Characterizing Victorian Poetry by referring to "The Last Duchess" by Robert Browning

I am a German speaker, so I have quite to ponder about what certain sentences mean. At the moment, I try to understand that poem. The actual aim would be to characterize Victorian poetry by referring to two poets and/or poems.




"My Last Duchess"
Ferrara

That's my last Duchess painted on the wall,
Looking as if she were alive. I call
That piece a wonder, now: Fra Pandolf's hands
Worked busily a day, and there she stands.

"That" for an object? wouldn't it be "This is" for a person?
"my" suggests that he possessed her, which makes her an object.
"last" he does not say "late" which would mean she is dead, therefore "gave commands" (later on) does not necesserily mean he had her killed... however, "last" sounds somewhat like she was easily replaceble - by the Count of Tyrol's daughter, for example - which suggests, he did not treasure her much. Indeed, he most likely treasured - and still treasures - her looks, her beauty.

Her name, her actual self, seems insignificant, he never gives her a name throughout his speech and he reveals more and more that she was a possession not to be had by any small degree by others.

If "Fra" suggests a priest who "worked busily a day"... it reminds me somewhat of God creating the world and finally Adam and Eve. But maybe that is too far-fetched.

Will't please you sit and look at her? I said
"Fra Pandolf" by design, for never read
Strangers like you that pictured countenance,
The depth and passion of its earnest glance,
But to myself they turned (since none puts by
The curtain I have drawn for you, but I)
And seemed as they would ask me, if they durst,
How such a glance came there;

I thought "I said/'Fra Pandolf' by design" means that the duke suggests that he himself painted the picture and he just wanted to brag about having a painting made by that famous painter and he admints now that it is not a picture by that painter... or what does he mean by "by design"?
"for never read ... countenance" I took these lines as an emphasis for the duke's suggestion that he himself made the portrait. If noone ever saw her, noone but he himself could have painted her - right?

Then, I thought, he is an unreliable narrator in that he here talks as if nobody has ever seen her, but later on she had visitors to whom she smiled just the same as she did smile to him etc.

"And seemed as they would ask me,..." is the continuation to "Stangers like you that pictured countenance"? Which would mean, noone ever asked how that glance came up, becauso noone ever saw her...

so, not the first
Are you to turn and ask thus.

Then, here he contradicts himself by saying that his listener is NOT the first one to ask that question. This is further evidence for his unreliability.

Sir, 'twas not
Her husband's presence only, called that spot
Of joy into the Duchess' cheek: perhaps
Fra Pandolf chanced to say "Her mantle laps
Over my lady's wrist too much," or "Paint
Must never hope to reproduce the faint
Half-flush that dies along her throat":

Does he find that the portrait is alike to the duchess, but not as splendid as she was in her looks? (But at least she does not do all the things he disliked of her, or - does she? I'll come back to that.)

such stuff
Was courtesy, she thought, and cause enough
For calling up that spot of joy. She had
A heart-how shall I say?-too soon made glad,
Too easily impressed; she liked whate'er
She looked on, and her looks went everywhere.

Does he say here, that for her it was harmless talk? ("was courtesy, she thought") But for him it seemed flirtitious? ("She had/A heart...")

Sir, 'twas all one! My favour at her breast,
The dropping of the daylight in the West,
The bough of cherries some officious fool
Broke in the orchard for her, the white mule
She rode with round the terrace-all and each
Would draw from her alike the approving speech,
Or blush, at least. 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.

She did not appreciate his old and probably reputative name as much as he thought she should, but being the heartily and thankful woman she was, she enjoyed every little gift quite the same. At that time, women were expected to be chast and obedient to the husband. Also, they should stay at home in their domestic sphere. (she only "rode with [the mule] round the terrace-all" so she did not leave her home?)
"She thanked men, - good!" <-- so actually, she did what she should be doing and he actually wanted her to thank the men for their gifts; however, the manner in which she did so seemed flirtitious to him (but thanked/Somehow - I know not how - ...).[/i]

Who'd stoop to blame
This sort of trifling?

