Word Play (with a side of metaphysics)

I’d like to jump into the text with a discussion of Shakespeare’s play on the word “mettle” and its homonyms (i.e. medal and meddle)--word play that unifies a few spheres of discourse in the drama. We get the first instance of “metal” (a variant of “mettle”) at the very beginning of the play when Angelo implores the Duke, “Let there be some more test made of my metal/Before so noble and so great a figure/Be stamped upon it” (1.1.49). On the surface, Angelo refers to the quality of his spirit or character (his metal) and the noble responsibility about to be entrusted to his soul. There’s also an implicit meaning in the diction though, which suggests that what’s being vested in him is not only of a spiritual nature, but also dons a material badge. The language calls to mind the stamping of a coin or honorary medal, and as we come to discover, the play is all about appearance and substance, illusion and truth, outward action and inner dimension. Later in the play we get the slang “medlar” meaning “prostitute” (4.3.161) which then ironically resonates with Lucio’s indictment of Friar Lodowick (the Duke) for “meddling” in the situation (5.1.127). Then we get Friar Peter’s defense of Lodowick, saying he is not a “temporary meddler” (5.1.144). This brings me back to the movement of the spiritual and material spheres in the play; the spirit (mettle) does not meddle in matters of the ephemeral world, such as the appointment of any kind of medal of honor. At the same time, the action and drama of the play emerges out of the Duke’s impulses. In the Vedantic tradition, Brahman (the conscious principle that underlies all reality, including the manifested world) is often talked about as a divine trinity consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Brahma is the creative impulse of Brahman, while Vishnu is its preserving aspect and Shiva is the force that returns all of creation to its source, Brahman. The Duke, like Brahman, creates, preserves and returns the play to its original order. Out of the Duke’s omniscient Mind, a drama arises in which the actors become lost in the illusion of the material world, mistaking it for true and substantive, and thus fall from grace. After this drama has been sustained long enough for us to learn a lesson, the Duke returns that world to its original harmony. I think one of the more spiritual lessons learned comes from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount; namely, our inner lives are just as real and consequential as our outward actions. When Isabella gets down on her knees at the end of the play and pleas for Angelo’s life, on the grounds that he should not be punished because his intent never became action and only actions are punishable; of course, ironically, the drama and excitement of the play derive entirely from thoughts, desires, and intentions. Again Shakespeare gives us a wonderful dramatic irony at the end of the play. While everything onstage is apparently resolved because no harmful action has been committed, we as an audience have learned the power of desires and thoughts to shape the drama of the world around us.

Reflecting on a production past

Fall of 2008 our college put on a production of Measure for Measure. I worked backstage on the show and have some really fond memories of it. While the actual production itself was sometimes hard to follow due to its use of having one person play multiple roles as well as gender bending those roles. Also not exactly an inspired choice, but far less boring that placing it in the baroque era as our recent Twelfth Night our school's production of Measure for Measure was set in the Victorian era. Here are some photos and a video I took while working backstage :-). The video is of the little boy's song to Mariana in ACT IV








1. Abe Kless was hysterical as the much abused clown Pompey
2. The cast hamming it up
3. Amy Smith as the bombastic Mistress overdone she had to sit with her hair in pin curlers for quite some time to get the romantic over the top coif of the era
4. Real life Brit Alex Oates as the Duke. His portrayal of the Duke was charming and sincere. To disguise his northern english accent Alex put on a scottish accent as the friar.
5. Lauren Kennedy as the fierce Isabella.
6. Kyle Ryan get in character to portray the lascivious Lucio
7. The lovely Lauren Tyrel gender bends as Escalus

The Duke - Interesting but Kind of a Jerk

As interesting as I think the Duke is as a character in Measure for Measure, I find his actions at the end of the play deplorable. At the start of the play, I was more or less on his side, believing that his actions (that is, disguising as a friar to “test” Angelo) were for the good of the people; he simply wanted to see “if power change purpose” (I.iv.54). However, in Acts IV and V, as his plans for Claudio and Isabel unfold, it seems the feelings of others are just about the last thing on his mind.

In Act III, the Duke (dressed as a friar), orders the Provost to basically sacrifice the unsuspecting Barnardine. I understand that Barnardine’s fate was already decided, but he is basically using this unsuspecting man as simply a tool in his grand scheme instead of leaving his to die in (somewhat) peace.

