Pélleas et Mélisande
Synopsis
Contemporary Reviews
Annotated Bibliography of Criticism
Significance
Synopsis of Robert Browning, A Blot in the ‘Scutcheon
Robert Browning’s, A Blot in the ‘Scutcheon
by Curtis Ashley, Kate Sanchez & Madelin De Jesus
Act I , scene 1 opens to Gerard, a warrener (or gamekeeper) talking to other retainers (followers) of Lord Tresham. The group is in a lodge on grounds referred to as “Lord Tresham’s Park.” They are discussing the imminent arrival of Earl Mertoun, who is asking for grace from Tresham to marry his sister, Mildred. Gerard shows disinterest in the matter, and the other retainers criticize him for it. One of the retainers reminds Gerard that the Earl will be coming by soon, and Gerard hastily makes an exit.
In Act I , scene 2, the play shifts to a saloon in the mansion of Lord Tresham where Lord Tresham is sitting with Earl Mertoun, Austin (Lord Tresham’s brother), and Guendolen (Lord Tresham’s cousin). Lord Tresham and Earl Mertoun are talking to each other, while Austin and Guendolen are making comments to the side (but not aside to the audience). Tresham and Mertoun are discussing the possibility of Mertoun marrying Mildred. Tresham expresses his past hesitation to allow Mertoun to propose to her at all, but he has seen that his character and his house are noble enough for the courtship to commence. Austin and Guendolen are talking about Mertoun’s age and wit, Guendolen commenting that he may not be mature. Austin notes that Mildred herself is only 14, not that mature herself. Guendolen seems convinced enough, as when they disperse, she makes her way to Mildred’s chambers to talk with her about Mertoun.
That is just where Scene 3 of Act I opens. Guendolen talks to Mildred about marrying Earl Mertoun, and she is not enthusiastic at all. Guendolen reiterates claims that Lord Tresham and Austin made earlier, but Mildred has a rebuttal for each. One point Mildred makes is that Lord Tresham is too vested in the family’s honor and lineage. Mildred then cites that she is tired and can no longer entertain Guendolen or her conversation. Guendolen leaves, and Mildred places a lamp by her stained glass window. Not long after, a cloaked figure climbs through her window, singing a song. The person turns out to be Earl Mertoun. Mildred and Mertoun talk, and it is apparent that the two already know each other and have shared the same bed. Mildred is ashamed of their sin and is unsure whether they are fit to become married. Mertoun tells Mildred of the conversation he had with her brother Lord Tresham in the saloon earlier that day, reassuring her that everything will be fine. They part ways as he slinks back out the window.
The single scene in Act II begins with Gerard being corralled into the library by Lord Tresham. Lord Tresham asks Gerard to repeat unsettling news to him. Gerard tells Lord Tresham that for nearly twenty nights, he has watched a figure scale a wall beside Mildred’s window, climb inside, and remain there for two hours. Lord Tresham asks for more details, and why Gerard did not bring this to him upon the initial sighting. Gerard explains that he did not want to intrude on Mildred’s privacy, but on this occasion he could not keep it to himself. Taking his story for true, Tesham calls in his sister under the pretense of showing her a line from a book. He later reveals his true intentions, and gets her to admit to allowing someone into her chambers. In the same conversation, Mildred accepts the proposal from Earl Mertoun. Guendolen and Austin enter the library, bearing witness to Tresham hounding Mildred for bringing shame to the family. Mildred faints, and Tresham leaves the mansion. Austin exits the room once more, which is when Guendolen asks Mildred (who has finally revived) who the night-lover is. Mildred refuses to answer. After a series of questions, Guendolen comes to the correct assumption that the night-lover is Earl Mertoun. Guendolen calls for Austin, who lets them know that Tresham is out of sight.
At the beginning of Act III , scene 1, Earl Mertoun is planning to scale Mildred’s bedroom once again. When he sees Mildred’s signal, he makes his way toward the wall. He is grabbed by Lord Tresham and forced into the moonlight where his identity is revealed. In anger, Lord Tresham tells him to draw his sword, but Earl Mertoun will not. Lord Tresham attacks him anyway, and it is clear that the wounds he inflicts are fatal. Still alive, Mertoun asks for Lord Tresham’s forgiveness and for him to convey his love to Mildred. Lord Tresham in return asks for his forgiveness. Earl Mertoun forgives him and dies. Austin, Guendolen, and Gerard arrive shortly after. Lord Tresham asks Gerard to dispose of the body.
In Act III , scene 2, the final scene of the play, Lord Tresham enters Mildred’s chambers, where she was expecting Earl Mertoun. Instead, she is met by a much calmer Lord Tresham than from before. She notices this change in attitude and asks why he is here instead of the Earl. Lord Tresham shows his empty scabbard, and she concludes that he killed her lover. Mildred scolds Tresham for his obsession with the family’s honor. As Guendolen explicitly stated in the previous scene, Mildred says she will soon die of a “broken heart.” Lord Tresham explains what happened and asks for her forgiveness. She avoids forgiving him and eventually dies in his arms. When Austin and Guendolen arrive, Lord Tresham reveals that he has drunk poison, and that he too is close to death. Lord Tresham dies, leaving an “unblotted ‘scutcheon” for his brother and cousin, asking them not to allow any more harm to come to it.
