The Last Duchess

Overview

First published in the collection Dramatic Lyrics in 1842, “My Last Duchess” is an excellent example of Browning’s use of dramatic monologue. Browning’s psychological portrait of a powerful Renaissance aristocrat is presented to the reader as if he or she were simply “eavesdropping” on a slice of casual conversation. As the poem unfolds, the reader learns the speaker of the poem, Duke Ferrara, is talking to a representative of his fiancee’s family. Standing in front of a portrait of the Duke’s last wife, now dead, the Duke talks about the woman’s failings and imperfections. The irony of the poem surfaces as the reader discovers that the young woman’s “faults” were qualities like compassion, modesty, humility, delight in simple pleasures, and courtesy to those who served her.

Using abundant detail, Browning leads the reader to conclude that the Duke found fault with his former wife because she did not reserve her attentions for him, his rank, and his power. More importantly, the Duke’s long list of complaints presents a thinly veiled threat about the behavior he will and will not tolerate in his new wife. The lines “I gave commands; / smiles stopped together” suggest that the Duke somehow, directly or indirectly, brought about the death of the last Duchess. In this dramatic monologue, Browning has not only depicted the inner workings of his speaker, but has in fact allowed the speaker to reveal his own failings and imperfections to the reader.

Women were asked to “be” (to assume an ideal, unchanging perfection) rather than to “do” (to act in the public sphere). For this reason, the Duke in “My Last Duchess” seeks to deny women that ability to act. The Duke wants his wife to “be” perfect but must, paradoxically, kill her in order to ensure that she “does” nothing to betray that perfect love.

--

This is probably Browning’s most famous dramatic monologue. It is often used as a prime example of the form. In this poem the speaker, the duke of Ferrara, is addressing a second character, an agent of an unnamed count whose daughter the duke plans to marry. The situation is taken from the life of an actual sixteenth-century Italian duke, but Browning has imagined the specific incident. The duke is showing the count’s agent a portrait of his first wife. She was a beautiful woman, but to the duke’s mind she had too little pride. He was frequently offended by her courtesy to others of lower rank, and he found her too easily pleased by a compliment or by a small favor from a servant or some other “unimportant” person. The duke felt that she should derive pleasure essentially only from him. She should glory in the high social rank into which she had married. The duke could not lower himself (“stoop”) to tell her what she did that annoyed him. Instead, he took action, or “gave commands.” The exact nature of the commands is not made explicit, but whatever they were, the duchess is gone, most likely dead. Now the duke is negotiating the terms of a new marriage agreement.

He tells the count’s agent about his displeasure with his first wife in order to make clear to the second woman what sort of conduct he will expect from her, but of course he does not stoop to stating his demands explicitly. As the poem ends, the two men turn away from the portrait and go downstairs to join the rest of the company at the duke’s palace. As they go, the duke casually points out one of his other works of art, a bronze statue of Neptune.

--

“вЂ?FrÐ" Pandolf’ by design” the Duke says, trying to impress his audience. Browning invented the name of the artist, and thus the Duke’s efforts to impress are foiled, since the name is unfamiliar. One explanation for Browning’s reasons behind the invented name could be to illustrate that the Duke had been duped. He may have hired the artist under the pretense he was well known. This is the first major hint towards Browning’s underlying themeвЂ"the Duke may appear to be of haute couture, but we are beginning to suspect we have been deceived.

--

Informal Q&A Student Response to the poem:

From a Formalist/New Critical perspective, some textual features merit more analysis than othersвЂ"titles, historical references, examples of irony, among them. The first question I ask, then, is whether the last duchess refers to the final duchess or the most recent in a series. I also question whether “My” is a colloquialism as common as “my wife” or if it suggests a possessive quality that exceeds common usage; that is, I question whether the Duke’s use of the term, “My,” represents ownership.

The Duke tells the story; consequently, we have only his point of view. But I question how the Duke is situated in society because it tells me much more than the poem does about the meaning of his words and actions. The Duke is more than a simple hierarchical figure. He’s the absolute ruler of a kingdomвЂ"he is the law, he is above the law. The story line is relatively simple: The duke kills or has killed his wife. Before he does so, he has her portrait paintedвЂ"that way, figuratively, he still controls her. He is not concerned with creating great art, and seems to have little taste in that regard. Instead, he hires, Fra Pandolf, a monk, probably from a monastery that the Duke supports financially. Fra (Friar) Pandolf is given a single day or single sitting in which to “capture” the duchessвЂ"not exactly enough allowance of time to place a value on his workвЂ"or on art, but adequate to please the Duke. Also, being a priest, the Duke trusts him to be alone with the duchess. He isn’t likely to trust other men. At present, the Duke is negotiating the acquisition of his next duchess with a representative of a count. The Duke controls the conversation. The emissary cannot even lift up from his seat and exit until the Duke rises, and he cannot turn his back, but rather backs out.

Further illustrating the Duke’s position are a few of his statements. His marriage