILL BE ONE INTERVAL OF 15 MINUTES

 210

The version of the National Anthem played tonight has been orchestrated and
arranged by Raymond Leppard from the earliest knu/iArt source of the melody,
c. 1740

Consultant designer on the new stage and Proscenium Arch: Henry Bardon
Lighting Adviser: John Wyckham
 211

The Change of the cast for the Duchess of Malfi

The list was among the production records for the McWhinnie production. It
became effective from 2 February 1961.

New Casting Present Casting

Mr. Roy Do thrice Doctor Mr. Church
Mr. Stephen Thorne

Mr. John Cater

Grisolan
Executioner
Malatesti
\ Mr. Douglas

Mr. Richardson
1st Madman Mr. Buck
Mr. Patrick Stephens Silvio 1 Mr. Rose
3rd Madman J
Mr. Edward Argent 1st Executioner Mr. Battersby
Ferd. Servant Mr. Buck
Mr. William Austin Cardinal Servant 1 Mr. Wallis
Madman J
Mr. Alan Downer Madman Mr. Richardson
Cardinal Servant / Mr. Battersby
Peasant /
Mr. Stuart Hoyle Duchess Officer Mr. Thorne
Mr. James Keen Duchess Officer j Mr. Thomas
Fruit Seller J
Mr. Peter Russell Ferdinand Servant Mr. Kerry
Executioner
Antonio Servant
 212

1971 — The Royal Shakespeare Theatre

RSC in John Webster's
The Duchess of Malfi

THE HOUSE OF ARAGON

The Cardinal brother of Emrys James
Ferdinand Duke of Calabria twins Michael Williams
The Duchess of Malfi Judi Dench
THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE DUCHESS
Antonio Bologna Steward Richard Pasco
Daniel de Bosola appointed Provisor of Horse
Geoffrey Hutchings
Cariola Companion to the Duchess Janet Whiteside
COURTIERS TO THE HOUSE OF ARAGON
Delio Antonio's intimate Bernard Lloyd
Silvio Richard Mayes
Castruchio a lawyer Sydney Bromley
Julia his wife and the Cardinal's mistress Lynn Dearth
Roderigo Michael Shannon
Count Malateste Peter Geddis
The Marquis of Pescara Denis Holmes
ATTENDANTS ON THE HOUSE OF ARAGON
Ladies-in-Waiting to the Duchess Lisa Harrow Marion Lines
Officers at the Court of Malfi
Robert Ashby David Calder Roger Rees Matthew Roberton
Monk servant to the Cardinal Ted Valentine
Monk at the shrine of Our Lady of Loretto Roger Rees
Dignitary of the State of Ancona David Calder
Soldiers of Ferdinand and the Cardinal
Robert Ashby Matthew Roberton Ted Valentine
Soldier guarding the Duchess Alton Kumalo
Executioners Malcolm Blackmoor Jeremy Sinden
IN THE PROFESSIONS
Old Lady midwife Anne Dyson
Pilgrims Gordon Reid Morgan Sheppard
Astrologer
Laywer
Priest Robert Ashby David Calder Roger Rees
Doctor Gordon Reid Matthew Roberton
English Tailor Michael Shannon Morgan Sheppard
Gentleman Usher
Broker __
Doctor in Milan Richard Mayes
Friend of Antonio in Milan Matthew Roberton
THE DUCHESS'S CHILDREN Anthony Boddington or Richard Kingston
Tina Howkins or Dawn Kingston
 213

Musicians Gordon Bennett Edward Joory Robert Pritchard

Directed by Clifford Willians
Designed by Farrah
Music by Marc Wilkinson
Lighting by Michael J White
Act One is about 1 hour 20 minutes. Act Two is about 1 hour 25 minutes.
There is one interval of 15 minutes
Please do not sn^oke in the auditorium nor use cameras or tape recorders
 214

1989-90 — The Swan Theatre

THE DUCHESS OF MALFI
BY JOHN WEBSTER
Delio Jerome Flynn
Antonio Bologna, Mick Ford
steward of the Duchess's household
Daniel de Bosola Nigel Terry
The Cardinal, Russell Dixon
brother to the Duchess
Duke Ferdinand, Bruce Alexander
also brother to the Duchess
Silvio Simon D'Arcy
Castruccio Dennis Clinton
Roderigo lan Driver
Grisolan Andrew Hesker
The Duchess of Halfi Harriet Walter
Cariola, her woman Sally Edwards
Lady Judith Brydon
Midwife Helen Blatch
Servants Simon D'Arcy, Craig Pinder
Julia Patricia Kerrigan
Cardinal's Servant Maxwell Hutcheon
Officers Simon D'Arcy, Craig Pinder,
lan Driver, Andrew Hesker
Count Malateste Maxwell Hutcheon
Pescara Peter Theedom
Pilgrims lan Driver, Andrew Hesker
Children Mark Wilkinson,
Zoe Levings,
Anthony Budford /
Jack Fitzgerald,
Katie Holmes,
Richard Holmes
Servant Andrew Hesker
Nurse to Madmen Judith Brydon
Mad Lawyer Simon D'Arcy
Mad Priest lan Driver
Mad Astrologer Andrew Hesker
Mad Doctor Peter Theedom
Other Madmen Craig Pinder,
Maxwell Hutcheon
Executioners Simon D'Arcy, lan Driver
Andrew Hesker, Craig Pinder
Doctor Grain Pinder
Antonio's Servant Simon D'Arcy
Attendants, servants, guards played by members of the cast,
Directed by Bill Alexander
Designed by Fotini Dimou
Lighting by Wayne Dowdeswell
Music by Guy Woolfenden
 215

Movement by Lesley Hutchison

Fight Director Malcolm Ranson
Sound by Andrea Cox
Music Director Roger Hellyer
Assistant Director Ruth Garnault
Assistant Designer Anna Georgiades
Company Voice Work by Cicely Berry
and Andrew Wade
Stage Manager Maggie MacKay
Deputy Stage Manager lan Barber
Assistant Stage Manager Ashley Pickles
MUSICIANS
Clarinet Edward Watson
Cello Alan Carus-Wilson
Percussion Clifford Pick
Keyboards Roger Hellyer
The performance is approximately 3% hours in length,
including one interval of 15 minutes.
First performance of this production:
Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 29 November 1989.
 216