Robert Browning, A Blot in the ‘Scutcheon
Synopsis of Bernard Shaw, Widower’s Houses
George Bernard Shaw, Widower’s Houses: An Unpleasant Play. New York: Brentano’s, 1913. Print.
by Aurora Soriano, Aransa Garcia, DeAndra Williams and Rachel Rosario
“Widower’s Houses” by George Bernard Shaw is a quintessential work of the fin de siècle due to the way the play grapples with topics such as social inequality, gender roles, and burgeoning urbanization in London. Shaw’s three-act play is both a tale of romance but also of the business negotiations of the bourgeoisie. Act 1 begins at a garden restaurant in Remagen, Germany, on a summer afternoon in the eighteen-eighties where we find two Englishmen on vacation. Dr. Harry Trench, a dark-haired 24-year-old who comes from an affluent family, and Mr. William de Burgh Cokane, a balding older man, are waiting for beer in the garden restaurant. While turning his nose up at the foreigners’ habits, Cokane also disparages Trench’s lack of fine dress and manners. It is discovered that Trench has just been made a doctor after only four years in medical school. Trench is jovial with Cokane, but becomes serious and nervous when Cokane mentions “the father,” a distinguished gentleman they both encountered on the boat over. The aforementioned gentleman, a tall, well-dressed, imposing man, arrives at the hotel, with his daughter, a good-looking, energetic young woman. Despite the gentleman’s imperious manner with the hotel staff, Cokane manages to weasel his way into the conversation with the gentleman by mentioning Trench’s affluent aunt, Lady Roxdale. The gentleman invites Trench and Cokane over to his table for tea, and introduces himself as the widower Sartorius and his daughter as Blanche. Cokane and Sartorius make light conversation about a possible church to visit, while the stage directions indicate that Blanche and Trench make eyes at each other. Sartorius and Cokane leave to go visit one of the churches, but Blanche and Trench stay behind. It is revealed that Trench and Blanche already know each other from an encounter on the boat to Germany, and their re-meeting was no accident. Trench attempts to propose, but becomes excessively nervous several times and does not follow through. Finally, after Blanche grabs Trench’s hands, he manages to propose and Blanche accepts. Cokane and Sartorius re-enter upon this scene. Sartorius isn’t entirely displeased by the match of Blanche and Trench, but he needs to know that Trench’s affluent family will accept Blanche. Cokane helps Trench write a letter to Trench’s family, asking if they will accept Blanche into the family, and discovers that Sartorius is a self-made man who rents real estate in London. Cokane finishes the letter, and Blanche and Trench go in for dinner. There is a sense that there may be some kind of ulterior motive on the part of Sartorius; however, things are unclear.
Act 2 commences with Sartorius and the well-bred but motherless Blanche sitting in their library in their villa in Surbiton, England. Blanche is reading “The Queen,” which is a clue as to her position in the story. The Sartoriuses are awaiting news from Dr. Harry Trench on this particular Sunday, when he suddenly arrives with Cokane and an employee of Sartorius in tow. Blanche excuses herself to greet the gentlemen in the foyer. Lickcheese, a shabby and “pertinaous sort of human terrier” arrives to hand over the rent book to Sartorius. This brief exchange between men that ends in Lickcheese being discharged is very telling of how short tempered and frugal Sartorius can be, especially with people of a lower class than his own. Trench presents all of the letters of congratulations from his relations regarding his proposal, and Sartorius goes to break the good news to his precious child. While Sartorius leaves the room, Lickcheese uses the opportunity to talk to Trench and Cokane, hoping they will help him get his job back. He explains to Trench and Cokane how Sartorius obtains his money as a landlord by taking from the poor. Trench claims he will not get involved but is bothered by Sartorius’s methods. Lickcheese depicts the properties that Sartorius owns as being in a desperate and unsafe condition. This servile older man reports that at least three women hurt themselves on the stairs he tried to repair cheaply, and while this story is not glamorous, Cokane and Trench do not intervene when Sartorius returns to dismiss Lickcheese. Sartorius and Cokane depart to take a celebratory stroll and leave Trench and Blanche to join them shortly.
In this interlude, Trench confronts Blanche, and asks her if she can truly love and be satisfied with a man who only earns 700 pounds a year. She playfully insists that her father will match his 700 pounds and that all will be well; however, Trench firmly declines to entertain the idea of taking money from Sartorius. Blanche goes into a rage and breaks the engagement, thus leaving Trench to speak with her father. Sartorius enters when Blanche exits, and Sartorius attempts to talk Trench out of his decision to not take money from him. He explains that the fact that Trench has a mortgage on his property makes him complicit in the whole scheme, and that really what Sartorius is doing is not so bad. Trench is lost between wanting to take the moral high ground and knowing that he plays a part in all of this. Sartorius tells Trench that he is “powerless to alter the state of society,” and thus it is a waste to be perturbed by the truth of where money comes from in the increasingly urbanized society. Meanwhile, an inconsolable Blanche attacks her parlor maid by gripping her by the hair and throat in a private scene between the two. Sartorius enters again and tries to explain things to his poor motherless daughter; however, to no avail she declares that she only wishes to remain in the comfortable position of her father’s dependent.
