CARIOLA IN CONTEXT: AN EXPLORATION OF THE FEMALE SERVANT IN THE
DUCHESS OF MALFI
by
Sarah Boyle
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts
at
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
August 2019
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
1 / 46
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download CARIOLA IN CONTEXT and more Study notes English in PDF only on Docsity!
CARIOLA IN CONTEXT: AN EXPLORATION OF THE FEMALE SERVANT IN THE
DUCHESS OF MALFI
by
Sarah Boyle
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
at
Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia August 2019
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………...iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………….……………….iv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………....... CHAPTER 2: CARIOLA AND THE SERVICE OF FRIENDSHIP…………………………...... CHAPTER 3: “TO THY KNOWN SECRECY” : FEMALE ALLIANCE IN THE DUCHESS OF MALFI ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 CHAPTER 4: ACCEPTING CARIOLA AND ACCEPTING CATHOLICISM….…………… CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………. WORKS CITED…………………………….…………………………………………………...
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor, Christina Luckyj, who not only took the time to provide invaluable support with my thesis, but who has been a mentor throughout my studies. If I end up with half the knowledge she has, I will consider myself lucky. I would also like to thank the rest of my committee: Roberta Barker and Lynn Bennett. Their insights and commentary greatly strengthened my paper.
I would like to thank my mother and sister. Their love of books ignited my passion for English, and their support has given me the confidence to write. They are my Cariolas and my Duchesses.
Finally, I would like to thank Alex Clarke for the amazing emotional support, not only while I was writing my thesis, but through everything.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Cariola, the Duchess’s female servant in Webster's The Duchess of Malfi, has received very little critical attention. What critical consideration there is tends to place her as simply a contrast for the Duchess. Scholars such as Leah Marcus argue that when "Cariola expresses an opinion strongly at odds with the Duchess's, we tend to side with the Duchess" (“The Duchess's Marriage in Contemporary Contexts" 107), and Christina Luckyj suggests that Cariola becomes "the Duchess's foil in death" (“‘Great Women of Pleasure’..." 280) as she “bites and scratches” (4.2.25)^1 the executioners in fear. Her actions often seem to serve to emphasize by contrast the Duchess's laudable ones, but there is more to her character. Cariola manages to gain agency through her service to the Duchess, and, unlike female servants in other literature of the period (such as Zanche in Webster’s The White Devil) , does not do so to advance her own personal sexual imperatives. As Mark Thornton Burnett states, "as servants and women, maidservants were twice disadvantaged in contemporary ideologies" (129) because of their class and gender, but Cariola manages to criticize her superiors and establishes her own voice. Cariola gains agency through her relationship with the Duchess, and through her potential subversion of the class system. My thesis considers how she accomplishes this by examining the play’s social contexts and literary sources. In this new contextual examination of Cariola, chapter one considers Cariola's relationship with the Duchess in the context of the patterns of service for both male and female servants in early modern England. Cariola does not fit neatly into the usual servant roles depicted in drama, since she is unwaveringly loyal to the Duchess but still criticizes her. Chapter two considers Cariola in terms of cross-class female alliance. Cariola is present for
(^1) Webster, John. The Duchess of Malfi. Edited by Leah Marcus, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2009.
CHAPTER 2: CARIOLA AND THE SERVICE OF FRIENDSHIP
Elizabeth Rivlin explains that early modern England witnessed a "wholescale transformation [...] from a neo-feudal economy in which service entailed permanent, non- monetary obligations for both servant and master to an economy which increasingly revolved around capitalist wage labor" (21-22). This new capitalistic structure invited servants to think more self-interestedly about the rewards associated with their service, augmenting the cultural fear that servants might betray their masters if promised better compensation elsewhere. The possibility that servants would set other goals, such as financial gain or marriage, above service was a concern for the ruling class. Michelle Dowd explains that in early modern England, "women were expected to work as servants not in order to gain occupational training per se (as was the case for men) but in order to learn the domestic skills that they would need as wives and to delay their marriages until they were economically and socially prepared for them" (23). Because their service functioned as a transitional life stage with the ultimate goal being marriage, there was a cultural fear of maidservants putting personal marital imperatives above their duties and loyalties to their superiors. The Duchess of Malfi engages with these anxieties of the period. The play demonstrates the dangers of having servants with divided loyalties through characters such as Bosola, but unlike Bosola, Cariola does not display any of the characteristics of the anxiety-inducing self- interested maidservant, as she does not desire money or marriage. In a play that forces the audience to consider class relations as the Duchess marries below her station when she weds Antonio, her household steward, Webster’s use of Cariola must be considered. As a loyal maidservant to the Duchess, Cariola embodies the neo-feudal servant type, but Webster gives Cariola, like Antonio, an independent and valuable voice, demonstrating a model of social
