Price 1969

George Washington University
Measure for Measure and the Critics: Towards a New Approach

Author(s): Jonathan R. Price
Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Spring, 1969), pp. 179-204
Published by: Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2869004 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 04:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Folger Shakespeare Library and George Washington University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
forMeasureand the Critics:
Measure
Towardsa New Approach
JONATHANR. PRICE
ourvirtues
The webofourlifeis of a mingledyarn,goodand ill together:
would be proudif our faultswhippedthemnot; and our crimeswould
despairiftheywerenotcherishedbyourvirtues.
-All's WellthatEnds WellIV. iii.67ff.
confessmyself
WhenI religiously untomyself, I findthebestgood I have
hathsomevicioustaint.... Man is all but a botchingand parti-colored
work.The verylaws of justicecannotsubsistwithoutsomecommixture
of injustice.
-Montaigne,Essays,BookII, Chapter20
EOPLE have spent a good deal of time trying to make a

greatclearedplain whereShakespearemade a mystery. This
is particularlytrue with that play of light and shadows,
Measure for Measure. Criticsin the eighteenthcenturyre-
spondedto the play. They foundthe situationsexcitingand
perplexing.Why did theDuke leaveAngeloin charge?Why,
in the end, did he not punish Angelo? Why did Isabella forgiveAngelo?
Shakespeareraised these questionsin theirminds-and these criticsset out
vehemently to answerthem.
Charles Gildon decided that Isabella should be exonerated,and Angelo
condemned.' Mrs. Charlotte Lennox disagreed.The way she saw it, Isabella
was a mere vixen. Mrs. Lennox confessesthat the play is a riddle without
solution.But nevertheless, "thattorrentof abusivelanguage,thosecoarseand
unwomanlyreflexions on the virtueof her mother,her exultingcrueltyto the
dyingyouth,are the mannersof an afected prude,outrageousin her seeming
virtue;notofa pious,innocent, and tendermind."2
Samuel Johnsonacknowledgedthe play's piquancy,and startedwith Gil-
don's basic classicaltenet,thatart should copynature."It is creditedwith all
the creditdue to a drama.It is credited,wheneverit moves,as a just pictureof
a real original."3Workingfromthisbase,Johnsonfeltfreeto condemnAngelo
roundly-"I believe everyreaderfeels some indignationwhen he findshim
spared" (p. 292). And as for Isabella, Johnsondismissedher finalmute for-
1See Hazelton Spencer,ShakespeareImproved,The RestorationVersionsin Quarto and On

the Stage (New York, 1927), pp. 146 ff.,and CharlesGildon,An Essay on the Art,Rise, and
Progressof theStagein Greece,Rome,and England (London, 1714).
2 CharlotteLennox,ShakespearIllustrated(London, 1753), p. 34.
8 Samuel Johnson,in Rasselas,Poems and SelectedProse, ed. Bronson (New York, 1958),
p. 255.

i8o SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
giveness,the scene which moderncriticshave taken as a momentof highly

