Theme 5 of 8
Sin, Morality and Hypocrisy
Both plays expose moral hypocrisy as structural feature of patriarchy, where those who claim moral authority are themselves deeply immoral.
Overview
Both plays expose moral hypocrisy as structural feature of patriarchy, where those who claim moral authority—religious, legal, or social—are themselves deeply immoral, yet their power allows them to judge, condemn, and punish others without facing accountability. Webster’s Jacobean tragedy stages spectacular religious hypocrisy: the Cardinal, supposed spiritual authority who should embody Christian virtue, keeps Julia as mistress (violating celibacy vows), orders his sister’s murder (violating commandment against killing), and dies unrepentant—“I am puzzled in a question about hell” suggests he doesn’t fear divine judgment even facing death. Ferdinand claims to protect family honor and female virtue while obsessing pathologically over the Duchess’s sexuality, ultimately murdering her not for any actual sin but for exercising autonomy men claim as natural right. Their violence is framed as righteous punishment of the Duchess’s “transgression” (remarrying), yet Webster makes clear their moral condemnation is projection—they commit worse sins (murder, torture, sexual exploitation) while punishing her for love. Williams’s realistic drama shows more subtle hypocrisy: Stanley claims “honesty” as his virtue—“I never was a very good liar”—using truth-telling as justification for cruelty (exposing Blanche’s past to Mitch) and weapon against those who threaten him, yet he lies when convenient and uses “honesty” selectively to serve his interests.
The sexual double standard operates in both plays as central moral hypocrisy: men’s sexuality is acceptable or invisible while women’s is scrutinized and condemned. Mitch tells Blanche “You’re not clean enough to bring in the house with my mother” after learning about her sexual history, using contamination metaphor to moralize her desire while his own sexual pursuit of her goes unquestioned—he wanted sex from her but demands purity for marriage, exposing Madonna/whore binary that judges women by impossible standards men never meet. Both playwrights suggest that proclaimed “morality” in their societies is ideology serving power: moral rules exist to control subordinate groups (women, lower classes) while powerful men exempt themselves. Webster provides moral restoration through revenge tragedy conventions—villains are eventually punished, suggesting cosmic justice operates—but this restoration feels inadequate after what we’ve witnessed, and it comes far too late to save the innocent. Williams denies even this consolation: Stanley faces no consequences, Blanche is blamed for her own suffering, and life continues as if nothing happened. The shift from Webster’s delayed cosmic justice to Williams’s complete absence of justice reflects modernity’s loss of transcendent moral order—in capitalist, secular America, only human power exists, and those with power define morality to suit themselves.
Key Similarity
Both plays expose how those who claim moral authority (Cardinal, Ferdinand; Stanley, Mitch) are themselves immoral hypocrites who judge women harshly for behaviors less harmful than their own violence, sexual exploitation, and cruelty.
Key Difference
Webster provides delayed moral closure—villains die, cosmic justice operates. Williams offers no such consolation—Stanley prospers, no punishment follows his crimes, showing modern world without transcendent moral order.
Historical and Social Context
Jacobean England
Catholic corruption and Protestant propaganda
Webster’s Protestant English audiences associated Catholic Church with corruption: sexual scandals (priests with mistresses/children), political violence (Inquisition, assassinations), and moral hypocrisy (preaching virtue while practicing vice). The play’s Italian Catholic setting confirms these stereotypes—the Cardinal is sexual predator and murderer wearing religious authority. Anti-Catholic propaganda emphasized difference between proclaimed Christian virtue and actual behavior of Church officials, making religious hypocrisy familiar theme for audiences.
Divine justice and providence
Jacobean worldview assumed cosmic moral order where God eventually punishes sin and rewards virtue. Revenge tragedy genre depended on this belief—villains must face consequences, even if delayed, to demonstrate divine justice operates. Webster fulfills this: Ferdinand and the Cardinal die, Bosola repents (though too late), the Duchess’s virtue is vindicated posthumously. This moral closure reassures audiences that universe is morally ordered, even when earthly justice fails. However, Webster also questions this by showing how inadequate delayed justice is—the innocent are already dead.
