Early modern writers often featured characters struggling with an identity crisis in their texts. Furthermore, these characters were unable to reconcile their identity 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 stems from the uncertainty of his identity due to his opposition to God and his fall from heaven. Contrastingly, John Webster's The Duchess of Malfi features a central character who fully accepts her role as a powerful individual, even going so far as to challenge contemporary perceptions of gender and class in the process, 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe Satan of Paradise Lost is often interpreted as a romantic hero, his portrayal compared to that of Prometheus, Odysseus or Achilles, Lucy Newlyn notes that "Satan is measured by the heroic standards embodied in the epic, romance and in classical tragedy"[1]. The depiction of Satan stems 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 media res about Satan to Satan being given the longest speeches, being given the most attention by the poet, and having his motivations and intentions explored in greater detail than others characters in the poem. Furthermore, the images used to represent Satan present him as dynamic and recognizable by a worrying amount of humanity. After his opening speech in Book I, where he recounts his fall from heaven, Satan is described as an 'apostate, though suffering angel, / boasting loudly, but tormented by deep despair'[2]. 'Apostate Angel' is a contradictory, if not paradoxical, title, but it presents the image of an angel who has truly abandoned the forces that govern a Christian universe. "Boasting" is similarly contradicted by "tormented by profound despair", Satan thus displays a sense of denial of the utter hopelessness of his situation, opting instead to remain determined to succeed in achieving autonomy from God. Satan is immediately presented as intrinsically contradictory, aware of his defeat but adamant in denying it. The reader is therefore inclined to sympathize with Satan, seeing him as a sort of defeated loser. Satan's physical appearance further portrays him as a sympathetic hero, Milton describing him as: "above others In form and gesture proudly eminent He stood like a tower"; his form had not yet lost all its original splendor, nor did he appear less than a ruined archangel, and the excess of glory darkened." (1.589 – 594)Satan is 'proudly eminent' despite his defeat, suggesting that the devils and angels who fought and lost alongside him still view him with high esteem. Furthermore, it is clear that he is a glorious figure, capable of captivating both the reader and his army of followers. There is also a sense of hope for the reader who can sympathize with him, but is aware of his inherent evilness, which still retains some of the "original brightness" that defined himan angel of God, suggesting that there is hope in him. he might have good intentions again. Satan is captivating both physically and mentally, full of anguish and denial, but visually presents himself to the reader and his colleagues as proud and determined despite defeat. Milton's Satan is thus rejecting the traditional role with which he is associated as a totally evil and morally corrupt figure, becoming instead a dynamic and sympathetic hero. Satan's uncertain and contradictory nature is in stark contrast to Webster's Duchess of Malfi. The Duchess inherits all of her husband's political influence after his death and thus becomes an exceptional woman in Renaissance Italy; a single woman with immeasurable power. She uses her new power to become completely autonomous and independent, free to make her own decisions and carve her own path in life. 'I make my will, as princes should do' [3], says the Duchess a few moments before her marriage proposal to Antonio, the object of her affections and a man of considerably lower social class. The Duchess asserts a direct relationship between the role of sovereign and the ability, and power, to do what one wishes. She is able to "make will", a statement that can be read on two levels. First, free from her husband's influence, she, and not anyone else, determines her aspirations and goals. Secondly, being a "prince", he is able to go one step further than simply intellectually forming his own will, but actually achieves his goals and gets what he wants in reality. In a way that almost creates a caricature of hateful male rulers, like her brothers Ferdinand and the Cardinal, who do as they wish 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 fills the role of a "prince", openly aware of her ability to do as she wishes. There is a sense, however, that the Duchess performs the role of ruler in a very different way from that of the other characters in the play who occupy positions of power, her siblings. Both Ferdinand and the Cardinal are presented as abusing their power, using their role as aristocrats to allow them to be as detestable, offensive, and repugnant as possible. While both characters are shown exploiting the inherent sexism of the period, they abuse their privileged positions in different ways. Ferdinand is shown using his power to validate his personality and protect his fragile, yet enormous ego. “I think you courtiers should be my cure-all: catch fire when I set fire, that is, laugh when I laugh, if the subject were never so witty” (1.1.124-126) is an example of how Ferdinand exploits his influence on those around him to create the illusion that he is a nice and popular ruler. This, of course, has the opposite effect, Ferdinand becomes to both the other characters and the audience a thoroughly unsympathetic individual who acts out of petty, often incestuous and malicious motives and lacks the humanity necessary for the audience to sympathize with him. Furthermore, the cardinal abuses the power associated with his role as a 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 anyone, he plots against them worse than any that was ever imposed on Hercules, throwing in his path flatterers, pimps, informers, atheists, and a thousand of these political monsters." (1.1.160-163) Both Ferdinand and the Cardinal are presented by Webster as villains, their abuse of power connected to theirLeadership roles puts them in direct contrast to their sister. The Duchess herself displays 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, kind but at the same time unrepentant character, who fully accepts the consequences of her actions despite being aware of the unjust motives behind these consequences. Even when she faces her own death, she accepts her fate in a stoic and composed manner. His last words before his murder show this composed demeanor: "Pull, and pull with strength, for your capable strength must bring down the sky on me[...] Come, violent death, Serve for the mandrake, to make me sleep". (4.2.237-232)The Duchess makes no allusion to feelings of hatred towards her brothers in her final moments nor does she confess that she regrets her actions. Instead she simply asks for a quick and easy death, fully accepting her fate, Kim Solga even going so far as to say that the attitude "the Duchess [expresses] has towards the martyr's calm".