Absent Presence and Representation:

How Shakespeare and Webster Portray the Female Character

by

Cheyelme Haymond

as partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the Bachelor of Arts Degree

with Honors

in

English

College of Arts and Letters

Faculty Thesis Director:

Dr. Andrew Mattison

Honors Program

Dr. Melissa Valiska Gregory

The University of Toledo

DECEMBER 2018 Abstract

William Shakespeare's King Lear (printed in 1608) and John Webster's The

Duchess of Ma!f! (performed in 1614) each feature important female characters who are killed offstage, creating what I argue is an absent presence that haunts

each play. Through an investigation of the main female characters, Cordelia and the Duchess, I examine the idea of absent presence, arguing specifically that

Shakespeare and Webster actually depict Cordelia and the Duchess through this concept--in other words, these writers paradoxically create an understanding of each character by what they do not show. In my thesis, I thus explore how

Shakespeare and Webster represent Cordelia and the Duchess when they are not physically present. My analysis benefits froln being contextualized within other

Renaissance plays, Sir Philip Sidney's sonnet sequence AsOvphil and Stella, and also adaptations. Mentioning later adaptations of these plays, such as Nahum

Tate's on King Lear and Lewis Theobald's on The Duchess ofMalf!, further helps support my claim that for Shakespeare and Webster, physical absences are necessary to their respective portrayals of their female leads. At stake in this paper is an enriched understanding of the way that Renaissance drama depicts female characters.

ii Acknowledgements

Thank you to my thesis director, Dr. Melissa Gregoly, and thesis advisor, Dr.

Andrew Mattison, for all of your advice, patience, and encouragement. Your

dedication to helping me create my project and make it the best it can be, is truly motivating. Not only have I grown as a writer, but I have grown as a reader, researcher, and professional as well. I am thankful that I have received this

experience and opportunity to learn and spend time researching a topic that I am

passionate about. I would also like to thank the Shapiro Foundation for the

Edward Senior Scholarship which provided me with funding assistance. Lastly,

thank you to nly family and friends, whose unyielding support, motivation, and belief has made this experience unforgettable.

iii Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iii

Table of Contents ...... iv

Introduction ...... 1

"Absent Presence", ...... 2

Chapter 1, Absent Presence in King Lear...... 7

Chapter 2, Absent Presence in The Duchess ofMalf! ...... 21

Conclusion ...... 36

Works Cited ...... 38

iv Absent Presence and Representation:

How Shakespeare and Webster Portray the Female Character

Introduction

William Shakespeare's King Lear and John Webster's The Duchess of Malfi illustrate how complex these plays are in relation to the text and to the staging.

Specifically, in these two tragedies, there is an emphasis on how abstract presence and the lack thereof is in relation to the representation of the lead female characters. While King Leaÿ" and The Duchess of Malf! are not very similar plays, they are comparable tln'ough their common theme of absent presence.

Shakespeare's parallels between Cordelia and the Fool, her letter to Kent, Kent's voice, and Lear's insanity accentuate Cordelia's offstage presence and highlight her voice. Webster, similarly, emphasizes and heightens the Duchess's semi- presence and voice through echo verse poetry and the androgynous relationship between her and Ferdinand. While I draw connections between Sir Philip Sidney's concept of absent presence between King Lear and The Duchess ofMalfi, I argue how Shakespeare and Webster represent Cordelia and the Duchess through their absences. By focusing on presence and absence, I contend that these female characters retain their presence throughout each play, even when they are offstage or dead. 2

"Absent Presence"

The metaphysical concept of absent presence was created by Sir Philip Sidney, who termed the abstract phrase in his SOlmet sequence AsOvphil and Stella

(1591). The structure of Asovphil and Stella was influenced by Francesco

Petrarca's II Canzoniere and the particular style Petrarca incorporated into his own sonnet sequence. Multiple sonnets, specifically sonnets 88-89 and sonnet

106, throughout the sequence address and personify absence and "absent presence" separate from Stella. What is fascinating about Sidney's concept of absence and "absent presence" is that they are different concepts that stand in for the same thing, or what Astrophil perceives to be a daxk void that envelops what is supposed to be Stella's physicality.

Astrophil fixates on absence near the end of the sequence, which may symbolize abandonment and the loss of hope that Stella will reciprocate his love.

Solmet 88 begins with: "Out, traitor absence; darest thou counsel me / From my dear captainess to lÿm away," (Sidney 200). "My dear captainess" can be referencing to Stclla, whose absence becomes a traitor for tempting Astrophil towards unfaithfulness, Even though Stella is married to another man, she is still

Astrophil's beloved, hence, why the lack of her presence creates an absent presence for him. Later in the sonnet, Astrophil tells absence, "Tush, absence; while thy mists eclipse that light, / My orphan sense flies to the inward sight, / Where memory sets forth the beams of love" (200). What is intriguing about these lines is that absence is connected to "orphan sense." Perhaps Astrophil's "orphan sense" refers to the unreciprocated love as a result of Stella's absence. "Orphan" appears again in sonnet 106 along with "absent presence."

Sonnet 106 commences with Astrophil directly speaking to Stella's absence, "O absent presence, Stella is not here;" (Sidney 210). By doing so, he separates Stella fi'Oln her "absent presence," consequentially because the concept of absent presence is derived by Astrophil's own imagination. It is an unreciprocated concept, like the orphan sense. From this, Stella's absence becomes more than just that and ultimately represents the aspect of her that

Astrophil desires. Since Sidney designates Astrophil as the poet/narrator, the sonnets seem inherently misogynistic due to the incessant objectification of

Stella's body. This connects to the Petrarchan style because throughout the sequence, Astrophil fixates on Stella's figure, compares her body parts to celestial bodies, and holds her to unobtainable and mlrealistic standards. Although Stella is objectified, silent, and only present through Astrophil's unhinged obsession over her, she still contains a presence because every sonnet is about her, albeit the dehumanized version of her. In the second line, Astrophil describes Stella's

"absent presence" as a "False flattering hope" because the concept relies on the state in which it appears (210). Here, it can only appear in Astrophil's mind.

Absent presence is an intense longing that stirs hope and makes the subject

(Astrophil) fantasize that the object (Stella) of the absent presence, is actually 4

with them when it really is not. Therefore, when Astrophil mentions in the third

line, "in this orphan place," he is referring to Stella's unreciprocated love and

abandonment of him (210).