1990 — The Pit

THE DUCHESS OF MALE!
BY JOHN WEBSTER
Delio Jerome Flynn
Antonio Bologna Mick Ford
steward of the Duchess's household
Daniel de Bosola Stephen Boxer
The Cardinal, Russell Dixon
brother to the Duchess
Duke Ferdinand, Bruce Alexander
also brother to the Duchess
Silvio Simon D'Arcy
Castruccio Dennis Clinton
Roderigo lan Driver
Grisolan Andrew Hesker
The Duchess of Malfi Harriet Walter
Cariola, her woman Sally Edwards
Lady Judith Brydon
Midwife Helen Blatch
Servants Simon D'Arcy, Craig Pinder
Julia Patricia Kerrigan
Cardinal's Servant Maxwell Hutcheon
Officers Simon D'Arcy, Craig Pinder,
lan Driver, Andrew Hesker
Count Malateste Maxwell Hutcheon
Pescara Peter Theedom
Pilgrims lan Driver, Andrew Hesker
Children Benjamin Mudford,
Nicholas Mudford
Servant Andrew Hesker
Nurse to Madmen Judith Brydon
Mad Lawyer Simon D'Arcy
Mad Priest lan Driver
Mad Astrologer Andrew Hesker
Mad Doctor Peter Theedom
Other Madmen Craig Pinder,
Maxwell Hutcheon
Excutioners Simon D'Arcy, lan Driver,
Andrew Hesker, Craig Pinder
Doctor Craig Pinder
Antonio's Servant Simon D'Arcy
Attendants, servants, guards played by members of the cast.
Directed by Bill Alexander
Designed by Fotini Dimou
Lighting by Wayne Dowdeswell
Music by Guy Woolfenden
Movement by Lesley Hutchison
Fight Director Malcolm Ranson
Sound by Andrea J. Cox
Music Director Richard Brown
 217

Assistant Director Ruth Garnault

Assistant Designer Anna Georgiades
Company voice work by Cicely Berry and
Andrew Wade
Stage Manager Jonathan Caldicot
Deputy Stage Manager Sheonagh Darby
Assistant Stage Manager Ashley Pickles
MUSICIANS
Clarinet / Soprano Saxophone Victor Slaymark
Cello Julia Vohralik
Percussion Tony McVey
Keyboards Richard Brown
The performance is approximately 3% hours in length,
including one interval of 15 minutes.
First performance of this production:
Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 29 Novenber 1989.
First London performance:
The Pit, 25 April 1990.
 APPENDIX C
Details of Plays Produced
at Stratford-upon-Avon and London
Concurrent with the Productions of
The Duchess of Malfi

1960 — The Shakespeare Memorial Theatre

1960-61 ~ The Aldwych Theatre
1971 — The Royal Shakespeare Theatre
1989-90 — The Swan Theatre
1990 ~ The Pit
 219

Plays composed by playwrights other than William Shakespeare are indicated

with their names.
R indicates a revival or transferred production from Stratford-upon-Avon,
and TGR indicates a Theatregoround production.

Productions Director Designer(s)

1960 — the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre
NIL

1960-61 — the Aldwych Theatre

Twelfth Night (R) Peter Hall Lila de Nobili
Ondine by Jean Giraudoux Peter Hall Tanya Moiseiwitsch
The Devils by John Whiting Peter Wood Sean Kenny

1971 — the Royal Shakespeare Theatre

Richard II (TGR) John Barton Ann Curtis
The Merchant of Venice Terry Hands Timothy O'Brien,
Tazeena Firth
Twelfth Night John Barton Christopher Morley
Henry V John Barton Ann Curtis
Much Ado about Nothing Ronald Eyre Voytek
Othello John Barton Julia Trevelyan
Oman

1989-90 — the Swan Theatre

Pericles David Thacker Fran Thompson
Singer by Peter Flannery Terry Hands Sanja Jurca

1990 — the Pit

Singer (R) Terry Hands Sanja Jurca Avci
Pericles (R) David Thacker Fran Thompson
Earwig by Paula Milne Ron Daniels Ralph Koltai,
Sue Formston
A Dream of People Janet Suzman Johan Engels
by Michael Hastings
 APPENDIX D
Interview with Bill Alexander
 221

This interview took place on 3 May 1991 at the Barbican Centre. Bill
Alexander answered to the questions in a questionnaire I had sent to him.

References to the original text are from The Duchess of Malfi, ed. by
Elizabeth M. Brennan, the New Mermaids, second ed. (London: Ernest Benn,
1983 (first ed.,1964)).

In transcribing the interview, I have corrected grammatical mistakes and

added words to make the sentences clearer.

(The Duchess of Malfi, directed by Bill Alexander, was performed at

the Swan, Stratford-upon-Avon, and the Pit in London. The significant
difference between the two theatres is that of the size. The capacity of
the Swan is 430, while that of the Pit is approximately 200. Seeing
performances at both theatres, I felt that the small size and the structure
of the Pit produced closer communication between the actors and the
audience, and that this made performances more successful than at the Swan.
At the same time, I had the impression that the success at the Pit partly
derived from the claustrophobic nature of The Duchess of Malfi; many of the
events take place indoors, or at night, or both. I asked the director how
the change of the size of theatre affected the performances.)
First of all you are right it is [an] atmospheric and very
claustrophobic play. It talks about a very small, courtly world, in which
everyone knows what everyone else is doing, and that's what adds [the]
dramatic tension of how on earth can the Duchess think she can hide
something as extraordinary as having a family from that closed world. The
answer is, of course, she cannot. And I, in my own view, this production
 222

worked better in the Pit than in the Swan. I think the Swan is a
remarkable theatre, but it is quite problem in getting focus in the Swan,
because the sight line is sometimes not very good; you have a very, very,
high audience that you have to play to; it's a very deep thrust, which
means a lot of [the] audience are some way behind the action. Even though
the Pit is not a very attractive theatre, just to go in and look at; it is
very well focused on the acting area, and I thought that it was a better
theatre for that play.
(The text of The Duchess of Malfi was virtually intact at the Swan,
while many lines were cut at the Pit. The most notable deletion was that
of Act III, scene iv, which includes the Cardinal's investiture and the
banishment of the Duchess, proceeded in the form of dumb show. I asked
the director (1) for what purposes he made the deletions, (2) how the
deletion of Act III, scene iv, the turning point of the play, affected the
performances at the Pit and (3) whether the deletions caused any difference
in rhythm of the performances between the two theatres.)
Yes, I did cut it quite a lot for the Pit.... There is a [bit more]
of time limit in the Pit, purely because in London an audience would tend
to have to go and catch public transport, and in Stratford most people who
see a play stay for the night. So my experience is that l['ve] often had
to cut the play when it's moved to London. And the second point is that it
was also a slight change.... It wasn't a change of interpretation exactly.
I wanted to change the rhythm of the second half. I wanted the second half
to move at a quicker pace, and I therefore decided to abandon the whole
kind of choreographic and the statuesque nature of that scene [i.e., Act
III, scene iv]. I also believe it would seem probably meant much more to
the Jacobean audience, who [was] used to conventions of masques,
 223

conventions of that kind of symbolist way of telling a story than a modern

audience. I did it, however, with some hesitation, because I think that it
is in a way quite a remarkable scene and quite/remarkable theatrical
^A-~
device. It's very much the turning point of the play; but I just felt that
I hadn't made it work in the original production, that I could not think of
a way to improve it, but I could think of a way by removing it, to actually
make the second half more fluid. (The director read the third question)
Yes, it did cause a difference in the rhythm. I did it to improve the
rhythm of the second half. I think it maybe... it was a shame in a way,
but I think overall it tightened up the second half. But I mean a lot of
work I did in the second half was to make it move quicker, the second half
of the play which I think had been over-long in Stratford. And I'd feel
that the audience was losing tension in the second half.
(I asked whether the director felt that the performed text for the
Pit was different from the almost intact text for the Swan.)
Yes, it was very different.
(I asked how he thought of the original text — for example, in terms
of rhythm.)
No, I think on the whole it was [a] brilliantly constructed play,
with a wonderful natural flow to it. What is difficult is that... because
it was the convention of the time, more time is spent on... verbal
intricacies... than we are used to. And it's very difficult to know what
to do about that, because (a) you have to make the audience understand
them, which is difficult enough, but (b) the taste of the modern audience
isn't the same as the Jacobean audience's.... The Jacobean audience would
have relished it for what it was. I actually did not cut the play that
much... really, when it came to London; a little bit of some of Bosola, and
 224

