Writers of the early modern period often presented characters in their texts struggling with an identity crisis. Furthermore, these characters were unable to reconcile their identities with the role they played in the fictional world they inhabited. In John Milton's Paradise Lost, for example, the character Satan struggles with the subtext of playing the role of antagonist in the poem, a role that arises from the uncertainty of his identity due to his opposition to God and his fall from the sky. In contrast, John Webster's The Duchess of Malfi presents a central character who fully embraces her role as an individual of power, even going so far as to defy contemporary perceptions of gender and class, all because of the absolute certainty she has in his identity. It is clear that in the early modern period, writers attempted to resolve tensions between role-playing and identity, resulting in both positive and negative depictions of the relationship between the two. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get the original essay The Satan of Paradise Lost is often interpreted as a romantic hero, his portrayal being compared to that of Prometheus, Odysseus or Achilles, Lucy Newlyn noting that "Satan is measured by the heroic standards embodied in classical epic, romance, and tragedy."[1] The depiction of Satan arises from Milton's manipulation of these "heroic standards" and the literary conventions used by writers such as Homer and Virgil to present their classical heroes. These conventions range from the poem opening in medias res with Satan to the one that makes the longest speeches, receives the most attention from the poet, and whose motivations and intentions are explored in greater detail than the poems. other characters in the poem. Furthermore, the imagery used to depict Satan presents him as both dynamic and accessible through a disturbing amount of humanity. After his opening speech in Book I, where he recounts the fall from heaven, Satan is described as an "apostate angel, though suffering, / boasting aloud, but torn with deep despair".[2] “Apostate Angel” is a somewhat contradictory, even paradoxical, title, but highlights the image of an angel who truly abandoned the forces that govern a Christian universe. “Boasting” is also contradicted by “in deep despair,” Satan thus manifesting a sense of denial of the utter hopelessness of his situation, choosing instead to remain determined to succeed in achieving autonomy from God. Satan is immediately presented as inherently contradictory, aware of his defeat but determined to deny it. The reader is therefore inclined to sympathize with Satan, seeing him as a defeated outsider. Satan's physical appearance further depicts him as a sympathetic hero, with Milton describing him as being: "above the rest", in proudly eminent form and gesture, stood like a tower. ; his form had not yet lost all its original luster, nor appeared less than a ruined archangel and the excess of glory obscured. (1.589 – 594)Satan is "proudly eminent" despite his defeat, suggesting that the devils and angels who fought and lost alongside him still regard him in high regard. Moreover, it is clear that he is a glorious figure, capable of captivating both the reader and his army of supporters. There is also a sense of hope for the reader who can sympathize with him, but is aware of his inherent wickedness, that he still retains some of the "original brilliance" that defined him as an angel ofGod, suggesting that there is hope that he can become good intentions again. Satan is both physically and mentally captivating, riddled with angst and denial, but visually presenting himself to the reader and his peers as proud and determined despite defeat. Milton's Satan thus rejects the traditional role with which he is associated as a totally evil and morally corrupt character, becoming instead a dynamic and sympathetic hero. Satan's uncertain and contradictory nature stands in stark contrast to the Duchess of Webster's Duchess of Malfi. The duchess inherits all of her husband's political influence after his death and thus becomes an exceptional woman within Renaissance Italy; a single woman with immeasurable power. She uses her newfound power to become fully empowered and independent, free to make her own decisions and chart her own path in life. “I make my will, as befits princes,” [3] the Duchess said moments before her proposal to Antonio, the subject of her affections and a man of significantly lower social class. The Duchess asserts a direct relationship between the role of leader and the ability, and power, to do what one wishes. She is capable of “making her will”, a statement that can be read on two levels. First, free from the influence of her husband, it is she who determines her aspirations and goals, and no one else. Second, by being a "prince", she is able to go further than just intellectually forming her own will, but she actually achieves her goals and gets what she wants in reality. In a way that almost creates a caricature of obnoxious male leaders, like her brothers Ferdinand and the Cardinal who do whatever they want without considering the consequences, the Duchess begins to define herself by her title and the power associated with it. For all intents and purposes, the Duchess fully embraces the role of a “prince,” openly aware of her ability to do whatever she wants. There is, however, a sense that the Duchess is playing the role of leader in a way that differs greatly. of that of the other characters in the play who are in a position of power, his brothers. Ferdinand and the Cardinal are presented as abusing their power, exploiting their roles as aristocrats to enable them to be as hateful, abusive, and odious as possible. Although both characters capitalize on the inherent sexism of the era, they abuse their privileged position in different ways. Ferdinand is shown as using his power to validate his personality and protect his fragile, but enormous, ego. “It seems to me that you who are courtiers should be my touchstone: take fire when I give fire, that is, laugh when I laugh, if the subject has never been so witty” (1.1 .124-126) is an example of how Ferdinand exploits his influence over those around him to create the illusion that he is a sympathetic and popular ruler. This, of course, has the opposite effect, with Ferdinand becoming both in the eyes of the other characters and the audience a completely unsympathetic individual who acts from petty, often incestuous and malicious motives and who lacks the humanity necessary for the public sympathizes with him. The cardinal further abuses the power associated with his role as religious leader to carry out political projects. The first description we have of the Cardinal comes from Antonio, who says: "Where he is jealous of a man, he prepares for him plots worse than those that were ever imposed on Hercules, spreading in his path flatterers, flatterers, intelligent people, atheists, and a thousand political monsters of this kind. (1.1.160-163) Ferdinand and the cardinal are both presented by Webster asvillains, their abuse of power linked to their leadership roles putting them in direct