What is especially interesting about this sonnet is Astrophil's ambiguous

questions in lines five and six. Since there are two subjects, "absent presence" and

Stella, it is unclear who Astrophil addresses with "thou." If Stella is not physically

there and calmot answer him, then why does he ask, "What say'st thou now?" The

beginning of line seven, "But thou art gone," indicates that the "thou" is Stella,

but how does this make sense with Stella being absent and unable to answer his

question? Perhaps, since the sonnet is directed at "absent presence," Astrophil

asks it, instead of Stella, because it is his substitute for Stella. If this is indeed what Astrophil is doing, then he imagines that "absent presence" is able to speak

for Stella as well. The concept of absent presence and the conventional silent woman are gendered female, yet contrast since absent presence represents the female characters when they are offstage and provide them with a voice. The

conventional silent woman, on the other hand, snuffs the voices of female

characters and provides them with a weak presence when they are onstage.

Women like Stella, Cordelia, and the Duchess need an absent presence to speak for them, otherwise they would not be able to speak for themselves. In other words, Cordelia is offstage for most of the play, but it is how Shakespeare illustrates her absence that allows her to maintain a presence and voice while being offstage. For example, Cordelia and Lear's conflict with rhetoric versus theatricality begins with "nothing." In Sc. 1, Lear contradicts himself by saying,

"Nothing can come of nothing," which indicates that something can, in fact, come from nothing, and that something is Cordelia's absent presence and voice (line

81). Furthermore, Lear says this line again, but to the Fool, which supports my claim that the Fool depicts Cordelia's presence. Contrary to Cordelia and the

Duchess, Stella is not given a voice throughout the sequence because each sonnet is nan'ated by Astrophil and only presents how he perceives her.

Shakespeare and Webster would have been very familiar with and well- versed in Sidney's work, which is why I argue that the loose connection between

King Lear and The Dtlchess of Ma!f! is tied together through Sidney's "absent presence." Interestingly, absent presence is generated by one person yearning for another, like Astrophil for Stella or Lear for Cordelia. Stella does not create her

"absent presence," Astrophil does. In other words, Stella and Cordelia's absences represent them, yet are configured within the minds of Astrophi! and Lear and are incited by their own feelings towards Stella and Cordelia, meaning that absent presence is um'eciprocated. With this in mind, how do we interpret Cordelia's representation throughout KilN Lear? The representation of Cordelia's presence is different fi'om Stella's for the reason that Cordelia is created by Shakespeare, who never sexualizes her. Because Stella's character is formed by Astrophil, who constantly sexualizes her and only allows readers to understand Stella from his own image of her, her character is reduced. Shakespeare, being the playwright, gives Cordelia a voice and representation through her absence. As a result, Cordelia's representation is her own instead of belonging to someone else, like

Lear for example, who would misrepresent her to fit his own perception of her character. The Duchess's absence is similar to Cordelia's, but Webster represents the Duchess externally from herself. On the other hand, the Duchess's offstage presence is through her echo and bloodline, not from how other characters perceive her. Chapter 1: Absent Presence in King Lear

The Fool, who serves as one of Cordelia's representatives while she is offstage, predominantly illustrates the relationship that Cordelia and Lear share. Lear connects the Fool to Cordelia since they share the same area of Lear's mind. The parallel that Shakespeare formulates between Cordelia and the Fool is indistinct until the final scene when Shakespeare has Lear say, "And my poor fool is hanged. No, no life" (Sc. 24 line 300). Once Lear says this line, while holding his daughter's lifeless body, audiences may comprehend that Cordelia and the Fool occupy a similar scope within the play and Lear's mind. When Lear discovers that

Cordelia is hanged, he says "fool," which was a popular term of endearment at the time and nlay have been in reference to his late daughter. However, the Fool's final appearance at the end of Sc. 13 leaves no indication of him dying. Therefore, this line could be a paronomasia where Shakespeare connects the Fool and

Cordelia together through Cordelia's death. With the tempest and the subplot of

Edgar, Edmund, and Gloucester, it is easy to forget about the Fool's absence until

Lear's line. Similarly, if Lear's insanity was not caused by his guilt over how he disowned Cordelia, readers would forget about her absence as well. Shakespeare ties these two characters together with Lear's line while concurrently concluding their cmmection through their deaths. Additionally, the Fool and Cordelia are never in a scene together, and he

only appears after she is gone. When called upon by Lear, the Servant mentions

that "Since my young lady's going into France, sir, the / fool hath much pined

away" (Sc. 4 lines 68-69). These lines draw a connection between the Fool and

Cordelia, since Cordelia's leaving is the source of the Fool's pining. Moreover,

the Fool is the sole character to lament when learning about Cordelia's leaving.

These lines also indicate that whenever Cordelia is absent, the Fool is present;

indeed, the staging of the play makes it possible for these two parts to have been played by the same actor.

Lear's guilt and loneliness compels the Fool's presence in the first place, which can mean that Lear is subconsciously trying to mend his relationship with

Cordelia by having a relationship with the Foot. As Juliet Dusinberre remarks,

"Shakespeare... depicted the peculiar sympathy between his Fools and his heroines" (114). Dusinberre elaborates her stance by arguing that the Fool and

Cordelia "share the same area of [Lear's] consciousness" because they "stand on the periphery of the serious world of men..." by "providing light relief to serious men, to be in essence a symbol of that light relief..." (114). Cordelia and the Fool are explicitly loved by Lear, but they are also only present to alleviate Lear's guilt and loss and to entertain him. Therefore, Cordelia is present through the Fool and when the Fool and Cordelia are both physically absent onstage, Cordelia's presence transcends through her letter. Since the Fool's last physical appearance in the play is at the end of Sc. 13

and Cordelia is obscured until Sc. 18, her offstage presence is preserved in scenes

14-17 through her letter to Kent. Cordelia's letter becomes a symbol of her character because it is present when she is absent, carrying her voice and providing comfort. The letter is first introduced in Sc. 7 and, although it is not mentioned any further, it is assumed that Kent always carries her letter, or voice, with him. Kent and Cordelia are similar in their voices since their perspectives and manner of speaking are alike, which is evident in Sc. 1. When Cordelia refuses to flatter Lear, which results with her disownment, Kent is the only person to express his disdain towards Lear's decision. Cordelia, Kern, and the Fool are the only characters that refuse to flatter Lear and adhere to reason, but it is the connection between Cordelia and Kent that is less explicit and more litera13ÿ.