Honor culture and reputation
Early modern aristocratic culture obsessed over honor and reputation—one’s good name was more valuable than life itself. Men defended honor through duels; women’s honor depended on sexual purity. Ferdinand frames murdering the Duchess as protecting family honor “attainted” by her lower-class marriage. Yet his claim to honor is hypocritical—he commits dishonorable acts (fratricide, torture) while claiming to defend honor. Webster exposes “honor” as ideology serving male power: men kill to preserve “honor” but dishonor themselves through violence.
Sin hierarchies and casuistry
Catholic moral theology ranked sins by severity: venial vs. mortal; sins of flesh vs. spirit. Bosola’s line “Other sins only speak; murder shrieks out” reflects this hierarchy—murder is loudest, most demanding justice. Yet casuistry (using logic to justify morally questionable acts) allowed people to rationalize sins. The Cardinal and Ferdinand rationalize murdering the Duchess as justified punishment, showing how moral frameworks can be manipulated to excuse atrocity. Webster critiques this moral flexibility serving the powerful.
1940s America
Protestant morality and sexual purity
Mid-century American culture, shaped by Protestant Christianity, publicly espoused strict sexual morality: virginity before marriage, fidelity, modesty, separate spheres (men public/women domestic). This moral framework particularly policed female sexuality—women’s virtue was defined by sexual purity. Yet this public morality coexisted with widespread private behavior violating it (extramarital affairs, pre-marital sex, prostitution). Williams exposes this hypocrisy: society condemns Blanche’s sexual history while tolerating Stanley’s aggression and adultery.
Honesty as working-class virtue
American culture constructed honesty/authenticity as working-class virtues vs. upper-class pretension/deception. Stanley embodies this ideology: claims he’s honest, direct, unvarnished truth-teller vs. Blanche’s lies and performances. Yet Williams shows this “honesty” is selective weapon—Stanley uses truth (exposing Blanche) when it serves him, lies when convenient (denies raping Blanche), and frames cruelty as justified by honesty. The play questions whether brutal “honesty” is more moral than compassionate “lies.”
Frontier masculinity and violence
American mythology celebrated frontier masculinity: tough, violent, direct, sexually aggressive. Stanley represents this tradition—his violence and dominance are culturally validated as authentic masculinity vs. effeminate refinement. Williams critiques this by showing costs: Stanley’s “honesty” and “authenticity” are violence and rape disguised as virtues. American culture’s celebration of masculine aggression serves patriarchy by excusing male violence as natural/admirable.
Therapeutic discourse replacing moral discourse
By 1940s, psychology and therapy were beginning to replace religious morality as framework for understanding behavior. Blanche’s sexuality is pathologized as mental illness (nymphomania, hysteria) rather than judged as sin. This seems more progressive (medical understanding vs. moral condemnation) but Williams shows it’s equally controlling—women are institutionalized for “sickness” instead of punished for “sin,” achieving same result (confinement, control) through different discourse. Therapeutic ideology is hypocrisy in new form: claiming to help while actually controlling.
The Duchess of Malfi Analysis
The Cardinal’s Sexual and Moral Hypocrisy (Throughout)
The Cardinal is Catholic Church official who should embody Christian virtue but is deeply corrupt. He keeps Julia as mistress (violating celibacy), orders his sister’s murder (violating “thou shalt not kill”), manipulates and poisons Julia when she becomes inconvenient, and dies unrepentant. His question dying—“I am puzzled in a question about hell”—suggests he doesn’t fear divine judgment even facing death, revealing complete moral bankruptcy. Webster stages most hypocritical figure prominently: the Cardinal wears religious authority while committing worst sins. In Act 2, Scene 5, he moralizes about the Duchess: “Could she have chosen / A nobler husband?” yet he judges her while keeping mistress himself. His condemnation of her remarriage as “ignominious match” while he violates celibacy exposes spectacular hypocrisy. Webster uses the Cardinal to indict religious authority that preaches virtue while practicing vice—Christianity is exposed as ideological tool serving powerful men rather than actual moral framework guiding behavior.
Ferdinand’s Proclaimed Honor vs. Actual Dishonor (Throughout)
Ferdinand frames murdering the Duchess as defending family honor “attainted” by her lower-class marriage. Yet everything he does is dishonorable: invading her privacy, hiring spies, torturing her psychologically, ordering fratricide (killing sister), going mad with guilt. His proclaimed protection of honor is transparent excuse for controlling her sexuality and punishing her autonomy. In Act 3, Scene 2, after threatening the Duchess, he says “I could kill her now, / In you, or in myself” revealing he knows his violence is self-destructive and dishonorable. Yet he proceeds anyway, showing honor is ideology justifying violence, not genuine moral principle. Webster exposes “honor culture” as patriarchal hypocrisy: men commit dishonorable violence while claiming to defend honor, using moral language to disguise control and cruelty.