seriousChristianmercy,as merefemininevanity.4
But this kind of criticismbegins by assumingthat therereallyis a "real
original"there.It notesthe contradictions and enigmasthatoccur as if in a
realperson,and triesto resolvethem.
It spendsmostof itsenergyworkingout somesolution,somefinaljudgment
on the character."This externalrealityis the primaryconcern;the classical
attitudehas alwaysmeanta comparativelack of interest, in theartist
therefore,
himself-in the psychologicalcharacterof his imagination,for example,and
especiallyin hisown subjectivefeelings."5
Such criticismneglectsthe primalfactthatan artistcreatedthe characters,
and that he createdthemwith a deliberateambiguity.The Romanticswere
quick to pointthisout.
Coleridgewarnedthatthese"characters"were only ideal realities;not the
thingitself,but an abstractof it,made by a greatmind.6Hazlitt thoughtthat
Shakespearewas all his characters, and thathe sharedin all the situationshe
describes.Shakespeareonlybecamehimselfby representing others;he was able
to expressall the elementsof his own personality by enteringinto each of the
peoplearoundhim,and sharingtheirexistence.7
The new emphasison the artist,and his personality, was developing.Back
in 1784,William Richardsonhad said much the same thing-thatShakespeare
inventedthesecharacters, and actuallyfeltall theirpassions,"went down the
labyrinths ofpassionwiththem."8Now, influenced by Hazlitt,Keats was using
the term"negativecapability"9 to describethe poet's empathy,and his friend
CharlesArmitageBrown came to call it a "universalkindliness'0 which lets
Shakespearebegin with a real personand thentransfigure him,helpinghim
revealhimselfwithouteffort. Cued by Goethe,theGermanswere soon calling
him a veritableProteus (as, for instance,Rilmelin,who says that because
Shakespearewas human,he was internallya Proteus,and could multiplyhis
own self-consciousness)." In i864 Thomas Kenny triedto describethe vision
he inheritedfromHazlitt,12 but perhapsKeats's fragmentary lettersgive a
betterpicture.
Essentially,Keats's Shakespearewas a strongsilentman. He had enough
internalstrengthto sufferfoolsgladly.He did not feel defensive:he had no
4
Johnsonwas not alone in thinkingshe feltso flattered by Angelo'sattentionsthatshe did
not have the heart to have him hanged. Shakespeare,Johnsonargues,was tryingto show that
women "pardon any act which they think incitedby theirown charms" (p. 292). See also,
Lennox,pp. 33-34, and E. H. Seymour,RemarksCritical,Vol. I (London, 1805).
5 WalterJackson The Major Texts(New York,1952), p. 3.
Bate,Criticism,
6 Coleridge, 45-46;
Shakespeare:Notes and Lectures(Liverpool,i88i), pp. 43-56, particularly
and "DesultoryRemarks on the Stage", in Coleridge'sShakespeareanCriticism,ed. Raysor
(London,1930), pp. 199-205.
7 Hazlitt,Works,ed. Howe, 21 Volumes(London, 1930-1934), IV, 284.
8 William Richardson,A PhilosophicalAnalysisand Illustration of Some of Shakespeare's
RemarkableCharacters (London, 1784), p. 40.
9 JohnKeats, Letterto George and Thomas Keats, 21, 27 (?) December 1817, in Selected
Poemsand Letters,ed. Bush,p. 26i.
10CharlesArmitageBrown,Shakespeare'sAutobiographical Poems (London, i838), p. 2. See
also Some Lettersand Miscellaneaof Charles ArmitageBrown, ed. Forman (London, 1937),
p. ix.
11GustavRfimelin,ShakespeareStudies(London, i874), p. 77.
12 Thomas Kenny,Life and Genius of Shakespeare(London, 1864), pp. 67-13I.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE AND THE CRITICS: TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH i8i
needto defendhishonor, or toforceothers to accepthispersonal viewofhim-
self.Lackingthenervousself-pushing of ordinary tradesfolk,he was able to
listenattentively, and evenlosehimself in thepersonhe was listening to (as
Keatshimself did). He enjoyedeverything, in
lightand shade;he lived gusto,
be itfoulorfair,highor low,richorpoor,meanor elevated. "He hasas much
delightin conceiving an Iago as an Imogen.Whatshocksthevirtuous philoso-
pherdelights thechameleon Poet."'3
Thereis muchto be said forthisconception of Shakespeare. It explains
manyof thefeatures of theplaysthatwereso perplexing to theeighteenth
century-and to our own era.Its postulate of a gentlesympathy is in accord
witheverything we knowaboutShakespeare fromhiscontemporaries, and it is
in linewiththegeneral "feeling"thatmostcritics haveabouttheman.
Mostimportant, itshowshowShakespeare mighthavebeenledtopresent a
wholerangeof conflicting characters,no one ofthemquitelikeanother. And
we canunderstand how,in thisvein,Shakespeare mighthavewritten a charac-
ter'spassionwithall thecontradictoriness ofrealemotions.
Butthisconception doesnotgo quitefarenough.It leavesus withtheidea
thatShakespeare was a merepassivetranscriber. The romantics emphasize the
artist,butitishissensibility,nothisartificethattheyenjoy.
A German,OttoLudwig,triedto understand thisside of Shakespeare's
artistry.He pointedoutthewayShakespeare wouldjuxtapose an Angeloand
an Isabellain one situation; and he doesnotethatthisraisesourinterest. He
evennotesthatShakespeare has madecharacterizations at timesseemcontra-
dictory, and thatas a result, we areoftendrawnin,and tempted to workout
somekindofresolution. But,toLudwig,all thismeansis that"thisis theway
of passion."'14"We mustbe shownbothsidesof Shakespeare's characters, for
wemustbeconvinced oftheirreality"(p. 440).
Unfortunately, it was onlya shortstepto saying:theyare real.And that
was exactly whatlessercritics did.Paul DuportpraisesMeasureforMeasureas
oneofShakespeare's bestplays;in it,he particularly
enjoysAngeloandIsabella,
and Barnardine.15 Shakespeare, he concluded, paintslivingbeingsas God made
them(p. lxxxvii).In Germany, Tieck16saidthatShakespeare heredealswith
realpeople,true,lifelike eveninthesmallest detail.
And in England,WilliamMaginn,17 tryingto pin down exactlywhat
Shakespeare thought abouthisheroandheroine, finallycameto theconclusion
thattheircontradictions merely provedthattheywererealmenand women:
angelsand devilsdo notexistin theworld.It is difficult to tellwhatIsabella
is like,ifwe haveonlyherspeeches and actionsto go by.The onlywayone
couldreallytrackdownexactly whatshewaslikewastoexamine hermotives.
In thesecondhalfof thenineteenth century, thiskindof character-investi-
gatingcameintogreatprominence. Criticssawthatthecharacters seemeda bit
contradictory and determined thattheywould remedythe situation. They
firmly setaboutdiscovering exactlywhatthecharacters werelike.
13Keats, Letterto RichardWoodhouse,27 October 8i 8, SelectedPoems . . . , p. 279.
14Otto Ludwig, ShakespeareStudien (Leipzig, i874), p. I79. (A usefulentreeto Ludwig's
work is LUon Mis's book, Les Etudes sur Shakespeare,exposeesdans un ordremethodique,Lille,
I922.)
15 Paul Duport,Essais Litteraires
sur Shakespeare(Paris,I 828), II, I4I -I9I .
16 Ludwig Tieck, Dramaturgische
Blitter(1 826).
17 WilliamMaginn,ShakespearePapers(London, i839), p. I7.

