Shakespeare’s Measure of Measure is a play that follows the progression of criminal law over its course. Angelo’s severe punishments during Act One mirror the Old Testament’s justice of “eye for an ear, measure for measurement”. In Act Two, Angelo’s personal corruption and the constant criticism of secondary characters undermine his justice. Isabella represents an alternative system that is aligned to the New Testament mercy, as exemplified in her beseeching Angelo for his life at the end of Act Two. The Duke’s punishments are forced marriages, not executions. This shift represents a move to a moderate power. This interpretation of the play satisfies the audience’s wish for reconciliation and progress. This reading, however, ignores several philosophical issues and plot issues that were left unresolved by the hasty reestablishment the Duke’s Rule. The end result of Measure for measure is that it does not promote a particular ideal justice system. A less obvious, but persistent motivator suppresses the idea of ideal justice: protecting your reputation. Angelo, Isabella and the Duke all act to protect themselves. But the actions of the Duchess best demonstrate how this motive is at the heart of disparate criminal law throughout the entire play.
?The question of reputation arises at the very beginning of the drama when the Duke decides temporarily to place Angelo on the throne in order to repair his public image. The Duke himself:
Angelo has imposed his office on me.
Who knows, perhaps, who may strike my home with the name ambush.
My nature is never at war.
To do in slander. (1.4.40-43)
In the play, “slander,” along later terms like “honor” or “shame,” plays a key role. In this moment, he recognizes that his “name”, i.e., position, as enforcers of the law is powerful, even though it’s not something he does. The Duke worries that he will be accused of slandering his “nature” or reputation if he becomes more strict with criminals. Under the disguise of a friar he adopts a more comical disposition, but only because the situation is a little ludicrous. Also, the lawgiver’s office is not “imposed” on him. He can act away from the public gaze. The Duke could be expected to act undercover to determine the criminality in his realm, similar to Justice Overdo from Bartholomew Faire. The Duke, however, says he would like to check if Angelo has a virtuous and austere character. The Duke is a manipulative man himself and wants to find out if Angelo’s good reputation can be maintained under the influence his newfound power. The Duke is obsessed with Angelo’s image in public and his reputation from the time he gives him power until the very end. Angelo’s final lines at the end Act Five hint at his inability to maintain an austere persona necessary to enforce the strict laws that he tries to enforce.
Angelo is questioned for his motives to be a lawgiver after the Duke foreshadows. This occurs even before Angelo proposes Isabella as a sex partner in exchange of Claudio’s safety. Claudio criticizes Angelo the most explicitly in a metaphor, after being sentenced for impregnating the woman he loves.
If the public body is
The horse on which the Governor rides
Newly seated, it is likely to know
He is able to command, let it feel straight the spur (1.3.43-46)
Claudio accuses Angelo, claiming that Angelo punished him for no reason and without waiting to see if the metaphorical horse was out of control. Claudio is executed as an example before the “public” to help Angelo establish his reputation as a policeman even before laws are broken. Claudio goes on to state that Angelo is acting “surely just for a reputation” (1.3.55). Claudio may have been used by Angelo as a way to improve the reputation of law enforcement, but it is cruel. Angelo is fair, he does punish with a strict stance, and this shows that he has more than one reason for doing so. In discussing Elbow Pompey Froth he seems to display an excessive amount of zeal in punishing them. Angelo says to Escalus that he hopes he will find some good reason for whipping them, even though it is not clear whether they committed crimes. Angelo will not be concerned about the motive behind this second motivation. It does not matter if it is personal malice. Angelo, as well as the hardline reputation that he’s quickly gained for the office he holds, are only put at risk if he breaks the laws he himself has set.
Isabella threatens Angelo in Act Two to expose his hypocrisy. Their conversation shows the importance and power of reputation. Isabella commands Angelo: “Sign my pardon for the brother I love/ Or with a stretched throat, i’ll tell/ the world what man you are!” (2.4.154-156) Isabella is using her voice power, as opposed to Angelo who uses his physical power to enforce law, to reveal to “the world” Angelo’s hypocrisy. Angelo, however, realizes that he is stronger than Isabella because of his reputation:
My name is clean, and I am a person of utter austerity.
I’m going to tell you my opinion about your character and where I stand.
Will you so overweigh the accusation of your own?
It is this that you must suppress in the report.
(2.4.157-161) (2.4.157-161)
Angelo’s reputation as a state agent (“my place within the state”), and his personal good name (“unsoiled” name), are used to undermine Isabella’s reputation. Angelo will “overweigh” Isabella’s reputation, which is then “stifled”. Isabella’s reputation will be marked by a “smell” of calumny or a metaphor. Ironically, a man’s reputation can be used to ruin a woman’s reputation. The characters’ reputations are given a different significance from their virtue. In the play there is a dilemma that arises, apart from justice and mercy issues, which is how to align reputation with real character.
Angelo highlights that the state punishes known criminals and not all criminals in another example where reputation is more important than character. Angelo explains that even though there are criminals on the jury of a trial, “What’s opened to justice/That justices seized,” (2.1.12-22) Angelo insists that it is unfair to punish only certain criminals. To represent himself, he uses the personified justice. When criminals “come to light” in his presence, he is the one who “seizes”. Angelo continues, “What is it that knows the laws/That thieves pass on thieves?” (2.1.22-23). Angelo now adds a new layer to Angelo’s conception of what or who enforces criminal law. As inanimate rules, laws can’t recognize the hypocrisy that is present in a system. Angelo dismisses and acknowledges that criminal justice is not in line with the spirit of justice. However, he still tries hard to justify his system as a “justice-enforcing” one. Angelo is forced to use rhetorical tricks in order for his actions to be justified. Now, his Old Testament justice seems harsh and arbitrary. Angelo may be a villain, but Isabella also shows concern for her reputation.