As act 3 opens, the scene is set in Blanche’s reading room in the winter home in Bedford Square. Lickcheese makes his way back into the story by making a business proposal to Sartorius. Lickcheese has a tiger fur coat, a lovely black silk hat, and a revitalized and youthful countenance. Lickcheese has gotten wind of a plan for a new street which will make Robbins’s Row into an area for a slightly richer clientele than the current clientele Sartorius has. Sartorius and Lickcheese discuss this possibly very profitable business transaction together while Blanche discovers the ledger Lickcheese brought with him that lists all the unsavory dealings of many landlords in the area. Upon reading the ledger Blanche discovers her father has been exploiting the poor, and she realizes this is why Trench would not take the money. Blanche confronts her father about his business, while belittling the poor. The statements of his daughter wound Sartorious, who is a self-made man. Sartorius, growing somewhat tired of his needy daughter, has Lickcheese invite Trench and Cokane to the house to talk business as well as pleasure.
Feigning as though he needs Trench to bare the brunt of the initial costs of renovations, Sartorius asks Trench to consent to the temporary loss of income. When Trench proves himself to be unyielding and unconcerned with the moral and humanitarian reasons that Sartorius and Lickcheese provide, Sartorius then admits that he can afford to take a chance without his mortgagee’s help. Asserting himself as a man of means does nothing to sway Trench toward Sartorius’s cause. Lickcheese then proposes a mixing of business with pleasure; if Trench were to become a more amicable business associate, a relationship with Miss Sartorius may be in his future. Appalled at the very suggestion, all of the men leave Trench to think things over.
Once again, Blanche and Trench are alone. In this moment, Trench’s emotional vulnerability is revealed. He sits beside a piano and holds Blanche’s portrait in his arms and becomes so transfixed by the image that he does not notice when the living, breathing Blanche enters. He drops the painting and feigns disinterest, but Blanche launches into a tirade. She questions his morals and his greed for money. She insults him and all the while he remains silent as the internal workings of his mind are at play. The stage directions indicate that Trench begins to see Blanche’s fury as a kind of sexual or erotic energy. He views her anger as passion and her barrage of questions as a kind of sincere interest. As she further berates him, the stage directions indicate that Trench begins to see this passion as a deeply intimate exchange despite his lack of verbal input. She presses her arms around him and inquires as to what he was doing with her portrait but he does not break his silence. Just as they are nearing reconciliation, Sartorius, Lickcheese, and Cokane return. Blanche simmers, and Trench announces to the gentlemen that he has had a change of heart. The five all exit for supper with Blanche coyly on the arm of Lickcheese, walking ahead of the other three gentlemen.
Bernard Shaw, Widowers’ Houses
Synopsis of Henrik Ibsen, The Wild Duck
Ibsen, Henrik. The Wild Duck. Boston: Walter H Baker & Co., 1890. Print.
by Tiffany Ahmed, Genesis Linan, Tanya Morales, Donna Ramirez,
Henrik Ibsen’s 1884 play The Wild Duck begins at Werle’s dinner party held at his home. Werle is a wealthy factory owner and his son, Gregers Werle, returns home from a long and timely absence. He attends the dinner party and there he sees Hjalmar Ekdal, a photographer and an old friend of Gregers. The old man Ekdal, Hjalmar’s father, shows up and forces himself into the office, but when he finds his way to the party Hjalmar denies he has any relation to him and acts as though he has never met him before. Later, through casual conversation, Gregers learns that Hjalmar married Gina Hansen, a name he is surprised to hear, and that his father supported him financially for his career in photography. He brushes his brief confusion off but firmly confronts his father for hiding this information from him. Werle does not understand his son’s anger, but Gregers tells him that his mother told him on her deathbed that Werle not only had affairs with many women but also with her caregiver, Gina. Werle denies this and says his mother has poisoned him against his own father, but Gregers insists that his dying mother’s words are true and proclaims that he has now “found a mission to live for.”
Act Two takes place in the Ekdal home which, compared to the Werle’s home, is shabby, crowded and not as upscale. Hjalmar, his wife Gina, their daughter Hedvig, and Ekdal senior all live in this small studio, along with poultry, pigeons, rabbits, and a wild duck that are hidden behind a wall. The wild duck in particular is very special to the family but most importantly to Ekdal. The wild duck was given to him by Werle after he shot it when hunting. The duck survived and was disabled, proving bothersome to Werle, so he passed it off as an apologetic gift to Ekdal. Besides sharing this studio with animals, the Ekdals’ have a vacant room that is available for rent because they’re in need of additional income. They live “check to check” and rely on Hjalmar’s photography business and the very few clients he has. We see Gina and Hedvig talk about money and worry about how much they’ve spent in the day. In hopes of helping them out Gregers asks if he can rent the vacant room, and although Gina seems hesitant they agree to welcome him the following morning as their new guest.