Therefore, along with the parallel between the Fool and Cordelia, Kent's voice can be interpreted as the provisional carrier of Cordelia's since their diction shares a certain plainness. When Kent opens the letter, he does not directly quote

Cordelia, but instead summarizes her letter:

I know 'tis from Cordelia,

Who hath now fortunately been infomlcd

Of my obscured course, and shall find time

For this enormous state, seeking to give

Losses their remedies. (Sc. 7 lines 159-63) I0

The significance of the letter is not emphasized through the content because Kent does not tell us specifically what Cordelia says. The significance of the letter is the connection between Kent and Cordelia. Kent does not quote Cordelia because, even though they share a similar kind of voice, Kent's authority as a male and presence could mitigate Cordelia's voice in her absence. Furthermore, even though Kent is in disguise, Cordelia lÿows who he is. Thus, Cordelia and Kent share a connection in diction and voice that emphasizes her semi-presence through the letter. To put it simply, the letter and the awareness between the two indicates that there is a special homogeneity between them and, therefore, a special parallel as well.

Throughout the play, there are multiple letters; however, Cordelia's letter is different from evelyone else's. The other characters' letters that are read aloud are meant to fill in the gaps of the plot and to get all of the characters and the audience on the same page. For example, Gloucester reads Edmund's forged letter aloud, and Edgar reads Gonoril's love letter to Edlmmd aloud in order to introduce the subplots and expose motives. Cordelia's letter is not read aloud because, even though her motivation is similar to Kent's and they share a similar plainness in speech, no one can speak for her. Her letter serves as a sort of comfort and represents hope to Kent. Cordelia is the heroine that becomes a possible savior that can absolve their kingdom, and Kent puts his faith in her to liberate the idngdom, bring Lear back to sanity, and help her father to overthrow her sisters. Thus, through the letter and its ambiguous content, Cordelia's physical 11 absence is only accentuated, forcing her to be present; however, even though

Cordelia's letter functions as a stand in that represents her offstage presence, she is absent because of Lear. It is Lear's mistreatment towards her that results in his ultimate guilt and prompts and emphasizes the letter's presence in the first place.

Cordelia's offstage presence is not only represented through the Fool and

Kent but also through King Lear's insanity. All of Cordelia's lines are somehow about her father, which is ironic because Lear is the one that mostly inten'upts and dismisses her when she speaks. For example, Lear refuses to hear and understand

Cordelia when she says, "Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave / My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty / According to my bond, nor more nor less" (Sc. 1 lines 82-4). Cordelia does not say that she does not love her father; she only logically rejects flattering him and lying to him by saying that he does not encompass her whole heart. To which Lear replies, "Go to, go to, mend your speech a little / Lest it may mar your fortunes" (Sc. 1 lines 85-6). Even if he gives her the opportunity to rebut her statement, he still negates it by not listening to her and not understanding her rhetoric. This is the moment that Lear not only dismisses Cordelia's voice, but also disowns her, resulting in his ultimate insanity.

With Cordelia gone, Lear yearns to fill her void with Gonoril and Regan's love; however, that is impossible because they have no love to reciprocate. The realization of Gonoril's betrayal causes Lear to break and say, "I did her wrong," referring to Cordelia and resulting in his descent into madness (Sc. 5 line 23).

Through his insanity, and only once he spirals into insanity, do we see that 12

Cordelia is present through Lear's regret and derangement. However, this does not exactly mean that Lear's madness stems from Cordelia's absence. The loss of his kingdom and titles and Gonoril and Regan's betrayals contribute towards his emasculation and to his ultimate insanity. Yet, it is the dwelling on and regret of banishing Cordelia that envelops Lear and causes him to spiral towards madness.

Therefore, Shakespeare depicts Cordelia's presence as an absent presence through

Lear's insanity. It is only once Lear and Cordelia are reunited, that Lear becomes sane and rejuvenated again. Cordelia serves as a symbol of hope for everyone in the play, but mostly, she is a symbol of Lear's hope. From her absence, he loses hope and descends into his deranged state. Lear's only aspiration throughout the whole play is to be completely loved by Cordelia and to retire under her care.

Once they are reunited, this becomes obvious because when Cordelia indicates:

We are not the first

Who with best meaning have incurred the worst.

For thee, oppress&d King, am I cast down,

Myself could else outfrown false fortune's frown.

Shall we not see these daughters and these sisters? (Sc. 24 lines 3-7)

Lear dismisses her and instantly replies, "No, no. Come, let's away to prison" (Sc.

24 line 8). He would much rather be imprisoned with Cordelia than to let her see her sisters or to see his daughters because, from the start of the play, all he wanted was to be with Cordelia until his death. Her last speech poses intriguing questions that go unanswered since it is dismissed as soon as she speaks. For example, who 13

else is Cordelia refelxing to if her and Lear are not the first to incur the worst

despite their good intentions--another character in the play? It seems as though the punishment of innocent characters, like Edgar and Kent, is a common theme throughout. Therefore, what does Cordelia imply by "best meaning?" These lines reference towards the concept of time since it seems as though she is talking about

Sc. 1. If that is the case, then how are Lear's intentions done with the "best meaning" and why are his actions so easily excusable? Even though Lear's

transgressions from Sc. 1 resultÿ in death and exile, Cordelia still loves him. The forgiveness of his transgressions comes from Cordelia only, not the play because he is still punished until the end with Cordelia's death. Although these are her last words before her murder, it is not all that surprising that they, too, are dismissed by her father. Shakespeare sets this up to be a pattern to show that it is not exactly

Lear's presence that is essential to the tragedy, but rather Cordelia's absent presence through Lear's insanity. As Dympna Callaghan proclaims, "woman is

constructed as simultaneously central and yet tangential to the tragic action.

Woman in tragedy is a site of ambivalence and contradiction" (55). Cordelia is the

central character to the tragic plot, but it is her presence through Lear's insanity

that serves as a contradiction to her legitimacy. Other than the subplot with Edgar,

the entire play follows Lear, for whom it is named. In other words, Cordelia's role

within the tragic plot is vague since Shakespeare focuses mostly on Lear; however, it is Cordelia's absence that concurrently enhances her importance to the

tragic action. Even in her absence, Shakespeare propels her presence and forces 14 her to be viewed as a priority character. She may not have been on stage or have spoken for much of the play, but Shakespeare makes the play about her offstage presence. As Callaghan explores:

It is a crucial aspect of the construction of the category of woman in

tragedy that major female characters are often absent, silent or dead .... It

is possible to argue that in this sense female characters embody the

'unconscious' of texts. The unconscious is so precisely because it is not

present, and similarly, speech, silence, absence and presence operate

contrapuntally so that the traces of absence and silence are always latent in

speech and presence. (74)

Cordelia can be interpreted as the stereotypical chaste and hushed female that dies because of her father's transgressions, but by constructing Cordelia's character to be absent and present simultaneously, Shakespeare critiques the conventional silent woman, which is evident through her death. Cordelia does "embody the

'unconscious'" of the play because she lacks physicality, but Shakespeare frames

Cordelia's absent presence so that she is part of the conscious material as well.