Here, the Duke uses his “double life” to his advantage as a form of manipulation. First, he uses words such as “vow,” “by the saint whom I profess,” and “plead,” and makes reference to his religious “coat,” that is, uses his alter ego’s religious power in order to persuade the provost. But when that doesn’t work, he writes a letter from himself (the Duke) especially for the provost, discussing his return and ordering that this execution take place. To further persuade, he claims that this information was not even given to Angelo.

The nature of his manipulation of Isabel is slightly more ambiguous to the readers (or at least to me). In IV.iii, the Duke (still disguised as a friar), deliberately lies to Isabel about her brother’s fate: “But I will keep her ignorant of her good, to make her heavenly comforts of despair when it is least expected” (IV.iii.101-103). According to the Duke, he is doing this for her own good; in the end, he will bring her peace of mind. But first of all, the way he delivers the new is, to me, completely malicious! “He hath released him Isabel, from the world. His head is off and sent to Angelo” (IV.iii.107-108). He deliberately builds her up, implying they released Claudio from prison, and then, after a pause, adds, “from the world.” It was almost as if he wanted her to suffer more. Or is this another test, perhaps of Isabella’s faith? And when she breaks down in front of him, instead of comforting her, the Duke flatly tells her “This nor hurts him, nor profits you” (IV.iii.115). This response is much like what a mother would say when her young child has a tantrum; instead of entertaining the outburst, she would simply respond: “this isn’t doing anyone any good.”

But what are his true motives? As I said before, he claims that withholding the information will bring her peace of mind, but why bother waiting? In my opinion, the text suggests that the Duke is doing this for his own benefit. He tells Isabella:

“The Duke comes home tomorrow – nay, dry your eyes –[…]Already he hath carried/Notice to Escalus and Angelo,/Who do prepare to meet him at the gates,/There to give up their power. If you can pace your wisdom/In that good path that I would wish it go,/And you shall have your bosom on this wretch,/Grace of the Duke, revenges to your heart,/And general honour” (119-128). It seems to me that the Duke is withholding the information until he can be the Duke again, so that he can reveal to her, as himself, the good news; he wants to be the hero. Basically, he is saying, “There, there, Isabella, that super-awesome Duke of ours will solve all your problems.” Moreover, he uses this good news as a platform to propose to Isabella? What a gem!

And does anyone else find it ironic that the Duke is dressed as a friar while “playing God” with these people’s lives?

Moral chaos begets plot chaos

Measure for Measure sets itself in a city of moral chaos and in the classical tradition of an order and chaos impulse. In fact Shakespeare’s structure for Measure for Measure employs early plot turns that cause confusion, disorder and the piece’s irony, humor, and indignant resolve from likely and unlikely denizens and citizens of Vienna.

The moral belt around the waist of Vienna’s citizenry has loosened in recent years, and the Duke has decided that it is time for it to be tightened. In act one we meet several characters who epitomize the Duke’s concern for his city’s moral wanderings. We meet two honorable men outside of a not so honorable place of business: a brothel. Lucio the libertine is there along with a bawd who until this day feared no man in any position whether it be a sexual one or a lawful one.

It is the bawd’s entrance that introduces an early and significant plot turn: “There’s one yonder arrested and carried to prison was worth five thousand of you all.” Here Mistress Overdone comes with news to which the two heedless Gentlemen pay attention. This plot turn is characterized by confusion and humor and the indignant responses of the two Gentlemen and Lucio. After the Mistress’s lines they dismiss her news to be false and exit dead set on proving her words to be gossip. Of course Mistress Overdone knows better and speaks truth. Now alone on stage, she sulks over the economic chaos that her prostitution business will endure: “Thus, what with the war, what with the sweat, what with the gallows, and what with poverty, I am custom-shrunk.” (This makes you wonder whether Nevada’s fiscal problems don’t just have to do with its housing crisis.)

