My Last Duchess

Robert Browning's "My Last Duchess" is a dramatic monologue, spoken by the Duke of Ferrara who explains to a suitor's ambassador why he had ordered his previous wife to be executed.

The Duke reveals himself to be an irrationally jealous man who could not bear to have his wife even smiling at any other man. Eventually his jealousies got the better of him and he gave orders, and his wife was executed. But, with her death, came the death of happiness all about him.

I am most happy to be allowed this brief space in which to make reply to my husband's deplorable insinuations about my character. I must confess how sad I am to know that my husband's lies have not only been believed but even (dare I say it?) embroidered upon.

One of you wrote that my husband loved me so much that "there'll never be any more a duchess".

Another wrote that I was "promiscuous", that I probably had "an affair" with Fra Pandolf and was possibly even committing adultery. Because I thanked men, she wrote, it implies that I was possibly having "sexual ways" with these men! That I had betrayed His Ducal Serene Highness.

My dears, I weep when I realise how maligned I have been. But I know you did not intend to do so. You too have been taken in by the evil insinuations of my husband. He has a way with words, does he not? He is very convincing. If not, how else could he have persuaded my father to give me to him in marriage?

And I, like you, was very young then. In fact, I was only fifteen when our marriage took place whereas my husband was already in his fifties and in the late flourish of his ducal power. And so, like you, I was very naive and believed everything that people said.

Let me tell you a couple of things about myself.

Yes, I was very young when I married. So were we all. No man of power would want an adult woman as his consort, a woman who already had a mind of her own. The man wanted a child as his wife, one whose body was still young and guaranteed to be untouched, but also whose mind he would be able to mould his way.

And our dress! You should have seen it. Very ornate, with long sleeves, lace overlapping the hands so that not even the wrists could be seen. Our collars were high, hiding our neck. And a skirt that stretched to the floor. Not even our ankles were to be seen.

In other words, my dears, no part of our body could be seen other than our hands and our face. To reveal more was regarded as indelicate, immodest.

Not even our husbands saw more! We dressed and undressed in separate rooms. I was accompanied only by my chambermaids when I bathed once a week.

And when my husband had a sexual desire, he would come to my bedroom where he would climb under the blankets in the dark and have his pleasure with me without ever undressing me.

This was all for the sake of modesty, you see. Nobody, not even my husband, would see my breasts. And so, when His Ducal Serene Highness wrote of "his favour at my breast", he did not literally mean that he touched my breast or made love to me. No, no! He referred to his little courtesies generally, his little gifts to me which he thought I should appreciate.

Now about Brother Pandolf. He was a monk, you know, and lived in the monastery in the town, the one which had the favour of my husband. Brother Pandolf was the most amazing painter. His fame had spread far and wide. And so, when my husband wanted a portrait painted of me, who better to do it but this monk.

Brother Pandolf would come into our palace several days a week and I would sit for him. We were never alone though. Sometimes my husband was there, and mostly my ladies-in-waiting were there too. So it is impossible for me to have had an affair with Brother Pandolf, and I certainly did not have the opportunity to commit adultery.

But Brother Pandolf was naughty. I remember that one day he remarked to me that there was just a touch too much lace hiding my wrist, and on another that my throat was too beautiful for him to capture its exquisiteness in paint.

I blushed, of course. I knew he could not see my wrists or my throat -- but for one moment there was that little doubt in my mind. And so I blushed.

And that, of course, was the whole point. My face normally was very white -- lily white. I seldom saw the sun. A white face is not a beautiful face -- and so he caused me to blush!

But, of course, one day my husband was in the room when my portrait was being painted, and he saw me blush. And he was angry with me. I should not have blushed except for my husband. I should not have smiled for anyone, except for His Ducal Serene Highness.

He was so possessive, so insanely jealous.

I was not allowed to smile, you know, even when I was in the garden and some servant kindly picked fruit for me. What was I supposed to do? Of course I smiled. (Wouldn't you?) And I thanked him. (Wouldn't you?)

Yet my husband's insane jealousy overcame him. But I could not stop smiling. I know it's a husband's right to hit his wife, just as it is a father's right to beat his child. His Ducal Serene Highness told me that often enough. Nevertheless I was not prepared to allow him to break my spirit -- and I sometimes spoke back.