a little bit of the cut, and a little scene about... with Julia's asking
for the tower [i.e., Antonio's citadel], that bit. Because I felt the
audience didn't follow that scene. I don't think Webster was [a] perfect
structural dramatist, and I actually think the cuts I made probably to
improve it; slightly I mean to improve the play as well as the performance.
But I mean it was exactly very little compared to what you might have to do
with a i Jacobean dramatist.
(The performance began with a prelude in which the Duchess had a
black cloth disrobed and revealed her elegant dress. The opening seemed to
me to suggest (1) that the play began when the Duchess had just finished
mourning her first husband, which was a widow's duty, (2) that she was
determined to return to society, (3) and that she was aware both of her
sexuality and of her high rank as a duchess. I had the impression that the
function of the opening was to make the audience anticipate the Duchess's
fight against the social code to preserve her identity as a woman. I asked
the director how he saw the prelude. He agreed to the first and second
interpretations of the prelude.)
However, I don't regard... I didn't see the play as [a play about] a
woman who fights against the social code. I don't think the Duchess of
Malfi, as a person, is a fighter on behalf of change. I think she's a
woman who's following her own instincts and I think that she is, in a
sense, defending her right to have her own emotions. But I don't think
that comes from any a priori sense of this is what the society should be;
it simply comes from the sort of person she is, that she is incapable as an
individual of not following the dictation of her own heart. We in the
twentieth century can look back objectively and say that it's a play about
a woman who tries to take control of her own destiny, but what one must
 225

remember is that Webster is adapting his play from a source story, that is
a moral about not doing that sort of thing if you were a duchess.
Webster's genius is the balance out of the elements and actually [he]
[shows] both sides of the case, to make us sympathize with the Duchess, but
also to [make us] worry about whether it is the way what the Duchess should
behave in... whether she would be better to accept the fact that a prince
is in anexceptional position of her responsibility and [that princes]
should deny themselves personal lives. After all the society depended on
the authority of that figure.
(I said that the Duchess tried to seek j a better life in her own
way.)
Yes, for herself, but you could argue that it was selfish. I mean
she's clearly neglected the affairs of state, while leading that life.
(It is generally thought that the Duchess's death long before the end
of the play causes a problem in performances. The Duchess naturally
attracts the audience's attention up to her death; after her death members
of the audience find slackening of tension. I thought that the Duchess's
voice in the echo scene had been aimed partly to retain the audience's
attention to the play by reminding the audience of the Duchess's influence
on the other characters. I asked how the director saw the play after the
Duchess's death.)
It i.s difficult to handle the play after that. However, Webster's
point is about consequences, the consequences of actions. He's not only
examining what happens to that woman when she follows her instincts; he's
also looking at what happens to people who do a terrible thing to someone,
from motives of jealousy and vindictiveness and warped passion, which I
think is the way that one is described in Ferdinand's behaviour. So I
 226

think that it is of intense interest, what happens to Ferdinand, what

happens to the Cardinal; and I didn't actually find any difficulty with
that area of the play, because I think the scene of Ferdinand's madness,
the scene where Bosola revisits the Cardinal, are brilliant scenes. I
think the problem comes later with Julia, with the death of Julia and her
courting of Bosola, that is the scene in which it is difficult to maintain
the tension, because the audience has not built up much interest in the
character of Julia. They were very interested in the Cardinal, and [in]
Ferdinand, and [in] what happens to them, and [in] how Bosola 1 s story is
concluded, but not much in what happens to Julia. I suspect if I were to
do the play again, I might cut that scene very substantially; not entirely,
but quite a lot. Because although it is a wonderful scene, in its own
right, it is a little difficult for the audience to regrasp its relevance,
and I think you're absolutely right to say the echo scene is to remind the
audience to make the point [of] the person's influences that lingers after
her death. And I think that it is absolutely right that it is one of the
difficult areas of the play, that and the final scene. Really, the scene
of Julia and Bosola, and the scene at the end are the most difficult scenes
to handle, one because you feel the tension slackening and the other
because of the problem of bad laughs.
(The final scenes, i.e., Act V, scene iv, and scene v, are notorious
for provoking the audience's laughter in spite of their tragic nature. In
this production I noticed the audience's laughter at scenes like Antonio's
death, at which his 'little fire' (V.iv.58) of life was extinguished by the
news of the murder of his family; the appearance of Ferdinand, who wore an
armour on his nightshirt; and the death of the Cardinal, who collapsed on
the floor, embracing Ferdinand's body. I also noticed, however, that the
 227

laughter was much smaller at the Pit. Referring to some scholars 1 view of
the final scenes that Webster intended to undercut their tragic nature by
inserting farce, I asked how the director saw the scenes.)
I felt I controlled [the audience's reaction] better at the end [at
the Pit], and I think that's largely to do with the fact that we were able
to dojbit more work on it. (Reading my reference to the laughter at
Antonio's death) And in fact, I wanted to cut that and I never did; but I
should have done. (To the view that Webster undercut tragedy with farce)
I couldn't say absolutely whether I think it was Webster's intention, that
the tragedy of bloodiness should be undercut by laughter, I don't know.
But I do know that the Elizabethan and Jacobean audiences had a far
differerTt reaction to violence than we do. Because they lived with
violence, much more as part of their lives; because on their way on morning
they passed the heads on poles; because they would see public executions;
I
because that they would see people disembowled in front of the crowd of
thousands; because they would go to bear-baiting, in [an] arena to see [a]
poor bear torn to pieces by dogs. They had a sense of the ridiculous in
violence that was part of their culture. They would find nothing wrong
with the laughing at the torment of the bear, or mocking at someone who was
going to be hanged. There I think they would probably gasp with disgust
and laugh at sequences of the death of the Cardinal, and Bosola. That was
the fundamental difference between the kind of audience they were and the
kind of audience we are. That's why it is difficult to handle the scene
like this in the twentieth century.
(After Delio concluded the play, a small voice sang what sounded like
a requiem. It lingered for a few seconds after the blackout. This ending
seemed to have suggested that the Duchess's integrity would survive in the
 228

