Bosola was a sleazy murdering scumbag at the start of the play, and a sleazy murdering scumbag at the end of the play. All the other so called changes to his character are no more weighty than the disguise he drops in Act IV after the line "Off, my painted honor".

Sure, the things he says are a little different. But we're dealing with a post-Hamlet play, even if it is by Webster, and we can't take at face value any comment by this obviously biased and potentially deranged character/narrator.

Perhaps he really did change -- perhaps he was trying to protect Antonio for the sake of being good, and perhaps he was trying to protect Antonio in the hopes of preferment after the Cardinal is gone. We only have Bosola's worthless word to aid us in telling the difference.

Bosola as the Protagonist?

At first I thought I could make a case for the Duchess having changed throughout the play, but I don’t think I can. So, I agree with what’s been said so far about Bosola being the only character that changed during the play. I’m not sure if this makes him the protagonist, however. None of the play is actually focused on Bosola. Everything he says and does is in response to the Duchess and her brothers. They seem to me to drive the story more than Bosola. He’s merely the character that connects all of the events together. I think Webster’s mention of a play was purposely put there to remind the audience that none of this was real. Since the Duchess died, the world of the play has kind of gone downhill and that’s not particularly fun. I believe Webster wanted the audience to gain some distance from the play and not leave the theatre depressed. He thought reminding them that this was only a play was a way to do that.

Dynamic Throughout

I definitely agree with what has been said. I would also like to emphasize that Bosola changed dramatically throughout the play. He always had conflicting ideas over what he should do even though he always seemed to kill someone. In a way, it was his job to kill these people, but he broke the number one rule of being hit-man and had feelings. However, I disagree that he died with a clean conscious. I feel like his statement of Antonio dying in a mist was just a way to make him feel a little bit better about the murder, but that he truly believed it was his fault.

In the end, it was too late

I agree that Bosola is the only character that changes throughout the play. Everyone else's character and persona stay the same while Bosola evolves into a different person. Who would have expected a hit man to have a change of heart? In a way, Bosola has made a transition similar to a villain turned hero. He seemed to have expressed that he knew he must die and pay the consequences, and he seemed to have accepted that. Yes, he still murdered people, but in his own way, he attempted to make up for it by getting rid of the Cardinal and Ferdinand.

Bosolas dying speech

Bosola's ending speech gives more evidence to the idea that Bosola is the protagonist in the play. Bosola seems to believe that humans are helpless to their fates (similar idea to that humans are like bubbles-Antonio). When making the decision of being a loyal servant or a honest person, Bosola chooses to become a better person and fight back in regards to what had happened to the Duchess. Therefore, he dies with a unburdened conscious and welcomes his death because he died for being a good person . He didn't hesitate to act on what he believed was just, and therefore his change in morals makes his death sort of peaceful. While the Duchess's character stayed pretty constant throughout the play, Bosola made the most drastic changes and had the most conflict with his character.
It's also interesting that the characters continue to mention how they know they are in a play. Also, once again (similar to Ferdinand and the Duchess) Bosola does not seem to blame himself at all for the death of Antonio and quickly comes to other conclusions. He came to his death in a mist, not by Bosola's own hands.

It's not what you say but what you do...

It seems like Ferdinand is acting like a 10 year old boy in this passage! Imagine two boys getting bored and then one of them has an idea...like setting a neighbor's yard on fire...and then dares the other boy to do it; and then when the other boy actually does it, he gets mad and says, "why'd you listen to me?! you're an idiot!" He just won't accept the fact that the only reason why the Duchess is dead is because of him, not Bosola. He killed her long before Bosola strangled her; when the Duchess saw the "bodies" of her husband and children, that was the moment she died--there was no reason for her to continue living, her spirit was dead. I think that without having someone else to put the blame on, Ferdinand would go mad with guilt. Ferdinand confesses to the fact that it was "an infinite mass of treasure by her death" that inspired him to have her killed, but he also says, "And that was the main cause--her marriage, That drew a stream of gall quite through my heart." Perhaps it was the fact that his sister was sleeping with/married to another man that spurned an uncontrollable, jealous rage in him that ultimately led to her death.

Like the others below me have said, this passage is definitely another instance where the characters seem to be conscious of the fact that they are in a play. And I agree that when Ferdinand says "...a good actor many times is cursed for playing a villain's part," this line can be applicable to Ferdinand himself, and not just Bosola. Ferdinand may see himself as a "good" man/actor who is only acting as the villain. But we all know, it's not what you say but what you do that defines who you are. Ferdinand may not have strangled the Duchess, but he definitely killed her.