The whole idea of Cordelia's presence through her absence creates this paradoxical concept that cxplores the conscious versus unconscious material and what Cordelia's status is in connection to that idea.

Cordelia's death, to an extent, is difficult to analyze due to its ambiguity; nonetheless, this ambiguity actually emphasizes Shakespeare's continued theme of Cordelia's offstage presence. Exactly where and how she dies demonstrates the 15

abstruseness of her death while also simultaneously depicting her semi-presence.

Cordelia is hanged by the Captain offstage, but where she actually dies and takes her last breath, remains ambiguous. I would argue that through this representation,

Shakespeare has Cordelia die both offstage and onstage. Cordelia is concurrently absent and present through her death because her death lacks the physicality that the attdience needs since her murder happens offstage, but since there is an immediacy in her death, she is simultaneously present for the audience. In other words, with Edmund's sentencing of her death, audiences may feel distressed about whether or not she will be saved in time. Then, Shakespeare has Lear carry her body onstage and then perform different tests to see if she is still breathing or not, which indicates that Cordelia dies twice: literally offstage and as a performance onstage; thus, Cordelia is both present and absent in her death. For

Cordelia to die twice, Shakespeare heightens her character, voice, and presence since he directs more attention towards her death and absence.

Since the actual process of her dying happens offstage, her death does not really register at first. If audiences camÿot see the death, it is not as personal or significant, but that may be why Shakespeare has Lear carÿT her body onstage in front of the audience. If the audience can bear witness to someone dying, then their murder becomes more existent to them. Janet Adelman believes that "the play invites us to see [helJ dead body as a prop for Lear's anguish" and to be presented to the audience (127). It is crucial that Cordelia looks alive in death so that she can be memorialized and monumentalized. In the folio, Lear's last words 16

"Do you see this? Look on her. Look, her lips-- / Look there, look there"

emphasizes how Cordelia's corpse is being presented onstage (5.3.3,282-83).

While Cordelia's corpse is center stage, Lea," focuses on her lips. Is he trying to

see if she is still breathing or is Shakespeare emphasizing her silence? I contend

that his last words could be paronomasia. By now, it is evident that Cordelia is

dead, yet Lear still clings onto the hope that she will breathe again. To put it

blatantly, his hope is confused with his insanity. When Lear asked, "Do you see

this?" it is clear that he has become delusional in his hope and hallucinated her

lips moving. Losing Cordelia again permanently cements Lear into his state of

insanity, but Cordelia cannot rescue him from himself again, so he dies of a

broken heart.

Shakespeare explores the idea of the silent female by critiquing it through

Cordelia's death and he continues to entertain the idea by having Cordelia hanged.

As Callaghan points out that, "Cordelia, of course, has died - 'silently', that is,

offstage, as the perfect woman should" (80). Her death could be interpreted as

Shakespeare silencing her, which is understandable; however, this interpretation

does not follow Shakespeare's theme that is present for the duration of the play.

For example, Adehnan believes that not only did Cordelia die because she

represents a motherly character to Lear, but she also dies because her heart is "the

representative site of the overwhelming feelings that Lear genders female" (127).

Basically, Adehnan argues that King Lear is torn between his femininity and

masculinity, which creates an anxiety within him that results in his digression 17 towards insanity. Adelman further elaborates on her analysis by connecting the theory that female characters, specifically the mother character, represents a threat to masculinity and the womb serves as the device that suffocates and corrupts men; thus, Cordelia's hanging could be interpreted as her representing the mother figure to her father. Lear may have ignored what Cordelia had to say, but he is not her silencer. Cordelia is punished by Lear's transgressions, but she does not die from them. In fact, Lear carries her presence for a reasonable portion of the play through his insanity. Therefore, Lear and Shakespeare do not silence Cordelia.

Perhaps, instead, what Shakespeare is trying to convey through her strangulation and silence is how her absolute absence affects the other characters, especially

Lear, and the audience. Shakespeare wrote this tragedy around Cordelia, and with her gone, the play feels tragic and unsettling.

Shakespeare's KitTg Lear produces a lot of questions and different analyses, but looking at different adaptations, palÿicularly Nahum Tate's popular

1681 adaptation, helps us understand why Shakespeare represents Cordelia the way he does and how audience expectation has changed since 1608. Tate's main goal through his adaptation, The Histoi?ÿ of KingLear (1681), is to focus on the bastard plot and to create a love plot between Cordelia and Edgar. According to

Tate, the reason why he added the romance between Edgar and Cordelia is to show that it "renders Cordelia's indifference and her father's passion in the first scene probable" (2). Therefore, the reason Tate presents this alternate ending is, as he says, to make Lear's passion towards Cordelia's indifference towards him, 18

"probable." The conflict between Cordelia and Lear in the first scene is difficult to believe because, with most of Shakespeare's plays, the audience is dropped in the middle of a conversation that is extremely unclear. If Lear says that Cordelia is his favorite daughter and does not have a more legitimate reason other than her lack of love to exile her, then his passion becomes improbable. With the addition of the love plot, it makes sense that part of Cordelia's heart is already taken by

Edgal, which explains her lack of love towards her father, or at least from Lear's perception. Tate's reasoning for writing the adaptation does not seem like his only reason, though, since creating a romance between Edgar and Cordelia and keeping her alive becomes somewhat political. Tate appears to be unsettled by

Shakespeare's tragedy, which is evident through his alterations to Cordelia's character. His version of Cordelia lacks impact and strength; instead, she is bland and more of a damsel than that of Shakespeare's Cordelia. Thus, I believe that

Tate altered Cordelia's character, absent presence, and death so that she would represent the dull, silent female.

Claire McEachem claims that "Fate adapted King Lear "into a domestic drama with a happy ending" because it "suited the taste of the age" (225), arguing that Tate's alterations "were in part politically motivated" not because of the changes he made to Cordelia's character but because he was more focused on the bastard plot (225), I agree with McEachern that Tate's adaptation functions as a domestic drama, because Tate eradicates what made Shakespeare's version a tragedy. However, I contend that his political motivations do not only originate 19 from the bastard plot, but more so from his reshaping of Cordelia. Although Tate makes Cordelia more present, he completely expunges the depth of her character, which was one of Shakespeare's focal points of the play. For example, Tate erases the Fool and the letter she sends to Kent, both of which serve as her presence. By erasing the letter, Tate erases her voice and the hope that she represents for Kent.

