A Measured Response
Over at Shakespeare in a Year, Ashley is making remarkable progress on her goal to work her way through the Complete Works of Shakespeare in just twelve months, and to blog about it. She recently re-read Measure for Measure, and had some harsh words for it, concluding that it “doesn’t work” and that maybe Shakespeare knew it. But this is one of my favorite plays. It works for me!
We can certainly disagree with each other, but I notice that she lists some questions about Measure for Measure that she says do not have even one reasonable answer:
Why does the duke temporarily abdicate? Why does he leave Angelo in charge, rather than the obviously more qualified Escalus? Why does he disguise himself as a friar? Why does he tell Claudio that he must die, when he knows perfectly well that he can fix the problem? Why is Angelo so suddenly and swiftly tempted by Isabella? Why is Isabella so violently angry when Claudio begs her to accept Angelo’s deal? Why is Barnardine able to simply refuse his own execution? Why does the virtuous Isabella consent to a bed trick that creates the same scenario for which her brother is imprisoned? Why does the duke tell her that Claudio is dead, why does he force Isabella to beg for Angelo’s life, and why on earth does the duke propose to Isabella?
And, perhaps most intriguing, does Isabella accept the duke’s proposal?
In my reading of the play, these questions do have answers, and it is my pleasure to share them with you. You may not like the answers, and that can be a discussion of its own, but I will provide textual evidence where it can illuminate. Please do not view this as an attack on her piece, though, and my goal is not to change anyone’s mind. I only offer another perspective to the conversation.
Why does the duke temporarily abdicate?
Duke: ’Twould be my tyranny to strike and gall them
For what I bid them do: for we bid this be done,
When evil deeds have their permissive pass
And not the punishment. Therefore, indeed, my father,
I have on Angelo impos’d the office,
Who may, in the ambush of my name, strike home,
And yet my nature never in the sight
To do it slander.
He’s not really abdicating. He’s just taking a trip and leaving Angelo in charge. His reason is because the laws have gone unenforced too long, and he feels that he no longer has the moral authority to enforce them, having been slack in his duties for so long. By leaving a deputy in charge, it will make the sudden changes in law enforcement seem less arbitrary and unjust.
Why does he leave Angelo in charge, rather than the obviously more qualified Escalus?
Duke: Lord Angelo is precise;
Stands at a guard with envy; scarce confesses
That his blood flows, or that his appetite
Is more to bread than stone: hence shall we see,
If power change purpose, what our seemers be.
He knows that Angelo has the austerity to get the job done. But if you look at the last line quoted, he seems to at least be open to the idea that power may corrupt Angelo.
Why does he disguise himself as a friar?
Duke: And to behold his sway,
I will, as ’twere a brother of your order,
Visit both prince and people:
He wants to keep an eye on his experiment.
Why does he tell Claudio that he must die, when he knows perfectly well that he can fix the problem?
Duke: Be absolute for death; either death or life
Shall thereby be the sweeter.
At this point, he doesn’t have all of the information he needs and he’s not sure what he’s going to do. Claudio is already condemned to death (and for something he actually did), so there’s no sense in raising his hopes for nothing.
Why is Angelo so suddenly and swiftly tempted by Isabella?
Angelo: What! do I love her,
That I desire to hear her speak again,
And feast upon her eyes? What is’t I dream on?
O cunning enemy, that, to catch a saint,
With saints dost bait thy hook! Most dangerous
Is that temptation that doth goad us on
To sin in loving virtue: never could the strumpet,
With all her double vigour, art and nature,
Once stir my temper; but this virtuous maid
Subdues me quite. Ever till now,
When men were fond, I smil’d and wonder’d how.
He is attracted to her virtue, but he is inexperienced with women and doesn’t know how to handle these emotions. In fact, he grows to hate himself for them, and deliberately casts himself as a villain because he sees himself that way. When he is eventually caught, his death sentence seems like a relief.
Why is Isabella so violently angry when Claudio begs her to accept Angelo’s deal?
Isabella: O you beast!
O faithless coward! O dishonest wretch!
Wilt thou be made a man out of my vice?
Is’t not a kind of incest, to take life
From thine own sister’s shame? What should I think?
She is very religious, and sees death as preferable to dishonor. Her brother, she feels, should be more concerned with protecting her honor than with saving his own life. That he allowed himself to feel otherwise shames their family before God.
