Bottom line on morality and ethics in The Duchess of Malfi: they're in decidedly short supply. In Jacobean tragedy in general, you see traditional Christian ethics in a state of decay, and in this play in particular it feels like morality and ethics hurt you way more than they help you.
Some critics think that, in the face of the hopelessly corrupt world Webster writes about, human dignity comes out on top. Even though the world around her is horrifying, the Duchess's own personal definition of decency somehow insulates her from all the moral nastiness that eventually leads to her death. Although it sounds comforting, the Decency-Carries-the-Day argument is a tough one to champion in a Webster play.
Questions About Morality and Ethics
- Does Bosola decide to avenge the Duchess because he's had a moral epiphany?
- The Duchess herself is almost as good as Bosola at scheming, plotting, and lying. Does this make her a less moral character?
- At the time of this play's production, it would have been considered immoral and wrong for a noble woman to marry beneath her. Does Webster prove, or try to prove, that the Duchess's socially unequal marriage is morally okay? Does the play pass moral judgment on her marriage?
Chew on This
Antonio is written as a man who gets ahead because of his integrity and moral soundness. That he, along with his entire family, is brutally struck down indicates Webster's belief that virtue has no long-term rewards.
Ultimately, neither the moral characters (Antonio, the Duchess) nor the blatantly immoral (Ferdinand and the Cardinal) nor the morally ambiguous (Bosola) make it out alive. Webster's world, then, is morally agnostic: it doesn't matter if you're good or bad; you're screwed anyway.