i82 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
If one dug deeply enough, one was sure to find out exactlywhat the
characterwas like. Gulian Verplanckconcludedthatthe lowercharactershad
lost theirconscience,but thatthe higherones stillhad consciencealive; guilt
and fear are laid open clearly,in a dark picture,which is relievedonly by
Isabella.18Nathan Drake had alreadytaken up thisidea, seeingIsabella as a
higherbeing, moving througha corruptworld.19And Mrs. Jamesoneven
waxed lyrical."Isabella is like a statelyand gracefulcedar.. . Her spiritseems
to standupon an eminence,and look down upon theworldas ifalreadyenskied
and sainted."20 In fact,said WilliamWinter,she is ideal. She makesus feel"the
authoritative finalforceof intrinsic nobility. . . an ideal thatcomprisednobility,
ecstaticdevotion,and involuntary femaleallurement:it was perfect."'21
On the otherhand, otherinvestigators foundher motivesless dainty,and
her spiritless saintly.BranderMatthewscalls her "unheroic"and "wooden".22
Masefieldfindsa "starvation of nature",and arguesthather chastitymay pro-
ceed from"meannessof mind,fromcoldnessof emotions, or fromcowardice".'
Agnes Mackenzie24feltthatShakespearefell asleep over the writingtable.
For all the disagreement, the approachrepresenteda legitimateresponse
to the play, in a way. Perhaps this was what Shakespearewanted.Perhaps,
WalterPaterthought,Shakespearepleads forjust such a reaction."The justice
he requiresof our hands,or our thoughts, is the recognition of thatwhichthe
person,in his inmostnature,is."25
As Maginnhad found,one cannotjudge merelyby a character's words;one
mustknow his motives.The audienceis encouragedto tryto figureout exactly
whatthecharacteris feeling,whathis thoughtsare,wherehe is going.And yet
thatrequiressympathy. "As sympathyalone can discoverthatwhichreallyis
in mattersof feelingand thought,truejusticeis in itsessencea finerknowledge
throughlove."26PaterfeelsthatMeasureforMeasureis Shakespeare'splea for
thatkind of sympathy.
"It is forthisfinerjustice,a justicebased on a more delicateappreciation
of the trueconditionsof men and things,a truerespectof personsin our esti-
mate of actions,thatthe people in Measure forMeasure cryout as theypass
beforeus" (pp. I76-I77). Pater thinksthatShakespeare'splay cultivatesin us
the "finerdistinctions", a truersympathy. In encouragingus to more delicate
judging,the play becomes"the epitomeof Shakespeare'smoral judgments."
Perhaps,seen in thislight,thehypothesizing of thenineteenth centurytakes
on a slightlyless ludicrouslight.For instance,Bagehot'sanalysisof Angelo
(his passionshad been repressed,hidden,disguisedeven fromhimself-thus
when theycome out at last,theyare even more dangerous),27or Hudson's
explorationof theethicsof thecast (Isabella is a littletoo severe,but noble; the
18Gulian Verplanck,The IllustratedShakespeare(New York, i847), p. I2I.
19 NathanDrake,Shakespeare and his Times (London,i8I7), II, 454.
20 Anna B. Jameson,
Characteristics
of Women(London,i886), I, io8 ff.
21 WilliamWinter,Walletof Time,I, 389 ff.
22 BranderMatthews,Shakespeareas Playwright (London, I9I3), p. 228.
23 John Masefield, WilliamShakespeare
(London,IWII), p. I75.
24 Agnes Mackenzie,The Womenin Shakespeare's Plays (London, I924), p. 243.
25 WalterPater,Appreciations(London, I889), pp. I76-I77.
26 Pater,pp. I76-I77.
27 Walter Bagehot, Shakespeare-The Man
(New York, i9oi; reprintedfrom Prospectie
Review,August,i853), p. 52.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE AND THE CRITICS: TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH i83
Dukecorrect, buta bittheatrical; Angelo seeshimself clearlydespite himself),28
thesearguments do represent someearnest thought,anda realinvolvement in
theplay.Theyshowthatat leastthispartoftheaudience wastakenunder
Shakespeare's spell.
Butthe remains
fact thattheywereso spellbound bythecharacters in the
foreground thattheyoften forgot the author,hiding in the wings. As Poe had
written in i845, "Inallcommentating upon Shakespeare, there has been a rad-
icalerror, neveryetmentioned. It is theerrorofattempting to expound his
characters-to account fortheir actions-to reconcilehis inconsistencies-not as
ifthey werethecoinage ofa human brain,butas ifthey had been actualexist-
encesuponearth."29
Poe suggests thatoneoughtto consider theinconsistencies and conflicts
within Shakespeare's ownmind. "Itis nottheinconsistenciesoftheacting man
whichwehaveas a subject ofdiscussion-(although weproceed as ifitwere
and thusinvevitably err),butthewhimsand vacillations-the conflicting
energies andindolences of thepoet."Latercritics weredistressed thatthey
couldnever quitebecertain thatthey hadgotten totheheart ofthecharacters.
Therewerealwaysthecontradictions. Theirfirstreaction wastolookto the
author, toseewhathethought.
Theyfound thatShakespeare didnotcomeoutononesideortheother. He
didnotgiveus a single, clearwayofunderstanding allofAngelo's actions,or
In frustration,
Isabella's. Robert Bridges80 charged Shakespeare withpandering
toa brutal audience: How couldhehaveoverlooked Angelo's offenses? How
couldsucha manrepent? How couldfifteen minutes remodel sucha villain?
Itmust bethebarbaric tasteoftheage.
LevinSchficking similarly censured Shakespeare fortheinconsistencies of
attitude and psychology, blaming it on the "primitive" artform which Shake-
speare hadtoworkin."Whatanunheard of,whata revolting thing toaskofa
poorforsaken girl!But willshe not refuseto make this of
sacrifice herdignity?
... Nothing ofthekind!. .. It is astonishing tosee with how littleselfesteem
a womanis credited here."31 Schiicking wouldhavehis women as noble as in
lateVictorian melodramas, as
and singleminded. Angelo, too,should be more
ofa piece.In I93i Fairchild complained thatthere wereineffect twoAngelos.32
As lateas i962,wefinda manlamenting the"twostrikingly disparate charac-
terizationsofthesamecharacter", although he thinks theyare"sowellcon-
cealedthat-tomygreatastonishment!-not evenperceptive auditors and
criticshavenoticed it."33
Quiller-Couch noticed itinI922, andcomplained ofitinnouncertain terms.
Shakespeare erred in making hisheroandheroine so complex. Isabellais the
28 H. N. Hudson,Shakespeare,His Life,Art,and Characters(New York, I848), I, 416, 417,
4I2-4I3.
29 Edgar Allan Poe, of Shakespeare",BroadwayJournal,i6 August
"Reviewof The Characters
I845 (CompleteWorks,ed. Harrison(New York,I902), V, 226-227).
80 Bridges,in Shakespeare'sCritics,ed. Harrisonand Eastman(Ann Arbor,i964), p. 70.
81 Levin Schuicking,CharacterProblemsin Shakespeare'sPlays (London, I922), p. I97.
32 H. N. Fairchild,"The Two Angelos",ShakespeareAssociation Bulletin,VI (I93I), 53-59.
88 Leo Kirschbaum,- Characterand Characterization in Shakespeare(Detroit,i962), p. I20.
NormanHolland had alreadyshownthathe was somewhatinconsistent, in "MeasureforMeasure:
The Duke and the Prince",ComparativeLiterature, XI (I959), i6-20. But Kirschbaumdoes not
seem to have read his piece either.