Bosola’s Moral Awareness and Moral Failure (Throughout)
Bosola is morally complex—he knows he’s doing evil but continues, creating internal split. His cynical commentary throughout shows moral awareness: “Other sins only speak; murder shrieks out” (Act 4, Scene 2) articulates clear hierarchy where murder is worst sin demanding justice. Yet he commits murder anyway—strangling the Duchess despite knowing it’s wrong. His explanation: “Let me think: / I would not have her live. But she might have lived / To have given recompense” shows conflicted psychology—he wanted her alive to reward him (mercenary motive) but killed her anyway (following orders). After killing her, he has brief moral crisis: “She stirs; here’s life. / Return, fair soul, from darkness” wanting to undo what he’s done. His attempted repentance in Act 5 (trying to save Antonio, killing Ferdinand and Cardinal) is psychological attempt to restore moral integrity, but it fails tragically (he accidentally kills Antonio, dies himself). Bosola represents person who knows right from wrong but lacks moral courage to act accordingly—conscience without action. Webster shows how knowing good doesn’t ensure doing good; moral awareness and moral behavior can completely disconnect under pressure and corruption.
The Duchess’s Virtue and Others’ Vice (Throughout)
Webster systematically contrasts the Duchess’s virtue with her brothers’ vice to expose hypocrisy. She commits no actual sin—she remarries (legal, consensual, for love), has children in marriage (legitimate), and maintains dignity throughout suffering. Yet she’s punished as if deeply sinful. Her brothers commit actual sins—murder, torture, sexual exploitation, fratricide—yet claim moral authority to judge her. The inversion is complete: the virtuous suffer while the vicious prosper (until Act 5). Delio’s final couplet attempts moral: “Integrity of life is fame’s best friend, / Which nobly, beyond death, shall crown the end” suggesting virtue ensures good reputation posthumously. But this rings hollow after witnessing the Duchess tortured and murdered—is posthumous reputation adequate compensation? Webster exposes gap between proclaimed morality (Duchess called sinner) and actual morality (she’s virtuous martyr; brothers are evil), indicting societies that invert moral reality to serve power.
A Streetcar Named Desire Analysis
Stanley’s Selective Honesty (Throughout)
Stanley constructs identity around honesty—“I never was a very good liar” (Scene 2)—claiming truth-telling as his core virtue vs. Blanche’s deceptions. Yet Williams shows this is selective ideology serving Stanley’s interests. In Scene 7, Stanley gleefully tells Stella about Blanche’s past, framing revelation as honest truth-telling vs. Blanche’s lies. But his motive isn’t truth but dominance—he wants Blanche gone because she threatens his authority (criticizes him, influences Stella against him). He uses truth as weapon: exposing Blanche to Mitch eliminates her marriage prospect, securing Stanley’s control over household. Yet Stanley lies when convenient: he denies raping Blanche, claiming she’s delusional. His “honesty” applies selectively—truth when it serves him, lies when truth threatens him. Williams exposes how honesty can be weapon of cruelty rather than virtue, and how proclaimed honesty is often hypocritical: Stanley’s selective truth-telling serves power, not morality.
Mitch’s Sexual Double Standard (Scene 9)
Mitch confronts Blanche about her sexual history after Stanley reveals it. His judgment is harsh: “You’re not clean enough to bring in the house with my mother.” “Not clean” uses contamination metaphor—Blanche’s sexual experience has polluted her, making her morally unfit. Yet Mitch himself pursued Blanche sexually throughout the play, seeking physical intimacy while presenting himself as potential husband. His double standard is explicit: he wanted sex from her (tried to kiss her, invited himself in late at night) but demands purity for marriage. He divides women into Madonna (mother—sexually pure, worthy of respect) vs. whore (Blanche—sexually experienced, worthy only of sex, not marriage). This is textbook sexual double standard: men’s sexuality unquestioned; women judged harshly for same behavior. Williams exposes how patriarchy weaponizes female sexuality: women must be virgins or they’re worthless, yet men demand sexual access. Mitch embodies this hypocrisy—he morally condemns Blanche for having sexual history while his own sexual pursuit of her created further “history.”