Isabella, pillar of virtue and mercy, shows an obsession for “honor” that is exaggeratedly concerned about her reputation and that of her brother. Isabella would give her brother his life to keep Angelo happy. She would “my body to shame” (2.4.104). “Shame,” can mean a sense of personal disgrace as well as a shame that’s felt by others. Isabella worries about both, but more the public shame, as she convinces Claudio to kill. He told her that if he gave in to Angelo’s demands, it would “bark your [Claudio’s] honour from the trunk you carry/ And leave you bare” (3.1.70-72). The bark of a tree is used to describe honor, which can be seen from the outside. This is a way to show the public face of both “honor” and “shame”. It would be a public humiliation to see him “naked”. Isabella encourages Claudio to choose “perpetual honour” over a few extra years of life (3.1.74-66). “Perpetual honour” also has the religious meaning of honoring oneself in the next life. Her concern for Claudio’s eternal life and his honorable reputation drives her to extremes. Claudio says, in an honest way, “Death can be a frightening thing.” Isabella replies, “And shamed living is hateful.” (3.1.117). She’d rather have her brother die than live in shame. This is a form extreme that reflects Angelo’s concern with his reputation.
In the play’s final scenes, the audience anticipates that a final justice will be established with the return the Duke. The lengthy scenes in the play where the duke publicly confesses Angelo’s crimes are more than just a way to tidy up loose threads. They serve as the climax of the building of the duke’s reputation. In the Duke’s complicated plan, he first sends Angelo a decree that makes his arrival public. The only time that unidentified people crowd around the stage is in this scene. The Duke reveals the truth by denouncing Isabella, even though the accusation was made by him. The Duke sends Isabella to prison for slandering those higher-up than her: “Shall We Permit/ A Blasting and a Scandalous Breath to Fall/ On His [Angelo] So Near Us?” (5.1.123-125) This quote demonstrates the need to protect power and reputation. Isabella being imprisoned is cruel but unnecessary for the Duke to do justice to Angelo. In this way, the duke can pretend to be a monk and accuse Angelo personally, giving him credit for the crime. Claudio’s life is also kept secret by the Duke until he decides to punish Angelo.
Angelo’s punishment is more effective in restoring the reputations of both Mariana and the Duke than a harsh Old Testament or a merciful New Testament. The Duke first proposes Angelo giving himself up: “An Angelo to Claudio, Death for Death,” (5.1.405). Mariana, Isabella and the Duke ignore Mariana when she pleads with him to spare Angelo. Instead they direct the conversation toward Claudio’s demise. When the Duke reveals to Angelo that Claudio has survived, he says “Lord Angelo feels safe./ Methinks there’s a quick’ning of his eye” (5.1.490-491). The Duke’s saving of Claudio is what spares Angelo, not the pleas from the women. Angelo was pardoned and freed from all evil by the Duke. “Well Angelo. You’re done with your evil,” (5.1.492) The Duke is the only one who can be held responsible for the moderate sentence he finally reaches. To give the Duke all the credit for his reputation, the scenes in the end are much longer than necessary. To conclude, the Duke protects Mariana’s reputation from ruin by marrying Angelo.
Lucio’s harsh treatment by the Duke proves that the Duke’s harsh punishment was the real motive for his punishment. Lucio committed the only crime the Duke “cannot forgive” (5.1.495). He repeatedly insults the Duke in the entire play. While it may seem that insulting Angelo was more innocent, the Duke threatens Lucio to be whipped and hanged. The Duke changes his mind quickly and decides on a punishment for those who are concerned with their reputation. Lucio is forced to marry the prostitute who gave birth to his child. Again, the punishment is more severe than death for this act of shame. Lucio declares, “Marrying my lord a punk is death by beating, whipping or hanging!” (5.1.518). Duke, also concerned with his reputation, does not dispute Lucio’s ridiculous statement. He replies instead, “Slandering of a prince deserves this punishment,” (5.1.519). This punishment makes sense on multiple levels. Lucio’s slandering of the Duke will result in him being slandered. The severity of his punishment is neither as severe as Angelo’s harsh punishment nor Isabella’s extreme mercy. The Duke’s punishment is harsher than any other character’s, even Angelo who is objectively more villainous.
Measure for Measure’s justice does not save Claudio or punish Angelo for his hypocrisy or crime. It also doesn’t restore Isabella honor nor do they equalize the level of criminality in the Duke’s reign. Shakespeare, instead of focusing on the thorny issue of justice, focuses on a less noble motivation of officials. The Duke takes decisions in the final act that restore his reputation. This is a systemic motivator, not just a Duke-specific one. Angelo & Isabella worry about their reputations using language like justice, honor, & mercy. The final scenes in Measure for Measure reinforce the complexity of justice and show that appearing to be a just leader can be as effective as being one.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. Gauge Measurement for Measure. Ed. Grace Ioppolo. W.W. Norton & Co. published in New York in 2010. Print.