Instead of the Cordelia that comes back to liberate her father and her kingdom with an army, Tate replaces her with a damsel that needs saving from a few ruffians. Nothing about Tate's Cordelia is interesting because he simply silences her character and eradicates any complexity from Shakespeare's King Lear.

Tate's adaptation is noteworthy, though, because it is not contemporary to

Shakespeare's. In fact, Tate's adaptation dates back to 1681 and was published in five different quartos until 1712 (Black, Introduction xiii). Therefore, because

Tate's adaptation is introduced at a different time period than Shakespeare's play, and because changes in society had occurred, it is difficult to completely debunk

Tate's adaptation of Cordelia. His adaptation nlay have received many criticisms, but it was still printed in five different quartos and was staged and read for over thirty years. James Black declares that "the fact that the play was a great popular success cannot be ignored; part of Tate's 'offense' is that his version, and revisions of it, kept Shakespeare's from the stage for a century and a half" (Introduction xv). Much of that success is because Tate's version ends on a happy note, or that he made it into a restoration drama where power is restored properly through succession. Agreeing with Black, it seems as though Tate also 20 alters Cordelia's character because "The contemporary demand was for good theater, rather than good drama" (introduction xvii). The contemporary demand for Cordelia's survival inevitably genders theater because of the removal of the tragedy plot. Without the tragedy aspect that Cordelia uses to utilize her absent presence, her character becomes restricted to the contemporary demand.

Nevertheless, Tate's Cordelia lacks depth and lacks character development due to the expungement of her absence. 21

Chapter 2: Absent Presence in The Duchess of Malfi

In The Duchess ofMalfi, John Webster illustrates the Duchess's representation through Sidney's concept of"absent presence" by way of echo verse poetry and

androgyny. The offstage presence of the Duchess is quite literal and theatrical with her echo and twin brother. There are a variety of interpretations regarding the

Duchess, her echo, and her death, like Jennifer De Reuck's reading of nihilism or

Brian Chalk's reading of monumentality. Both of these analyses are understandable since nihilism and molmnaentality were conventional during the

Jacobean era. I agree with Chalk's reading of Webster's depiction of the Duchess

as a monmnental widow figm'e because Chalk's analysis presents compelling

connections between momÿmentality, the Duchess, her death, and her echo.

Jennifer De Reuck's argument, on the other hand, that Webster portrays nihilism

through "the artifact, The Duchess of Malf! itself" is not supported through and

throughout the play, but rather by only one character: Bosola (De Reuck 32).

Jennifer De Reuck argues that Webster uses The Duchess ofMalfi to portray nihilism, or that the play itself and the characters in it depict that life is

meaningless, focusing on the echo and Bosola as evidence for her nihilist reading.

According to De Reuck, "Webster introduces a strange new voice whose utterances lead to the final vision informing the work ideology of this play. Here

the speaking position is possibly unique to literature, literally that of the wall of a 22 ruined cloister .... It is disembodied and wholly devoid of reason and

intentionality" (31). The "strange new voice" is the echo of the late Duchess, who tries to warn Antonio that his life is in danger through echo verse poetl2¢. Echo verse poems were well established during Webster's life and are usually ironic and paradoxical since they serve to contradict or accentuate the end of the line before it. The echo is the Duchess's voice, and even though it is disregarded, her voice is still heard; therefore, it is possible that the echo does not represent nihilism, but rather Webster creates the Duchess's presence through the echo, like

Cordelia's letter to Kent. The actor playing the Duchess would also be just offstage in a music room probably speaking through a microphone, which verifies that, at least theatrically, the Duchess is still present. Furthermore, almost all of

De Reuck's quoted evidence is from Bosola, who is a pessimistic character.

Webster did incorporate nihilism within his tragedy, but not how De Reuck argues. Bosola embodies the nihilism, not the echo or the play itself.

Webster's use and staging of the Duchess's echo presents complications since the echo can easily be read as nihilist, as conventional, or as stagecraft.

Chalk provides his own interpretation of the Duchess's echo that connects to monumentality, which provides more depth to the Duchess's echo and death. He argues that the Duchess is a living monumental figure that, through her widowhood, represents the ideal image of death that other characters strive for.

Chalk argues that "The Duchess of Malfi presents [the Duchess] only in the form of an echo that serves to deny rather than confirm her transcendence" (399). I do 23

agree with Chalk's stance, but with this in mind, how are readers supposed to

interpret the echo? If the Duchess is denied transcendence, then is a nihilist

reading more appropriate? Chalk elaborates on this ambiguity with his suggestion

that "the echo functions in the play nmch in the same way that monuments do:

just as monuments are meant to compensate for the loss of the dead that they

represent, the echo creates the impression that some form of posthumous

communication is possible" (399). Therefore, Webster gives the Duchess a

presence through the echo because it functions like monuments do. Not only does

the Duchess have a presence through her momunentality and the echo, but her

absence is emphasized since the echo is her own posthumous voice, reinforcing

Chalk's idea that posthumous COlmnunication is possible. The Duchess may have been denied transcendence, but posthumous colmmmication and the monumentality of the echo disregards a nihilist understanding of the play.

Connecting Sidney's echo verse poetry, who F. L. Lucas declares Webster

"borrowed so profusely" from, to the Duchess's posthumous voice explicitly provides her with a semi-presence (10). Unlike Sidney's "absent presence" in

AsO"ophil and Stella, Webster makes the Duchess's absent presence more ambiguous through the echo from her grave. Echo verse poetry itself is very ambiguous and uncertain. It may be incorporated because the poet or playwright is intrigued by the convention, or they may try to add depth to their poem or play through echo verse poetry. Webster 'really captures the uncertainty of the echo 24

since it is ambiguous as to why he incorporated it, which is an important question

if readers want to lmow what the echo is supposed to mean for the Duchess.