So far moral lines have been straight (pun intended) forward in the minds of the sanctimonious: Sex with a prostitute is bad, a woman prostituting herself is worse, and sexual diseases are the result of bad morals (not bacteria, viruses, and cheap condoms). But the plot turn that comes with Claudio’s entrance throws confusion into the story and into the question of moral truth. Claudio has not been carried off to prison because of murder or prostitution. He is to be locked up because the informal or “true contract” that he had in marriage with Julietta (one that had been accepted by the state) is now unacceptable. What was right (but really wrong) yesterday is now wrong, and what was really right yesterday is really wrong today.

So unfair.

Interestingly, the comedy was first performed in 1604, the second year of a new king’s rule. King James ushered in a new and more aggressive political culture particularly views that were less woman-friendly (to say the least). Is there a connection here? I hope our discussion in class touches on this!

"And liberty plucks justice by the nose; The baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart Goes all decorum"

MEASURE FOR MEASURE ACT I

I felt that the first act of Measure for Measure introduced a very strange story with plenty of contradictory characters. Some of the characters seemed believable while others seemed more like caricatures.

I cannot decide how I feel about the Duke. He is clearly a cowardly man who is afraid of how the people of Vienna think of him. What’s interesting about his reasoning for giving Lord Angelo power is that he claims it wouldn’t be comfortable to enforce laws now that they’ve been in effect for so long without enforcement. He claims that he would be seen as joke or not taken seriously, losing authority. This doesn’t make sense to me. How does the Duke think that giving power to Lord Angelo to enforce the law will grant him more authority or earn him more respect? I would think that taking control and enforcing his own laws would warrant more respect ultimately that giving power over, which seems like he’s waving a white flag. The Duke tries to reason that if he were to enforce his laws at this point, the people of Vienna would think badly of him. The way I see the situation is that giving power over to Lord Angelo only makes the Duke seem like a coward unfit to govern. Ironically, the Duke is so concerned with what the people of Vienna think of him that he is completely blind to the reality of what they think of him.

Despite what I think is a bad move on the Duke’s part, I do not find him to be an unlikable character yet. I’m trying to see the positives in the Duke’s laws, as I believe he intended them to be helpful and not seen as restrictive. To ban premarital sex does seem extreme, but I can see the potentially good intentions behind this ban. If it were punishable to have premarital sexual relations, there would likely be less pregnancies out of wedlock, less infidelity, less sexual harassment, etc. Vienna would be in totality a less sinful place with “pure” citizens. This would benefit the reputation of the city, the Duke, and the citizens. It all seems like a win-win situation- if it were practical and likely, or in the Duke’s case, enforceable.

I suppose that the Duke chose Lord Angelo because he knew he would be a strict leader, but I wonder if he truly knew Angelo’s character before giving him his power. Angelo seems to be a caricature; although there have definitely been leaders in the past who have governed as unjustly as Angelo. Regardless, he seems like a very sleazy and unlikable, power-hungry and selfish man. It seems as though the Duke does not fully trust Angelo, as he disguises himself as a friar in order to observe Angelo at work. This makes me question why the Duke would chose Angelo in the first place, if he did not have full confidence in him taking on the job.

Measure for Measure: A Society Obsessed with Sex

From the opening of Measure of Measure, it is clear that the society which the characters inhabit is completely obsessed with sex. This obsession, much like our modern day American society, stems from authorities who attempt to stifle a humans natural urges. What results from giving something the aura of being taboo, is our unconscious tendency to gravitate towards the subject in question simply because, the forbidden is enticing.
In our modern day America, we are monitored and censored throughout every moment of every day. From strict school dress codes that rigidly punish all violators, to FDA on air regulations limiting free speech, to images we aren’t supposed to be viewing, it seems that authorities in American society love to restrict our contact with all things raunchy. The problem with such restriction is that, the more you try to enforce rules that the people don’t agree with, the more they will fight against them.
The same can be said of the society Shakespeare has created in Measure for Measure. From the opening, it is clear that the Duke of Vienna is struggling with the responsibilities of ruling. Though the audience is not immediately informed why, the Duke takes a leave of absence and surrenders control of Vienna to Angelo. Angelo’s ruling style is a sudden dramatic shift for all the people of Vienna. His method seems to involve strict rules and even stricter punishment. Though his intentions are good, all he seems to succeed in doing is aggravating the people of Vienna, and ruining Claudio’s life.
In the second scene, the reader is further convinced of Vienna’s obsession with sex from the conversation that takes place between Lucio and two gentleman who are with him. They banter on about venereal diseases and how much money they have spent on prostitutes as Mistress Overdone joins their conversation. Mistress Overdone is the head of the brothel, and it can be concluded from her conversation with these men that she is well acquainted with them and their frequenting of her brothel. With the entrance of the Mistress, a new plot point is introduced to the audience. Apparently the character Claudio was arrested for impregnating his lover Juliet. This is yet another plot point driven by sex. To further the audiences certainty that sex is a prominent topic in this play, we are then informed that Angelo, in an effort to control the city, is closing down all the brothels in the suburbs. We also learn that although he may have tried to shut down the brothels in the city of Vienna, a wealthy investor prevented it.
Act one then concludes with the introduction of a character who lies at the other end of the sexually driven spectrum. Isabella is Claudio’s sister, and she is currently trying to become a nun. Such restrictive behavior is only another form of obsession. The conscious decision to join a nunnery and end all contact with men is Isabella’s way of contending with her society. The audience can assume that her philosophy about Vienna may closely parallel Angelo’s who also practices restricting behaviors that he deems unacceptable. Isabella is asked to plead with Angelo for her brothers sake, and so the plot of Measure for Measure is well underway.