mobility in which even a traditional loyal servant is accorded the freedom to offer critiques to superiors. Before considering Cariola’s place in Webster’s servant-master hierarchy, we must understand how The Duchess of Malfi as a whole both represents and addresses servants and their masters, and must consider the effects the play might have had on Webster’s audience. The first quarto states that the play was “[p]resented privately, at the BlackFriers; and publiquely at the Globe, By the Kings Majesties Servants” (Webster, The tragedy of the Dutchesse of Malfy 1 ). This line suggests that “[f]rom this first inscription onwards, the theatrical life of The Duchess of Malfi has hinged on the relationships between high and low” (Barker 42) with an audience that “probably represented a range of social positions” (Barker 43). From the first page, the printed text of the play is aware that those watching would come from a range of social positions and thus would likely have different views on service. In The Duchess of Malfi , the treatment and place of servants is such a central issue that its audience is forced to take a stand on class divisions. The main conflict of the play is driven by the fact that Antonio is in the Duchess’s service. The Duchess’s brother, Ferdinand, discovering that the Duchess is having a romantic relationship, without knowing with whom, assumes that there is a class disparity within the relationship. He imagines that the Duchess must be with "some strong thigh'd bargeman; / Or one o'th'wood-yard, that can quoit the sledge, / Or toss the bar, or else some lovely squire / That carries coals up to her privy lodgings" (2.5.42-45). Frank Whigham argues that the disgust expressed in Ferdinand’s line “specifies cross-class rivalry, and the debasement by occupation marks the intensity of the aversion. For him invaders are mere laborers, well-equipped with poles and bars, false, and potent; by coupling with the duchess they couple with him and contaminate him, taking his place” (170). Indeed, when Ferdinand discovers
deliberately lowers Antonio’s status from its representation in the source. Although in The Palace of Pleasure Antonio is the Duchess’s inferior, he is still an aristocrat. Webster stresses the class difference between the two characters, accentuating “the Duchess’s contempt for rank as a trustworthy indicator of worth” (Marcus, “Introduction” 34). Similarly, the maidservant in the source is referred to as “gentle” (Painter 369), indicating that she is from the upper class; in the play, however, Cariola is identified only as a maidservant, with no mention of her background. A small difference between the classes of the characters could be justified as ultimately inconsequential, but instead the Duchess’s violations of class boundaries are emphasized by Webster’s exaggeration of her class difference with Antonio, and his neglect to specify Cariola’s background. The attention drawn to the class difference forces the audience to confront the Duchess’s disregard of the class structure as a model. There are points within the play at which Webster shows how equality between classes can function positively, allowing the audience to agree with the Duchess’s disregard of the class structure. Act 3, scene 2 is significant, for example, since it features the Duchess preparing for bed and removing the physical symbols of her class. Both Antonio and Cariola are present for this process, creating a sense of equality between the three (in the private sphere, at least), despite their class differences. Onstage, the scene can be played to depict a strong sense of camaraderie. For example, Antonio is comfortable enough with both women to jokingly ask the Duchess “why hard-favoured ladies/ For the most part keep worse-favoured waiting women” (3.2.42-45). Often on stage, such as in the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse production directed by Dominic Dromgoole in 2014, this line is laughed off by the Duchess and Cariola as the Duchess responds by saying that just as an ill painter would not want their shop next to a good one, so do unattractive ladies not want to be surrounded by comparatively beautiful women. By showing
these positive moments of class equality, Webster actively and charmingly deviates from his source. The Duchess is happy with Antonio and Cariola. Demonstrating how the classes can interact in a positive way on equal ground makes the social hierarchy seem emphatically flexible. Perhaps due to this camaraderie, Cariola remains constant in her loyalty to the Duchess, and the audience can feel secure trusting in their relationship. Cariola’s character demonstrates a model of service in which the servant upholds the social hierarchy out of reciprocated love. She serves as a foil to the mercenary servant, Bosola. Bosola judges Ferdinand for ordering the death of the Duchess, but if Ferdinand had paid Bosola for the death of the Duchess, the play might have had a very different ending. Bosola requests “the reward due to [his] service” (4.2.283) for killing the Duchess, but Ferdinand refuses, toppling the mercenary structure of service. Bosola does state that he “loved” (4.2.319) Ferdinand, but Ferdinand’s rejection of him and refusal to pay after Bosola kills the Duchess is enough to drive him over the edge. In the play’s final scene, Bosola summarizes the macabre events that transpired through the play, and claims that he “was an actor in the main of all,/ Much ‘gainst [his] own good nature, yet i’th’ end/ Neglected” (5.5.83-85). Bosola believes that he betrayed his own good nature by serving Ferdinand and laments the fact that the he was neglected. He had an unhealthy relationship with Ferdinand. Unlike the Duchess and Cariola’s relationship, Bosola’s loyalty to his master is not returned. Furthermore, unlike Bosola, Cariola does not feign allegiance to the Duchess.The audience can clearly see the dangers of a servant having multiple masters, especially when one requires the servant to abuse another master's trust. Bosola betrays the Duchess when he carries out Ferdinand’s orders to kill her. She thinks that he is her loyal servant, but he puts Ferdinand’s desires and the rewards provided above her wellbeing. His justification is that he "rather sought/To appear a true servant [to Ferdinand] than an honest man" (4.2.321-22). Bosola may