Blanche’s Moral Philosophy vs. Her Judgment (Throughout)
Blanche articulates clear moral philosophy opposing cruelty: “Deliberate cruelty is not forgivable. It is the one unforgivable thing” (Scene 10). This moral absolute—intentional cruelty is worst sin—applies to her treatment of Allan (“You disgust me” was cruel, and she never forgave herself) and Stanley’s treatment of her. Yet Blanche herself commits cruelties: she’s classist (calls Stanley “subhuman”), lies to Mitch (about age, past, circumstances), and is casually dismissive of Stella’s choices. Williams creates morally complex character—Blanche has genuine moral insights but also fails to live by her own standards. She’s both victim (Stanley rapes her, society judges her unfairly) and flawed person (lies, snobbishness, cruelty to Allan). This complexity refuses simple moral judgment: she’s not purely innocent victim or purely guilty sinner but human mixture of virtue and vice. Yet the play clearly shows others treat her worse than she treats them—her lies hurt no one fatally; Stanley’s violence destroys her.
Stella and Eunice’s Pragmatic Denial (Scene 11)
After the rape, Stella faces impossible choice: believe Blanche (requiring leaving Stanley, losing home/security) or disbelieve her (allowing life to continue as is). Eunice counsels pragmatic denial: “Don’t ever believe it. Life has got to go on. No matter what happens, you’ve got to keep on going.” This is moral hypocrisy at deepest level—consciously choosing convenient lie over inconvenient truth because survival requires it. Stella tells herself “I couldn’t believe her story and go on living with Stanley”—epistemological impossibility created by economic/emotional dependence. She chooses to call Blanche insane rather than Stanley rapist, enabling Blanche’s institutionalization. Williams doesn’t simply condemn Stella—he shows structural constraints forcing impossible choices. Yet the result is women’s complicity in patriarchy: Stella and Eunice sacrifice Blanche to maintain their own security. The play exposes how patriarchy functions: not just through male violence but through women’s forced complicity, pragmatic acceptance of injustice because alternatives seem impossible.
Stanley’s Unpunished Crimes (Scene 11)
Stanley rapes Blanche, lies about it, has her institutionalized as insane, and faces no consequences. Scene 11 ends with him dealing cards: “This game is seven-card stud”—life continues exactly as before Blanche arrived. He keeps his wife, home, friends, baby, social standing. Williams denies moral closure entirely—the rapist prospers while victim is erased. This is profoundly disturbing refusal of justice, contrasting sharply with revenge tragedy conventions where villains must be punished. Williams shows modern America as world without cosmic moral order: only human power exists, and those with power (white working-class men with economic security and male solidarity) escape consequences while powerless (homeless, mentally fragile, economically dependent women) suffer without redress. The absence of punishment is itself moral statement: in this world, “morality” is whatever serves the powerful. Stanley’s unpunished rape exposes justice as myth—might makes right, and society mobilizes to protect perpetrators while blaming victims.
Comparative Analysis
Similarities
Religious/moral hypocrisy
Both plays feature characters who proclaim moral/religious authority while committing worse sins than those they judge. The Cardinal preaches virtue while murdering; Stanley claims honesty while lying. Both expose proclaimed morality as ideological tool serving power rather than actual ethical framework.
Sexual double standards
Both expose how men judge women’s sexuality harshly while exempting themselves. Ferdinand obsesses over the Duchess’s sexuality while keeping mistresses; Mitch condemns Blanche’s sexual history while pursuing her sexually himself. Male sexuality is invisible/acceptable; female sexuality is scrutinized/condemned.
Violence disguised as righteousness
Ferdinand frames murdering the Duchess as defending honor; Stanley frames exposing Blanche as honest truth-telling. Both use moral language to disguise violence and control. Both playwrights show how patriarchy justifies male violence through moral frameworks that claim righteousness.
Women blamed for their own suffering
The Duchess is called sinner though she’s virtuous; Blanche is called crazy and blamed for her rape. Both societies invert moral reality, blaming victims while excusing perpetrators. Both plays expose victim-blaming as structural feature of patriarchy.