He had a statue of Neptune taming a sea-horse. (Of course, you know that! He mentions it in his poem!) But he saw me as that sea-horse, as some carefree spirit which he was determined to tame, to destroy.

Isn't that strange? It was my carefree spirit, my childlike humour, my teenage laughter which he loved so much before we were married, which drove him to ask my father for my hand in marriage. But as soon as we were married, he was determined to beat that carefree spirit out of me. Are men still like that?

Did he love me? No, not at all. Men who love their wives do not get insanely jealous like that! They do not treat their spouses like that. No, my husband loved just three things: money, power and, of course, himself.

I'll let you into a little secret. Don't mention this to anyone though -- especially your teachers -- because they will never believe you. Have you noticed one thing that is missing from the poem that His Ducal Serene Highness wrote? Children! Where is the mention of children?

The truth is, my dears, that there were no children. But do you want to know something? Like everything else, it wasn't my fault at all. I wanted to have children. It was his fault. He wasn't able. And now he was too old!

Of course, he blamed me for that as well. And so he planned to end the marriage.

There were several ways in which he could have done so. The most obvious was to have the marriage annulled and have me packed off to a convent. He could claim that I was still a virgin, that I would never allow him near me, that I had never allowed him to deflower me. That would have been sufficient reason to convince the Church.

Everyone would have believed him. They always did. But the rumours! And the smiles! And if he took a new wife and she too was childless?

And I'll let you into another secret. His Ducal Serene Highness calls his piece "My Last Duchess". Why not "My First Duchess"? Because I was not his first. I was his last. And again I ask you, where are the children -- even from his first?

And so the smiles. And the laughter. He had to stop it.

Read the left column and then answer
the following questions:


The poem is called a DRAMATIC MONOLOGUE.

• What is a dramatic monologue? (4)

[Need help?]

The entire poem is spoken by a single person, by the Duke -- it is therefore a monologue. Yet it is not a poem of his feelings as such but rather a narrative of his actions. It is therefore a drama, a story, that unfolds in the space of 57 lines. It is therefore a dramatic monologue.

• In what way can "My Last Duchess" be called a good example of a dramatic monologue? (3)

[Need help?]

We are introduced to the Duke, are told of his persona, are introduced to his lovely wife and told why he was so insanely jealous of her and had her put aside (possibly killed). The monologue reveals the psychology of the speaker, his lust for power, his lust for money, his lust for control. It is indeed a drama, and it is also a monologue.

• Is there any other dramatic monologue that you can think of? (2)

[Need help?]

Another famous dramatic monologue is "Ulysses" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Can you think of any more?

---

The poem is called "My Last Duchess".

• Would it have made much of a difference had the poem been called "My Late Duchess"? (4)

[Need help?]

Well, yes it would, wouldn't it? The word "last" in this sense means "previous" -- she was his previous or former Duchess. The word "late", on the other hand, implies that the Duke's previous wife was dead. Was she dead? The poem doesn't actually say so, although many believe it hints strongly to the fact that the Duke had had her executed.

---

I gave commands;
Then all smiles stopped together.

• What is the Duke telling the envoy about the fate of his former wife? (4)

[Need help?]

Most people presume that the Duke had had his former wife executed. If this is so, he is pretty open about the fact, isn't he? One can then ask, is it possible that the Count would consent to marry his daughter to a known killer? It is quite possible that the Count would still have offered his daughter to the Duke in marriage -- with the advice that she must never smile. It was the time, after all, of arranged marriages -- and these marriages were usually entered into purely for political or financial reasons. The Count had money, the Duke needed money. The Duke had power, the Count wanted to share in that power. The daughter was merely a pawn in the plans of men. On the other hand, it is also possible that the Duke did not kill his wife. There were other options available to him: divorce -- although that would have brought him into conflict with the Church -- or to have had his marriage to the Duchess annulled. Or she could have been bundled her off to a convent where she would remain forever silent.

• Had the Duchess done anything to displease her husband, the Duke? (4)

[Need help?]

In the Duke's eyes, she had committed a series of serious sins. She had shown emotions. She had smiled at people. She had thanked men for doing her favours, like picking a sprig of cherries for her. She had blushed when Fra Pandolf praised her beauty. But no, she was perfectly innocent. "She was a victim to a tyrannical male who believed he owned her." She was allowed to have no life outside of her husband's wishes. He was abusive -- even to the point of annulling the marriage because she had displeased him or of having her executed for the sin of smiling!