In it, Zanche (a maidservant to Vittoria) starts as a relatively passive figure. She facilitates the affair between Vittoria and Brachiano, but is a ghostly figure in the background for the first half of the play. As soon as she gains a voice, she embodies the popular trope surrounding female servants in drama who were "imagined in terms of an all-consuming sexuality" taking "the form of a desire for marriage" (Burnett 129) as she pursues various male characters, including the disguised Francisco. She betrays Vittoria's confidence in telling others about her mistress’s affair, and actively plans to steal from Vittoria to finance her own escape with Francisco (who she thinks is romantically interested in her). Unlike Zanche, Cariola does not pursue any sort of romantic relationship that would threaten the quality of her service to the Duchess. Cariola seems to embody the image of the neo- feudal servant, serving her mistress exclusively without the danger of being corrupted by money. As Whigham observes, she "is an exceptionally focused specimen of the type: she is not given any of the divided loyalties that would accompany the usual suitor of her own (though Delio is structurally available)" (172). Even though a character such as Delio could easily have become a love interest for Cariola, Webster does not pursue this match. Cariola's romantic independence grants her the ability to be exclusively loyal to the Duchess. Webster allows Cariola to exist outside of the typical love-obsessed female servant mold. Moreover, Cariola maintains sexual independence through her lack of romantic interest. In many other dramas, maidservants are allowed to gain a voice through the pursuit of their sexual imperatives, and they can potentially profit financially through marriage as it is an authorized means of gaining economic security; however, their agency is curtailed as they become subject to their husbands, as exemplified through Emilia. As Dowd explains, "Idealized stories about female servants whose work ends neatly in marriage, for instance, offer a reassuring
fantasy of social order to those who might be concerned about women's ambiguous position within a volatile service economy" (2). Marriage returns any subversive woman to a subordinate position under male authority once again. By rejecting marriage, Cariola avoids being subject to a male authority, and her ability to reject marriage demonstrates her agency. Cariola does not express any intention to marry. When asked by Antonio when she will marry, she responds quite decisively with the answer: "Never, my lord" (3.2.22). This is an overlooked and very important line. How Antonio phrases the question sheds more light on her response. Antonio asks "when," not “if," she will marry, demonstrating the unquestioned assumption that she will marry. Cariola actively rejects these social expectations. It is true that she does not explain her reasoning for such a definitive rejection, and a dramatic director could choose to have this line delivered as joking banter; however, even if the line is not completely in earnest, by claiming that she will never marry, Cariola at least recognizes how the patriarchal system functions and gives voice to a position that would be considered unconventional in her time. She also does not indicate any desire to marry at any other point in the play. Cariola’s chastity also figures into her rejection of patriarchal control. Chastity, as Constance Jordan argues, “was important chiefly insofar as it could lead to a woman’s escape from patriarchal proprietorship […] feminists generally portrayed [women choosing chastity] as possessing a kind of liberty” (37). One of the most powerful women in the decades before Webster wrote The Duchess of Malfi also refused marriage. Queen Elizabeth I chose to “live out of the state of marriage” (“Response to a Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage, 1559”). This rejection allowed her “to connote, not the negation of a woman’s bodily difference, of her own sexual desires, but rather the survival of a quality of feminine autonomy and self-
each other that they fail to hear her" (“The Duchess's Marriage in Contemporary Contexts" 107). If, however, Antonio and the Duchess are treated as having heard the line, the comment demonstrates Cariola's staunch ability both to critique openly and to express pity for the Duchess. Cariola's ability to evaluate the Duchess even while serving her is still demonstrated even if Antonio and the Duchess do not hear Cariola's critique of their marriage. This quotation also allows the audience to relate to a figure in the play (other than the Duchess’s murderous brothers) if they are not completely on board with the marriage. Cariola can speak to the audience in a conspiratorial tone, establishing a relationship with them and demonstrating that she has an independent mind while still being loyal to her mistress. In this context, it is interesting to note the parallels between Bosola and Cariola in how they critique their masters. Bosola openly criticizes Ferdinand at points, such as when he tells Ferdinand that he is his “own chronicle too much” (3.1.88), and Ferdinand does seemingly