canmakenothing
but"thecritics
mainspringofthewholeaction, ofher,or-
maketwoopposite
whichis worse-they womenofher,andpraiseorblameher
Quiller-Couchstatedbluntlywhat his forebearshad only im-
accordingly."34
plied.The character shouldbe simple.
"We do notsetourselves up forumpires in thisdispute",he writes."Our
pointis thatthedisputeitself-the merefactthatintelligentreaderscan hold
suchoppositeviewsofa character whichon thefaceofit shouldbe simplicity
itself-isproofthattheplaymissesclearness themostimportant
in portraying
character" (p. xxix). And he is particularlybotheredby Isabella'srole: "An
exemplar of chastityshouldat all eventsbe consistent-or at all events,con-
sistent inchastity,thatmostdefinite ofvirtues"(pp.xxx-xxxi).
He admitsthattheinconsistency, exciteshim,and draws
or lackofclarity,
himin. "We confess moreover thatthey[thecharacters] worryus,and,ifwe
are honest, thattheyworryus becausewe understand themimperfectly." The
readerfindshimself disturbed; "hequarrels withthatwhichhe cannotexplain,
or else withhimself becausehe cannotexplainit" (p. xiv). And he spinsa
longpsychological explanation forit-or an irritated
note.
"Buta stageplaythatrequires psychological
an intricate analysisto explain
it is ipsofactoa failure:themanwhoattempts suchan analysisthereby pro-
claimsthatforhimthepiecehas missedfire"(p. xiv). Manymoderncritics
havetacitly agreed,feelingthatanyplaythatinducedthemto thinkaboutit
afterwards mustbe bad.
It tookStoll35 to pointoutthatit was Shakespeare himself whomadethe
characters inconsistent: perhapshe did it on purpose.Taking the massive
evidenceof thelasttwo centuries, Stollcameto theobviousconclusion that
peoplewerequitevisibly arousedbythecharacters. Thatwas a signofsuccess.
To paraphrase Quiller-Couch, a stageplaythatsparksa longand detailed
discussion afterward is ipso factoa success:theman who attempts suchan
analysis thereby proclaims thatforhimthepiecehastakenfire.
Stollhimself mayhavegonea bitfarin hisessays, buttherealreasonhehas
beenneglected is thathe cametoolate.He was offering a fruitful explanation,
onethatwouldlead,yearslater,toa muchdeeperappreciation ofShakespeare's
skill.Butin I933 he seemedmerely thetagendof thenineteenth century,for
peoplewhowereeagerly groping afternewcertainties.
By thetimehe brought out Artand Artifice, mostcriticshad abandoned
thecharacter approach. It brought no
them peace.Theysought some otherway
ofgetting tothebottom ofthemystery.
Indeed,thetwentieth century hasbeenequallyas excited bythisplayas the
nineteenth century: but our attention has turned away from merecharacter
study."We movealongdimuntrodden pathsand at thecloseour feelingis
neither of simplejoy norpain; we are excited, perplexed,
fascinated, forthe
issuesraisedpreclude a completely satisfactory
outcome."36
Our interest has centered on the play'smeaning.What did Shakespeare
meanbyit? Whatwashisphilosophy? "MeasureforMeasureis a greatplay-
34Sir ArthurQuiller-Couch, "Introduction",MeasureforMeasure (Cambridge,i922), p. xvii.

35 E. E. Stoll, Art and Artificein Shakespeare:A Studyin Dramatic Contrastand Illusion
(Cambridge,I933).
(London, i896), p. 345.
and his Predecessors
36 F. S. Boas, Shakespeare

in partsand in despitethatits partsdo not fit.It arrests-itimpresseswhile it
puzzles-every reader."37W. W. Lawrence lamented"the distressing lack of
criticalagreementas to the interpretation".38The bestauthorities,he said, "are
oftendirectly contradictory,one praisinga characterforconductwhichanother
regardsas reprehensible; one perceivinga faithfultranscript of life,and the
beautyof heroismtriumphing overgreatobstacles,whereanothercan findonly
a gibe and a sneer"(p. i8).
He admitsthatShakespearehimselfdesignedthe plays thisway. "He not
onlyretainedirrationalities,buthe himselfsometimesintroduced, as in Measure
forMeasure,traditionalbut irrationalelementsintoa rationalsituation,where
no previousstory-teller And he
had done so" (p. ii). This piqued his curiosity.
began askinghimself"How did Shakespeareintendthattheseplaysshould be
understoodbyhisaudiences?What do theymean?" (p. 30).
But he began talkingof "finalinterpretation",and "ultimatesolutions".He
wanted to come to some definiteconclusionas to exactlywhat Shakespeare
meant.Shakespearecould onlyhave one meaning,and he forone was goingto
searchit out.
had rarelybeen as franticas this.39Occasional critics
Earlier interpreters
in England had workedalong Lawrence'slines before-GeorgeFletchereven
postulatedthe aim of such critics:it is to recapturethe one trueand original
idea thatthe creatorheld of the work.This one centralidea-there can be no
morethanone-will informeach detailof theplay,shapingPompeyas fullyas
it does Isabella.40And David Masson even foreshadowedsome of their
methods:he would have us interpret by meansof Recurrencesand Fervours.4
Repeatedphrasesand thingsutteredin heat will help us captureShakespeare's
exactmeaning.In France,Heraud also arguedthatthe play worksout of one
centralmeaning (it illustratesPapal tyrannyin Europe) 42 And in Germany,
the Schlegelshad set offwhole generationsof criticsanalyzingthe "central
idea" thatanimatesthe whole.
As T. J. B. Spencerremarks,"It was a hardydoctrinewhichhas survived
many criticaltempests."43 But it had done so only throughits generosity, its
willingnessto admitthatShakespearemightin facthave had severalmeanings
at once,or none.
Now criticsbegan pinningShakespearedown moreprecisely.They wanted
to find the "implied metaphysic".44 They wanted to clear up "ambiguous
37 Quiller-Couch,p. xli.
88W. W. Lawrence,Shakespeare'sProblemComedies(New York, I931), p. 9.
had fretted,
89 Gildon had cleanedthe play up a bit (see Hazelton Spencer); and Mrs. Griffiths
"I cannotsee what moralcan be extracted fromthe fableof the Piece"; but,she feels,"the author
seems to have thoughtotherwise."Afterthirteen pages of moralwrestling,she managesto findit
"SanexcellentChristiandocument".-The Moralityof Shakespeare'sDrama (London, I775), p. 35;
p. 48.
40 GeorgeFletcher,"IntroductoryEssay",Studiesof Shakespeare(London, I 847), p. 7.
41 David Masson,Shakespeare Personally(London, i865), pp. I46-i90.
42 J. A. Heraud, Shakespeare:His InnerLife as Intimated in his Works(London, I865), pp.
283-292.
48 T. J. B. Spencer,"The Course of ShakespeareanCriticism",in Shakespeare'sWorld,ed.
Sutherlandand Hurstfield(London, I964), p. I70.
44G. WilsonKnight,"The Shakespearean Integrity", in ShakespeareCitcism,
(1939), reprinted
1935-1906, ed. Ridler(London, i963), p. I99.