world 'beyond death 1 (V.v.120), and that the other world was now near this
world. I asked what the ending was aimed to imply and why Antonio's eldest
son did not appear at the Swan.)
[Antonio's eldest son] didn't appear in the Swan, because there was
restriction about the hour to which we could keep children in the theatre.
[...] So that was [a] purely technical reason. The voice that you could
actually hear at the end was intended to be the voice of the dead son
rather than the Duchess herself. It was a small voice singing [a] requiem,
and it wasn't intended to remind one of the Duchess, and had an effective
requiem for her death, but [it was] also [intended] to speak of her
continuance in a form of this other son, who we see in front of us.
(Harriet Walter presented the Duchess as an ordinary woman who
happened to be a duchess. She convinced the audience that the character's
sexual desire for Antonio was natural, and she expressed the fear of dying
before being strangled. Harriet Walter's emphasis on the Duchess's
ordinariness was effective in retaining the audience's sympathy for the
character. I asked how the director viewed the Duchess.)
I think that in many ways that the Duchess is an ordinary woman amd
that is precisely her problem. Because she does not have a built-in sense
of being a leader and having a national responsibility for a society, she
is like an aristocrat, a leader, of whom much is expected but who is
essentially a very motherly, housely, wifely kind of individual; and that
is prefci'£6J.y what Harriet and I worked trying to achieve and her
interpretation of the role. Although an ordinary woman capable of great
grandeur, emotional grandeur, and in extreme situation, which I think
Webster is saying that it is not only princes who can go to the death,
something about ordinary people also capable that sort of courage as well.
 229

All you can say, but although she is in many ways an ordinary person, it is
her innate princeliness that makes her behave in such a courageous way. In
fact she says, f l am Duchess of Malfi still 1 (lV.ii.139); it is as if at
that point of her life, she is reminded of the pride, of what is beyond her
point of a woman and mother, and actually comes to her sense of herself,
that is [a] both personal and public figure. So I think she is a strange
blend of ordinariness and princeliness. She is not one or the other, or
maybe she discovers more of her own aristocracy the nearer her end she
comes.
(I asked about the difference in the delivery of 'I am Duchess of
Malfi still 1 at the Swan and the Pit.)
At the Swan she said, (feebly) 'I am Duchess of Malfi still 1 , and was
discovering it, and at the Pit, (with some strength) 'I am Duchess of Malfi
— still 1 , as if holding on something and being defiant, and I think
probably because Harriet had grown in her part and discovered more about
the strength of the character.
(Mick Ford seems to have emphasized the inconsistency in Antonio's
character. In scenes like Act I, scene ii, and Act III, scene ii, his
Antonio raised the audience's sympathy, presenting the character as an
attractive lover and a husband. But Mick Ford also stressed the
character's fear of having the secret marriage revealed and his
power lessness in his public life. I asked how the director interpreted the
gap of Antonio's impression.)
I think that Antonio is a character, you must remember, to begin
with.... Antonio is terrified of the offer the Duchess makes to him. He
sees all the dangers inherent in that offer. He says, 'he's a fool | That,
being a-cold, would thrust his hands i'th'fire | To warm them* (l.ii.343-
 230

45). And he looks at the ring and says, 'There is a saucy and ambitious
devil | Is dancing in this circle' (I.ii.329-30). So I think he is a
frightened man most of the play, and I think that a frightened man can't be
a good steward, and particularly a man who is conceiving a secret as he is,
is permanently bound on edge by the situation, and therefore I mean he
doesn't handle his stuff very well. But when he's in security on the
Duchess's world, all he feels is that he loves his wife, he loves the
children they are having, and he has the life together. Althogh I tried to
get the sense that he is nevertheless quite troubled sometimes then as
well... but I think that he also is rather an ordinary person, that is into
something to^big for him, that he can't really control, but if left to
himself, he would lead a perfectly normal life. And it is really his
tragedy that the Duchess should love him. I think he would have been
contented to love the Duchess from a distance.... But the extraordinary
offer of her actually happens. I think it's something he can never believe
and he can't really deal with. But he himself, at the end, finally finds
strength and courage, and it's because he's innately [a] good man. They
find a courage because they're good people. If they were bad people they
would not be able to die with the dignity that they do.
(Bosola is a complex character. He is presented first as a villain,
but is intelligent and has an insight into evil and hypocrisy. In one
scene it is revealed that he once was a scholar. At the Swan Nigel Terry
played Bosola straightforward, as a man who was angry at the Cardinal's
ingratitude. At the Pit Stephen Boxer emphasized the character's sarcastic
nature. I asked how the change of cast affected the performance.)
I think that Bosola is a complicated character. Basically there are
certain things that would remain true whatever actor played him... his
 231

bitterness, his disenchantment, his intelligence, his cynicism, his

amorality, which turns into morality, all one has to find is the reasons
that are different. And I think the main difference between Stephen and
Nigel was that Nigel was someone very much of a soldier and with Stephen,
who was more a scholar.... So there was more of the sceptical scholastic
quality in Stephen, and more of the brutal... more powerful man in Nigel,
although I also, ironically, think Nigel has a more poetic quality than
Stephen. I think although they were quite different, I don't think it
affected the allover balance of the production much.... I think that
Nigel's performance was more enigmatic, strange performance, which might
dissatisfy some members of the audience but really interest other members
of the audiences. I think that for most people Stephen's was probably an
easier interpretation to follow, but possibly it might be a little less
interesting. I think Nigel's was more dangerous, and Stephen's was safer.
But I think that Stephen's was better for the play as a whole than the
Nigel's.
(Bruce Alexander, as Ferdinand, emphasized the fact that the
character is the Duchess's twin brother and her junior. For example,
Alexander's Ferdinand reacted pathetically rather than menacingly to the
news of the Duchess's childbirth. I asked how the director saw the blood
ties between Ferdinand and the Duchess.)
I think it's very simple. I think that Ferdinand is in love with his
sister. I think there was a strong element of incestuous love.... It is
an unrequited incestuous love, but I think that Ferdinand is someone who
has never managed to grow out of the sibling affection and dependency he
has on his sister. He is profoundly jealous of his sister, that is why he
moves in, as soon as her husband dies, to control her. He doesn't want her
 232

to marry again; he thinks, 'For the first time in life I can have my sister
back 1 . But because he is in many ways an ignorant and not a grown-up man,
he... that's the way he has that need. He should have been married himself
by then. I think that he was never married because he loved his sister and
then his sister's husband dies he wants to get her back for himself again.
And so quite apart from class element in his reaction to Antonio, he has
the sexual jealousy, and that turns itself perversely, into the only
physical contact he can have with her, which is to mutilate her, and to
torture her. I mean he's a sadist driven and his sadism driven by his
unrequited lust for his sister. Indeed a lust he cannot admit it to
himself. He's a man who is not honest to himself, Ferdinand. Again he
hasn't grown up enough to look at himself truthfully, to see what he is and
[to] do something about it. So they are so closely bound, those two.
(Russell Dixon seemed to have presented the Cardinal as a protective
figure who was aware of his position as the eldest of the house of Aragon.
For example, he kissed Ferdinand's hand before leaving at the end of Act
II, scene v, as if to encourage Ferdinand. Stage business like this seemed
to suggest that the Cardinal's affection for his siblings was mingled with
his pride in his lineage and awareness of political significance of his
family. I asked how the director interpreted the character.)
I think that the Cardinal is indeed very proud of their lineage, and
very much sees himself as the old brother. But I think, more importantly,
he is very wrapped up in his own lust and his own ambitions... and I think
that means he has a slightly casual and irresponsible attitude to what
happens. Yes, he will get irate about his sister marrying a steward, but I
feel that if it weren't for Ferdinand, he might absolutely be mad about it.
And I think he rather wishes the whole things would go away and he could be
 233