Dont Hold Your Breath Yet

I have to completely agree with Kara's point of view on this passage. However, I would also like to point out that although Ferdinand is cognisant of the situation, I don't believe we as the audience should be convinced that he is a changed person. This entire soliloquy of his gives even more precedent to the fact that his logic is completely corrupt. Ferdinand does not really acknowledge that Bosola did this act for him, and instead tells him that he will "pardon" him for this act. So, the point here is that Ferdinand is still capable of rendering crazy and illogical schemes to help himself. Bosola responds to Ferdinand by basically asking him "hah?" Bosola clearly does not understand what just happened and for good reason...because neither do we.

Don't you just love it when they wink at the camera?

I think that Ferdinand's lines here speak (as discussed below) simply another chance for Webster to point out to his audience that they are watching a play. I think that this one is especially important, since the actor here is basically telling the audience to not blame him for all of the terrible things that he's had to do in service of this play. I think that the larger point is the fact that he's really pulling out that Shakespeare line (was it As You Like It?) about the whole world being a stage... while there's obviously wordplay going on in a meta-theatrical sense, on the diagetic level the line still manages to resonate. Ferdinand has done these terrible things, he's hired Bosola, and now he speaks of the things that drove him to assume the character of the villian. He's making excuses for all of this terrible deeds in a very roundabout way, by accusing Bosola directly. I think that he's slyly referring to himself, in the sense of being "a good actor many times cursed."

Manipulation Perhaps?

I am not sure that Ferdinand is necessarily struck with morality all of a sudden. True, he finally recognizes the fact that he wanted his sister's wealth and the thought of her marrying (which would mean that he would lose all privilege) was what made him go insane, but that does not mean that he is repenting. Judging by his character throughout the play so far, it seems to me that, more than anything, he is using Bosola to relieve himself of any guilt involving his sister's execution. He is placing all blame on Bosola. I take the lines "a good actor many times is cursed / For playing a villain's part" as him telling Bosola that he as the actor (actor because he had no real reason to want the Duchess to die) was now cursed for committing a crime that was only in his (Ferdinand's -- the villain) interest. Therefore, Bosola was cursed for playing a part that was not meant for him, but for Ferdinand (I hope that made sense!).

The lines following the ones quoted in the coversation piece support this as Ferdinand goes on to guilt trip Bosola, literally telling him that he had no authority to do this because although he (Ferdinand) was angry and wanted her to suffer, he was not her "judge" which would have nulled any requests to have her killed. Essentially, I think Ferdinand is only spewing all of this to intimidate Bosola. He knows that if Bosola is fearing for his life/punishment, he will not open his mouth because even if he reveals that Ferdinand ordered or had any part in the Duchess's execution, he would also be charged as an accomplice. So basically, manipulating Bosola? Very likely. Regret? Not so much. I guess the next act will tell.

Guilty conscience? It's a bit late for that...

Following his sister’s execution, all of a sudden Ferdinand feels bad (oh boo-hoo). In this passage, Ferdinand finally admits that his sister was married—“her marriage”—and, in addition, he states that it was his own fault—“That drew a stream of gall quite through my heart”—that his sister is dead. To me, it looks like he’s finally admitting that he was a greedy bastard, and also blind to the fact that his sister was wedded to Antonio. It's as though the realization, the actual seeing his sister dead, is what spurs his moral conscience to finally show up (a bit too late, I'm afraid).
This passage also mocks dramatic convention. Ferdinand states that actors are often “cursed” for “playing” a “villain’s part”—as though the actor is responsible for the character’s actions on the stage. For a moment, one might think he is talking about himself, but he is addressing Bosola. Ferdinand is aware enough of the fact that Bosola is merely an “actor,” and also that Ferdinand himself was the one who wanted her killed (“for my sake”), but he still can’t help but “hate” Bosola for what he did to his sister.

Bosola as a moral compass

The most striking feature of this passage is the hypocritical speaker telling the Duchess she is not upholding virtues. Bosola has no qualms about killing people, and even goes against his principles to follow the Duchess, and while following through on his duties, he chooses to lecture her about her choice. Even though Bosola may have flexible morals, he seems to be correct in steering the Duchess away from a marriage to Count Malateste. Bosola must know the Duchess' true feelings, although at times he seems oblivious to what she's doing, and he's playing on her weakness to convince her to remain loyal to Antonio.

Camille brings up an interesting point about Bosola playing a game by pretending not to know about the marriage and keeping the Duchess from marrying Malateste. In my opinion, this passage is significant because it highlights the contrast between achievement and "free rides" or successes based on the endowed rather than the earned. This dichotomy is central to the play as a whole. In effect, this direct rhetorical question leads the duchess to reveal news about Antonio being her husband. As Camille stated, it seems as though Bosola is trying to get the duchess to unzip her lips and spill the beans.