In Act Three, Gregers moves into the extra room. He makes a big mess by flooding the room with water. Gina gets upset and leaves him to clean the mess. At the same time, Hjalmar is working on the basket to hold their prized wild duck. Although Hedvig wants to help, it is risky to allow her to because he knew it could affect her eyes, and her vision was already troublesome. Gregers enters the room and asks Hedvig many questions about her eyes. Hedvig explains that her eyes are weak and that she cannot go to school because of her disability. She trusts that her father is going to help her read, but he never has time. Her father promises her that he’s going to help her with whatever she needs. Gina realizes that she doesn’t like Gregers asking her daughter questions. She tells him that she is the one mostly in charge of the business that they run together and that she helps Hjalmar a lot. Gregers realizes that Hjalmar leaves all the responsibility to Gina because he devotes his time to an invention in hopes of restoring his father’s dignity, which was lost when he was sentenced to jail after being wrongfully found guilty of fraud in a forestry scandal when Ekdal and Werle worked together as generals. Ekdal lost respect amongst the community and was looked down on when he was released from jail, even though Werle was guilty for the fraudulent business that took place. Hjalmar is also committed to leading Hedvig to a good path in life. When Werle shows up to the Ekdals’ home he wants to talk with his son. Werle tells Gregers he’s going to marry Bertha Sorby to keep his property under Gregers name. Gregers, however, decides that he wants nothing to do with his father and refuses everything he is offering him. In the end, both Hjalmar and Gregers decide to walk outside.
In Act Four, Hedvig and Gina are worried because Hjalmar is late for dinner. When he eventually shows up, he is angry. He tells Hedvig to go for her evening walk, and he confronts Gina about everything Gregers has told him. He mentions her affair with Werle and that she was deceitful. Gina confesses to her affair and says that Werle would not leave her alone until he had his way, and that she kept that secret from Hjalmar because he wouldn’t have married her if he had known. They argue and Gregers comes in proud of his “good deed” in releasing the truth, but he realizes that he’s done more harm than good. Mrs. Sorby stops by now and tells them that she is leaving and is off to marry Werle. Mrs. Sorby mentions her honest and open relationship with Werle about their pasts and advises Gina to do the same. A few moments later Hedvig comes in with a letter Mrs. Sorby had managed to give her on her way in. Hjalmar asks to see it after having suspicions that connect Werle losing his eyesight to Hedvig’s condition. He reads the letter and discovers that not only is Werle providing his father, Ekdal senior, with money but Hedvig too. He pieces the information together, discovers that Hedvig is not his daughter, and storms off leaving Gina worried and Hedvig crying. While Gina goes out looking for Hjalmar, Gregers convinces Hedvig to kill the wild duck in hopes of bringing her father back.
In Act Five Hjalmar has not returned home, so Gina and Hedvig begin to worry. Relling, a doctor and tenant to the Ekdals’, tells them that Hjalmar was home but was downstairs sleeping on his sofa. Gregers cannot believe that Relling does not see Hjalmar as the great man he sees him to be. Relling states that people see Hjalmar as a great man but he really is not and that Gregers is sick because he worships people he looks up to and “needs to admire something outside himself.” Relling also says that he is curing Hjalmar by not keeping his “life-lie” going. Relling is angry and will not rest until he relives Hjalmar of Gregers, prompting him to exit after telling Gregers that if he does tell Hjalmar the truth, he will instead ruin his happiness. Hedvig walks in with the wild duck and Gregers says he still has faith in Hedvig sacrificing the wild duck to prove her love for her father. Hedvig then asks her grandfather Ekdal how the wild duck should be killed and Ekdal says that shooting it under the breast is the safest and proper way to go about killing it. Hjalmar does not want to stay home with “interlopers,” so he decides to leave and take his father. Hedvig overhears and, deeply hurt by what he called her, takes the pistol and the wild duck. In attempting to move all his and Old Ekdal’s things Hjalmar becomes overwhelmed and decides to stay only for a couple days to have time to move. He sits and enjoys coffee and bread with butter and admits that the invention is nothing and only an idea that Dr. Relling put in his head and that he maintains it because of Hedvig. Hjalmar then expresses his love for Hedvig and mentions that her love for him is all an illusion and that maybe she “has never really and truly loved me.” Gregers tells him that she does love him and he will soon find out. They then hear a gunshot, which Gregers states was Ekdal shooting the wild duck because Hedvig asked him to, but when Ekdal walks out of his room asking who was hunting so they begin to worry. Hjalmar feels horrible about the things he said about Hedvig and looks for her to express his love for her, but instead finds her on the floor clenching the pistol to her chest. She shot herself in the chest, in the manner in which her grandfather said the wild duck should be killed. Relling examines her, but she is dead, and Hjalmar could not say the things he wanted to say to her. Gregers, realizing his involvement, says “Hedvig has not died in vain.”
Synopsis of John Webster, The Duchess of Malfi
The Duchess of Malfi, written by John Webster in 1612-13, was rewritten by William Poel for the Independent Theatre Society.