left to get on his political ambitions and his sexual licence. I think
that he sort of was driven to be involved by Ferdinand's passion and
paranoia, and goes along with it without really thinking about the
consequence of it. It's like Ferdinand was active in the destruction of
the Duchess, but the Cardinal was passive in her destruction. They seem
equally, I think, that's Webster's point, that by being passive you can be
equally as blameworthy as being active. And I wanted the character to be a
complex, licentious, confused figure, who enjoys power, but who is utterly
terrified of his own death, of his own lack of faith. And at the end of
the play you can see a man who's a total hypocrite; if he was a cardinal of
a profoundly religious spirit, he wouldn't be wimpering, jibbering,
terrified wreck he is at the end, even doubting his own belief, doubting
his own capacity to survive the judgement after death. He becomes a
pathetic character. He does, finally, in that line, come to the sense of
self-awareness, in that he realizes his own worthlessness. Ferdinand was
sort of too mad by the end to really realize, to have such a clear view,
but the Cardinal, at last, is sane and sees his own patheticness, but I
think he is a weak man in a position of power, which is always a dangerous
mixture.
(I asked how the director saw the political aspect of the play.)
I think that it's a political play only in the sense that it is saying
people in power are driven by passions, and doubts, and lusts, and fears,
and confusions just like everyone else. In fact Bosola says that in one of
his speeches. He makes precisely the point, one of the quite early
speeches when he's talking to Antonio just before the Duchess arrives and
we see she's pregnant [i.e., II.i.102-10]. Study that speech and I think
that's all that needs to be said about the politics of the play. You can't
 234

really separate the personal from the political in life.

(Patricia Kerrigan seemed to have suggested that Julia was a victim
of a male-dominated society, and that the only difference of her and the
Duchess was that Julia failed to find a man of sincerity and that she fell
victim to the Cardinal. I asked in what way the director had Julia fof^ ^
contrast to the Duchess.)
I think that she is a victim of the male-dominating society. I think
that she is someone desperate to escape from her unhappy marriage with a
stupid, elderly man. But she does not have much moral centre to her and
therefore falls easily prey to the blandishments of someone like the
Cardinal, who can offer her sexuality combined with luxurious living. But
in that sense she is [a] quite weak and not very morally centred human
being. I think that the way she contrasts with the Duchess is that she's
meant to make us think more that, however we might judge the Duchess's
behaviour badly in terms of neglecting the offices of her state of Malfi,
she is actually a wonderful wife and mother, that she preserves a real
strong priority of family value, if you like, and that her behaviour was
therefore more commended than other duchesses, who might [not have]
married, [might have] run their country well, but who had many affairs,
secret affairs on the side with men. And it shows one possible escape
route in her society, which is to simply have adulterous relationships. I
think the character of Julia is meant to highlight the personal morality of
the Duchess.
(I asked about the aim of having Antonio stand next to the Cardinal
and Ferdinand as he described their nature.)
That was just a non-naturalitic theatrical device, which, I thought,
was effective to introduce the world of the court and the outsider. And I
 235

wanted the characters to appear like moving exhibits in a museum or in a

waxwork gallery and that.... Delio was a man completely new to all this,
who is being taught the ways of the court, in order to create the sense of
the incestuous world, and it was just a theatrical device, which I found
more ?es the tically satisfying than having Antonio and Delio up in a godlery,
not moving and just looking at them.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CompD Comparative Drama

ELR English Literary Renaissance
IJES Indian Journal of English Studies
JWSL Journal of Women's Studies in Literature
MLS Modern Language Studies
PMLA Publications of the Modern Language Association of America
RenD Renaissance Drama
RenR Renaissance and Reformation
RES Review of English Studies
RORD Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama
SAP Studia Anglica Posnaniensia
SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900
ShS Shakespeare Survey
SP Studies in Philology
TD Themes in Drama
ThR Theatre Research International
ThS Theatre Survey
TLS Times Literary Supplement
YES Yearbook of English Studies
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 238

UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
Prompt-books, production records and theatre programmes for all productions
of The Duchess of Malfi discussed in the text were consulted at the
Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon. The following is the list of all
the RSC productions of the play discussed:
1960-61 ~ Directed by Donald McWhinnie at the Shakespeare Memorial
Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, and the Aldwych Theatre, London.
1971 ~ Directed by Clifford Williams at the Royal Shakespeare
Theatre, S tratford-upon-Avon.
1989-90 ~ Directed by Bill Alexander at the Swan Theatre, Stratford-
upon-Avon, and the Pit, London.

Recorded Material
One of the RSC Archive Recording videotapes, which records a performance of
The Duchess of Malfi, made on 18 January 1990 at the Swan Theatre, directed
by Bill Alexander, was consulted at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-
Avon. The videotape is not numbered.

Production Photographs
The production photographs for all the RSC productions of The Duchess of
Malfi were consulted at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon. Eight
colour slides taken by Tom Holte, which cover several scenes of the
performance of the Williams production, were consulted at the Shakespeare
Centre and the Shakespeare Institute, Stratford-upon-Avon. The limited
number of the production photographs, taken by Angus McBean for the
McWhinnie production and by Tom Holte for the Williams production, were
reproduced from the negatives owned by the Shakespeare Centre. Other
 239

photographs, taken by Angus McBean for the McWhinnie production and by

Nevis Cameron for the Williams production, were reproduced by means of a
laser printer. The photographs of the colour slides were reproduced in the
Photographic Department of the Library of the University of Birmingham.
The photographs for the Alexander production, taken by Ivan Kyncl, were
reproduced at Joe Cocks Studio, Stratford-upon-Avon.

PUBLISHED MATERIAL

Newspapers and Periodicals

As to the Royal Shakespeare Company's policy about repertoires at the Royal
Shakespeare Theatre, Flourish; Royal Shakespeare Theatre Club Newspaper,
no. 6 (Spring 1966), was consulted at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-
upon-Avon.
All reviews for the McWhinnie production and the Williams production were
consulted in the following records at the Shakespeare Centre:
Theatre Records, Series A, Vol. 51
Theatre Records, Series A, Vol. 52
£
Reviews for the Alexander production both at the Swan and at the Pit were
consulted at the Shakespeare Institute, Stratford-upon-Avon; some other
reviews of the performances at the Swan were obtained from London Theatre
Record, 9 (1989), pp. 1738-42. Reviews in the following newspapers and
periodicals were consulted:
Birmingham Mail Observer
Birmingham Post Oxford Mail
Bristol Evening Post Oxford Times
Cahiers EliSabethains Plays and Players
Catholic Times Plays International
Christian Science Monitor Punch
City Limits Quarterly Review
Coventry Evening Telegraph Reynolds