implications".45 They wanteda "finalanswer"to the "emotionalstrugglesand

conflicting ideals".46The purposeof theirpapers was to find one "coherent
meaningthataccountsforthemand forotherchangesin theplay."47And that
coherencewas oftena systemof suchamazingcomplexity thata Hooker would
be awed. Patternsare evolved,cross-references are invented,and analogies
pressedto thebreakingpoint.The subtlety, thecomplexity, thedetail-all these
revealhow energetically the criticshave documentedtheirown conceptionsof
theplay'ssignificance.
Even in Measure forMeasure,one of the most puzzling of plays,"it has
been possibleforsensitivereadersto detecta meaningfulshape."48There has
neverbeen much questioningof that objective.It is "the primaryobligation
of the critic",said Bryant.It is "the critic'stask."49"Sometimeshe may feelit
necessaryto setforthan elaboratepatternand explainit in detail;sometimes he
may findit moreexpedientto statewhathe considersto be theunifyingtheme
of theplay.Sometimeshe maymake use of analogsor relevantquotationsfrom
otherworks. The methodhe uses is not half so importantas his objective,
whichmustalwaysbe to lead us back to theplayand make it possibleforus to
see it as a significantwhole."50As anotherscholarwrote,"Followinga line of
studywhich has receivedincreasingattentionby scholarsof the Elizabethan
period,the methodfocussescentrallyon the doctrinalimportof the dramatic
piece."51
Many men set out to show thatShakespearecame out forone side or the
other;but theyrun into the factthatShakespearenevercomesout vocallyfor
either.CurtisWatson seems to have been hopingforsome such sure solution
when he began his work on Shakespeareand the Renaissance Concept of
Honor; but he discoveredthatthisplay "reflects, withan inconsistencywhich
has to be admittedand accepted,both the Christianand the pagan-humanist
values of his period."52AnothercriticadmitsthatMeasure forMeasure "pro-
vides no 'solution'to its crucialproblem- .... 'Solution'of courseis not the
rightword.Shakespearewas elaboratinga stateof experience, notansweringan
abstractquestion."53
Most admit that Shakespearemakes no explicitjudgments.JohnRussell
Brown admitsthatthe plot is not centeredon one satiricalviewpoint."Shake-
spearenevermakesclearwhomhe favors.He neverevensummarizestheaction
in handy rime,so the audience can take the messagehome with them.""In
contrast",he says,"with his practicein the historyplays and earlytragedies,
Shakespearehas notprovidedjudgmenton theaction.... Shakespearepresents
a greatvarietyof life,but he does not preachas he does elsewhere;he seems
onlyto inviteus to look" (p. i9).
45 Harold S. Wilson,"Actionand Symbolin MeasureforMeasureand The Tempest",in SQ,
IV (0953), reprinted in ModernEssaysin Criticism, ed. Dean (New York, i96i), p. 272.
46Donald Stauffer, Shakespeare'sWorldof Images (New York, I949), p. I43.
47 Nevill Coghill,"Comic Formin MeasureforMeasure",Shakespeare Survey8, (I955), p. 25.
48 J.A. Bryant, Hippolyta'sView (Louisville,Ky., i96i), p. 88.
49 JohnRussellBrown,Shakespeare and his Comedies(London, I957), p. 20.
50 Bryant, p. 88.
51 R. W. Battenhouse, "MeasureforMeasureand ChristianDoctrineof theAtonement", PMLA,
LXI (Dec. I946), p. I032.
52 Princeton, i960, p. 6.
58 D. A. Traversi, An Approachto Shakespeare(London, I938), p. 7I.