Why is Barnardine able to simply refuse his own execution?
Duke: We have strict statutes and most biting laws,—
The needful bits and curbs to headstrong steeds,—
Which for this fourteen years we have let sleep;
Even like an o’ergrown lion in a cave,
That goes not out to prey. Now, as fond fathers,
Having bound up the threat’ning twigs of birch,
Only to stick it in their children’s sight
For terror, not to use, in time the rod
Becomes more mock’d than fear’d; so our decrees,
Dead to infliction, to themselves are dead,
And liberty plucks justice by the nose;
The baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart
Goes all decorum.
This is a comic scene, but it underlies a point made earlier in the play (quoted above). The law in Vienna has become a joke, and if Barnardine wants to refuse his own execution, nobody really knows what to do about it.
Why does the virtuous Isabella consent to a bed trick that creates the same scenario for which her brother is imprisoned?
Duke: Nor, gentle daughter, fear you not at all.
He is your husband on a pre-contract:
To bring you thus together, ’tis no sin,
Sith that the justice of your title to him
Doth flourish the deceit.
The Duke explains to Isabella (as he later describes to Mariana here) that Angelo and Mariana have been contracted to each other, and therefore, their union will only consummate the marriage, which is why Mariana is able to address Angelo as her husband in the last scene of the play. Juliet and Claudio had no such contract, and so it’s fornication. I know it sounds silly, but Shakespeare did make the distinction in the text.
Why does the duke tell her that Claudio is dead, why does he force Isabella to beg for Angelo’s life, and why on earth does the duke propose to Isabella?
Duke: Against all sense you do importune her:
Should she kneel down in mercy of this fact,
Her brother’s ghost his paved bed would break,
And take her hence in horror.
He seems to be testing Isabella. My take is that he wants to know how unwavering is the moral code of this woman who judges other so harshly. When she shows mercy to Angelo, even as she believes he has killed her brother, the Duke learns that she’s the real deal. He proposes on the spot.
And, perhaps most intriguing, does Isabella accept the duke’s proposal?
Duke: Dear Isabel,
I have a motion much imports your good;
Whereto if you’ll a willing ear incline,
What’s mine is yours, and what is yours is mine.
She probably does. It’s somewhat jarring for a modern audience, but hey, he’s the Duke. Why wouldn’t she accept? Being the Duchess of Vienna is so much better than being a nun in a convent, am I right?
Seriously, though, there are a few problems with the play, as I admit here, but not an unusual amount for Shakespeare. I actually like that it’s darker than his other comedies, but remember that it ends on a note of hope.
For more Measure for Measure fun, check out Sharky’s single-sentence scene reactions, or my univocalic plot summary that uses U as the only vowel!
I invite comments and criticism.
January 30th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Thanks for a great discussion! I agree with the textual support you’ve selected, which does offer some potential answers to my questions. My take on this, however, is that we can’t take what these people say at face value; there is always an undercurrent of something darker and more menacing in this play. Perhaps I should have phrased my questions differently: Not “Why does he/she do this” but “Why does he/she *really* do this?”
February 2nd, 2011 at 7:25 pm
I love MEASURE FOR MEASURE, so I’m glad to see it defended, though I don’t really agree with all the answers you’ve put forth. For example, why does the Duke tell Claudio he’s going to die. I kind of think the Duke is making it up as he goes along. I also don’t think Isabella accepting the Duke’s proposal is so cut and dry. People like to say, “oh back in those days she would have said yes” which seems to ignore the fact that for hundreds of years scholars and critics have been questioning Shakespeare’s intentions with this ending.
Ashley, I think a lot of the answers to your questions lie in individual performance. That’s really why I love this play, because there are so many questions the text leaves that have to be answered by a production. It means each time you see MEASURE FOR MEASURE, it could be completely different. That’s always very exciting to me.
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:44 am
Welcome Ashley and Charlene!
I certainly don’t imagine that I have the power to shut down centuries of debate with my reading, which is intended to be merely a contribution.
But in my reading, she marries him, and it’s my biggest problem with the play.
Of course, as you point out, productions can make different choices, and I’ve seen this moment handled in a variety of creative ways that have left me more satisfied than the text alone does.
I have no problem with the idea that each of these questions could have multiple answers, opportunities for interpretation, material for debate, or even different answers for different people. My only objection was to the notion that there are no answers to them at all.