/} . VA /, <§!
 240

Daily Express Scotsman

Daily Herald Solihull and Warwick News
Daily Mail Stage
Daily Telegraph Stratford-upon-Avon Herald
Evening News Stratford-upon-Avon Observer
Evening Standard Sunday Correspondent
Financial Times Sunday Mercury
Glasgow Herald Sunday Telegraph
Gloucester Citizen Sunday Times
Gloucestershire Echo Tablet
Guardian Theatre World Annual
Illustrated London News Time and Tide
Independent Time Out
Independent on Sunday The Times
Jewish Chronicle Times Educational Supplement
Lady Tribune
Listener Universe
Liverpool Daily Post Warwickshire Advertiser
London American Western Independent
Manchester Evening News What's On In London
Morning Star Wolverhampton Express and Star
New Statesman and Nation Yorkshire Evening Post
Nottingham Evening Post Yorkshire Post
Nottingham Guardian Journal

Selected Reviews
1960-61 — directed by Donald McWhinnie
(Shakespeare Memorial Theatre)
B., D.M., 'Superb Acting in Webster's Duchess *, Wolverhampton Express and
Star, 1 December 1960
Bishop,1960
George W., 'Stratford-atte-Aldwych', ——
Daily———
Telegraph, 5 December

Chapman,
1960Don, 'Horrors of Webster are Toned Down', ———————
Oxford Mail, 1 December

D., R.W., 'The Aldwych New Season — The Duchess of Malfi', Oxford Times
9 December 1960
'Duchess of Malfi at Stratford', Warwickshire Advertiser, 2 December 1960
G[ardner], E[dmund], 'What will be the Impact on London of Malfi?',
Stratford-upon-Avon Herald, 2 December 1960
M., D., 'Fine Acting in Stratford Tragedy', Gloucestershire Echo, 1
December 1960
Trewin, J.C., 'Duchess of Malfi Still', Illustrated London News, 17
December 1960
 241

W., B.C., 'A Grisly Tale is Uplifted 1 , Solihull and Warwick News, 10
December 1960
W., N.K., 'A Blood-Chilling Play at Stratford 1 , Coventry Evening Telegraph,
1 December 1960
W., W.H., 'Horror and Revenge 1 , Birmingham Mail, 1 December 1960
(Aldwych Theatre)
'Ability Prevents Absurdity 1 , Universe, 23 December 1960
B., C.,December
'Stratford
1960Makes No Mistake -- Delightful "Debut"', —————
Scotsman, 19

Barker, Felix, [title missing], Evening News, 16 December 1960

Brahms, Caryl, 'Blue Stockings and Blue Beard', Plays and Players, 8, no. 5
(February 1961), 7
'A Correspondent', 'In Good Health', Times Educational Supplement, 30
December 1960
Craig, 1960
H.A.L., 'A Miracle of Pity', ————————————————
New Statesman and Nation, 24 December

Darlington, W.A., 'Success with Obscurities', Daily Telegraph, 15 December

1960
'The Duchess of Malfi', Theatre World Annual, no. 12 (1960-61), 79-83
Findlater, Richard, 'Holding up a Mirror to Madame Tussaud's', Time and
Tide, 31 December 1960
Gardner, Edmund, 'Stratford Takes over its Home in London', Stratford-upon-
Avon Herald, 23 December 1960
Gray, John, 'Ghoulish Drama Opens Stratford Season in W.C. 2', London
American, 22 December 1960
H., D., 'Magnificent Make-Believe', Bristol Evening Post, 16 December 1960
H., K.A., 'Stratford at the Aldwych', what's On In London, 23 December 1960
Hobson, Harold, 'The Duchess is Dead', Sunday Times, 18 December 1960
Holmes, Martin, 'Players and Productions', Quarterly Review, no. 299
(1961), 448-59
Hope-Wallace, Phillip, 'The Stratford Company Goes to Town', Guardian, 17
December 1960
Jones, Mervyn, 'Stratford in London', Tribune, 30 December 1960
 242

Keown, Eric, 'Criticism — At the Play 1 , Punch, 28 December 1960

L., H., 'Duchess Peggy 1 , Glasgow Herald, 17 December 1960
Daily Express, 16 December
Bernard, 'When Horror is No Problem 1 , ——l——E——
Levin, 1960

Lewis, Jack, 'What a Grisly Way to Start your Group, Peter 1 , Reynolds, 18
December 1960 — ———
'Pith, But without Poetry', ———————————
Staff, 1960
'LondonDecember News, 21
Manchester Evening———

Marriott, R.B., 'Stratford Comes — Season Opens with The Duchess of

Malfi', Stage, 22 December 1960 —————————
Muller, Robert, 'A Horrific Magnificent Start for the Aldwych', Daily Mail,
16 December 1960
Nathan, David, 'A Marvel of Drama and Evil', Daily Herald, 16 December 1960
Phelps, Norman, 'Oh! So Melodramatic Duchess of Malfi 1 , Liverpool Daily
Post, 17 December 1960
Pratt, Desmond, 'The Duchess of Malfi — Memorial Theatre Company Comes to
its London Home 1 , Yorkshire Post, 16 December 1960
'Prompter', 'The Evil that Men Do', Western Independent, 18 December 1960
R., F.K., 'A Welter of Blood', Catholic Times, 23 December 1960
Shulman, Milton, 'Horror Unlimited Hits the Aldwych', Evening Standard, 16
December 1960
'A Shock Start ~ But Noble Too', Yorkshire Evening Post, 17 December 1960
Speaight, Robert, 'The Duchess of Malfi', Tablet, 23 December 1960
'Theatrical Thrills', Nottingham Guardian Journal, 19 December 1960
Trewin, J.C., 'The Duchess of Malfi at the Aldwych 1 , Birmingham Post, 16
December 1960
———————— 9 'The New Plays', Lady, 29 December 1960
Tynan, Kenneth, 'A Sea of Cold Sweat', Observer, 18 December 1960
W., W.H., 'Stratford's Welcome to London', Birmingham Mail, 16 December
1960
'Webster's Play Well Handled 1 , The Times, 16 December 1960
Worsjev, T.C., 'The Duchess of Malfi*, Financial Times, 16 December 1960
 243

1971 ~ directed by Clifford Williams

(Royal Shakespeare Theatre)
Ansorge, Peter, 'The Duchess of Malfi 1 , Plays and Players, 18, no. 12
(September 1971}, 26-27, 62
John,
Barber,July Duchess of Malfi won't Do 1 , Daily Telegraph, 16
1971'This Sane ———————————

Barker, Felix. 'The Duchess of Malfi; Royal Shakespeare Theatre: Stratford-

on-Avon , Evening News, 16 July 1971
Bryden, Ronald, 'Blood-Soaked Circus', Observer, 18 July 1971

July'R.S.C.
C., G.S., Gloucestershire Echo, 16
1971 Superbly Professional But...', —————————————

Chapman, Don, 'Ponderous Production', Oxford Mail, 16 July 1971

'A Brilliant Bloodbath 1 , Wolverhampton
Roy,1971
Coates,July —————— ———— Express and Star, 16
————————