Why Isabella?

In Scene 1.4 of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, Lucio approaches Isabella to convince Lord Angelo to soften the sentence on her brother Claudio for getting her friend Juliet pregnant and then leaving her alone (after promising marriage). Why is Isabella chosen? It is true that she is a respected holy, virginal woman whose brother is being imprisoned, but the request seems against Isabella’s standards and abilities as a good Christian.

The scene begins with Isabella’s interaction with the nun Francesca—a nun cannot speak with a man while showing her face or can show her face but cannot speak. It is Lucio calling on Isabella to persuade Lord Angelo to ease the punishment on her own brother. Lucio selects Isabella because she has a good reputation—surrounded by nuns and on the way to take the nun’s vow—and because it is her brother influenced by this situation. But the request seems to be against the responsibilities and intricacies of being a nun. For example, before she is a nun, she is asked to approach a man to persuade him of something, while sworn nuns would not be allowed to do such a thing. It is also asking Isabella to support an unholy cause—her brother Claudio has gotten a girl pregnant and left her. While forgiveness and understanding are key to Christianity, the time in which the play was written considered marriage to be of great importance—a necessity to sex and childbirth. Claudio had made the spoken agreement of marriage with Juliet, but did not follow through with it. Does Isabella agree to speak with Lord Angelo because she is a forgiving, compassionate Christian, or because Claudio (her brother) is in trouble? She has described Juliet as being like her cousin.

Lucio speaks with Isabella because Claudio has told him of her persuasive powers, but how do men expect her speaking ability alone to persuade? Lucio explains to Isabella “Go to Lord Angelo;/ And let him learn to know, when maidens sue,/ Men give like gods, but when they weep and kneel,/ All their petitions are as freely theirs/ As they themselves would owe them” (1.4 79-83). The men expect womanly charm to help persuade a man, as it is rude and disrespectful to completely dismiss a good woman’s opinion. Isabella clearly is a good Christian woman, but the use of feminine charm and persuasiveness is basically against Christian standards. Especially as a woman trying to be a nun, just how much charm can a woman (in this case, Isabella) use to convince a man while still conforming to the societal and Christian expectations of a woman at that time?

Nonetheless, Isabella decides to go to convince Lord Angelo. She may not realize the extent to which her femininity will affect her influence on Lord Angelo. The expectations placed on Isabella are slightly contrary to her very nature. The men in Measure to Measure use women in very contradictory ways in the play as far as I can tell from Act 1.

