Critical Analysis of Robert Browning's My Last Duchess

Robert Browning’s poem My Last Duchess, [1] as noted by S. S. Curry, gives an ‘insight into human beings’. It can be argued that Browning’s poem is concerned with exposing the male gaze and types of patriarchal control and perhaps the errors of these behaviors. Patriarchal control and the superior position of men over the women in the poem are clearly displayed by the presentation of male characters, the lack of primary dialogue from female characters, and the form of the poem itself, including the historical context in which the poem was set. By exposing Browning’s poem as an ‘insight into human beings’, it is easy to see My Last Duchess as an insightful look at male patriarchy and domination.

One way in which My Last Duchess can be seen as a demonstration of patriarchal control is through the experimentation with the genre of ekphrasis, which reveals the underlying violence behind the painting being discussed. By making the poem an ekphrasis, Browning shows how the Duke still craves control over his wife even in death. This is seen most prevalently at the beginning of the poem when the Duke states that ‘none puts by/ The curtain I have drawn for you, but I.’ Through this, it is easy to see the pride the Duke feels towards the control he holds over his late wife. The repetition of the pronoun ‘I’ shows how the Duke wants the listener to know that he is in power and in control. However, in some ways, these lines can be seen as a threat; by pointedly saying ‘none,’ the Duke reveals that only he has the power to open the curtain. This is further reiterated later in the poem when the Duke explains that some ask to see the painting ‘if they durst.’ This clear threat further emphasises the Duke’s power and control not just over his late wife’s image but also over his guests and acquaintances in seeing her. In the genre of ekphrasis, it is typical to see—especially when applied to Browning’s writing—the male speaker of the poem display a desire to silence the feminine image he is threatened by, in this case, the painting of his last Duchess. Also, by keeping the poem within the perimeter of the ekphrasis genre, Browning is able to present the Duke as ‘eloquently … silencing … female lyricism,’ a further way in which the Duke dominates his late wife.

Browning is careful to limit the reader’s contact with female characters. Throughout the poem, two female characters are mentioned. However, they are only referenced through their beauty and are seen as objects to own. For example, when introduced to the Duchess, the Duke describes her ‘looking as if she were alive’ and then describes his potential new wife as the Count’s ‘fair daughter’. When first mentioning the Duchess, the Duke refers to her as My Last Duchess. The possessiveness felt by the Duke is clearly presented through his use of the possessive pronoun ‘my’. This is similarly seen when he mentions the Count’s daughter; he refers to her as ‘his fair daughter’, the emphasis on this line being ‘his’. Each woman (to the Duke at least) is measured by their physical appearance, and how how they can benefit him, this is most evident when the Duke makes his knowledge of ‘The Count your master’s known munificence’ clear, meaning that the Duke is expecting a large dowry for the girl if they are to marry, as the Count is known for his generosity. It can be argued that Browning sympathises with the Duchess and does this by withdrawing from direct dialogue. One way in which this is shown is through the way that the Duke engages with the painting. At first, the Duke addresses the painting in terms of the Duchess’ sex; he uses nouns such as ‘her’ and ‘she’ however, and he quickly starts referring to the painting as ‘that piece’ and describes the duchess in terms of ‘its earnest glance’. By removing the femininity of the painting and, by extension, the Duchess, the Duke dehumanises the Duchess and breaks down her character as an object to be owned. This change from treating the Duchess as a woman to an object reflects the Duke’s need to control her; as a possession, the Duchess is easier to control as only he controls who sees her and, in some ways, who she sees.

In contrast to the women presented in the poem, all of the male characters are presented with power of some sort. For example, the character of the Duke was based on Alfonso II d’Este, the Duke of Ferrera; there was a lot of speculation around whether or not the Duke’s wife of the time, Lucrezia di Cosimo Medici, died of tuberculosis or whether the Duke had his young wife poisoned. This is reflected in the poem as the Duke states that he ‘gave commands;/ Then all smiles stopped together’ This line is important as the use of enjambment at the end of line 45, and the caesura used in line 46 disrupts the pace of the poem and force the reader to pause a little longer after this revelation. This pause causes the reader to consider the Duke’s words longer and have the realisation that the Duke is admitting to having his wife killed. In addition to this, the use of rhyming couplets and iambic pentameter is important as it displays the importance of the Duke’s monologue as it shows the Duke’s control and reflects his status.

