Measure for Measure – A problem play

“In Measure for Measure Shakespeare is ready and willing to start at the twentieth century if only the seventeenth would let
him." -George Bernard Shaw
Shakespeare has intrigued people for centuries -because his' work has captured the universal moral tension within the human
condition. His views on the law, especially in Measure for Measure, are fascinating and compelling because society has
continually struggled with what it means to be "just." Shakespeare addresses society's administration of justice in Measure for
Measure. Critical examinations of Measure for Measure, from the early 19th Century to the present, have fostered a deeply
ingrained perception of it as Shakespeare's most problematic play. Coleridge set the stage in 1802, referring to it without any
understatement as a "hateful work" and the "single exception of the delightfulness of Shakespeare's plays. Swinburne concurred
less caustically, complaining that the play's comic resolution precludes a sense of dramatic justice. Justice, he said, "is buffeted,
outraged, insulted, [and] struck in the face.Hazlitt also decried a lack of rectitude at the play's close: "Our sympathies are
repulsed and defeated in all directions. The negative criticism hounding the play has continued in this century. For many critics.
Measure For Measure is a "problem play," a play in which a moral problem is presented in such a manner that the intent of the
play becomes uncertain. In the case of Measure, what makes it problematic for many of its critics is its comedic intent. They find
the play too weighted down with so much moralistic matter to ever soar as comedy. The literary critic, Northrop Frye, said
Measure "becomes" a "tragic" play since it "contains" and does not avoid a "tragic action." Ronald R. MacDonald comments on
its "universally recognized somberness."® Others have labelled it a "dark comedy."

A problem play is the name given to a play that deals with a social and political problem, both sides are presented; there are
long arguments on either side and at the end, possibly the play might present a solution to the problem.In Shakespeare, a
problem play is a play that poses problems of interpretation. The term “problem plays” was coined in 1896 by F. S. Boas in his
book, Shakespeare and his Predecessors. Classifying All's Well that Ends Well, Measure for Measure, Troilus and Cressida as
problem plays of Shakespeare, F.S. Boas observes that they deal with highly artificial societies in which civilization is ripe unto
rottenness, in which an abnormal condition of brain and emotion is generated and intricate cases of conscience are presented,
which demand a solution by un prevented methods. At the end of the play we have lost our bearings and are perplexed. Even
when there is some kind of compromise we are not happy. The plays are so singular in theme and temper that they cannot be
called either comedies or tragedies. Boas proposed to call them problem plays. 

Measure for Measure “proves to be a difficult play” (M. Scott 61) in terms of the issues it raises. The Duke’s disguise and
monitoring of all the other characters, Angelo’s sensuality and his tyrannical attitude in rule, Isabella’s conflicting attitudes
towards Claudio and Angelo, and the transitions between the world of lower-class characters and that of the upper-class people
have been discussed and analysed as complex issues. Furthermore, the problem in the enforcement of laws in both the Duke’s
and Angelo’s rule, Angelo’s abuse of justice once he assumes supreme authority, thus “the difficult balance between the just and
the unjust exercise of judicial authority” (Kermode 143), and the tyrannical rule imposed by both the Duke and Angelo are the
major issues which pose questions about justice and the ideal ruler.