Differences
Delayed justice vs. no justice
Webster provides revenge tragedy’s moral closure—villains die, the Duchess is vindicated posthumously, cosmic justice operates (however inadequately). Williams offers no such consolation—Stanley faces no consequences, Blanche is blamed, life continues unjustly. This reflects shift from religious worldview (divine justice exists) to secular modernity (only human power exists, often unjust).
Spectacular vs. subtle hypocrisy
Webster stages spectacular religious hypocrisy—the Cardinal wearing robes while murdering is visibly hypocritical, easy to condemn. Williams shows subtle everyday hypocrisy—Stanley’s “honesty” and Stella’s denial are normalized, harder to name as moral failures. Modern hypocrisy is more insidious because less visible.
Moral complexity
Webster’s moral lines are relatively clear—the Duchess good, her brothers evil (though Bosola is complex). Williams creates more ambiguous morality—Blanche is flawed victim, Stanley is brutal but economically secure, Stella is complicit but trapped. Modern play refuses simple moral judgment, showing ethical complexity.
Transcendent vs. immanent morality
Webster assumes transcendent moral order (God, divine justice, cosmic meaning). Williams presents immanent morality (human-created, socially constructed, serving power). This reflects modernity’s loss of religious certainty: morality becomes human artifact, not divine law, and therefore manipulable by those with power.
Critical Interpretations
Marxist / Ideological Critique
Marxist critics read both plays as exposing morality as ideology serving ruling classes. In Marxist theory, dominant classes create moral frameworks justifying their power: “virtue” is defined as whatever serves their interests, “sin” as whatever threatens them. The Cardinal and Ferdinand use Catholic morality to condemn the Duchess’s autonomy (her remarriage threatens patriarchal control) while exempting themselves from same rules (they murder, exploit sexually). Stanley uses working-class “honesty” ideology to justify cruelty (exposing Blanche serves his dominance). Both plays show how proclaimed universal morality actually serves particular class/gender interests. Moral rules exist to control subordinate groups (women, lower classes) while powerful men exempt themselves. Religion and ethics function as superstructure justifying economic base—Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony fits perfectly: ruling classes maintain power partly through ideological control, making their interests seem universal moral truths.
Feminist Critique of Patriarchal Morality
Feminist critics emphasize how both plays expose patriarchal morality as designed to control women specifically. The sexual double standard is central: men’s sexuality is acceptable, women’s is sin. The Duchess can’t remarry (women’s sexuality must be controlled) while her brothers keep mistresses (men’s sexuality is natural right). Blanche’s sexual history damns her while Stanley’s violence is tolerated. Feminist readings argue patriarchy uses morality as tool of gender oppression: moral rules police female bodies, sexuality, autonomy while granting men freedom. Both plays show women punished for asserting autonomy (remarrying, criticizing men, existing independently) through moral condemnation that frames male violence as righteous. Adrienne Rich’s concept of “compulsory heterosexuality” and patriarchal control through moral regulation illuminates both: women must conform to narrow feminine ideals (chaste, obedient, domestic) or face violent punishment disguised as moral correction.
Nietzschean / Genealogy of Morals
Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals argues morality originates in power relations, not divine truth: the powerful define “good” as their own traits, “evil” as traits of those they dominate. Both plays dramatize this. Webster shows aristocratic morality where “honor” means protecting bloodline purity and male control—the Duchess’s autonomy threatens this, so it’s defined as “sin.” Yet this “morality” is transparently about power, not ethics. Williams shows how different moral systems (Old South aristocratic refinement vs. working-class “honesty”) clash, each claiming superiority. Stanley’s “honesty” and Blanche’s “magic” represent competing value systems—neither is objectively true; each serves particular class interests. Nietzsche argued master morality (powerful define themselves as good) vs. slave morality (powerless define powerful as evil). Both plays complicate this: the Duchess and Blanche have elements of both (former aristocratic authority, latter claims moral superiority). Both plays expose morality as human creation reflecting power struggles, not transcendent truth.
Key Quotations to Memorize
The Duchess of Malfi
“Other sins only speak; murder shrieks out”
Bosola, Act 4, Scene 2
Bosola articulates sin hierarchy—murder is loudest, most demanding justice. “Only speak” vs. “shrieks out” contrasts volume/intensity: lesser sins are quiet; murder cannot be ignored. Yet Bosola speaks this while committing murder, showing moral awareness without moral action. Knowing murder is worst sin doesn’t prevent him doing it. Webster exposes gap between moral knowledge and moral behavior.