John Webster. The Duchess of Malfi. Ed. by C. Vaughan. London: Aldine House, 1900.
by Suriya Ahmed, Mitchell Lewis, Derrick Martinez, and Azra Tosic
In Act I, Antonio returns from France and meets up with Delio who greets and welcomes Antonio back from his trip. Antonio tells Delio about his trip and how it was a success. Bosola, a former convict, complains a lot about the court and begins to voice his displeasure with the cardinal. Bosola main complaints were about the social system and how one ascended to the top while others stayed still at the bottom of the hierarchy. Bosola complains that the cardinal has henchmen who commit crimes and do not suffer the consequences once they are caught. After complaining about his social status, Bosola receives a crucial role to help the Duchess. Ferdinand has secured the Duchess’s approval for Bosola to watch over and care for the horses. Later in the scene, The Duchess tells Cariola that she does not intend to be a widow for the rest of her and that she actually wants to marry someone—Antonio, specifically. Cariola marries them without the Duchess’s brothers knowing.
Act II takes place nine months later, and the Duchess is pregnant with Antonio’s child. Bosola realizes this and plans to feed her apricots because they are known to induce labor. She eats them, immediately becomes ill, and rushes off to her bedroom. The Duchess and Antonio decides to say that the Duchess has fallen ill with some disease. When Antonio confronts Bosola about whether the apricots were poisoned he drops a piece of paper, which turns out to be a horoscope for a baby, confirming Bosolo’s suspicion that the Duchess is pregnant. He then decides to send this evidence to the Duchess’s brothers, who are unaware of her secret marriage and assume that the baby is illegitimate. Ferdinand angrily states that he will not take any action against his sister until he figures out who the baby’s father is.
In Act III, several years later, Antonio meets Delio again. He tells Delio that he has had two more children, and then he asks if the Cardinal had found out about his affairs with the Duchess. Delio confirms that both the Cardinal and Ferdinand seemed to be onto him. The Duchess, Ferdinand, and Bosola enter. The Duchess says that she wants to address the rumors that have been going around, but she is interrupted by Ferdinand’s outbursts. He mentions that he does not want to hear it, but if they were true he would still forgive her. She leaves with Antonio and Delio. Bosolo tells Ferdinand that the Duchess has had three more children. Ferdinand then asks for a key to the Duchess’s private room so that he may figure it out. He goes to the Duchess’s room and hands her a knife so that she can kill herself. She tells Ferdinand that she is married and will not kill herself. She then asks if he would like to see her husband. He rejects her offer and leaves the room in a rage. Antonio and Cariola then enter. Antonio has a pistol with him as he feared for his wife. After that, they devise a plan for Antonio to leave and go to the town of Ancona. Bosola enters and the Duchess tells him that Antonio is a thief who has stolen from her and she demands he be removed from her home. Once the officers escort Antonio out, the Duchess confesses to Bosolo that Antonio is her husband and the father of their children. Meanwhile, the Cardinal and Ferdinand converse with Delio. Their conversation ends when Bosola enters and tells the Cardinal and Ferdinand about the Duchess’s husband and children. The Cardinal concludes that the Duchess has deceived them so Antonio could get away. Ferdinand swears that the Duchess will not get away with this. When the Duchess arrives at the city to meet Antonio, the Cardinal meets her here, takes her wedding ring, and banishes her and her entire family from Ancona. Bosola enters with an invitation from Ferdinand asking to meet with Antonio. Both Antonio and the Duchess suspect that this is a set-up, so they decline. The Duchess tells Antonio to take their oldest son to Milan where they will be safe. After they leave, Bosolo gives the Duchess no choice but to leave with him.
In Act IV, the Duchess is now a prisoner in her own home. In darkness, Ferdinand visits her. He begins to curse her and then deceives her into believing that her children and husband are dead. The Duchess grieves and wishes for death. Ferdinand wishes to deprive her of sleep so that she can begin to go insane while he looks for her husband whom he knows is in Milan. Eventually, Ferdinand sends Bosolo into her cell to hang her. The Duchess is not afraid to die because she has not done anything wrong, so she goes willingly. When she is dead, Ferdinand enters and explains that all he ever wanted was to inherit his sister’s fortune. When Bosola asks for a reward for his loyalty to Ferdinand and his brother, Ferdinand tells him that this was an unlawful execution and therefore a murder and that he would be to blame for the death of the Duchess. Bosola continues to ask for his payment but Ferdinand just tells him to get out of his sight. As Bosolo reflects on all that he’s done wrong, he notices that the Duchess is twitching. Before she dies, he tells her that her husband is still alive. Bosolo heads to Milan to avenge her.