express gratitude for Bosola’s honesty when he says: “‘That friend a great man’s ruin strongly checks/ Who rails into his belief all his defects’” (3.1.92-93). The quotation marks suggest that Ferdinand is borrowing these words, however. The praise does not originate from him, perhaps curbing its authenticity. Even if gratitude is expressed by Ferdinand here, however, Ferdinand’s desires shift as his mood changes. Ferdinand demands false flattery when he expresses that "you that are courtiers/ should be my touchwood, take fire when I give fire-/ That is, laugh when I laugh, were the subject never so witty" (1.2.42-45). Contrasting this, he chides Bosola for the Duchess’s death and says: “What an excellent/ Honest man mightiest thou have been / If thou hadst borne her to some sanctuary” (4.2.262-64), indicating that he wishes that Bosola had disobeyed him (a reversal from his previous demand for servile submission). Bosola does not
have Ferdinand’s reciprocated loyalty, as Cariola has the Duchess’s. The play directly shows the outcomes of servants following questionable orders, but also the importance of trust between a master and a servant. Bosola is clearly uncomfortable in killing the Duchess, as demonstrated by his desire to hide his identity from her, but he kills her nonetheless. Cariola loyally follows the Duchess’s orders but comes to her own conclusions, never openly voicing regret for following the Duchess. Cariola dies alongside the Duchess for, as Bosola points out, having "kept [the Duchess’s] counsel" (4.2.238). She is punished for having been a devoted servant in helping the Duchess keep her marriage secret. Bosola and the other executioners, it would seem, even mock her for keeping the Duchess’s counsel, suggesting that by dying, Cariola "shall keep ours” (4.2.238). In the Palace of Pleasure , the Duchess asks (albeit unsuccessfully) for her maidservant to be spared “‘in consideration of hir good service done to the unfortunate Duchess of Malfi’” (Painter 382). In the source material, the Duchess seemingly exempts Cariola from any liability since she was simply serving her mistress, but the executioners still say that the maidservant must die since she “hast bene so faithfull a minister, and messanger of [the Duchess’s] follies’” (Painter 382). In both the Palace of Pleasure and the play, the executioners emphasize that it is because of this service that the maidservant is punished. The stakes of being a servant were high in early modern England. Servants could be culpable for their master's crimes. For example, just after The Duchess of Malfi ’s first performance, Anne Turner, a waiting woman to Lady Frances Howard, was executed along with other servants for helping Lady Frances Howard poison Thomas Overbury, an advisor to Robert Carr. Overbury was critical of a match between Howard and Carr. Howard received a death sentence as well, but was pardoned by King James. Her status and relationship to the King (she
patriarchal structures and therefore has to die. She is a threat and cannot be neatly married off and reintroduced to a patriarchal model. In life, she resists male domination, and serves her mistress. She does not conform to the maidservant image presented in other plays, such as The White Devil. She embodies a new model of servant, loyally serving the Duchess yet able to voice her own opinions. Cariola’s model of service seems to indicate a pattern based upon reciprocated love, thus breaking rigid social structures based on inequality. As will be further explored in the next chapter, moreover, like Antonio’s marriage to the Duchess, Cariola’s relationship with the Duchess offers power. In death, Cariola is removed as a threat to Ferdinand, who discourages personal connections with servants, but the need to remove her highlights the cultural anxiety surrounding the power of maidservants in a shifting economy.
CHAPTER 3: “TO THY KNOWN SECRECY” : FEMALE ALLIANCE IN THE
DUCHESS OF MALFI
Dominant definitions of friendship in early modern England did not position women as being capable of this type of relationship. As Laurie Shannon describes, “In both Cicero and Montaigne, the avowed nature of woman serves as proof that women, just like such ‘bad’ or unconstant men, cannot fulfill friendship’s demanding offices” (58). Being fickle, women were considered (unlike the majority of men) as incapable of true friendship. The definition of friendship and “the rhetoricized virtues of ideal friendship (self command, constancy, ‘liberty of heart,’ truthful and communicative speech) essentially repeat the criteria of manliness” (Shannon 56), yet alliances between women crop up, not just in drama, but in historical accounts, challenging this misogynistic definition. Within scholarly reactions to these examples, however, as explored by Luckyj, "there has been a marked reluctance to read the 'private,' affective discourse of friendship and alliance among women as imbued with public or political meaning" ("Introduction" 4). Perhaps in part because of this reluctance to consider female friendship, the Duchess and Cariola's relationship has yet to be considered in this light; however, it clearly deserves such consideration. Cariola gains the agency required by early modern definitions of friendship. First, she does so by rejecting any form of marriage. Cicero dictates that self-sufficiency is required for friendship, and, “by this interpretation, female chastity takes on a volitional character; the chaste virgin expressed an active ‘femall pride’” (Shannon 69). The “opportunities for counsel” (Luckyj, “Introduction” 2) that figure in early modern definitions of friendship are also present in the relationship between the Duchess and Cariola. The interactions between them demonstrate a strong female alliance with both domestic and political significance. Previous scholarship has