Measure for Measure deals with the themes of mercy and forgiveness and in it there is an awareness of evil, but no note of
pessimism.Many critics have agreed that it is a problem play. Measure for measure clearly does not fall into the category of
tragedy and yet is too serious and analytic to fit the commonly accepted conception of comedy.This play involves serious issues
of deceit, hypocrisy, abuse of power, and political and moral corruption. In Christopher Hill’s words, “[…] we describe the early
seventeenth-century conflicts as a struggle for sovereignty. Who was to be the boss, the King […] or the elected representatives
of the men of property?” (52). Throughout Measure for Measure Angelo and the Duke struggle to achieve superiority over each
other and their subjects. The conflict about the kind of authority Angelo should assume as the deputy of the Duke arises at the
very beginning of the play when the Duke makes arrangements to leave and delegate his rule. First, in the opening of the play,
the Duke contradicts himself in his views about ruling and the enforcement of laws. The Duke tells Escalus that he trusts
Escalus’s knowledge and judgement as a politician and he does not feel any need to give him further commands about the rule
of the country during his absence. The Duke asserts that “[s]ince [he is] put to know that [Escalus’s] own science / Exceeds, in
that, the lists of all advice / [His] strength can give [him]” (I.i.5-7). While the Duke reveals his faith in Escalus, he also emphasises
that the nature of the people, the customs and the laws that are applied for the welfare of the people are fundamental. He says:
“ […] The nature of our people, As art and practice hath enriched any For common justice, y’are as pregnant in Our city’s
institutions, and the terms That we remember. […]” (I.i.9-13). Therefore, the Duke gives importance to the maintenance of
justice in the enforcement of laws before he hands over his authority to Angelo and hopes that order will be preserved during
Angelo’s rule.

However, the Duke’s trust in Angelo is unconvincing as he explains the reality to the Friar in I.iii. In this regard, Melvin Seiden
describes the Duke’s attitude towards Angelo as a “duplicitous game” because Seiden, on the one hand, refers to the Duke’s
speech (I.i.27-31) and says that the Duke’s aim may be “to delegate a monarch’s authority to a trusted and honored deputy
precisely because one trusts him and believes in his virtues”. The Duke reveals his design and explains that some strict laws lost
validity during his rule as they were no longer enforced. However, the lack of these tough laws led to deterioration in the society
and consequently, illegal sexual activities and the number of brothels increased and debauchery spread throughout the country.
As the Duke himself is fully responsible for the laws not to be enforced, he plans that a disdainful and pitiless man like Angelo
can easily maintain order throughout the country through the implementation of these biting laws. The Duke does not want to
bring discredit to his own name and plans to make Angelo bring order out of the chaos which he himself created in the country.
As Harriett Hawkins also maintains, the Duke created “social chaos” as a consequence of his neglect of the enforcement of laws
for fourteen years and now “[h]e does not want to take the responsibility, or the rap, for enforcing the law […] and so has
brought in Angelo to scourge the vice his own permissiveness had encouraged” (52-53). 

After Angelo is given authority, he regards the laws as the means which should be used to control the people and punish the
guilty. Thus, he does not prefer to enforce the laws with compassion as has been suggested by the Duke. In his statements about
the enforcement of laws, Angelo does not mention the place of mercy: “We must not make a scarecrow of the law, / Setting it
up to fear the birds of prey, / And let it keep one shape till custom make it / Their perch, and not their terror” (II.i.1-4).
Therefore, it may be deduced that for Angelo, the laws should spread terror among the people so that nobody can perform
illegal acts and everybody will remain under the control of the government. The first operations of Angelo as a ruler conform
with his thoughts about the operation of laws and they are presented at the opening of I.ii. through the statements of Miss
Overdone and Pompey. According to Overdone’s report, Claudio was arrested and he will be executed soon: “I saw [Claudio]
arrested: saw him carried away: and which is more, within these three days his head to be chopped off” (61-63). For Lucio, the
punishment inflicted on Claudio is cruel, and Angelo particularly chose him as a victim so that he can demonstrate to his subjects
that he maintains absolute power. Richard Wheeler argues that Angelo’s inexperience in state affairs is also effective in his
decision on Claudio’s death penalty as his first practice: “Angelo begins the play with a fully developed idea of severe but
equitable justice, a strong sense of personal piety, and a high disdain for “filthy vices” (II.iv.42) of the blood. But he seems to
have had no experience in wielding authority, has never had his rigid, private morality tested by complex moral situations, and
has never felt directly the force of urgent sexual arousal. His first act in office, decreeing the vigorous enforcement of a long-
dormant law that punishes fornication with death reflects all these factors.” (93) As clearly indicated in these lines, Angelo is not
sufficient as a ruler though he was given authority by the Duke. He does not know how to exercise his authority, and as his
personal morality was never confronted with complicated moral problems, he does not know how to handle the problems
related to moral issues during his governing.

