WOMEN AND PATRIARCHY SERIES

THE DUCHESS OF MALFI: Costume Dramaturgy

By Debbi Hobson
PTE Resident Costume Designer

THE DUCHESS OF MALFI is based on the true story of Giovanna d’Aragona, the Duchess of Malfi, who in the very beginning of the 1500’s found her life taken out of her own control and placed into the power of her brothers.  Although, truly, Giovanna’s life was never actually her own.  At age 12, she was married to a 22 year old who would then become the Duke of Amalfi.  He died 8 years later, and 5 months after his death she gave birth to their son.  With the death of her husband, Giovanna would have ruled for her son until he came of age. However, she was not allowed to handle the money, her steward did.  Antonio Beccadelli.  And here’s where the Webster jumps in with his play.

Giovanna falls in love with Antonio and they secretly marry, and then Giovanna becomes pregnant.  This makes the entire situation more hazardous, although the fashion of the time favored a high waisted gown and very full skirts and sleeves which could easily hide a pregnant belly, so our Duchess almost gets away with the birth of her second son.  It is only an ill fated interaction that gives away the truth of her “illness”.

This painting by Raphael shows the fullness of the skirts, cartridge pleated into the bodice which hits just below the bust.  As well as very full sleeves that are slashed and ornamented to draw the eye away from the waist line.

At this time women were not changing their body’s shape with corsets or cinchers, all that was worn as undergarments was a long chemise, or camicia.  This natural silhouette being in fashion  also aided our Duchess in hiding her pregnancy beneath voluminous fabrics, as her waist line was cleverly hidden.

But despite her secrecy, the birth of her son is discovered and plans to escape are set in motion.  Our Duchess tell Antonio that she will send him her jewels and valuable in secret.  This need for secrecy is two fold because they need a clever ruse to get Antonio out, but also because her jewels, and even her clothes, did not truly belong to her.  Technically they belong to her young son, but her brothers could confiscate them as they are the next male heirs after her child. As is so often has been the case in many societies, women did not own even the clothes on their backs.

As far as those clothes on her back goes, when our Duchess and her maid are thrown into prison by her brother Ferdinand, it is not technically a prison as we know it to be, those didn’t exist.  It would have been the dungeon or a tall turret in the castle where those taken prisoner could be kept securely.  There was also no given method on how one treated ones prisoners.  It pretty much depended the person imprisoning them, especially their mood and reasoning for imprisoning someone, not to mention, outcome they wanted (i.e. are you holding someone for ransom?  Versus holding a family member who had gone insane. etc).

Ferdinand’s reasons for holding our Duchess were nefarious, he meant to torture her and he did not mean for her to ever leave.  Part of this torture could have been the removal of her gown, thus stripping away her status and adding a level of humility to her torturers at having to be seen in her camica by people who were lower than her in status.  This is up for interpretation, Webster doesn’t tell us, however any good Jacobean tragedy will drive home the point of a hero or heroine’s total loss. So having our Duchess simply in her camicia while Ferdinand unleashed torments on her feels appropriate.

Having our Duchess tortured and strangled while wearing something so fragile and delicate would also convey to the audience just how very unhinged her brother was when it came to his sister. It adds an additional layer of empathy towards our Duchess, who is severely punished for marrying for love, and even until the end fights for her identity and life against the patriarchy, her own brothers.

As far as those clothes on her back goes, when our Duchess and her maid are thrown into prison by her brother Ferdinand, it is not technically a prison as we know it to be, those didn’t exist.  It would have been the dungeon or a tall turret in the castle where those taken prisoner could be kept securely.  There was also no given method on how one treated ones prisoners.  It pretty much depended the person imprisoning them, especially their mood and reasoning for imprisoning someone, not to mention, outcome they wanted (i.e. are you holding someone for ransom?  Versus holding a family member who had gone insane. etc).

Ferdinand’s reasons for holding our Duchess were nefarious, he meant to torture her and he did not mean for her to ever leave.  Part of this torture could have been the removal of her gown, thus stripping away her status and adding a level of humility to her torturers at having to be seen in her camica by people who were lower than her in status.  This is up for interpretation, Webster doesn’t tell us, however any good Jacobean tragedy will drive home the point of a hero or heroine’s total loss. So having our Duchess simply in her camicia while Ferdinand unleashed torments on her feels appropriate.

Having our Duchess tortured and strangled while wearing something so fragile and delicate would also convey to the audience just how very unhinged her brother was when it came to his sister. It adds an additional layer of empathy towards our Duchess, who is severely punished for marrying for love, and even until the end fights for her identity and life against the patriarchy, her own brothers.