contrast with their sister. The Duchess herself exhibits both the exaggerated sense of power that is associated with the role of leader, but also the positive attributes that we, as an audience, see as necessarily present in the ideal leader. The Duchess is presented throughout the play as a pious, mild-mannered but unapologetic character, who fully accepts the consequences of her actions despite being aware of the unjust motivations behind those consequences. Even when facing her own death, she accepts her fate in a stoic and composed manner. His last words before his assassination show this calm attitude: “Pull and pull strongly, for your powerful force must make the sky fall on me […] Come, violent death, be for mandrake, to put me to sleep”. (4.2.237-232) The Duchess makes no allusion to feelings of hatred towards her brothers in her final moments, nor does she admit to regretting her actions. Instead, she simply asks for a quick and easy death, fully accepting her fate, with Kim Solga going so far as to say that the "duchess's attitude [expresses] the calm of a martyr".[4] The Duchess plays her role as leader so fully that she does not question her fate, she accepts the negative consequences that can come from a position of power. This “martyr’s calm” is however not the only aspect of the Duchess that represents her humility before her death, she also shows great appreciation to her devoted servant Cariola: “Farewell, Cariola. In my last will and testament, I don't have much to give. ;Many hungry guests fed on me. It will be a bad reversion.' (4.2.194-197) The Duchess expresses regret at not being able to repay Cariola for her service and, despite facing the immediacy of her own mortality, apologizes to her unpaid and equally doomed servant. The Duchess, in her last moments, shows that she plays the role of leader with compassion and humility. Compared to her brothers, the Duchess becomes the ruler the public would prefer; kind, humble and caring towards others. The way in which the Duchess fulfills her role stems from her very progressive identity, her character challenging traditional conceptions of gender and class. This identity that the Duchess is shaping for herself is undeniably stubborn and fearless. She secretly marries and has children with a lower-class man despite the fact that marriage alone, regardless of the suitor's social class, is considered unsavory for a widow, not to mention that her brothers have forbidden her from remarry. . The Duchess, boldly, makes no effort to conceal her humanity or the sexual desires that accompany it: “This is flesh and blood, sir; / 'This is not the figure carved in alabaster / Kneels before my husband's grave.' (1.1.454-456) The Duchess refuses to be defined solely as her husband's widow, instead asserting herself as a living woman, the sensual imagery and sexual tone of "flesh and blood" alluding to her a desire to decide independently about his sexuality and a disregard for his brother's selfish wishes. Furthermore, the Duchess demonstrates blatant disregard for the boundaries that social class creates between her and the center of her desire, Antonio: “Your beautiful roof is too low; higher. Stand up, Or, please, my hand to help you. (1.1.1417-420) The Duchess is aware of the difficulties that social class presents in her relationship with Antonio, that there is a metaphorical glass ceiling above her head under which she cannot symbolically "stand standing " ; he is too humble to stand next to her and sheis too big to stoop to his level. She realizes that for their relationship to be based on equality and mutual respect, she must raise her class through marriage. The Duchess therefore crosses two boundaries in her relationship with Antonio: the first that created by class differences and the second by defying the typical image of the grieving widow. Dympna Callaghan notes that through her marriage to Antonio, the Duchess "undermines differentiation at the level of gender and social class"[5]. The Duchess's identity is defined by the need to undermine the forces that claim to control her life, whether the widow's spinster image, the expectations of the upper class, or the wishes of her brothers. She is, fundamentally, a rebel opposed to that which attempts to control her, a rebellious nature that is projected onto her role as an autonomous but graceful ruler. Satan, like the Duchess, can also be interpreted as a rebel, although his motives are a little more uncertain. Satan's questioning of his role as a villain, his attempt to redefine himself as a romantic hero, is a direct result of his lack of certainty in himself and his own identity. Satan's identity, and how the reader perceives him as a character, is determined by his quest for separation and autonomy from God. It is Satan's belief that it is "better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven" (1.263) that defines him. This belief, which initially appears to the reader as an assertion made with absolute certainty and seriousness, is itself full of contradictions and doubts. Satan relies on the notion of free will as opposition to predestination, two concepts which translate into freedom and control. . In Book III, God the Father states that He has made Satan "sufficient to stand, though free to fall" (3.99), meaning that Satan made a conscious choice to rebel and therefore also fall from the sky. This projects the idea that those who reside in the universe are completely free to do whatever they wish. This idea, however, is contradicted by the ability of God the Father to foresee the future: “And now, despite all restraint, he flies Not far from heaven, within the enclosure of light, Directly towards the new created world, And man is placed there, in order to test whether he can destroy it by force, or worse, by false evil trickery. (1.86-92) This passage shows that God foresees the fall of man as a consequence of Satan's action, yet we can see in the conclusion of the poem that he does nothing to prevent such a fate for his new creation . God's ability to foresight alludes to the possibility of predestination, that events are designed to occur in a particular order with particular outcomes and that we, as subjects of the universe, have no therefore no other choice than to follow such a divine performance. This contradicts any notion or definition of free will, that any autonomy we believe we possess is only an allusion. Satan's wish to "rule in hell" is therefore a continuation of his service in upheaval, just at a greater distance from God. Satan's efforts to rebel, to push back against God's control and create his own independent identity are therefore all in vain. He is doomed to failure, the identity he wishes to possess is impossible and so the reader sympathizes with him and the role of the villain is once again called into question. Both the Duchess and Satan define themselves by their independence. Their two identities are determined by their ability to govern as well as their independence, for the Duchess in relation to her brother's sexual constraints and perceptions of femininity and for Satan in relation to the influence of God. For the, 2001),. 150