"Butit is shirking thecritic's
taskto leavethematter there",Brownfeels.
It wouldbe leavingShakespeare without a message. And,to anyoneraisedon
Ibsenand Shaw,thisis nearheresy. If we wereto thinkthatShakespeare were
merelyarousingus-withoutsatisfying us witha flatstatement-it wouldbe
tantamount to admittingthatShakespeare was not a philosopher. And we
cannotadmitthat.
Shakespeare is perfect.
And he is perfect in our own image.Lawrence
pointsout thebardolatrous principle underlying muchcriticism of thistype;
theseare men,he says,who,despitetheevidence, "claimthatShakespeare's
workswillappearas perfect and well-founded wholes,ifwe onlyhavethewit
to look at themin therightway" (p. ii8). Eighteenyearslater,E. M. W.
Tillyardwas to summarize theirefforts in similarterms("How muchmore
creditable to Shakespeare,
and pleasanter to mostof us,to whomhiscreditis
verydear").4 He calledtheirassumption an error,"theerrorwhichis roughly
thatofseeingnothing wrongwiththeplay."
Their"wayto findtheplayfaultless is to cutoutall theBradleyan charac-
ter-stufffromthestart, and to go straight to ideasor allegoriesor symbols."55
Discoveringthe hiddenphilosophy (whichno one has seen before)thus
becomes almosta crusade.
It is a noble,and in manywaysa vitallyusefulcrusade.And it has un-
coveredmuchhistorical, dramatic,and stylistic information on thebackground
of theplay,although thecriticsat timesseemunawareof thefactthatit was
Shakespeare who urgedthemon. He has madetheplaya riddle,a shifting
enigmathatalwaysseemsto promisemeaningand yet,like thewill of the
wisp,alwaysleadsus on.
They respondloyally.Perhapsthemostenergetic of thesegroupsis the
Christian school.TheysprangfromgoodGermanstock.Continuing thetradi-
tionoftheSchlegels, Ulricihad arguedthatShakespeare wasjustas-ethicalas
he was poetic;forthisreason,a criticshoulddevotehis bestenergiesto
discovering the main centralunifying ideas (which would inevitably be
Christian).56 Two noted dissertations continue this idea, and examineit in
even greaterdetail:bothAlbrecht57 (I914) and Reimer(i937) agreethat
MeasureforMeasureis indeedthe"Hauptzugeder Shakespearischen Welt-
anschauung",58 a Christian
play,notdogmatic or ecclesiastical,
butevangelical.
54E. M. W. Tillyard,Shakespeare'sProblemPlays (Toronto, 1949), p. 127. Measure for
Measure offersa particularly good example of bardolatersat work; Harbage, in his essay on
"Shakespeareand theMythof Perfection" (SQ, XV (i964) I-IO), usesit as his mainexample."The
mark of idolatryis not excessiveenthusiasm, a rapturoustone. . . . The mark of idolatryis the
assumptionthatbecause the plays are excellent,theyare excellentin everyway-in a word that
theyare perfect.. . . It is hard to imaginethe major Shakespeareancriticsof the twentieth cen-
turybeinggivenpause by anything, or failingto discoverany excellencewhichtheyhope to find,
or-and this especially-viewingMeasurefor Measureas a 'hateful'work or indeed,as marred
with a single flaw.The recentcriticalhistoryof this play illustrates perfectlythe increasingper-
vasivenessof themythof perfection" (pp. 6-7).
55 Harbage,p. 128. Or, to use his phrase,"The onlypointof reference is the variousnotions
whichsimmerabout in the critic'smind. Not only does each detailin the play proveto articulate
with all otherdetails,but the whole expressesan 'idea,' unmistakable and yethithertomistaken,
perfectly expressed,yetin needof 'interpretation'
" (pp. 9-Io).
56 H. Ulrici, Shakespearesdramatische Kunst (London, i846), pp. 311-3I6.
57 L. Albrecht,Neue Untersuchungen zu ShakespearesMass furMass (Berlin,19I4), pp. 28I ff.
58 C. J.Reimer,Der Begrifder Gnade in Shakespeares Mass furMass (Marburg,I937), p. 107.

In England, Bagehot,Pater,and Raleigh took up the fight,each seeing the

playas essentially Christian,thoughnevernarrowly moralistic.
To G. Wilson Knightwe owe the idea thatthe play may be an educative
"parable",quite consciously in themannerof Jesus,teachingthatwe mustfor-
give our debtors,as God forgivesus our debts.He feelsthatShakespearewas
so burstingwithmetaphysics thathe broketheboundsof ordinaryplaywriting.
"The poet electsto riska certainstiffness or arbitrariness,
in the directingof
his plot ratherthanfail to expressdramatically, withvarietyand precision,the
full contentof his basic thought."59 Knightuses imageryand Biblicalparallel
to arguehis case; it is by farthebestway to make theplay a perfectwhole,he
says: "The simplestway to focuscorrectly thequalityand unityof Measurefor
Measureis to read it on the analogyof Jesus'parables"(p. 83). He givessome
illuminatinganalogies(and some farfetched interpretations-as,thatmarrying
Mariana symbolizesself-knowledge), and he offersa usefuldiscussionof "the
Gospel ethic"; then he concludes,with satisfaction, "In truth,no play of
Shakespeareshows more thoughtful care,more deliberatepurpose,more con-
summateskill in structuraltechnique,and finally,more penetratingethical
and psychologicalinsight.None shows a more exquisitelyinwovenpattern"
(p. 96). More to thepointis his admissionthateven such a complexdiscussion
may leave us with some doubts.He waves theseaside,invokingthe mystical
beingwitha tossof his hand,"If everthe thoughtat firstsightseemsstrange,
or the action unreasonable,it will be foundto reflectthe sublimestrangeness
and unreasonofJesus'teaching."
Less mysticalis C. J. Sisson,who fouryearslaterattackedthe tendencyof
earlier criticsto take such plays as evidence that Shakespearehimselfwas
undergoinga period of strainand cynicism.In The MythicalSorrows of
Shakespeare,he offersan entirelydifferent of theplay and, with
interpretation
it, an entirelydifferent of
interpretation Shakespeare'slife. "Far frombeing
rotten, theplayis soundto thecore,and profoundly Christianin spirit."60
Three yearslater,R. W. Chambersmanagedto avoid boththemysticaland
the biographicalwhen he gave his BritishAcademyLectureon The Jacobean
Shakespeareand MeasureforMeasure.He takesa historicalapproach.He goes
down thelistof mostof the contradictions, flaws,and controversialpoints,and
referseach to its sixteenth-century context:"But is thatthe sixteenthcentury
attitude?"61-that is his question. He finds the temper of the play like
thatof Foxe's Martyrs, and themessagelike thatof Jesus,"Whosoeverwill lose
his lifeshall findit." We mustmake use of our talentsand give freelyof our-
selvesin the dailyworld; above all, we mustbe easilyforgiving.
Knight,Sisson,and Chambersshaped the courseof much criticism forthe
next twentyor twenty-five years.F. R. Leavis joined in arguing that the
Christianelementwas "The Greatnessof MeasureforMeasure",62 and D. A.
Traversi63followed close after; Neilson and Hill broughtout an edition
59 G. Wilson Knight,"Measure for Measureand the Gospels",in The Wheel of Fire (New
York, 1955), p. 73.
60 C. J.Sisson,The MythicalSorrowsof Shakespeare(London,1934), p. 17.
61R. W. Chambers,in ShakespeareCriticism,1935-I 960, ed. Ridler(London, I963), p. 3.
of MeasureforMeasure",Scrutiny,
62 F. R. Leavis, "The Greatness X (January,1942).
63Scrutiny, X (Summer,1942).