Who would go out and blame her for that sort of unimportant deeds (?)[/i]

Even had you skill
In speech-(which I have not)-to make your will
Quite clear to such an one, and say, "Just this
Or that in you disgusts me; here you miss,
Or there exceed the mark"

Even if you had the skill to explain the points that disgust you and where she should behave differently, which skill I do not have (correct rephrasing?)[/i]

-and if she let
Herself be lessoned so,

and if she were to allow you to lecture her so[/i]

nor plainly set
Her wits to yours, forsooth, and made excuse,

I don't get that...[/i]

-E'en then would be some stooping; and I choose
Never to stoop.

He thinks, if he had explained it to her, he would have had to condescend himself? and he chose never to do so. (in other words, he was to proud to talk to her)[/i]


Oh sir, she smiled, no doubt,
Whene'er I passed her; but who passed without
Much the same smile? This grew;

He was jealous of all the men that she smiled to and he means to say, that her behaviour grew worse and worse, while the listener could also suggest that his jealousy grew and grew until he could no longer stand her behaviour and "gave commands"[/i]

I gave commands;
Then all smiles stopped together.

Euphemism for "I arranged her murder", although I read that the poet later thought it might have been that he sent her to a nunnery. However, "late duchess" refers to him being a widow, so she must be dead... on the other hand, we do not know the timespan between her being sent to a nunnery (if we assume that was the arrangement) and her death...[/i]

There she stands
As if alive.

Here is the point that I meant to come back to.

She seems to be alive. The painting surely shows her smiling. The visitor can see her smile. She therefore smiles at him. It is just as how it was when she was actually alive. And now she unavoidably must smile the same way for the visitor as for him (before it could have been the duke's immagination that her smile to him was not a special one). This is the cause for an anewed jealousy. Wherefore he asks his guest:[/i]

Will't please you rise? We'll meet
The company below, then.

"The company" is a good explanation for his wish to have his guest rise from his seat.[/i]

I repeat,
The Count your master's known munificence
Is ample warrant that no just pretence
Of mine for dowry will be disallowed;

He is sure to receive a dowry that will belong to him just as the woman. AND he has already said this ("I repeat"), so it seems to be of particular interest for him to receive the dowry.[/i]

Though his fair daughter's self, as I avowed
At starting, is my object.

As if he suddenly got aware, how that sounds, he ensures that - as he stated "at starting" - his prime object is the woman. (However, he remembered the dowry-issue first.) He intends "object" to mean "aim", yet to the listener it might as well show his objectification of his future bride. Then again... woman of that time waited endlessly for a suitor to come and marry them, wheren't they?[/i]

Nay, we'll go
Together down, sir.
"to go down" = to come to a bad end/to have a bad development? although the duke surely means to say "downstairs", the elipsis allows a nice pun, if I am right. But that pun would rather be concerning society/the reading public. This dramatic monologue criticises his contemporary society.[/i]

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

Here he goes on to show another part of his gallery/collection. However, it is more a way to distract him from the story... or if not for that purpose, so it is still not quite equal to the painting of his last duchess. It may well be that he points the statue out in passing by, having a short look and going on... whereas he had to possibly celebratingly withdraw the curtains in front of the picture of his last duchess. Though, an object as well, she/her appearance is still more treasured than other objects he has, since normally noone but he himself is allowed/able to see that picture. Also, he calls this statue of Neptun a "rarity", whereas he called the painting of his last duchess "a wonder, now" <-- probably he did not regard it a wonder befor her death/"removement to a nunnery"...
OR... "I call that piece" "piece" refering to the person as the duke's possession (although to the listener most likely a reference to the picture as the duke's possession) "a wonder, now" "now" meaning, "now that she is only a painting and can do no harm to me/cannot make me jealous; NOW, I call her a wonder"...[/i]

So far my understanding of the poem. I would like to know whether there are things I got wrong.
And... well, I suppose, then I have to find out, what is typically Victorian about that poem and/or poet. If you have any clues, I'd be grateful.