 

Bosola to the rescue

In this passage, I feel as if Bosola is trying to keep the Duchess from marrying Malateste. Deep down, Bosola knows that Antonio is married to the Duchess. I believe that Bosola is playing stupid, although I have no textual evidence. It is as if Bosola is comparing him to Antonio. Antonio is an honest man who is trying to do right by his wife and leader. Antonio does not have an extensive pedigree like Malateste but seems to have better virtues. But at the same time what virtues does one have if you are secretly having a marrriage and family?

i certainly agree with the others in that the Ferdinand implies a use of the humours when it comes to his sister the Duchess. We can assume that Ferdinand wishes to "purge infected blood" in order to take the purity away from the tainted part of the Duchess's personality or even her soul,  but we should consider the symbolism of blood in this scene. Blood seems to symbolize death, and it is possible that Ferdinand wishes to have his sister dead. The medicine is not to heal in this case, but rather it is meant to corrupt her blood and take away its purity and life. Ferdinand implies that he will somehow instigate this death of the Duchess, and it is difficult to decide how he will be able to do this.

Yellow-to-Black Bile

I agree with others in that Ferdinand here makes humoural references that we’ve grown used to throughout this course, especially in Coriolanus. Here, we can see that The Cardinal is clearly phlegmatic, similarly to Menenius—he criticizes Ferdinand for his irascibility, telling him that even though he is also furious, "[he] can be angry/ Without this rupture...urging the Duke put [him]self/In tune (Act II.v.). Contrastingly, Ferdinand (obviously a choleric) whose irascibility drives him nearly insane, claiming he will “purge” her “infected blood.” It is interesting to observe how the characters' humoural urges transform one and other. There's an overall sense of wanting to preserve The Duchess as she is, for she is the sanguine positioned at the center of attention. Her excess of passion for Antonio (or independence) causes imbalance in her brothers,’ eventually allowing Bosola, the melonchloic to manipulate the situatation fueling Ferdinand’s choler and unleashing destructive forces which will mark this play’s tragic ending.

Desperate times call for desperate measures

I agree that Ferdinand is making humoral references to the body. To him, the actions of the duchess have had adverse effects on the humor of the family. I think that, in this passage, is saying that they have been to soft on the duchess and now need get serious about getting rid of her. Instead of aromatic fragrances, he wants to use fire and the "smarting cupping-glass to purge her from the family. He sees this purging as a way of bringing the humors of the family back into balance and to keep the family name from being soiled.

Blending Of The Humoral and Functional

I agree with what John said before me about Ferdinand here employing a humoral worldview. I found it interesting, especially after the battling body metaphors in Coriolanus, to see how he seems to view his ancestral family as a whole in a humoral way as well. His declaration of the need to "purge infected blood" follows directly after the Cardinal's worried question as to whether or not "[their] blood / The royal blood of Aragon and Castile, / Be thus attainted?" (2.5.22-4). Both Ferdinand and the Cardinal seem to view their bloodlines as being what constitutes the humors of the meta-body, if you will, of their ancestry. It is logical, then, using this kind of thinking to believe that in order to save the rest of the body, the "infected blood" should be purged. Interestingly though, Ferdinand also seems to be incorporating a more functional view of the body that we also saw in Coriolanus. Namely that in order to save the whole, the infected portions of a body need to be gotten rid of, no matter their previous functions.

I've Seen This Before

Ferdinand's raving recalls many things we've studied and talked about in previous plays. We've discussed the humoural conception of the body and the ways, such as blood-letting, to balance these forces. Ferdinand takes the medicinal treatment of humoural imbalance and darkly twists it. In "[purging her] infected blood," he doesn't want to treat her, but kill her by using fire. His own purging of bodily fluids, giving tears to his handkerchief, contrasts with his plan for the Duchess. He has agency in the discharging of his tears while she has none in his plot to purge her. This too, the leaky female versus the self-contained man, we have seen before.

historic repititon

I agree with all that’s been said. I think this is a warning and we all know the end if it’s not heeded. This kind of describes what happened in Edward II. It is a country head’s responsibility to find problems in his court and correct them. Edward did not get rid of Gaveston, and like the very poison spoken of in these line, he brought death and disease to the land. This death and disease manifested itself as economy problems, civil war, and weakening of the military. I believe Antonio is wise for foreseeing this. Let’s just see if the duke and duchess follow this advice.

The role of Government

I agree with Marion and I'd like to add that this speech seems to be a warning from Antonio. This speech is about more than the possible corruption of the land. It contains the need to warn the king and protect him so that he may not spread poison to the rest of the land. At this point the king is placed highest in the fountain and may destroy the rest of the last with his own corruption. The king is checked by the government and council. He suggests that it is not only the governments uneasy right to protect the king from corruption, but their noble duty to do so. This view of monarchy is dangerous, and suggests a more level playing field that is not affected by social status that is not present in Rome.