MEASURE FOR MEASURE AND THE CRITICS: TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH I89
prefacedwith the same argument;64 Dodds"- wrote at lengthon Angelo's

character, and Battenhouse(p. I046) expoundedthe allegoryof the atonement
("The singlefundamentalconceptionis thatof the Atonement").Each man
had his own idea of thisor thatparticularChristianidea whichhe thoughtthe
play illustrated;and each used his own particularmethodsto demonstrate that
thiswas the whole pointof the play. (For instance,onlyBattenhousethought
of using St. Bonaventure'smethodof fourfoldinterpretation of allegory,and
only he found that the play illustratedthe doctrineof the Atonement.)In
i96i, one man even announcedthattheplay represented "themedievalstoryof
humanumgenus (the humanrace) recreatedin particularfleshand blood with
an appropriate timeand setting"(Bryant,p. I07).
Most criticsof the Christianpersuasion,however,followedChambers'sober
betweenJusticeand Mercy.E. M. Pope, for
lead, treatingthe play as a conflict
instance,went throughmanyof the popularreligioustextbooksin the Folger
ShakespeareLibrarytryingto work up documentation forthisview.66
She did come to the conclusionthat"the investigation, however,sheds no
lighton his [Shakespeare's]own denominational preferences....Nor, sinceto
dramatizea doctrineis not necessarilyto believein it, are we entitledto use
MeasureforMeasureas evidencethathe himselfwas evena Christian."67 That
did not deterothercritics, who feltmoreconfident thattheyknewwhatShake-
speare's intentionswere: these criticsall take it as given that the play is
Christian,withthisfocus.Their main energygoes to inventingdifferent ways
to proveit. Unfortunately, the processleads to manymutuallyuntenableposi-
tions,and some absurdity.
FrancisFergusson,forinstance,was surehe knew what Shakespearemeant
("He then tempersor proportions justicewith mercy");68 to justifyhis idea,
Fergussonfeltthatthe charactershad to be consideredas teacherand taught;
ArthurSewell,in I95I, wentevenfurther, saying"The worldof theplayis not
reallythe world of human souls.""0(Whereas Harold Goddard calls the play
"one of the most searchingstudiesever made of the effectof power upon
character.")70Sewell is not through,though.Whereas both Fergussonand
Goddard feelthatShakespeareapprovesof the finalforgiveness, Sewell thinks
that"This so-calledforgiveness, thisremissionof theLaw is in somewaysmore
terriblethan the rigorof the law suspended"(p. 70). Some criticseven deny
thatthereis forgiveness in the ending.In a fitof distemper,Paul Siegel offers
his own "solutionof the theologicalproblem."'71 He takesthe titleliterally,
as
an eye foran eye,a toothfora tooth.The play,as he sees it, is an elaborate
workingout of retaliation.His is a somewhatextremestatementof thisposi-
64 New Cambridge
Edition(Boston,I942).
65W. M. T. Dodds, "The Characterof Angelo in Measurefor Measure",MLR, XLI (July
1946), 246-255.
66 She was tryingto documentM. C. Bradbrook'sarticle,"Authority, Truth,and Justicein
MeasureforMeasure",in RES, XVII (I94I), 385-399,whichwas lateramplifiedin "Shakespeare
and the Use of Disguisein ElizabethanDrama", Essaysin Criticism,
II (April,I952), I59-i68.
67 E. M. Pope, "The RenaissanceBackground of MeasureforMeasure",ShakespeareSurvey2
(1949), p. 8o.
68FrancisFergusson,"Philosophyand Theatrein Measurefor Measure",(Lectureat Harvard
University,22 Marchi95i), quotedin Shakespeare'sCritics,p. 25I.
69 ArthurSewell, Characterand Societyin Shakespeare(London, I951), p. 70.
70 Harold C. Goddard,The Meaningof Shakespeare, II (Chicago,I95), 57.
71 Paul N. Siegel,"MeasureforMeasure:The Significance of the Title", SQ, IV 0953), 3i8.