The Private, the Public, & Legitimate Violence

Two things struck me about Measure For Measure. The first is that the words “public” and “private” are used several times throughout the course of the play, like in 5.1.72 when Lucio says “I think if you handled her privately, she would sooner confess; perchance publicly she’ll be ashamed,” in 4.6.26 when Angelo’s use of the word “particular” actually means “private,” and in 5.1.452 when the Provost says “It was by private message.” Each time “public” is used it is referring to Antonio’s position of power both as a man and as a member of the state: his decree that Claudio should be executed, his well known precision, his “unsoiled name”, and his position as lawful leader of Vienna in the absence of the Duke are all “public.” “Private,” however, is used when referring to the women — Isabella and Mariana – and Antonio’s dealings with them. Angelo's promise to Isabella to spare her brother is made in the private, so he doesn’t actually have to keep it; Isabella and Mariana are accused of hatching a plan to destroy Angelo's reputation in the “private” with the friar; Angelo's sexual acts with Isabella/Mariana are also in the private as there is no scene of the encounter (which I was anticipating, probably because of our previous reading of Lucrece.) The Duke operates in both spheres (as himself in the public and as a friar in the private,) so he is able to subvert and reverse the power relations of the two, making what is done in the private supersede what is declared in the public. (Or maybe he simply makes the private public?) All Isabella’s and Marianna’s actions take place in the private: all the characters who interact with them have to enter the private (like when Lucio went to see Isabella at the convent) except for in scene five when the Duke, who permeates both worlds, manipulates them and brings them into the public.
The second is the way in which the play functions as a kind of microcosm of how the state employs its legitimate use of violence to police its subjects. As a document of the early modern era it foreshadows the ways in which violence is legally and legitimately used by governments in the modern era operating within the nation-state paradigm. Just as later 20th century governments could exercise violence over their own subjects (policing) and against other nation-states (war) Angelo and the Duke are allowed to execute criminals. There is nothing that determines when then can and cannot execute people, they can just do it whenever they deem it necessary. No one questions the legitimacy of their actions: Claudio’s punishment is rejected not because it is an execution in and of itself, but because it seems too severe, and ultimately because it is hypocritical of Angelo. I can’t help but ask if Angelo hadn’t lusted after Isabella, if he remained precise, would the execution have gone through? This is very different from today, where the very existence of the term “cruel and unusual punishment” shows a radical shift in the perception of how much power the state should be allowed to have and how it can or cannot use that power. The most interesting thing, though, was that the head of the state, the Duke, starts to question the legitimacy himself, and starts to base legitimacy not on law, but on morality. Claudio’s execution is wrong not because it is against the law, but because it is immoral. This is being mirrored in today's society in the way that WWII is called a "just war." It's justness (legitimacy) comes from morality. The same argument could be made for the war on terrorism (though not by me.)

The Role of Christianity in Measure for Measure

Through the first three acts of this play, the religious aspect of this play struck me as most interesting. Especially with adding the elements of Christianity from Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare shows the flexibility in interpreting the certain religion.

In class we discussed the difference in moods between the Old and New Testament. Angelo, if he were to sync up with one of the two, would certainly be associated with the Old Testament. Strict, harsh, very law-abiding, merciless -- these are traits he exploits. However, the twist in the plot as well as the other characters present a religious analysis, exploring the different realms of Christianity, as opposed to a contrast between Christianity and Judaism.

When Angelo first comes down on Claudio, he justifies his ruling by the law, stating that his crime was inexcusable and his condemnation irreversible. Isabella, a practicing nun, deems Claudio's penalty as excusable, begging for mercy, justifying her point by saying that God would grant the same mercy. To me, it seems as if both characters are representing two different interpretations of Christianity, the strict one, and the merciful one. The more likable one to me is Isabella's case, to put God's law (mercy, forgiveness), and to view a dilemma sympatretical instead of Angelo's philosophy, which is to rule by the book, without questioning.

Of course, the plot twist with Angelo blackmailing Isabella for sex, may provide more implications for the topic of Christianity, but at this point it is hard to conclude exactly what.

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.

Liars, Pimps and Prostitutes

One of the aspects of Measure for Measure that I noticed while reading through the play so far is how much more corruption and sin/vice there is in this world compared with the world of The Merchant of Venice. In this play, anti-Semitism is non-existant (at least so far) and all the characters are presumably Christian, though many of their actions do not coincide with the beliefs of Christianity.

So far, the play has focused on the aftermath of Claudio's crime of impregnating a woman he was not married to. Although this is a frowned upon action during the time of the play, we are led to believe that it is a crime that usually goes unpunished. A case such as this, where both parties are consenting, would seem less likely to be enforced, but because of the recent change in power, is being punished with death. This, especially in today's world, seems like an extremely over the top punishment and is depicted as such by the characters in the play.