In the final Act, Antonio asks Delio if he could become friends with the Duchess’s brothers. Delio tells him that it is not possible and any appearances to the contrary are a trap. Antonio finds the hidden cell where he plans to get the Duchess’ brothers to like him by talking to them. Ferdinand comes down with a mental illness and does not want to be cured, so he makes a big deal in front of the doctor. Pescara, who is a soldier, asks the Cardinal if Ferdinand is okay, and the Cardinal makes up a story to prove that he is not. Although the Cardinal is involved in the Duchess’s murder, he pretends to be unaware of her death. Meanwhile, The Cardinal and Bosolo plan to follow Delio to Antonio. Bosolo asks Julia to spy on the Cardinal and she agrees. Later, she is poisoned by the Cardinal when he tricks her into kissing a book. Bosolo enters to see Julia dead and demands payment for his services to Ferdinand and to keep this secret, but he is met with more threats from the Cardinal. Back at the Duchess’s home, Antonio hears echoes from the Duchess’s grave. The echoes say that Antonio is next to die and Bosola as well once he fulfills his service to him. Bosola attempts to find Antonio back at the Duchess’s home and when he finds him, he accidently mistakes him for the Cardinal and stabs him. As Antonio dies slowly, he thinks about his love and their kids. He is confused about why Bosola stabbed him. Bosola explains his mistake and vows to avenge him and the Duchess. Bosola enters the Cardinal’s room telling him that he has come to take his life and how he took Antonio’s life by accident. Ferdinand enters and thinks that the Cardinal has been overtaken by the devil, so he does not offer help. Instead, Ferdinand stabs both the Cardinal and Bosola. Bosola stabs Ferdinand back. Bosola and the Cardinal both die. At the end, Delio enters with Antonio’s only surviving child and promises to raise the boy as a legacy to his parents.
by Naamah Armstrong (ORCA summer program, 2016)
The Duchess of Malfi is a dark tragedy that pulls the heartstrings of the audience from the moment we dive in. The author sparks our attention immediately through the mysterious undertone of suspicion, corruption, and an impending evil expected by the vigorous Antonio. Antonio has just come back from France, and is telling Delio about how France is ruled by a king who seeks to reduce the state and people to a fixed order, which he wishes to bring also to Italy as it is far more corrupt. Antonio foreshadows an upcoming evil that he believes should be warned throughout the kingdom before lives are lost and innocent blood is betrayed. We are given clues of this corruption through the questioning of Cardinal’s morals as he is known to love piety yet lives a double life. It is seen in this first scene that Bosola has recently been released from prison for murder. In this current time, there is a rise in the questioning of the Roman Catholic Church and the compromising of the truth to suit the desires of the corrupt leadership. Automatically we are drawn to Antonio’s desire for justice and righteousness, thus being on his side to see it served.
In the next scene, we are introduced to Ferdinand, the Duchess’ brother, who is bent on keeping her heart hostage by having Bosola be a spy for him in order to keep her from being remarried. Unexpectedly, love’s grip is much too powerful to keep the Duchess chained to her past. Ferdinand and Bosola continuously try to persuade the Duchess not to remarry, and irritatedly she makes clear that her intentions are to remain chaste and stay a widow. But as the plot deepens, so does the curiosity of interest. Antonio is placed in servitude to the Duchess, and it is through this that they cannot resist the spirit of attraction that pulls them closer as they begin to fall in love with each other. This leads to the Duchess proposing to Antonio with the help of her maid, and they secretly marry. Because of the discrepancy in their social statuses, they have to keep their relationship undercover to protect their identities.
Nine months later, Bosola begins to suspect that the Duchess is pregnant, and he tries to prove it by giving her apricots to make her ill. When she accepts the apricots, she gets sick and runs off to her bedroom, giving Bosola a deeper confidence that what he insinuated was correct. He finds further verification in a horoscope about the baby that was written by Antonio, and it prompts him to “share the good news” with her brothers Ferdinand and the Cardinal. When they discover the news, they are enraged and send people to capture the lovers, without knowing the father of what they believe to be an illegitimate child.
After a couple of years, Delio, the friend of Antonio, visits the palace of the Duchess. At this point she has had two more children. Things become quite heated as Ferdinand returns with an unquenchable rage to destroy the secret lover of his dear sister. In his deep anger he banishes her from his sight. Desiring to protect Antonio, she sends him out of the city for the false accusation of stealing from her. In his false sense of righteousness, Bosola uses this as an opportunity to try to “protect” the Duchess, which actually causes her to release the secret of her marriage to Antonio. With this news he chases after Antonio with what seems like a heart to win Antonio back for her, but in reality this turns into a scheme to banish the both of them. When Ferdinand hears the truth of the matter, his anger causes him to send a threatening letter to his sister, breaking up her family to avoid further conflict. Soon after, the Duchess and two of her children are taken captive.
The next act opens with countless tactics of torture inflicted upon the Duchess by Ferdinand. No matter how intense the suffering Ferdinand puts her through, she remains firm. His sanity only drains as her faithfulness remains. Although she believes the lies about her family behind dead, nothing can shake her from facing death with a deep peace in her heart and the soundness of her mind. Her life is ended as she is strangled. Next her two children and her maid are also killed at the command of her insane brother. Ferdinand comes to see the corpses, and suddenly he is filled with regret, wishing to take back all that he ordered Bosola to do out of his rash anger. Bosola also is filled with deep sorrow for all that he caused as he shares the hope of an alive Antonio.
In Act Five the insanity of Ferdinand has intensified, and the Cardinal is in denial of his sister’s death. Ferdinand now believes himself to be a wolf as he goes around digging holes in graves. The Cardinal, seeking revenge, bribes Bosola to murder Antonio. Later Bosola uses the confession of Julia (the Cardinal’s mistress) and her love for him to manipulate her to making the Cardinal admit involvement in the death of the Duchess. More bloodshed carries on as Bosola continues to manipulate his way to his reward up until he decides to side with Antonio to avenge the death of the Duchess. He accidentally kills Antonio, which then leads to the deaths of Ferdinand, Bosola, and the Cardinal. Only the son of the Duchess remains, and he is proclaimed ruler of the nations.