By focusing on who voices the echo, we can better understand why it is incorporated in the first place. Webster makes a conscious decision to include the echo after the Duchess dies and at her gravesite. As a result, readers cammt help but to infer that Webster wants the Duchess's death to be vague and for readers to question whether her spirit transcends or not. If the echo is present through the

Duchess's death and gravesite, then the echo forces her to be semi-present through monumentality, or even evokes an absent presence. It is not completely fair to infer that the Duchess's spirit transcends because, if she did, then she would not be present when Antonio passes by her grave. Keeping in mind,

Antonio, at this time, is ignorant of the Duchess's death or her burial grounds, which may imply that there is a connection to Antonio and the Duchess that goes beyond their marriage and love. If Antonio and the Duchess share a strong enough relationship that enables understanding even beyond death, then perhaps Antonio can'ies the Duchess's absence through his presence. The Duchess's echo seems to connect to Antonio because it allows a semi-posthumous communication between him and his wife. If we only focus on the Duchess's echo in relation to Antonio, then transcendence is no longer the question, but rather how the echo functions in place of the Duchess. Webster fornmlates an echo that is paradoxical to everything Antonio says, which, if we understand the echo only in relation to

Antonio, then we can infer that the echo serves to forebode Antonio and to 25

foreshadow the audience of what's to come. That reading, however, emphasizes

the echo more and the Duchess less, which is problematic because the Duchess is

the main character and the voice of the echo.

I do not think that Webster wrote the echo so that it can be easily unpacked, unlike Cordelia's letter. Lucas argues that "Echo-scenes form an

interesting literary by-way, though it has proved a blind alley for most who have

followed it" (204), and i agree because the echo is meant to be uncertain and unresolved; however; as uncertain as the echo-scene may be, it does prove the connection the Duchess harbors to the world. Through her posthumous echo, the

Duchess is given a semi-presence. The perception of that presence is foggy, albeit.

For Jacqueline Pearson, the Duchess "is metaphorically present in the echoes and summaries of the past with which the ending of the play is permeated. When she

[the Duchess] appears three times after her apparent death it seems as if she and the life force which she represents are proof against death" (91). Although I agree with the first part of Pearson's statement, I do not believe that the Duchess's representation is proof against death, necessarily. Even though the Duchess does appear three times after her death, she and the other characters still die, and

Antonio dies right after he sees a phantasm of her and hears her echo. Yet, because the Duchess is metaphorically present, or exhibited as a monumental figure, through the echo, she is given an offstage presence. Furthermore, if the

Duchess's own death and the life force that she represents are proof against death, then her semi-presence would appear throughout the rest of the play. She only 26

"defies" death three times, though, and two of those times are during the echo

scene. I imagine that the other moment that Pearson is referring to is when Bosola realizes that the Duchess is not yet dead inAct 4 Sc. 2 lines 333-345, which is central for Bosola's character development rather than tile Duchess's defiance towards death.

As her liaison to the world and as a representation of her semi-presence, the echo functions similarly as the wax figures in Act 4 Scene 1 because Webster uses both of these conventions to trick perception. The wax figures are a more comprehensible convention compared to the echo because they are less

ambiguous. Both conventions play on semi-presence and perception, but the wax figures can actually be seen, and therefore, better understood. Ferdinand's wax figures are meant to portray the Duchess's dead family like the echo is meant to portray the Duchess's posthumous voice and her as a monument. Webster incorporates these wax figures to deceive both the Duchess and the audience into thinking that they are seeing her dead family. Her family is not truly dead and are noi truly there, which emphasizes Webster's depiction of semi-presence. What becomes increasingly interesting about the wax figures is that they are not only the reason why the Duchess welcomes death, but they end up being partially title.

The scene of her death is exceptional, but it is after her death when Bosola draws a traverse to reveal her dead children that fortifies Webster's trick on perception.

First, the Duchess and the audience believe her family to be dead, so the Duchess welcomes death. Then, it is revealed that they are only wax figures; however, 27

Webster ends his trickery with the reinforcement of the former with the death of her children, which is announced when Ferdinand declares, "The death / Of young wolves is never to be pitied" (4.2.250-51). There is something about this scene that supports the concept of absent presence because Webster solidifies what is perceived as fake into what is real. The Duchess's echo is fake, to an extent, because she is really dead, but it is concurrently real because it is heard by

Antonio, Delio, and the audience. Likewise, the wax figures themselves are false, but they depict what is real and are perceived to be real. Overall, absent presence is created by one person, either the Duchess within the play (microcosm) or

Webster through the play (macrocosm), and is a trick on the senses, which

Webster portrays through her echo.

Along with the echo, Webster represents the Duchess's presence through her brother, Ferdinand. When I argue that Webster portrays the Duchess's presence through her bloodline, I mean Ferdinand, because although her children are obvious connections to the Duchess, they are rarely mentioned throughout the play. Ferdinand, by contrast, is a character that revolves himself around the

Duchess and her life because of his obsession with a pure bloodline. Although

Webster explicitly lets readers and audiences know why Ferdinand is obsessed with the Duchess (because of the purity of their bloodline), there is also plenty of literary scholarship that entertains the idea that Ferdinand actually has incestuous feelings for his twin sister. Therefore, the Duchess's semi-presence is represented through Ferdinand's character due to their shared blood and his obsession with it. 28

Through many different types of plays, it is evident that playwrights and

society during the Renaissance supported the necessity of a pure bloodline. From

Webster's tragedy The Vghite Devil to Francis Beaumont's comedy The K17ight of

the Burning Pestle it is evident that society did not approve of the citizens from a

lower rank trying to improve their status. Webster reiterates this disapproval, primarily through Ferdinand's mania with the man'iage of the Duchess to Antonio.

Ariane M. Balizet analyzes how a pure bloodline produces anxiety, particularly in male aristocrats since they tend to have the most to lose. In Balizet's analysis of blood on the Renaissance stage, she states that "English tragedy.., depicted blood as the manifestation of competing discourses on race, class, sexuality, and gender"

(23). Ferdinand perceives the integration of his sister's aristocratic blood with the blood of Antonio's, who is lower in social ranldng, as a threat that is a tarnish to his familial bloodline. Furthermore, "As a new widow, the Duchess is a particularly dangerous figure to her brothers" since she can remarry and have children with another man (Chalk 387). As a monumental figure, the Duchess is the live image of death because of her widowhood, as I mentioned earlier. Yet,

Chalk clarifies this concept with his reading that "Rather than build represemations of thernselves [the other characters], the characters imagine the

Duchess herself as a monumental emblem that provides the elusive stability that they seek" (387). If Ferdinand understands his sister to be the represented stability of their pure, familial bloodline, then this perception is destroyed once she mmTies

Antonio. Therefore, Ferdinand believes that the only way to save the purity of 29

their bloodline is to "'cure' tln'ough the purging of diseased, impure blood," or to

murder the source of impurity: his sister and her family (Balizet 24).

