Ambiguous Morality

Measure for Measure fascinates me in regards to the sheer amount of ambiguous morality that can be found within the play. Shakespeare presents us with a world full of humorous prostitutes, well-meaning constables, corrupt and manipulative officials, and very few truly virtuous or villainous characters to choose from, thus leaving the audience with a conundrum—what, in the play, is truly considered moral? And what is not?

What is most intriguing is the diversity amongst the characters with whom we, the audience, are supposed to sympathize. Clearly Claudio and Juliet are meant to be highly sympathetic characters despite their current status of shamed wedlock and imprisonment—this could hardly be made any clearer, as it seems that nearly every other character we meet in the play is highly sympathetic to their plight, the whores and pimps just as much as Isabella and the Provost himself. Isabella herself is equally sympathetic, a virtuous and soon-to-be holy woman on a mission to plead for mercy on behalf of her brother, who, while he has sinned, still holds her love and forgiveness. On the other hand, there is an odd, humorous sort of sympathy attached to the prostitutes currently under siege as we are introduced to their lifestyle with a myriad of jokes, puns, and a sort of practicality that, while remaining basically (according to the play) immoral, nevertheless conveys far more sympathy to Claudio’s plight than Angelo, supposedly a paragon of virtue, ever expresses.

Possibly the only truly virtuous character in the entire play is Isabella—all the others indulge in one vice or another. Claudio and Juliet’s “sins” are made plain; the Duke is highly manipulative of his subjects and his laws; Lucio, while charming and engaging, frequents the brothels and whore-houses; Angelo is prideful, cold, and unmerciful, even before his lust causes him to stoop to bribery and threats in order to attain what he wishes. However, even with this apparent lack of virtue, the play as a whole does not come off, to me at least, as totally immoral. This impression is aided by the fact that Angelo’s offer of allowing Claudio to live in exchange for Isabella’s virginity, the only (so far) truly villainous action in the play, is immediately turned down, repeatedly and with force. Later, Isabella, Claudio, and the disguised Duke all denounce his actions unjust, immoral, and sinful—although Claudio does suffer from some delayed terror of death, he soon calms down and reconciles with his sister—thus clearly indicating, for possibly the first time in the entire play, what is moral, and what is not.

I expect that, as the rest of the play progresses, we will see even more morally ambiguous situations, but it seems to me that the primary issue of the play—how morality is defined—is what is drawing us to the conclusion more than anything. I wait to see at what conclusion we will find ourselves at the end—will we get a definitive answer? Is such a thing even possible? We shall see.