Critics have long been puzzled by the inner contradictions of major characters in John Webster’s tragedies. In his The Duchess of Malfi, for instance, the Duchess is “good” in demonstrating the obvious tenderness and sincerity of her love for Antonio, but “bad” in ignoring the wishes and welfare of her family and this element of inconsistency as though it were an eccentric feature of Webster’s own tragic vision.
The problem is that, as an Elizabethan playwright, Webster has become a prisoner of our critical presuppositions. We have, in recent years, been dazzled by the way the earlier Renaissance and medieval theater, particularly the morality play, illuminates Elizabethan drama. We now understand how the habit of mind that saw the world the conflict is irreconcilable, and because it is ours as much as that of the characters.
What this question is testing
Anticipate
This question asks what would strengthen modern critics' interpretations of Webster. The author's argument is that critics misread Webster because they apply a morality-play framework that fits other Elizabethan playwrights but not Webster. If you flip that — if Webster had been shaped by the morality play — the critics' framework would actually fit, and their interpretations would be more valid.
Goal
Looking for an answer that makes Webster fit the morality-play framework. Be wary of:
Answers that restate the author's own view (duality of human nature) — those would actually weaken the critics, not strengthen them
Answers about Aristotle or audiences — these don't fix the framework gap
Answers about other Elizabethan dramatists — the issue is Webster specifically
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.