John Webster, The Duchess of Malfi
L’Intruse
Annotated Bibliography of Criticism
Ernst, Earle. “A Theatre . . .of Beauty without Tears.” The Hudson Review 11.2 (1958): 262-270. Web.
In this essay Earle Ernst reviews the Japanese No theater: its history, development, characteristics and finally the rare Western dramatic piece that, in his view, resembles characteristics of No – specifically the work of Maurice Maeterlinck. I will provide a brief review of the history of the No theater and concentrate on Ernst’s remarks regarding the probable influence of No theater fundamentals in the work of Maeterlinck.
The aesthetic of No theater; imported into Japan in the early 8th century from Korea, China and probably India; is based on Zen, a form of Buddhism which conceives contemplation, zen, as the means of achieving freedom from the phenomenal world and achieving mystical insight into ultimate reality. The No stage made an artistic value of restriction and reduction – a bare platform, usually without scenic indications of a place. The quality of the No plays are a distillation of human experience to its essence as reflected in Buddhist philosophy.
The No performance in its style of production and its conception of drama seems both remote and antithetical to the theater of the West, particularly in No’s rejection of all attempts at literal representation such as fearsome ghosts and other spectacles, considered not of central interest.
Ernst underscores the rare exception to traditional Western drama by citing the work of the Belgian, Maurice Maeterlinck which, “(Like Zen) concerns itself with release from the exigencies of time and place and . . .exists in a shadowy realm at the edge of life” (269).
Maeterlinck, in his seminal manifesto, “The Tragical in Daily Life” (1) states, “The truly tragic in life begins only at the moment when what are called adventures, sorrows and dangers have passed. . . . this is far more real, far more penetrating, far more akin to the true self that is in us than the tragedy that lies in great adventure.”
As in the traditional No play, Maeterlinck avoids spectacular adventure. Rather, his characters typically discuss some aspect of the human condition. Similar to Zen philosophy is Maeterlinck’s wish to “hush the discourse of reason and sentiment, so that above the tumult may be heard the solemn, uninterrupted whisperings of man and his destiny.” Maeterlinck asks, “Is it beyond the mark to say that the true tragic element of life only begins at the moment when so-called adventures, sorrows and dangers have disappeared.” He suggests that the real drama begins when the action stops: “Is it not when we are told, at the end of the story, ‘They were happy’, that the great disquiet should intrude itself?” This description best describes one of his early short plays, L’Intruse , in which a family waits, in the tradition of Greek tragedy , for a death to occur off-stage.
Similar to Ernst’s thoughts regarding the No theater and its reliance on Zen perspectives, Maeterlinck promotes contemplative art forms, in which action plays no part, in which time is irrelevant: “Far different is it with the other arts – with painting and music, for instance – for these have learned to select and reproduce those obscurer phases of daily life that are not the less deep-rooted and amazing.” This leads him to what he terms “static theater”, theater that is still and timeless, like a painting or a piece of music.
Ernst concludes his essay by saying, “The No theater gives time for the imagination of the audience to play about in suggestive images. . . . all art strives to exist outside time and to overcome the tyranny of space. Like the graphic arts the No has conquered time and space and used them for its own aesthetic ends. It is the sort of theater which Maeterlinck envisioned: ‘a theater of peace, and of beauty without tears.’”
- [All quotes from Maeterlinck taken from: Maeterlinck, Maurice; “The Tragical in Daily Life” from THE WORKS OF MAYRICE MAETERLINCK (1909)]
—Charles Vassallo
Finney, Gail. “Dramatic Pointillism: The Examples of Holz and Schlaf’s “Die Familie Selicke” and Maeterlinck’s “L’intruse“”.Comparative Literature Studies 30.1 (1993): 1–15. Web.
In her article, “Dramatic Pointillism: The Examples of Holz and Schlaf’s “Die Familie Selicke” and Maeterlinck’s “L’intruse,“” Gail Finney attempts to connect the literature of the fin de siècle, the artistic style of pointillism, and the philosophy of consistent naturalism to show how the worldview of the time period was shifting. The article begins with an overview pointillism: its emphasis on the dot and the manipulation of light resulting in the blending of dots on the canvas to form a coherent work of art (citing Georges Seurat’s use of a mixture of individual blue and yellow dots to create the appearance of green from the perspective of the viewer in his Un dimanche après-midi sur l’isle de la Grande Jatte). Finney links this to the consistent naturalism of Arno Holz, specifically stressing its “democratic monism,” a principle which states that each object has significance and each individual occurrence in an event is relevant to the makeup of that event.
Finney moves on to discussing how elements of these scientifically based movements appeared in the structural and narrative elements of Die Familie Selicke and L’intruse. In the former work the seemingly fragmented speech patterns of the characters are incoherent at times if looked at singularly, word by word, but come together to form a coherent play. In the latter the singular events of the story are all treated as equally important, although they at times are seemingly irrelevant, and by the work’s conclusion have formed the dots of a larger painting.