“I am puzzled in a question about hell”
The Cardinal, Act 5, Scene 5
The Cardinal dies unrepentant, confused rather than fearful about hell. “Puzzled” suggests intellectual curiosity, not moral horror—he treats damnation as philosophical problem, not existential threat. Complete moral bankruptcy: even facing divine judgment, he lacks conscience. Webster creates most hypocritical figure—religious authority who doesn’t believe or fear his own theology. His death shows moral hypocrisy taken to extreme: claimed Christian virtue, practiced opposite, dies without remorse.
“Shall our blood, / The royal blood of Aragon and Castile, / Be thus attainted?”
Ferdinand, Act 2, Scene 5
Ferdinand frames the Duchess’s remarriage as moral contamination using blood metaphor. “Attainted” = corrupted, stained, dishonored. Claims family honor is destroyed by her choice. Yet his concern isn’t actually moral—it’s about control and class purity. He commits far worse sins (murder, torture) while condemning her for love. Webster exposes “honor” as hypocritical ideology justifying violence: men kill to preserve “honor” but dishonor themselves through violence.
“Integrity of life is fame’s best friend, / Which nobly, beyond death, shall crown the end”
Delio, Act 5, Scene 5
Conventional moral ending—virtue ensures good reputation after death. “Integrity of life” = virtuous living; “fame’s best friend” = creates lasting legacy. Delio promises to teach the Duchess’s sons about her virtue, ensuring she’s remembered heroically. Yet this moral feels inadequate after witnessing her torture and murder—posthumous reputation doesn’t compensate for suffering. Webster provides moral closure (virtue vindicated, vice punished) but audience may question whether it’s enough.
A Streetcar Named Desire
“I never was a very good liar”
Stanley, Scene 2
Stanley claims honesty as his core virtue vs. Blanche’s deceptions. “Never was a very good liar” = presents himself as constitutionally honest, incapable of deception. Yet this is itself selective lie—he lies when convenient (denies raping Blanche). Williams exposes how “honesty” can be ideology justifying cruelty: Stanley uses truth (exposing Blanche) as weapon while claiming moral high ground. Brutal honesty isn’t virtue when used to destroy vulnerable people.
“You’re not clean enough to bring in the house with my mother”
Mitch, Scene 9
Mitch moralizes Blanche’s sexuality using contamination metaphor. “Not clean” = polluted, morally unfit. Madonna/whore binary explicit: his mother (pure, worthy of respect) vs. Blanche (sexually experienced, unworthy). Sexual double standard: Mitch pursued Blanche sexually but demands purity for marriage. He judges her harshly for sexual history while his own pursuit created further “history.” Williams exposes patriarchal hypocrisy: women damned for sexuality men demand access to.
“Deliberate cruelty is not forgivable. It is the one unforgivable thing”
Blanche, Scene 10
Blanche’s moral philosophy: intentional cruelty is worst sin. “Deliberate” = conscious, chosen (not accidental). “Not forgivable” twice emphasized—absolute moral statement. Applies to her treatment of Allan (she never forgave herself) and Stanley’s treatment of her (he deliberately destroys her). Williams gives Blanche clear moral insight even as play shows her own flaws. Her philosophy critiques Stanley’s cruelty while acknowledging her own past cruelty, creating moral complexity.
“Don’t ever believe it. Life has got to go on”
Eunice to Stella, Scene 11
Pragmatic counsel to deny rape accusation. “Don’t ever believe it” = conscious choice to reject truth. “Life has got to go on” = survival requires denial—Stella cannot believe Blanche and continue living with Stanley, so she must disbelieve. Williams exposes moral hypocrisy at deepest level: knowingly choosing convenient lie over inconvenient truth. Women’s complicity in patriarchy not from ignorance but from economic necessity and lack of alternatives.
“This game is seven-card stud”
Stanley, Scene 11 (final line)
Stanley deals cards after Blanche’s removal—life continues unchanged. “Seven-card stud” = just next poker game, business as usual. No moral closure, no punishment for rape, no acknowledgment of injustice. Williams denies revenge tragedy’s consolation: villains prosper, victims erased, world continues amoral. Final line exposes modern world without cosmic justice—only human power exists, and those with power (Stanley) escape consequences while powerless (Blanche) suffer without redress.