Angelo is quite determined that he will not show mercy to Angelo and the death penalty will be executed. He refuses to ignore
the crime unlike the previous judges and does not accept to forgive Claudio. At this point, though Escalus has to resign himself to
Angelo’s judgement, he puts forth the wrongness of his final decision and hostile attitude towards Claudio as he says, “Well,
heaven forgive him; and forgive us all. / Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall. / Some run from brakes of ice and answer
none, / And some condemned for a fault alone” (II.i.37-40). When Isabella pleads for mercy and wants Angelo to pass a lenient
sentence on Claudio instead of the death penalty. However, Angelo clearly asserts that he will act according to the letter of the
law, and the perpetrator and the crime cannot be regarded as separate things: Condemn the fault, and not the actor of it? Why,
every fault’s condemn’d ere it be done: 208 Mine were the very cipher of a function To find the faults, whose fine stands in
record, And let go by the actor. (II.ii.38-42) With these lines, Angelo maintains that he will not show mercy to Claudio because
the laws, which Isabella finds “just but severe” (II.ii.42), are quite explicit and leave no room for interpretation.

However Angelo reveals his hypocrisy when he offers to trade Claudio's life for sex with Claudio's sister Isabella. Arthur Percival
Rossiter comments on Angelo’s proposal as follows: “With the development of the Angelo plot, this ‘disorder’ theme enwraps
the whole. The Puritan has been specifically appointed Deputy to clean up a very dirty city; but when Claudio’s life is in his hands
and his sister comes to plead for it, lust determines him to rape the Nun, by blackmail” (158).The cold Angelo, secure in his
virtue is at last tempted by the very virtue of Isabella and offers to save Claudio's life if Isabella will consent to be his mistress.
Angelo makes advances to Isabella, urging her to accept his demand through many different ways of speaking, but the purport
of his speech is almost one and the same, that is, "to save your brother's life, how about sleeping with me?" This intention is
expressed indirectly at first, but becomes more direct and obvious in the course of the scene. How can Angelo execute one man
for premarital sex and then propose to secretly engage in it himself? However Isabella suggests that she would rather die than
be placed in a dishonourable situation and she hopes that her brother would prefer death to tarnish his honour. For Isabella,
Claudio’s death is “the cheaper way” (II.iv.105) and “Better it were a brother die at once, / Than that a sister, by redeeming
him, / Should die forever” (II.iv.106-108). At this point, Angelo accuses Isabella of being as strict as the laws she constantly
disapproves of and asks: “Were you not then as cruel as the sentence / That you have slander’d so?” (II.iv.109-110). Isabella
accuses Angelo of being hypocritical and a pragmatist. She asserts that Angelo disregards the laws on which he put extreme
emphasis because he pursues his own benefit: “[…] Little honour, to be much believ’d, / And most pernicious purpose! Seeming,
seeming! / I will proclaim thee, Angelo, look for’t” (II.iv.148-150). Isabella calls Angelo dishonest and threatens him to voice his
insincerity and his use of the laws according to his own interests. We also discover that Angelo jilts his fiancee Mariana when he
realizes that her money has gone. Characters in the play display hypocrisy, cruelty, abuse of power, and cowardice. As
in Hamlet Shakespeare examines a world of corruption, where appearances can't be trusted, seemingly good people are evil,
people use other people ruthlessly to advance their own goals, and a legal system can be run inhumanely. These are grim
themes for a comic play.