Finney concludes with the argument that that these similarities and the atomization of reality, art, and literature point to a loss of a holistic world view in favor of one which implicates a fragmentation and abstraction of reality upon closer inspection.
—Mark-Allan Donaldson
Taroff, Kurt. “Home Is Where the Self Is: Monodrama, Journey Play Structure, and the Modernist Fairy Tale.” Marvels & Tales 28.2 (2014): 325-345. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
This essay, though not devoting its discussion entirely to Maurice Maeterlinck, nevertheless situates the playwright’s work within the context of the symbolic avant-garde. The author primarily shapes his discussion around the relationship between Maeterlinck’s The Blue Bird and L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz—both fantastical works of children’s literature that have endured in their original forms while also enjoying revivals as popular Technicolor films in the first half of the twentieth century. By examining these two works in proximity, the author constructs a dialogue between journey narratives and psychological interiority as characteristic of the emerging experimental “Monodrama” to which not only Maeterlinck but Ibsen and Strindberg as well were chief contributors (326). This term he takes from Nikolai Evreinov’s 1912 essay “Introduction to Monodrama,” though he then continues to chart a course from this intensely interior dramatic form to the popular children’s tales in which those elements also appear. This author poses that Maeterlinck works both within and against this new form in The Blue Bird by splitting his singular or “mono” perspective into two via the sibling characters Tyltyl and Mytyl. Finally, he offers that fairy stories might provide much more insight into a character’s psyche precisely because of their language of symbolism, and that Maeterlinck’s plays perhaps endure because of his utilization of, rather than resistance against, these fantastic forms in the modern age.
—Constantine Jones
Pater Noster
Annotated Bibliography of Criticism
Anesti, Maria. “Au Nom Du Pere: Women and the Transmission of Catholic Faith in French Painting (1880-1900).” Magistra 20.2 (2014): 91-113. Web. 31 March 2016.
In “Au Nom Du Pere: Women and the Transmission of Catholic Faith in French Painting (1880-1900),” Maria Anesti discusses what she calls “the feminization of Catholicism” in the nineteenth century. She claims that as French men became more secular after the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, French women’s devotion to religion increased. By the early-nineteenth century, religion, Anesti argues, became “the affair of women.” What is more, Anesti claims, the men’s separation from religion led to the French society’s demand for women to embrace “the Christian values of purity, piety, and devotion to their families” (91). This shift, Anesti adds, was represented in multiple works of art from 1880 – 1900, a time, as Anesti describes it, of intensified division between anti-clerical Republicans and Catholics.
Anesti discusses several works of art from the two decades, and notes that most of them represent women, mainly mothers, in the act of transmitting the Catholic faith to their daughters by teaching them how to pray. The only male figures depicted in those works of art are priests. Anesti explains the absence of other male figures in the paintings as follows: while women’s devotion to religion sustained morality and order (101), men’s role in society rested outside of religion (102). Additionally, as Anesti claims, “innocence and humility,” both of which were closely linked to piety, represented “feminine” qualities. As such, Catholicism “endorsed gender stereotypes” (104). Consequently, Anesti states, the ideals of submission and domesticity were inseparable from those feminine qualities.
François Coppée’s play Pater Noster is set during the years that Anesti characterizes as a time of heightened division between male and female attitudes towards religion. Moreover, Anesti cites Coppée as an example of a man who, having abandoned religion, returned to his Catholic faith as he was reminded of his childhood prayers with his mother (95). According to Anesti, the woman’s role, as represented by the art works from the late-nineteenth century, and as implied by Coppée’s words, is to submit to authority (which is all male: husband, priest, God) and to instill Christian values into her offspring. For that, she is idealized and immortalized in art, and in Coppée’s play.
—Ewa Barnes
Schaffer, Aaron. “A Comparison of the Poetry of Francois Coppée and Eugene Manuel.” PMLA 43.4 (1928): 1039–1054. Web. 9 April 2016.
Aaron Schaffer’s essay focuses on parallels in the works of Francois Coppée, late nineteenth-century French poet and playwright, and his far lesser-known countryman Eugene Manuel, in order to determine whether or not Coppée owes a creative debt to the work done by this contemporary of his. Schaffer compares the similar lives of the two poets, their varying relationships to the Parnassian school, and four main “rubrics” of the two poets’ work: “‘poésie intime,’ ‘poésie des humbles,’ poetry inspired by the Franco-Prussian War, and religious poetry” (1041). Schaffer believes the “poésie des humbles,” or “poetry of the humble” to be the most important rubric of the four, and argues that this class of work is the most identity-forming for Coppée, Manuel, and the association between the two. He points to themes – such as drunkenness, the lives of street performers, and “the kept woman” – shared between both poets (1047). After a continued examination of this rubric and the other three, as well as a return to a comparison of circumstance, Schaffer determines that despite certain differences Coppée was familiar with, and most probably to some extent inspired by, Manuel’s work, and that he is indeed indebted to his largely forgotten compatriot. Finally, Schaffer asserts that Coppée should be thought of not as a solitary “‘poète des humbles’” but as “‘un des premiers poètes des humbles,’” (one of the first, or best, poets of the humble) alongside Eugene Manuel (1054).
—Carly Rubin
The Independent Theatre Society 