Another male character in the poem that seems to hold power is the statue of Neptune. The Duke describes Neptune as ‘Taming a sea horse’, the imagery of domination and power created by this description is reflected in the poem as a whole poem. It can be inferred that the Duke sees himself as Neptune, training and taming his wife. However, when failing, had her dealt with her in the same way he would an uncontrollable pet - by having her “put down”. Also the last line of the poem also emphasises the theme of power and control as the Duke calls attention to the fact that the statue was ‘cast in bronze for me!’ This is significant as the last word of the poem is ‘me’, reflecting the Duke’s self-important attitude and the wealth he possesses (as bronze was and still is an expensive metal to work with). As mentioned previously, the Count is also presented as having control and power, as he is presented in a similar way to the Duke. The Count’s wealth is emphasised, as well as his ownership over his daughter. The Duke will surely mention the Count’s ‘known munificence’ (as stated previously) in terms of the dowry that will be given to the Duke as a wedding gift. Through this, it is clear that the Duke is elevating the Count due to the monetary gain he will receive from him, therefore giving him over to the Duke as he is depending on him for income. The superior presentation of the male characters in the poem further illustrates the inferior status given to the women in the poem, exposing the patriarchal view of women shown by the Duke.

Another way in which the poem can be seen as an insight into patriarchal power and control is through the presentation of the Duke himself. The Duke is presented as a deeply patriarchal character and constantly establishes his importance over the Duchess; one way that he does this is through his arrogance while discussing ‘My gift of nine-hundred-years-old name’ and his many pieces of art, including a statue ‘Which Claus of Innsbruck cast in bronze for me!’ The inclusion of pronouns such as ‘my’ and ‘me’ show the Duke’s attitude towards his own self-importance, which he instils in his material possessions. This is one of the major contrasts between the Duke and the Duchess; where the Duke puts value in the material worth of the objects he collects, his Duchess values all gifts equally, no matter their material worth. This is seen when the Duke states that his Duchess was ‘too easily impressed; she liked whate’er’ and how

‘-all and each

Would draw from her alike approving speech,

Or blush at least’

To a contemporary audience, the way the Duchess is presented can be seen as a positive of her character. Her gratefulness for even the smallest things is admirable; however, when applied to the poem's historical context, her actions can be seen as flirtatious and, in some ways, accepting the courting of other men. However, it is easy to see the jealousy the Duke feels in previous lines as he accuses her of being ‘-too soon made glad’ and ‘too easily impressed’. The repetition of ‘too’ illustrates the Duke’s obsessive and jealous nature. The Duke’s jealousy over his wife’s ‘approving speech’ is clear through the irregularity of his speech compared to previous lines, seen through the use of caesuras, and the increased punctuation within the lines shows the Duke’s emotional response. The increase in punctuation and caesuras can be seen as the Duke losing control over himself due to the jealousy and anger he feels towards the men he talks about. In this way, it is clear that in the Duke’s eyes, his last Duchess’ failure was refusing or not knowing to place him at the top of the social hierarchy of their society.

In conclusion, it is clear that Robert Browning’s poem My Last Duchess can be interpreted as exposing the patriarchal views of women in the 15th century. This is clearly seen through Browning’s dramatic monologue and ekphrastic structure of the poem; these structures (ekphrasis) remove the woman's voice and (dramatic monologue) give the male speaker control, reflecting patriarchal views of the time. This is also seen through the engagement the Duke has with the Duchess’ painting and how he refers to her using possessive pronouns and dehumanising her to ‘it’.  In addition, literary techniques such as enjambment and caesuras reflect the Duke’s control and, in some places, lack of control of others and himself. Through the reasons listed above, it is clear that My Last Duchess can be seen as an ‘insight into human beings’ but, more specifically, a piercing insight into 15th-century patriarchy.

Sources:

[1] Samuel Silas Curry, Browning And The Dramatic Monologue (1908) https://archive.org/details/browningdramatic00curr/page/10

[2] Robert Browning: “My Last Duchess” https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/144033/robert-browning-my-last-duchess

Accessed 9th November 2018.

[3] Linda M. Shires, "Maud", Masculinity and Poetic Identity. Criticism, Vol. 29, No. 3 (summer, 1987) 269-290. Detroit: Wayne State University Press

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23110409.pdf