In the context of the play, I'm not necessarily against Claudio's death if that is what the law states, but we are shown during Act 2 that Angelo is not the most honest man either. He is willing to spare Claudio's life if Isabella agrees to sleep with him. I was unclear on a couple of things regarding this situation though. Angelo speaks at least twice of being in love with Isabella, but I was unclear if his request to sleep with her also involved them being married. Either way Angelo is being dishonest by essentially taking a bribe, but it would seem far worse to me if he only wanted to sleep with her, especially considering that's the very thing Claudio is being put to death for. At least Claudio and Juliet were consenting, even if Isabella agreed to sleep with Angelo it would be truly consenting because she would only be doing it to save her brother.

Also, despite how out of line Angelo's proposal seems, I was somewhat shocked to hear Isabella refuse, and even more shocked to hear Claudio ask her to essentially suck it up and take one for the team. So far, Isabella seems to be the only honest person in the play. Everyone else, it would seem, is either a liar, pimp, or prostitute. Even the Duke is parading around as a friar for his own benefit and sits back while Angelo rules with an iron fist. I'm not sure which is more unsettling, the fact that the Duke is pretending he is a friar or that the other friars are okay with this situation.

Shakesperian Comedy?

Having finished the play already, I cannot really say I consider Measure for Measure one of Shakespeare's comedies. Although it does end with multiple marriages, a motif associated with a comedy as opposed to death's association with tragedy, this play is filled with deception, disguise, governmental conspiracies, prostitution, and general abhorrent behavior.

Angelo refuses to marry his fiancée simply because she lost her dowry and brings him no financial gain. He condemns other Vienneses for their actions when he is quite obviously guilty of committing the same transgressions. He requests that Isabella surrender her virginity and honor to him in order to free her brother’s name. After sleeping with Mariana, under the premise that it is Isabella, he still condemns Claudio to death. Claudio asks his sister to give up her honor and her virginity in order for him to escape the penalty of death for impregnating his girlfriend before they are married. Throughout the play, many characters constantly attempt to accuse another for breaking the law in order for the government not to suspect them of being lawbreakers themselves.

The Duke appears to be a voice of reason for the action of the play— he allows Angelo to take over as ruler of Vienna so he disguise himself and watch the action from an outsider’s experience. Interestingly, he disguises himself as a monk, a man of God, who other characters will surely invest their trust in and tell him the truth. However, the Duke epitomizes disguise and deception in the play. He concocts the plan of tricking Angelo with the help of Mariana and Isabella and suggests they still execute Barnadine and send his head to Angelo in order to save Claudio. When the action of the play culminates in Act V, the Duke at first denies the pleas of Isabella and Mariana and sends them to jail even though he was disguised as a monk and knows they’re telling the truth. After reinstating himself to power, he forces everyone to marry— Angelo is not executed for his hypocritical transgressions but is ordered to marry Mariana, he asks Isabella to marry him, and orders Lucio to marry a whore.

Despite the appalling actions of the characters in the play, one of my biggest dilemmas with this play is actually the forced marriages. I usually consider Shakespeare to be a very affective romantic author, very often including romantic plots or subplots in his comedies. The only true love that appears to be present in this play is that of Claudio and Juliet, whose fate is ultimately unaddressed, while the other characters are forced by the law into their marriages.

Disguise, Deception, and Where the Values Lie

Now that we are up to Act III in Measure for Measure, the idea of disguise and deception is right at the forefront. Not only do Isabella and the Duke plan to trick Angelo into reconciling with Mariana by swapping out the little nun for the jilted lover, but the Duke himself is fooling everybody by disguising himself as a friar. Add in the skewed values of Angelo and the intense passion of Isabella and the question of what crosses the lines in society comes to mind. Friars, to the best of my knowledge, are very pious and devote their lives to the Lord. Nuns, as well, are clean and pure and love God. Isabella would rather see her brother Claudio die than lose her virginity to Angelo (which she sees as dying herself), showing what may seem today as an uber-devotion to the Church. Sacrificing family for purity is Isabella's highest value at this point. The Duke/friar, on the other hand, thinks nothing of tricking the Duke-regent as a way of saving Claudio. The Duke/friar wants what is best for his city but feels no need to sacrifice Claudio to get it. Not only does tricking people and lying go against the Church, but the Duke himself praised Angelo for his precision. It seems that the Duke values precision, but only to a degree, and will do anything to keep his city from being a truly frightening place.