E.-W., S., 'Stratford Malfi Ends in Bathos', Stage, 22 July 1971

Evans, Gareth Lloyd, 'Duchess of Malfi', Guardian, 16 July 1971
Gillard, David, 'Gory, Gory What a Week!', Daily Mail, 16 July 1971
Hobson, Harold, 'Theatre in Britain', Christian Science Monitor, 26 July
1971
Isaacs, David, 'Vintage Ted urn', Coventry Evening Telegraph, 16 July 1971
Kretzmer, Herbert, 'Horror... and Giggles', Daily Express, 16 July 1971
Leslie, Ann, 'Theatre', Punch, 28 July 1971
Lewson, Charles, 'Sick Stallion', Listener, 22 July 1971
Marcus, Frank, 'Fruit Crumble', Sunday Telegraph, 18 July 1971
Nathan, David, [title missing], Jewish Chronicle, [date missing] July 1971
Nightingale, Benedict, 'RSC Ascendant', in Theatre 72, ed. by Sheridan
Morley (London: Hutchinson, 1972), pp. 63-75
Parsons, Gordon, 'Linked by Blood Code', Morning Star, 19 July 1971
S. W.T. 'Great Care Lavished by Company... But it Just didn't Succeed',
*' 'Gloucester Citizen, 16 July 1971
Shulman Milton, 'Milton Shulman at Stratford', Evening Standard, 16 July
1971
 244

T., W., 'Tragedy that Tells of Death and Madness 1 , Nottingham Evening Post,
16 July 1971
^^
————, 'Prison and Death are All that can Happen 1 , Nottingham Guardian
Journal, 16 July 1971 [the content of the article is the same as
that of the previous article]
Trewin, J.C., 'The Duchess of Malfi*, Birmingham Post, 16 July 1971
W., P., 'A Tidy Murder', Sunday Mercury, 18 July 1971
Wardle, Irving, 'The Duchess of Malfi*, The Times, 16 July 1971
Wood, Sarah Eily, 'The Duchess of Malfi Fails to Take Fire', Stratford-
upon-Avon Herald, 23 July 1971
Young, B.A., 'The Duchess of Malfi 1 , Financial Times, 16 July 1971

1989-90 — directed by Bill Alexander

(Articles which are taken from London Theatre Record, 9 (1989), pp. 1738-
42, and the titles of which are unknown are indicated by LTR)
(Swan Theatre)
Barrat, Helene, 'Duchess Leaves Cast to Flounder', Coventry Evening
Telegraph, 8 December 1989
Billington, Michael, 'The Duchess of Malfi', Guardian, 8 December 1989
Coveney, Michael, 'The Duchess of Malfi', Financial Times, 8 December 1989
Dungate, Rod, [title unknown], Tribune, 22 December 1989 (LTR)
Edmunds, Richard, 'Clear Cut of Death', Birmingham Post, 8 December 1989
Edwardes, Jane, [title unknown], Time Out, 13 December 1989 (LTR)
Gardner, Lyn, [title unknown], City Limits, 14 December 1989 (LTR)
Green, Tim, [title unknown], What's On IN London, 3 January 1990 (LTR)
Gross, John, [title unknown], Sunday Telegraph, 10 December 1989 (LTR)
Ingram, Margaret, 'Royal Shakespeare Company The Duchess of Malfi by John
Webster at the Swan Theatre', Stratford-upon-Avon Herald, 15 December
1989
Nathan, David, [title unknown], Jewish Chronicle, 15 December 1989 (LTR)
.———— 9 'six of the Best Actresses', Plays International, 5, no. 7
(February 1990), 12-13
 245

Osborne, Charles, 'Webster's Dark Fit of the Horrors', Daily Telegraph, 11

December 1989
Salisbury, Helen, 'Journey to Land of the Shadows', Stratford-upon-Avon
Observer, 14 December 1989
Taylor, Paul, 'Paste Jewels in the Crown', Independent, 9 December 1989
————————, 'A Year of
no. 7 (February 1990), Plays International, 5,
32-33 and Endings', ————————————
Beginnings

Wardle, Irving, 'Descent into Bloody Madness', The Times, 8 December 1989

(LTR)Hugo, [title unknown], ————————

Williams, ———— 10 December 1989
Sunday Correspondent,

(the Pit)
Brown, Georgina, 'Tableaux Talk', Independent, 3 May 1990
de Jongh, Nicholas, 'More Banal than Brutal', Guardian, 3 May 1990
Kellaway, 37 'The
Kate,
1990), ————————————— Plays
Duchess of Malfi', —— —————— —— no. 441 (August
and Players,

Nightingale, Benedict, 'Human Horrors', The Times, 3 May 1990

P[earce], J[ill], 'The Duchesjs of Malfi, director Bill Alexander, RSC,
Barbican Pit, 16 May 1990, centre front', Cahiers EliSabethains,
no. 38 (Octobre 1990), 94-95
Spencer, Charles, 'Genuine Bloodbath', Daily Telegraph, 3 May 1990
Wardle, Irving, 'Incompatible Truths', Independent on Sunday, 6 May 1990

Books and Articles Cited or Consulted

Addenbrooke, David, The Royal Shakespeare Company; The Peter Hall Years
(London: William Kimber, 19/4/
Ashcroft, Peggy, interviewed by Inga-Stina Ewbank, 'Playing Shakespeare',
ShS, 40 (1988), 11-19
Beauman, Sally, The Royal Shakespgre Company: A History of Ten Decades
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982;
Belsey, Catherine, 'Emblem and Antithesis in The Duchess of Malfi',
RenD, n.s. 11 (1980), 115-34
Bergeron, David M., 'The Wax Figures in The Duchess of Malfi*, SEL, 18
(1978), 331-39
 246

Genre, 3 (1970),
Normand, 'The Duchess of Malfi; Act V and Genre 1 , ———
Berlin,351-63

Berry, Ralph, The Art of John Webster (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)
Best, Michael R., 'A Precarious Balance: Structure in The Duchess of
Malfi*, in Shakespeare and Some Others; Essays on Shakespeare and
Some of his Contemporaries, ed. by Alan Brissenden (Adelaide;
University of Adelaide Press, 1976), pp. 159-77
Billington, Michael, Peggy Ashcroft (London: John Murray, 1988)
Bogard, Travis, The Tragic Satire of John Webster (Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1955)
Horrid Laughter
Nicholas, ——————
Brooke,1979) in Jacobean Tragedy (London: Open Books,
—————————————