---

The narrator -- the Duke of Ferrara -- is an arrogant, hateful, boorish and thoroughly objectionable person. And yet the poem somehow succeeds in getting the reader to identify with him, even to the extent of accepting his decision to put his wife aside or even executing her.

• How does the poet achieve this? (6)

[Need help?]

The fact is that the poet allows only the Duke to speak. We are presented only with the Duke's point of view. When the Duchess blushes for Fra Pandolf, the Duke forces us to believe that perhaps she went further and offered Fra Pandolf sexual favours. He hints at it but, believe me, if she had indeed offered sexual favours, the Duke would have said so quite openly -- and probably have had both the Duchess and Fra Pandolf publicly executed! The fact that the Duke only hints at it means that she had actually done nothing wrong. In any case, Fra Pandolf was a monk with a vow of chastity -- and one whom the Duke admired greatly. But everything is stated from the Duke's point of view. The reader is allowed no opinion other than his. Notice that even the Envoy, when he wishes to stay a little longer to look at the portrait, is ushered away immediately. He too is allowed no room for thought.

---

She thanked men, -- good! but thanked
Somehow -- I know not how -- as if she ranked
My gift of a nine-hundred-years-old name
With anybody's gift.

• Why was the "nine-hundred-years old name" so important to the Duke? (4)

[Need help?]

The Duke of Ferrara was a Renaissance prince. The Renaissance began in Italy which was, of course, the centre of the old Roman Empire -- and everywhere one looked, one saw the ruins of the old Roman Empire. The Dukes and Princes longed for the return to their old glory. Many of them believed that the Renaissance was indeed a return to this old glory. With such an idea, it is natural that a Duke who had a "nine-hundred-years old name" had a title which could be traced to the old Roman aristocracy. His name therefore was everything. His name was worth marrying for -- or dying for, if the wife didn't quite realise its significance!

---

The Duke cast his wife aside or even executed her for some very trivial reasons.

• What are these trivial reasons? (6)

[Need help?]

First, she blushed at the painter's compliments. Browning was an early Victorian poet and there was a very strict code of morality in existence then. Not only was any form of sexual contact outside of marriage forbidden but clothing had to conform to severe norms. A woman's dress was always high collared to hide the throat. Sleeves covered the wrists. The skirt reached to the floor. No part of the woman's body could be seen apart from her face and hands. The painter commented that it was such a pity he could not see just a touch of her throat, or perhaps her wrists. The comment made the Duchess blush. It was wrong to have blushed, said the Duke. She also thanked men for doing things for her, like picking a sprig of cherries. And she smiled. The Duke believed she should have smiled. She should have smiled only at him.

• Do you think that the Count, who appears to be negotiating to have his daughter marry the Duke, will actually want to have his daughter marry such a tyrant? (4)

[Need help?]

Maybe. Maybe not. Marriages in those days were arranged affairs -- organised either for power or money. The Duke had power but he needed money. The Count had money but he wanted power. True, the Count would not want to see his daughter killed but that need not happen if she were well instructed. His daughter would be warned not to smile at anyone. On the other hand, it is by no means certain whether it was not the Count who was actually offering his daughter. Perhaps his need for power was greater than his love for his own daughter?

---

Notice Neptune, though,
Taming a sea-horse, thought a rarity,
Which Claus of Innsbruck cast in bronze for me!

• What is the significance of the Duke's drawing attention to Neptune taming the sea- horse? (4)

[Need help?]

The sea-horse is a symbol of beauty and carefreeness, isn't it? There is nothing more carefree than the sea-horse. And yet the Duke had a statue of Neptune taming one, of Neptune breaking the will of this delicate creature. The Duke's previous wife was such a sea-horse. She was carefree. She liked to laugh. She liked to treat people with respect. The Duke, on the other hand, hated it. He tried to stop it -- and in doing so destroyed her. The statue is therefore a symbol of the Duke. He will tame the sea-horse. He will not allow its spirit to go unbridled. And the hint is very strong that he will destroy the new duchess too if she resists him.

---

Try another worksheet? See also: Knowledge4Africa.com English4Africa homepage