This leads back to Angelo, who was so precise and strict in the beginning but is now willing to not only go back on his word but break his own law. And all for a woman. Women had no power in Shakespeare's world? I beg to differ. Isabella's decision determines who lives or dies in this play. Angelo certainly values the law but he'll change his mind if a pretty, sweet-talking lady turns up at his door. With Angelo's hypocrisy and the Duke's complacency, it's hard to tell who the better ruler is here. This is where the core of the play ends up: a lack of conviction. Isabella is a model of conviction and values, placing the Church higher than anything else. The Duke helps her for it and Angelo loves her for it. If anything, she would be the better ruler for the city, since the Duke is afraid of being too strict and Angelo is too swayed by the opposite sex. But of course, if this play had characters who weren't hypocritical and flawed, Claudio would have to die and the play would get into tragedy territory by the third act.

Disguise and deception are key in Shakespearean comedy not only because the common mix-up can be a funny plot device, but also because the reveal the values of the characters. Isabella will deceive Angelo so she can keep her virginity. The Duke disguises himself so he may learn what the people think of him (leading to some very humorous moments) and to help others. Angelo deceives his people by exchanging Claudio for Isabella's virginity. Shakespeare is showing that anyone will do anything to get what they want, sacrificing accepted societal values and exposing their own hidden ones. Some characters remain good (Isabella), some turn out to be bad (Angelo), and some become a bit of both (the Duke).

-Sarah Bras

how will the events of measure for measure unfold?

One of the first questions I have after reading acts 2 and 3 of Measure for Measure is whether or not Claudio will live, and if so, what will have to be done to achieve this. Will Isabella have to in fact sleep with Angelo? Or will they be able to get Angelo to think twice about his request? I am interested to see the further development of the request between Angelo and Isabella, and what will come of it when a decision is made. I feel like Isabella will not go through with Angelo's request to sleep with her, as was discussed when they plotted to bring Mariana in. I believe that something will get Angelo to reconsider his options, and hopefully free Claudio.

Also, I am wondering if we will see more of the Mariana that was spoken of, and if her presence or even the idea of her will have a great impact on the way these events unfold. Maybe seeing Mariana will get Angelo to realize his request is uncalled for and hypocritical, and Claudio will be permitted to live. I feel like in a lot of Shakespeare’s works, there is often attention drawn to hypocritical characters and their choices throughout the play, and I definitely see Angelo as a hypocritical character from my reading so far. Reminding him of his relationship with Mariana and all that had happened with them may be what Angelo needs in order to think about his practices, and may make him realize that he is condemning someone (Claudio) for something he himself has basically done as well.

I also have been wondering what particular reason the Duke has for going into hiding and putting Angelo in charge. He could be doing it as a test to see how Angelo handles power maybe, or he could be doing it to teach Angelo a lesson about power. Maybe he wants Angelo to see what it is like to be in power and wants him to learn how to behave correctly in a position of power. At the same time, I can’t help but think that the Duke has done this in order to make himself look better as well. If he can get Angelo to strictly enforce rules and look like an unsympathetic leader, maybe he thinks that he can come in and “save the day” from the vicious Angelo, so that way everyone will be thankful to have such a wonderful, gracious leader.

Why Won't Isabella Just Sleep With Angelo?

While reading the first three acts of Measure for Measure what really jumped out at me was the character of Isabella. I found her to be a very intriguing and interesting character for many reasons. What really stood out to me was Isabella's blatant refusal of Angelo’s “suggestion”, which ultimately condemned her brother to death for a second time in this play. This refusal really got me wondering about to what extent was Isabella’s decision completely justified?