Ferdinand's crazed obsession is the cause of the deaths of the Duchess and

her family. Both the Cardinal and Ferdinand forbid the Duchess to remarry by

trying to explain that, "You live in a rank pasture here, i'th' court; / There is a kind

of honey-dew that's deadly: / 'Twill poison your fame;" (1.1.297-99). Both

Ferdinand and the Cardinal warn the Duchess that, if she reman'ies, her reputation, their reputation, and their familial bloodline will be dishonored. This,

of course, is a lousy lie since it is comnlon for widows to remarry and because,

after he realizes his sister is dead, Ferdinand says, "I had hope, / Had she

continued widow, to have gained / An infinite mass of treasm'e by her death: /And

that was the main cause" (4.2.275-78). Of course, the Duchess's preoccupations with remarriage may have disgraced their reputations slightly since she neglects her sovereign duties for her new family, but there are also plenty of other reasons

for their infamy. For example, the Cardinal's affair with a married woman or

Ferdinand murdering the Duchess and her children, supposedly, for her money.

After she is dead, though, Ferdinand never mentions anything about her treasure

and he is consumed with guilt, which leads me to believe that there is more. If

Ferdinand is telling the truth, then it is not a disgraced reputation or bloodline that

causes him to kill her, but rather his greed for her treasure. With the Duchess being female, she is able to remarry and reproduce, which destroys Ferdinand's

chances of inheriting her money. His anxiety over her femaleness may explain 30

why he oversexualizes his sister and obsesses over their bloodline. It is obvious

with Ferdinand's confession that killing the Duchess was never his first choice

since he says he wanted her to continue to widow, which may be the reason why

he goes mad with guilt once she is murdered. Yet, once she and her family are

dead, he does not mention anything about inheriting her money other than his

hope to gain her treasure. Webster may have established that her money is the

reason why she is murdered, but he unquestionably sets up Ferdinand's final reasoning to be somewhat vague in comparison to Ferdinand's original excuse, or the purity of the bloodline and their reputations. Therefore, there does seem to be

legitimacy in interpreting the cause of the Duchess's murder differently, like

Ferdinand's incestuous feelings for her.

Throughout the entire tragedy, Ferdinand sexualizes his twin sister. For example, he goes into her bedchamber at night and he imagines her being intimate with her new husband. Relationships between twins of differing sexes is also a famous convention during the Renaissance, which is largely explored in John

Ford's play 'Tis PiO, She's a Wlÿore. The only way for a pure bloodline to be maintained is through the incestuous relationship between twins. Chalk argues that "While Webster clearly keeps the possibility of repressed incest operable in the play, this does not account sufficiently for Ferdinand's obsessive need to sculpt metaphorically the Duchess into an exemplary widow figure" (388). Even though I agree with Chalk that the Duchess seems to become a monumental figure, which highlights my argument of her echo as a representation of her 31

presence, I think that he cannot accept Ferdinand's incestuous feelings for his

sister because it contrasts with his argument. However, I do think that the Duchess

can be the monumental figure that Chalk argues her to be, particularly through her

echo, while maintaining the idea that Ferdinand has incestuous feelings for his

twin sister. Way helps clarify how Ferdinand can still perceive the Duchess as a monument while maintaining incestuous feelings:

...transcendence is narcissistically driven because it is in people's nature

to pick a person they see characteristically similar to themselves. With this

need for transcendence in conjunction with the similarities and the time

that the twins share, it is probable that one twin may forln a closer

attachment to the sibling than that sibling reciprocates. (187-88)

Ferdinand can still sculpt the Duchess into his ideal monumental widow because

she is half of him, or they are androgynous together. She is still a monument to the rest of the characters, particularly Ferdinand, because of her widowhood, but it is impossible to ignore his obsession with a pure bloodline, his persistency in sexualizing the Duchess, and his undeniable love for her. Since the Duchess and

Ferdinand shared a womb, they share a bond that goes even beyond being brother and sister. Without one, half of the other dies. At least, that is how Ferdinand comprehends their relationship and their shared bloodline. The Duchess, on the other hand, is less preoccupied on her relationship with Ferdinand, which shows how um'eciprocated their feelings are towards each other. Therefore, I believe that the Duchess's presence is, alongside the echo, represented tlu'ough their 32

androgynous relationship as twins and Ferdinand's incestuous feelings towards

her.

When the Duchess tainted her blood by marrying someone from a lower

social class, she also contaminated half of Ferdinand's blood, which would

describe part of his fixation with purging her from him by killing her. Way also

describes bow playwrights, or Webster in this instance, represents the imbalance

between twins. From Way's analysis, "They [Shakespeare and Webster] use this

androgynous twinship to illustrate the duality of the mind and the disastrous

outcome when the female and male become unbalanced and upset the balance between the sane and insane, and the human and monstrous sides of the human

condition" (185-6). Webster portrays this illustration very clearly through

Ferdinand's lycantln'opy. Since Ferdinand partakes in the murder of his sister, thus

murdering the half of himself that she encompasses, his ÿguilt overwhelms him,

resulting in insanity and becoming lnonstrous. Without the Duchess, Ferdinand is

at a loss over who he is without her and spirals into an identity crisis.

The androgynous connection between Ferdinand and the Duchess relates

to my argument that the Duchess's presence is represented tlu'ough Ferdinand.

Because they are twins, Ferdinand portrays her absence through his blood, or their

shared blood, when she is dead. There is a connection between them when she is

still alive and present since they are twins, but it is the loss of androgyny when the

Duchess is nmrdered that draws attention to her absent presence. Her

representation through Ferdinand does not entirely depict her character, but it 33 does represent the loss of her character and presence. Ferdinand cannot represent her voice, as Shakespeare embraces with Cordelia, but Webster incorporates the echo for that purpose and to monumentalize her. It is also important to remember that since they are twins, they must look somewhat similar. By sharing physical qualities, Ferdinand further portrays her through her absence; however, it is difficult to assume that the staging of the play would have actually casted twins or even siblings and, therefore, may not have represented their physical similarities as twins. No matter, though, since readers know they are twins just by reading the play and that they would look similar.

Like Nahum Tate with King Lear, Lewis Theobald created his own version of The Duchess of Maÿ where the Duchess lives. Theobald's play, The Fatal

Secret (1735), occurs over a century after Webster's tragedy was first pea'foamed.