Later in the play when the Duke comes to know about Angelo’s misdeeds and his cruel decision to kill Claudio for impregnating
Juliet with whom Claudio is betrothed, he plans to play tricks to save Claudio’s life and deceive Angelo. Before explaining his plan
in detain The Duke reveals the story of Angelo and Mariana whom he was about to marry but changed his mind when Mariana’s
brother Frederick was killed at a shipwreck and Mariana lost her dowry. Mariana was highly affected by Angelo’s indifferent and
relentless attitude towards her afterward and according to the Duke, she still suffers. Angelo “[l]eft her in her tears, and dried
not one of them with his comfort: swallowed his vows whole, pretending in her discoveries of dishonour: in few, bestowed her
on her own lamentation, which she yet wears for his sake; and he, a marble to her tears, is washed with them, but relents not”
(III.i.225-230). As indicated in these lines, Angelo was always a self-interested man who could ignore his lover for the sake of
monetary gain. And the Duke tells this story to Isabella because he wants to include Mariana in his plan; hence, according to the
Duke, “[i]t is a rupture that [Isabella] may easily heal: and the cure of it not only saves [her] brother but keeps [her] from
dishonour in doing it” (III.i.235-237). 

For Seiden, the Duke deliberately includes Mariana in the bed trick because he wants to undermine the ethical aspect of the bed
trick. In other words, he aims to convince not only Isabella and Mariana but also the audience/readers that the bed-trick is
essential in punishing Angelo and maintaining justice. For the Duke, both Isabella and Mariana will benefit from this plan
because Isabella’s honour will not be tarnished while Claudio will be saved, and Mariana will unite with the man she desires.
Moreover, Angelo will be punished for what he did to Mariana when the truth is revealed. Wheeler states, “[t]he bed trick is the
key element in the Duke’s master plan. Although it leads eventually to the marriage of Angelo and Mariana, the bed trick in
Measure for Measure is designed primarily to prevent the unacceptable sexual union of Angelo and Isabella and to preserve the
already consummated union of Claudio and Julietta” (13). This attitude towards Mariana becomes more problematic when
Isabella also supports the Duke’s offer and expresses her delight: “The image of it gives me content already, and I trust it will
grow to a most prosperous perfection” (III.i.260-261). These lines clearly demonstrate that Isabella, who fiercely rejects Angelo’s
offer of sex and accuses both Angelo and Claudio of indecency, now ignores another woman’s dignity when it is for her own
benefit. Both the Duke and Isabella contradict their previous statements and collaborate on the bed-trick scheme.
 
The problem with the Duke’s attitude is that he prefers to respond to Angelo’s unjust practices through tricks rather than
intervening in his acts and directly avoiding injustice. In this regard, the Duke’s attitude in state affairs delays justice and causes
people like Claudio, Isabella, Mariana and Barnardine to suffer in different ways. After the bed-trick, the Duke reveals the head-
trick in the following words: “By the vow of mine order, I warrant you, if my instructions may be your guide: let this
Barnardine be this morning executed, and his head borne to Angelo” (IV.ii.168-171). He further sustains that the Provost may
change Barnardine’s cut head so that Angelo cannot differentiate between Angelo and Barnardine: “O, death’s a great disguiser;
and you may add to it. Shave the head, and tie the beard, and say it was the desire of the penitent to be so bared before his
death: you know the course is common” (IV.ii.174-177). Therefore, after the failed bed-trick, the circumstances are ready for
the head-trick. The Duke’s attitude towards Barnardine may be likened to his treatment of Mariana when he discloses the bed
trick. As he neglects the indignity Mariana will suffer as a result of the bed-trick, he now does not take into consideration
Barnardine’s life and thinks that it can be sacrificed for the sake of his head-trick.Besides the Duke’s abuse of justice is also
presented in his harsh treatment of Lucio just because he severely criticises the Duke’s personality and rule. John Wain calls the
Duke’s attitude “his self-importance” (97). While the Duke expects to test Angelo’s government, his own rule is also tested and
he learns about the opinions of the common people about himself.

