The OED defines "munificence" as: The quality of being munificent; great generosity or liberality in giving.

The word is used for a mysterious Count showing that the Duke is aware that his story may have been off-putting, and he must now save face by praising his new socio-political target. However, to use a word that is antithetical to who the Duke is draws larger parallels between who he associates with, who he pretends to be, and who he really is. The Duke is not giving in the sense that he should be praised, he is giving in the sense that gives people reasons to fear him. By praising this Count's munificence, he can downplay his own lack of it.

The Duke states that he "gave commands" in order for the Duchess to behave--whether this means a death sentence or exile have no difference to the Duke as she is dead to him either way.

However, "Lucrezia suffered from chronic lung-trouble, that her father and her brother Francesco were kept constantly informed with regard to the progress of her last illness" (Friedland 673) which implies Lucrezia succumbed to illness. While the Duke married her as a political advantage, if he were to kill her, he risks a war with her family, the Medicis; once again the Duke must put on a front to exert dominance over his subjects and guests. Whether she died by his hand, or from illness is not the issue the Duke wants attention on, but rather, that he can decide when she dies, and anyone within his court is no different.

Women (and girls) of nobility were meant to show appreciation and be impressed by the immediate men in their lives, such as family, their husbands, and on occasion, men who served them after great acts of duty, such as military feats in war.

The Duke is masking his anger and lack of control over the Duchess--he believes his "nine-hundred-years-old name" should warrant complete control over her, and is offended over the fact that she'd "thank men good," without any explanation over what she would thank them for (not to mention, she is fond of many "trivial" things, not just men, as he lists them before making said statement).

For historical context, the Duchess, Lucrezia is about 13-16 years old depending on when these offenses take place; she has yet to reach emotional, mental, and physical maturity. Without considering the Duchess's age and her lack of experience, he took her behavior as uncouth and as an affront to his dominance. The Duke's reaction lacks emotional maturity as he lets his jealousy be the vessel in how he treats his wife.

The Duke's final words being about another artpiece he has demonstrates how little he cared for the Duchess. The need to brag about more art being made for him not only shows his ability to display power, but it also shows a reflection of his true intentions. The bronze cast is of Neptune (a god) taming a seahorse--this reflects how the Duke views himself: a god taming a lesser creature; as he sees himself as a god, he will inevitably treat the new duchess similarly. There was never going to be a dual-respect and understanding between him and the Duchess as she was as useful as a seahorse to him. His calculated shift from a painting of his "beloved" wife, to a bronze cast displaying a feat of dominance demonstrates the Duke's ability for social politics and directs attention away from the gruesome end of the Duchess.

While looking up the Duchess, Lucrezia de' Medici, came a poem called "My Next Duchess" by a priest named Lawrence Jones in which a member of the envoy warns of the Duke as a means to save the next duchess from his grasp. While the poem does not follow all the same writing conventions as Browning's poem such as form and tone, it is effective in the way that provides a secondary perspective on the story within this poem. The break of such conventions lends a sort of response that is more human that the facade that the Duke puts on.

The poem aims to explore how the envoy reacted to the Duke's monologue, and the horror at which is deemed worthy enough to become a cautionary tale to future noblewomen about the Duke of Ferrara.

To build off the previous annotation, the Duke's mask slips for a second as he admits that he would, in fact, "stoop"--but in doing so, it shows he does not have as much control as he fronts to his envoy. However, the Duke regains said control (and re-masks) through the use of others' fear of what he is capable of by stating that he chose "never to stoop" to the Duchess's level of behavior or intellect.

This point is mentioned by Garratt regarding Browning's writing strategy using "masks" in his poetry, "The envoy is meant to be impressed by this graciousness, this taste, manners, and above all, command of life; the Duke hopes desperately that the envoy will carry that impression back to the count, and to the new duchess” (117). Garratt's point shows that the Duke's intentions in telling this story is so that the next Duchess will not behave the same way as the previous one, and she'll have no excuse as she'd already been warned; he is molding his new duchess through fear.

The Duke's glee at showing off the painting is an example of the facade of dominance he establishes throughout the poem. Robert F. Garratt's article reinforces this stating, “In fact, there is a safety about the duchess' looks now that they are frozen on canvas, and the Duke can truly enjoy them because he controls the strings to the curtain” (117). By being able to show when she is allowed to "smile" at anyone using drawstrings illustrates that above else, the Duke's need to dominate and impress are more important than the life of another person, regardless of how close they are to him. His insistence that Fra Pandolf has created such a masterpiece "by [his] design" alludes to the notion that the portrait does not actually capture the essence of the Duchess, but rather a version he demanded be created, displaying his need for control.

M. Kawakatsu, P. S. Chodrow, N. Eikmeier, D. B. Larremore, Emergence of hierarchy in networked endorsement dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2015188118 (2021)

This may be of interest to Jerry Michalski et al.

How much of this can be written down to differing personal contexts and lack of respect for people's humanity? Are the neurodivergent being punished in these spaces?

Applebaum provides a list of potential conflict areas of cancel culture outside of power dynamics.

Is it simply the stratification of power and roles that is causing these problems? Is it that some of this has changed and that communication between people of different power levels is the difficulty in these cases?

I have noticed a movement in pedagogy spaces that puts the teacher as a participant rather than as a leader thus erasing the power structures that previously existed. This exists within Cathy Davidson's The New Education where teachers indicate that they're learning as much as their students.

While there are some people with good intents in the [[DEI]] space - it's starting to become apparent that there are some [[foundational concepts]] that we are missing, such as understanding how [[cycle of socialization]] impacts [[unconscious bias]]

or not understanding the role of [[power dynamics]] and [[microaggression]]

Schraff, D. (2020). Political trust during the Covid-19 pandemic: Rally around the flag or lockdown effects? [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/pu47c

Are these power dynamics/tensions: actor or agent-based? individual or technical? situational or contextual? deliberate or autonomous?