In The Fatal Secret, the Duchess marries Antonio, but they do not have children and the marriage scene is excluded. The title of the play, therefore, is paradoxical since the only secret is their marriage instead of their children, and because the

Duchess and Antonio do not die as a result of their secret. Overall, Theobald's

Duchess is weaker than Webster's since she acmally fears her brothers, which results with a more masculine and intense Antonio. Webster establishes strength in his Duchess because she is a sovereign, whereas Antonio is her inferior in comparison to class status. In Theobald's version it is clear that the Duchess and

Antonio switch in character and strength from Webster's play. Every speech and instance where the Duchess expresses fortitude, like the speech she makes before 34

she dies and her echo, are eradicated. The Duchess may live in Theobald's

adaptation, but her presence is weakened because Theobald takes away the

boldness of her character, the depth and fight in her speeches, and her presence

through the echo is removed.

Theobald's version does not include the Duchess's children, and therefore

their wax figures, but he does keep a smidgen of her absent presence by faking

her death tln'ough her own wax figure. When a play includes wax figures or

statues, there is not enough money or time to buy or create actual figures. Instead,

the stagecraft requires the actors to portray their character's wax figure as well.

Theatrically, like with the echo, the character is still present through the actor portraying them through the wax figure. By turning the tables on Ferdinand and keeping the Duchess alive throughout the entirety of the play, Theobald does keep the convention alive through his version. Like the function of the wax figures in

Webster's tragedy, the Duchess's wax figure is meant to deceive Ferdinand and the audience into believing that she is dead when she is not. The stagecraft of the wax figure leaves interpretation ambiguous, though, since audience members see

a live actor portraying a waxed figure instead of a waxed counterfeit representing a character. The Duchess's wax figure takes her death and becomes, quite literally,

a monument of herself. Monuments are meant to portray the dead as they were when they were alive, which the wax figure of the Duchess does, but while she is still alive. Unlike Nalmm Tate, Lewis Theobald's adaptation does not completely remove the absent presence of his Duchess. However, "In his efforts to make 35

Webster's horrors palatable to the eighteenth-century stage he succeeds only in weakening the play" (Ranald 46). He does belittle her character significantly too, which may be a result of societal needs. Like Tate, it is important to remember that Theobald's version is over a century later and is addressed to a different audience altogether. 36

Conclusion

Through my analysis, I contend that William Shakespeare and John Webster epitomize Sir Philip Sidney's concept of"absent presence" in order to represent

Cordelia's and the Duchess's offstage presence. Shakespeare and Webster could have allowed for these two female heroines to live, but that would result in diminished, silent characters lacking a powerful presence, as we see in Nahum

Tate and Lewis Theobald's adaptations. The deaths of heroines are expected in the genre of tragedy; however, what does that mean for the representation of felnale characters through their absent presence? The concept is not specific to tragedy, but rather, represents the lack of female physicality onstage. Like the silent woman, this is a gendered concept, which is why it is not explored in regards to the male characters, and why it is important for female representation. Absent presence, although ÿts function is the same in its portrayal from different playwrights and tln'oughout different genres, represents female characters in different ways. As this essay indicates, Cordelia and the Duchess are represented through the concept similarly because absent presence is a static concept. Even though these women are portrayed through differem things, like the letter versus the echo, the function of absent presence is to provide female characters with a voice and presence when they lack physicality. With that in mind, absent presence functions similarly in come@ and other genres as it does in tragedy. Cordelia's 37

letter, the Duchess's echo, and the wax figures all present tangible, semi-

presences that convey the heroines' voices. Unlike Stella, Cordelia and the

Duchess are never spoken fro, including Kent, nor reduced by the men that carry

their voices and presence. The male characters (the Fool, Kent, Lear, and

Ferdinand) that portray the representations of Cordelia's and the Duchess's presence, do so out of their lnourning and their guilt for their absences.

Ultimately, Cordelia's and the Duchess's absent presence are represented through the lettel; the Fool, Kent, Lear's insanity, echo verse poetry, and Ferdinand and his obsession of blood. 38

Works Cited

Adelman, Janet. SqfJbcating Mothers: Fantasies of Maternal Origin in

Shakespeare's Plays, Hamlet to The Tempest. Routledge, ,Chapman &

Hall, Inc., 1992, pp. 1-10, 103-129, 165-192.

Balizet, Ariane M. "'Drowned in Blood': Honor, Bloodline, and Domestic

Ideology in The Duchess of Malf! and El Mddico De Su Honra."

Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 49, no. 1, Mar. 2012, pp. 23-49.

Callaghan, Dympna. Woman and Gender in Renaissance Tragedy: A Study of

King Leal; Othello, The Duchess of Malf!, and The White Devil.

Humanities Press International, Inc., 1989.

Chalk, Brian. "Webster's 'Worthyest Monument': The Problem of Posterity in

The Duchess of Malf!." Studies in Philology, vol. 108, no. 3, Summer

2011, pp. 379-402.

De Reuck, Jennifer. "'Plagued in Art': The Fashioning of an Aesthetics of

Sacrifice in The Duchess of Malf!." Shakespeare in Southern Afi'ica, vol.

27, Jan. 2015, pp. 25-32. EBSCOhost, doi:10.4314/sisa.v27i1.4.

Dusinberre, Juliet. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. St. Martin's Press,

1996, pp. 1-309.

McEachern, Claire. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy.

Cambridge University Press., 2003. Print.

Pearson, Jacqueline, Tragedy and Tragicomedy in the Plays of John Webster.

Barnes & Noble Books, 1980. 39

Ranald, Margaret Loflus. John Webster. Twayne Publishers, 1989.

Shakespeare, William and Stanley Wells, editor. King Lear. Oxford University

Press Inc., 2008, pp. 95-275.

Tate, Nahum, and James Black, editor. The Histoi3ÿ of King Lear. Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press, 1975. Print.

Sidney, Sir Philip and Katherine Duncan-Jones, editor. Sir Philip Sidney. Oxford

University Press inc., 1989, pp. 200-01,210-11,368-371.

Way, Mary. "Embodying Androgyne: Treatment of the Male/Female Twin

Relationship in Shakespeare and Webster." Journal of the Wooden 0

Sympositnn, vol. 11, Jan. 2011, pp. 184-192.

Webster, John, and F. L. Lucas, editor. The Duchess of Malfi. London: Chatto &

Windus, 1958. Print.

WebsteL John and Ren6 Weis, editor. "The Duchess of Malfi." The Duchess of

Malf! and Other Plays, Oxford University Press Inc., 2009, pp. 103-200.