So, In Measure for Measure the question about the issue of justice is posed. In the play, justice is problematised and the
reflections of James I’s administration and his approach to the exercise of justice are reflected through Angelo’s and the Duke’s
rules. Angelo abuses justice in Claudio’s case as he ignores the spirit of law and insists on the death penalty. The Duke abuses
justice because he disguises himself and controls the course of events instead of fighting corruption as the ruler or intervening
with Angelo’s practices. As a result, the following question is posed: Why does the Duke not appear and prevent Angelo from
abusing justice but instead prefers to escape? Additionally, the Duke’s use of Isabella, Mariana and Barnardine in his bed-trick
and head-trick is problematic because he exploits them in order to establish control over other characters. His relationship with
Lucio also demonstrates his abuse of justice because the reason why he angrily reacts to Lucio’s criticism and severely punishes
him, in the end, is not openly presented, which leaves the audience/readers confused. Hence, when Angelo and the Duke are
considered in terms of administration, both of them suppress people and abuse justice through their authoritarian rule. Though
they use different means, as Angelo uses enforcement of the laws and the Duke utilises disguise, both abuse justice by
restricting the rights and liberties of their subjects, which was also seen in James I’s rule. Within the political and legal context,
James I’s attempts to exercise supreme authority over Parliament drawing his strength from his authoritarian rule and his claim
to be over the law as the representative of God on earth are reflected in the Duke’s desire to hold absolute control over the lives
of his subjects and Angelo’s merciless use of strict laws in order to punish people. 

The ending of the play is also significant in terms of presenting the generic ambiguity. various critics analyse Measure for
Measure in terms of its generic uncertainty from different viewpoints. Mary Lascelles asks the following questions in order to
shed light on the reason why it is difficult to categorise Measure for Measure as either tragedy or comedy: “Is this indeed the
phase, in the development of romantic drama, to which Measure for Measure belongs? Did the taste of the audience, at the
Christmas revels of the new court, the demand of the dramatist that he should frame a situation from which a tragic issue was to
be expected, and then exploit his power in bending the course of the play away from tragedy? Were the conventional
improbabilities of romantic comedy no longer good enough for them?” (40) Referring to the bleak atmosphere of the play,
Bennett argues that Measure for Measure “is a ‘dark comedy’ belonging to Shakespeare’s ‘tragic period’ ”.

Along with Isabella’s abundant sense of mercy to Angelo, Angelo’s sudden repentance arouses ambiguity about his intentions in
the audience/readers. Angelo, leaving his tyrannical rule and attitudes behind, expresses that he feels genuinely upset about the
misery he caused: “I am sorry that such sorrow I procure, / And so deep sticks it in my penitent heart” (V.i.472-473). For
Wheeler, “Angelo, a smaller person, bears the full burden of recognizing his own smallness, its contemptibility, and his
helplessness before compelling demands that issue from within him. As he grossly subverts justice, he suffers full awareness of
the motives and the implications of his acts” (101). Angelo further asserts that he prefers death to mercy because he does not
believe that he deserves compassion and pardon: “I am sorry that such sorrow I procure, / And so deep sticks it in my penitent
heart / That I crave death more willingly than mercy; / ’Tis my deserving, and I do entreat it” (V.i.472-475). However, after it is
revealed that Claudio was not killed, the Duke spares Angelo’s life saying, “[b]y this Lord Angelo perceives he’s safe” (V.i.492).
And once the Duke announces that Angelo will not be executed, Angelo does not yearn for death anymore and feels pleased,
which is reflected in the Duke’s words as follows: “Methinks I see a quickening in his eyes” (V.i.493). Therefore, it may be
deduced that Angelo’s conflicting attitude before the Duke poses questions about his sincerity in repentance.