I think the question of whether or not Isabella’s decision is justified is quite a complicated question and I’m not sure I’ve figured it out for myself yet. The thought came across my mind at first, that maybe Isabella doesn’t really care so much for Claudio and that she (being a virtuous follower of god) thinks he deserves this punishment for this “sin”. But then I remembered that Isabella tries very hard to persuade Angelo to spare her brother, she says, “If he had been as you and you as he, / You would have slipped like him, but he, like you, / Would not have been so stern” (2.2 : 66-68). Here we see an example of Isabella trying to persuade Angelo by saying that if he committed the same offense, Claudio, if put in Angelo’s position, would have been merciful. Isabella’s constant plea for mercy for her brother is evidence that she indeed cares for her brother, but yet will not give “herself” to Angelo to save him. Isabella is so against giving her body to Angelo that she also says she would rather die instead of “… yield/ My body up to shame” (2.4: 103-104). Here is where I came to the realization that it wasn’t really a question of if Isabella cared for her brother, because she obviously does care for him to offer to die for him, but it’s the question of if Isabella cares about herself more. I think that by refusing to sleep with Angelo it is Isabella’s way of protecting her eternal soul. Isabella even says, “Better it were a brother died at once/ Than that a sister, by redeeming him, Should die for ever” (2.4 106-109). Here I think Isabella is placing a higher value on herself, or maybe just her eternal soul, than that of her brother’s life. So I guess based on this it comes down to the fact that Isabella is protecting her “soul” from eternal damnation, and I’m not sure if I can argue against this being wrong or selfish…especially considering the time period during which this takes place. I can see that in Isabella’s eyes a damned eternal soul is a fate worse than death so I therefore see her decision not to sleep with Angelo as somewhat justifiable. Finally, by contemplating the justification of Isabella’s decision it led me to think about whether or not her decision would have been different if this play was set during present day, where pre-marital sex is rampant if not the “norm”, and whether or not the setting/time period of the play is what solely allowed me to somewhat claim that her actions were justifiable?

The Unknown and Uncertain

While answering the question about how Claudio tries to convince Isabella to give herself up to Angelo, his powerful speech about death really stuck out. Claudio's first line "Ay, but to die, and go we know not where" reminded me of Hamlet's "to be or not to be"(3.1.118). Claudio is beginning to question the great uncertainty and unknown that surrounds death, just as Hamlet does. Does anyone really know what death is? What happens after death? Where do we go? No one lives to tell about it. Like Claudio says, it could be being suspended in nothingness or "to live in cold obstruction and rot"(3.1.119). It's as if reality has hit him that he may actually die. You don't realize the permanence and uncertainty of death until you're face to face with it.
These words are quite different from what he said in the beginning of Act 3 Scene 1 when talking to the Duke. It's as if he's gone back on his words. In the beginning he tells the Duke: "I've hope to live, and am prepared to die"(3.1.4) and "I find I seek to die, And seeking death, find life. Let it come on"(3.1.43-4). Claudio seems almost at peace with the idea of dying, but as the scene progresses, he's worried about the unknown. Will death mean blowing "with restless violence round about the pendent world"(3.1.125-6). At the end of his speech Claudio states "That age, ache, penury, and imprisonment / Can lay on nature is a paradise / To what we fear of death"(3.1.130-2). My take from this is that Claudio sees being old, living in prison, and/or being poor as better than having to face death and what happens after. Death has become unfathomable to Claudio, which I believe leads him to ask his sister to do the one sin that would be the worst for her to commit.
Lastly, it seems that Claudio is concerned with both what happens physically and while in purgatory. He talks about becoming a kneaded clod and the spirit bathing in fiery floods or "to reside in thrilling region of think-ribbed ice"(3.1.122-3). I think Claudio would feel as if he were a menace if he were killed. Obviously, Claudio wouldn't be dying gracefully and in his time, wouldn't be seen as deserving a place in heaven. What adds to this is that it seems that Claudio commits the ultimate selfish act by asking his sister to give her virginity to Angelo. In a way, I believe this would make Isabella the prisoner. Yes, Angelo would be free, but Isabella would pay the price and have to live with the sin she'd be committing. Isabella calls Angelo a "faithless coward" and ultimately tells him she'll pray that he dies. Claudio does seem like a coward...he's trying to escape death and his punishment by having someone else take the punishment. Claudio believes that Isabella's deed will be excused or inconsequential, when in fact, it won't be.
I think this all brings out Claudio's character more, and even leads Isabella's character to develop more. It's clear after their exchange that Isabella is determined and knows what she wants, much like Portia in Merchant of Venice. I'm interested to see how Claudio's character develops and how Isabella's plan to fool Angelo plays out.