Brooke, Rupert, John Webster and the Elizabethan Drama (London: Sidgwick &
Jackson, 1916)
Carnegie, David, *A Preliminary Checklist of Professional Productions of
the Plays of John Webster 1 , RORD, 26 (1983), 55-63
Cave, Richard Alien, The White Devil and The Duchess of Malfi, Text and
Performance (London: MacMillan Education, 1988)
Cook, David, 'The Extreme Situation: A Study of Webster's Tragedy', Komos,
2 (1969), 9-15
Davies, Cecil W., 'The Structure of The Duchess of Malfi; An Approach 1 ,
English, 12 (1958), 89-93
Driscoll, James P., 'Integrity of Life in The Duchess of Malfi', Drama
Survey, 6 (1967), 42-53
Duer, Leslie, 'The Landscape of Imagination in The Duchess of Malfi ,
MLS, 10 (1979-80), 3-9
Ekeblad, Inga-Stina, 'A Webster's Villain: A Study of Character-Imagery in
The Duchess of Malfi', Orpheus, 3 (1956), 126-33
—————————————, 'The "Impure Art" of John Webster', RES, n.s. 9
(1958>, 253-67
Eliot, T.S., 'The Duchess of Malfi at the Lyric: and Poetic Drama', Art and
Letter, 3, Winter (1920;, 3b-39
——————— 9 Poems (Richmond: L. & V. Woolf, Hogarth Press, 1919)
.———, Selected Essays, second ed. (London: Faber and Faber, 1934
(first ed., 1932;;
.———, 'The Duchess of Malfy', Listener, 18 December 1941
 247

Feinberg, Anat, 'Observation and Theatricality in Webster's The Duchess of

Malfi*, ThR, 6 (1980-81), 36-44
Giannetti, Louis D.,297-307
3 (1969-79), The Duchess of Malfi',
'A Contemporary View of —————————— ——— —— CompD,

Hall, Peter, 'Why Stratford is Coming to London', Daily Telegraph, 12

December 1960
Jensen, Ejner J., 'Lamb, Poel and our Postwar Theater: Elizabethan
Revivals', RenD, n.s. 9 (1978), 211-34
Leech, Clifford, John Webster: A Critical Study, Hogarth Lectures on
Literature, no. 16 (London: Hogarth Press, 1951)
Lord, Joan M., 'The Duchess of Malfi: "The Spirit of Greatness" and "of
Woman"', SEL, 16 (1976), 305-17
Lomax, Marion, Stage Images and Traditions; Shakespeare to Ford (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987)
Luckyj, Christina, A Winter's Snake; Dramatic Forms in the Tragedies of
John Webster (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1989)
'John
Don D., 17
Moore, Journal, Webster
(1965), 314-21 Educational Theatre
in the Modern Theatre*, —————————— ———

•————, John Webster and his Critics, 1617-1964 (Louisiana: Lousiana

State University Press, 1966) —————
————————, Webster; The Critical Heritage, The Critical Heritage Series
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981)
Mulryne, J.R., 'The White Devil and The Duchess of Malfi', in Jacobean
Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon Studies, 1, ed. by John Russell Brown
and Bernard Harris, 2nd imp. with corrections (London: Edward Arnold,
1965 (first imp., I960)), 201-25
Mulryne, Ronnie and Margaret Shewring, ed., This Golden Round; The Royal
Shakespeare
Shewring, 1989; at the Swan (Stratford-upon-Avon: Mulryne and
Company——————

McLuskie, Kathleen, 'Drama and Sexual Politics: the Case of Webster's

Duchess', in Drama, Sex and Politics, TD, 7, ed. by James Redmond
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 77-91
McWhinnie, Donald, 'Working on Webster', Plays and Players, 9, no. 5
(February 1961), 5
Neill, Michael, 'Monument and Ruins as Symbols in The Duchess of Malfi*, in
Drama and Symbolism, TD, 4, ed. by James Redmond (.Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982), 71-87
Pearson, Jaqueline, *Man Bites Man*, TLS, 26 September 1980
 248

Potter, Lois, 'Realism Versus Nightmare: Problems of Staging The Duchess of

Malfi*, in The Triple Bond; Plays, Mainly Shakespearean, in
Performance, ed. by Joseph G. Price (University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1975), pp. 170-89
Preston,
20 Dennis R., 'Imagery in The————————————
Duchess of Malfi', ——
SAP , 7 (1976), 109-

Price, Hereward T., 'The Function of Imagery in Webster 1 , PMLA, 70 (1955),

/17—39
Rylands, George, 'On the Productions of The Duchess of Malfi', in John
Webster, The Duchess of Malfi (London: Sylvan Press, 1945), pp. v-
xiv
Sastri,33-43
J.S., 'Webster's Masque of Madmen: An Examination', ——
IJES, 3 (1962),

Schuman, Samuel, '"Theatre of Fine Devices" — The Visual Imagery of

Webster's Tragedies', RenR, n.s. 4 (1980), 87-94
Scott-Kilvert, lan, John Webster, Writers and their Work, 175 (London:
Longman, 1964)
Selzer,ELR,
John11L., 'Merit70-80
(1981), and Degree in Webster's —————————————
The Duchess of Malfi*,

Spivack, Charlotte, *The Duchess of Malfi: A Fearful Madness 1 , JWSL, 1

(1979), 122-32 ——
Sullivan, S.W., *The Tendency to Rationalize in The White Devil and The
Duchess of Malfi', YES, 4 (1974), 77-84
Swinnerton, Frank, 'The Duchess of Malfi*, Nation, 29 November 1919
Thayer, C.G., 'The Ambiguity of Bosola', SP, 54 (1957), 162-71
Wadsworth, Frank W., 'Some Nineteenth Century Revivals of The Duchess of
Malfi', ThS, 8 (1978), 67-83
•————————, '"Shorn and Abated" — British Performances of The
Duchess of Malfi*, ThS, 10 (1969), 89-104
————————————, '"Webster, Home and Mrs. Stowe": American
Performances of The Duchess of Malfi', ThS, 11 (1970), 151-66
Walter, Harriet, interviewed by Richard Edmunds, 'From Hippie to Duchess',
Birmingham Post, 5 December 1989
Warren, Roger, 'The Duchess of Malfi on the Stage', in John Webster, ed. by
Brian Morris, Mermaid Critical Commentaries (London: Ernest Benn,
1970), pp. 47-68
 249

Webster, John, The Complete Works of John Webster, ed. by F.L. Lucas, 4
vols (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927;
•———— and John Ford, Selected Plays, introduction by G.B. Harrison,
Everyman's Library, no. 899, Poetry & Drama (London: J.M. Dent, 1958
(first published, 1933))
.———— 9 Three Plays; The White Devil, The Duchess of Malfi, The
Devil's Law-Case, introduction and notes by D.C. Gunby, Penguin
English Library (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972)
•————..The Duchess of Malfi, ed. by Elizabeth M. Brennan, the New
Mermaids, second ed. (London: Ernest Benn, 1983 (first ed., 1964)
————————, The Duchess of Malfi, ed. by John Russell Brown, the Revels
Plays (London: Methuen, 1964)
Whigham,
100Frank,
(1985),'Sexual
167-86 and Social Mobility in —————————————
The Duchess of Malfi', PMLA,

Whitman, Robert F., Beyond Melancholy; John Webster and the Tragedy of
Darkness, Salzburg Studies in English Literature, Jacobean Drama
Studies, 4 (Salzburg, 1973)
Williams, Clifford, interviewed by Judith Cook, 'The Director who Plays for
Success in Stages', Birmingham Post, 3 July 1971
Wilson, Edmund, Europe without Baede^ker; Sketches among the Ruins of
Italy, Greece and England (London; Seeker & Warburg, 1948)