At the very end of the play, all the conflicts seem to be suddenly solved. First of all, it is understood that Claudio did not die as he
was brought by the Provost before the Duke. The Duke accuses the Provost of executing Claudio “at an usual hour” (V.i.456)
through a “private message” (459) rather than the lawful practice, and discharges him from his position: “For which I do
discharge you of your office. / Give up your keys” (V.i.458-459). Towards the end of the play, the Duke asks Isabella to marry
him, “DUKE: Give me your hand and say you will be mine.” The problem is that Isabella wants to be a nun in a very strict order
of nuns, the Order of Saint Clare, and she doesn't respond to the Duke's proposal. He asks again, near the very end of the
play: 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.” Again, Isabella remains silent. perhaps she's simply observing the rules of the Order of Saint
Clare as explained to her by Francesca: FRANCESCA:… When you have vowed, you must not speak with men But in the
presence of the Prioress. Then, if you speak, you must not show your face; Or if you show your face, you must not speak.” Or,
perhaps, there's not really much Isabella can say. The Duke is the most powerful man in Vienna, and his proposal is more like a
command. Once again, as in her dealings with Angelo, Isabella is put in a compromising position by a powerful man who usurps
her right to make her own decisions.The moral issues raised in the play remain ambiguous and unresolved. Isabella’s silence
before the Duke’s proposal creates tension even at the very end of the play and leads the audience/readers to uncertainty about
the genre of the play. In this respect, Adelman puts out that “[t]he marriages that end these comedies fail to satisfy the desires
of either the characters or the audience […]”.Therefore, for Wheeler, the ending of the play is not only disappointing but also
unfinished and the struggles between the characters to maintain justice throughout the play do not conform with the
reconciliation achieved at the end of the play. Moreover, the “psychological tensions” they go through are not relieved at the
end, and “Shakespeare seeks unearned reassurance in a comic ending that cannot fully acknowledge previous developments in
Measure for Measure” (Wheeler 12). 

The other point about the generic ambiguity in Measure for Measure is that the scenes which reveal the tension of the play are
preceded or followed by comic scenes where the lower-class characters play a part and develop the sub-plot of the play. In
William Witherle Lawrence’s words, “[d]espite tragic occurrences, the tone of the whole is less depressing. Instead of the bitter
Lavache and the despicable Parolles, a whole series of strikingly contrasted figures offers comic relief – the fantastic Lucio,
Mistress Overdone, Elbow, Pompey, Froth, and their fellows” (80). In a sense, the tension,created because of Angelo’s strict
enforcement of the laws in the absence of the Duke, his insistence on Claudio’s execution, his indecent proposal to Isabella
which poses a difficult dilemma for her, and the Duke’s disguise as Friar Lodowick and interference with the course of the events
through the bed-trick and the head-trick, which have all been analysed in detail, is relieved through the acts and speeches of the
characters in the subplot. 

In both The Merchant of Venice and Measure for Measure the problem with genre comes up at the end of the plays, and comic
relief is created through particular scenes. In Measure for Measure, the only marriage which indicates a happy union is that of
Claudio and Juliet. Due to Angelo’s sudden and unconvincing repentance, the marriage of Angelo and Mariana cannot be
considered sincere, while Lucio is forced into marriage. The union of the Duke and Isabella leaves the audience/readers
uncertain because Isabella neither rejects nor accepts the Duke’s proposal. The Duke’s control over the characters who are not
allowed to decide about their own lives is also problematic and confounds the audience/readers at the end of the play. In
Measure for Measure the conversations between Elbow, Pompey, Escalus, Abhorson and the Duke function as digressions for
the audience/readers from the grave atmosphere of Angelo’s ruthlessness, Claudio’s waiting for death and the futile attempts to
save his life and the Duke’s disguise. In this respect, it is important to state that neither play can be categorised as either comedy
or tragedy because the above-mentioned uncertainties render it impossible for the audience/readers to put the plays into a
particular category.

To conclude it could be stated that Measure for Measure is a problem play primarily due to its generic uncertainty, endings,
problems in the portrayal of characters and unanswered questions on issues that leave the audience/readers uncertain. It is also
constraining for the audience/readers to try to read and understand these plays within the definition of classical genres. With
Measure for Measure, Shakespeare sheds light on the religious, political and legal issues of his time and makes the
audience/readers of different periods read it through the complex questions posed in relation to certain issues. In a sense, the
attempt to find answers to the difficult questions raised in the play initiates the audience/readers to understand the age of
Shakespeare. In this way, it is also possible to comprehend the problems presented in this play through the historical
background. Thus, the problematic nature of some of Shakespeare’s plays proves that no matter how much they are studied, it
is still possible to find new meanings and bring new perspectives to the Shakespearean canon.