[4] The Duchess carries out her role as sovereign so completely that she does not question her destiny, she accepts the negative consequences that can arise from a position of power. This 'martyr's calm', however, is not the only aspect of the Duchess that represents her humility before death, she also shows great appreciation towards her devoted servant Cariola: 'Goodbye, Cariola. In my last will and testament I have not much to give "Many hungry guests have fed on me. Yours will be a miserable regression." (4.2.194-197) The Duchess expresses her regret at not being able to repay Cariola for his service and, despite being faced with the immediacy of his mortality, offers her apologies to her unrewarded servant and similarly convicted. The Duchess, in her final moments, thus demonstrates that she carried out the role of sovereign with compassion and humility. Compared to her brothers, the Duchess becomes the ruler the public would prefer; kind, humble and thoughtful towards others. The way in which the Duchess fulfills her role stems from her highly progressive identity, her character being one that challenges traditional conceptions of gender and class. This identity that the Duchess carves out for herself is undeniably stubborn and fearless. She secretly marries and has children with a lower-class man, despite the fact that marrying alone, ignoring the suitor's class, is seen as distasteful for a widow, not to mention the fact that she has been forbidden to remarry by her parents. brothers. . The Duchess boldly makes no effort to disguise her humanity or the sexual desires that come with it: 'This is flesh and blood, sir; / “He is not the figure carved in alabaster / He 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 desire to decide independent of his sexuality and a disdain for his brother's selfish desires. Furthermore, the Duchess shows open contempt for the boundaries that class creates between her and the focus of her desire, Antonio: "This fair roof of yours is built too low; I cannot stand in it, nor speak, Without rising it is higher . Rise, or, if you will, my hand will help you.' (1.1.1417-420) The Duchess is aware of the difficulties that the class presents to her relationship with Antonio, that there is a metaphorical glass ceiling above hers. head under which she symbolically cannot "stand"; he is too humble to stand next to her and she is 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 one created by class differences and the second by challenging the typical image of the grieving widow. Dympna Callaghan notes that through her marriage to Anthony the Duchess is "undermining both gender and class differentiation"[5]. The duchess's identity is defined by the need to undermine the forces that seek to control her life, be they the celibate image of the widow, the expectations of the upper class, or the desires of her brothers. She is, in her essence, a rebel opposed to that which attempts to control her, a rebellious nature that is projected onto her role as an autonomous but kind ruler. Satan, like the Duchess, can also be interpreted as a rebel, although his motivations 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 identity. Satan's identity, and how the reader perceives him as a character, is determined by his search 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) which defines it. This belief, which initially appears to the reader as a statement made with absolute certainty and seriousness, is itself full of contradictions and doubts. Satan depends on the notion of free will as opposed to predestination, two concepts that translate to freedom and control. . In Book III, God the Father claims to have made Satan "sufficient to stand, though free to fall" (3.99), meaning that Satan made a conscious choice to rebel and thus also fall from heaven. This projects the idea that those residing in the universe are completely free to do as they wish. This idea, however, is contradicted by God the Father's ability to predict the future: "And now, releasing all restraint, fly towards the sky, not far from the sky, in the precincts of light, directly towards the new created world, and there he placed man, with the aim of testing whether he can destroy him by force, or worse, by some false cunning perversion (1.86-92) This passage shows that God foresees that man will fall as a consequence of the action of Satan, however we can see from the poem's conclusion that he does nothing to stop such a fate for his new creation. God's ability for foresight suggests the possibility of predestination, that events are designed to happen in a particular order with outcomes. particulars and therefore we, as subjects of the universe, have no choice but to follow such divine performance. This contradicts any notion or definition of free will, according to which all the autonomy we believe we possess is only an allusion. Satan's desire to "reign in hell" is, therefore, a continuation of his service in the elevator, just at a greater distance from God. Satan's efforts to rebel, to reject God's control and create his own identity independent 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 questioned. Both the Duchess and Satan define themselves through their independence. Both of their identities are determined by their ability to rule as well as their independence, for the Duchess by her brother's sexual constraints and perceptions of femininity, and for Satan by the influence of God. For the Duchess the ability to play the role of, 2001),. 150