I90 SHAKESPEAREQUARTERLY
tion,72but he is not alone. Alwin Thaler argueswell thatwe shouldgive the
devil his due here-afterall, in a play as confusingas thisone,he is notmuch
worsethanEveryman.73
The Christianemphasison theDuke (as a kind of Divine Providence)has
even led some criticsto comparehim to Prospero.Harold Wilson,forinstance,
sees Measure for Measure as a plea forpoliticalmercy("The patternof the
whole actionnow standsrevealedforthe firsttimein the generalforgiveness
of theending,and we may at lengthsee a firmconsistency of purposein all the
Duke's proceedings", p. 271). But Baldini,workingwiththesame comparison,
findsthe play a studyof justice,ratherthan mercy.And really,forhim,the
Duke represents theartistas Prosperodoes in The Tempest,and Shakespeare's
main interest is in theroleof theChristianartist.74
Afterthis sort of confusion,it is understandablethat Mary Lascelles felt
drivento get a clearerview. She investigates each of the sourcesin turn,and
thenworksthroughtheplay almost"alongsideit",hopingto "recapturesome-
thingof the impressionit mayhave lefton themindsof thatfirstaudience";75
she concludesthat Shakespeareposes the questionwhetherjusticebe the true
mercy,or mercythe truejustice,but thathis "unconfinedthoughttranscends
the bounds of the storyhe is using" (p. i6o), and he "leaves manyquestions
unansweredat theclose" (p. i63).
To answer the question,Melanie Hafele undertookan investigationof
"Gnade und Rechtbei Shakespeare,besondersuntersucht an Mass furMass"176
.
E. T. Sehrtstudiedforgiveness in antiquity,theMiddle Ages,and particularly
in the severei6th century.His book77-the mostcomprehensive modernstudy
in German-had greatinfluence;it mayevenbe creditedwithinspiringpartof
RichardFlatter'sTriumphder Gnade.78(See also Goldschmidt, Problemasde
justiciaen;Medida por Medida,79and Mainusch,"Gnade und Gerechtigkeit in
ShakespearesMass fur Mass").80 Similarly,M. D. H. Parker decided to ex-
amine all the contemporary she concluded
materialon the Idea of Justice;8"
in
that factwe did receivean answer,and it was that the divine mercyhad
come down to earth,foronce,to temperthe ordinarycourseof worldlyjustice
(p. i io). The same year,J. C. Maxwell agreed that much of the play was
devotedto "theidea of a holyunionbetweenJusticeand Mercy",82 althoughhe
findsthe play lackingin poeticneatnessand clarity;but he dismissesthisas
"the same blend of the intelligiblewith the sheerlyunaccountablewhich
72 See also, "Angelo'sPreciseGuards",PQ, XXIX (1950), 442-443.
73 Alwin Thaler, "The Devil's Crestin MeasureforMeasure",SP, L (I953), I88-194.
74 Gabriele Baldini, 11 Dramma elizabettiano(Milan, I962), p. 141; he says, "Measure for
Measure,cosil,avrebbeelettoa propriotema non un risentimento ma l'affascinante
etico-religioso,
problemadella naturae della legittimata del poeta."
dell'invenzione
75 MaryLascelles,Shakespeare's MeasureforMeasure(New York,1953), p. 5.
76 Dissertationat Innsbruck,1949.
77E. T. Sehrt,Vergebung und Gnadebei Shakespeare(Stuttgart, 1952).
78 RichardFlatter,"Angelo in Mass furMass", Triumphder Gnade (I956), pp. I37-I38.
79 In Revistade EstudiosPoliticos(Madrid), LXXII, (I953), 3-22.
80 In Zeitschrift
ffurdie NeucrenSprachen,CXCV (1959), 407-4I6.
81M. D. H. Parker,The Slave of Life: A Studyof Shakespeareand the Idea of Justice(Lon-
don, 1955).
82 J. C. Maxwell, "The Middle Plays of Shakespeare",in The Age of Shakespeare, ed. Ford
(Baltimore,I962), p. 222.

human life on a Christianinterpretation has for Shakespeare"(p. 223). This

kindof lame excusepops up overand overagain.
Even with a criticas imaginativeas JohnRussell Brown,we findsimilar
problemsoccurring.Brown concludesfrompurelyexternalevidencethatthe
charactersare being testedagainsta (largelyunvoiced) noble ideal of life.He
admitsthatthisideal is lostamidstthe talk of justiceand authority, and that,
at the end, no one takes a clear,loud standforit. Having spentmostof his
essay arguing that it was this play that was tryingto make such thoughts
explicit,Brown can only say at the end, "It would take yet anotherplay to
make their thoughtsexplicit" (p. i97). He guesses that "their silence and
formalgesturesof assentrepresent a new humilitybeforean ideal" (p. I95).
AnotherChristiantriedto get a "totalcomplexof meaning"by a "judicious
mouldingtogether"of Charlton,Leech, M. C. Bradbrook,G. Wilson Knight,
Battenhouse, Pope, and Suddard.83Unfortunately themould did notjell. Some
German criticstendedto do much the same kind of thing,brewingup com-
binationsof Sehrtand Schr6der,Radbruchand E. K. Chambers(see Knorr84
and Hennings85).Hans Rothe"' even goes so faras to blendEllis-Fermor(the
play is cynical), E. K. Chambers(it is a "confession"),and Lawrence (the
sourcesare-so thin,he wonderswhy Shakespearebotheredreducingthem).
This leads him to see Lucio as a Hamlet figure,aroundwhom theplay turns,
the raissonneurwho gives us Shakespeare'sown skepticalviews.
But the Christianview remainsstrongly For all its aberrations,
entrenched.
it does seem to have survived.Even as late as i962
and all the inconsistencies,
we finda man like Auden stillheavilyunderits influence.87 He takesthisplay
as the touchstonefor distinguishingbetween Shakespearianand Jonsonian
comedy: Shakespeareis forgiving, where Jonsonmerelyadjudicates,because
Shakespeareargues here thatwe are forbiddento judge others,being sinners
ourselves.
Two recentarticles88argue thatShakespearemay in facthave comeout for
both Justiceand Mercy.For this theyhave recourseto a law term-equity.
Equity is halfway betweenJustice and Mercy,and thatis whereShakespeareis,
one claims.
Now all of this discussionhas elucidatedmany elementsof the play. We
have learneda greatdeal about the Elizabethanconceptionsof justice,author-
ity,power,mercy,and forgiveness; we have seen parallelswithmoralityplays
and with the Gospel; we have come to realize thatShakespearehas set up a
sortof greatdebate.The playwright is posinga greatmanyseriousproblems.
And the Christiancriticsare aware thattheiranswersare onlypartial."Do
83 J. L. Harrison,"The Convention of 'Heart and Tongue' and the Meaningof Measurefor

Measure",SQ, V (1954), I.
84 FriedrichKnorr,Shakespeares Mass fdrMass (Colwig, 1955).
B5 Elsa Hennings,Shakespeares Mass furMass (Hamburg,1958).
86 Hans Rothe, Shakespeare als Provokation (Munich, i96i), pp. 300-307.
87 W. H. Auden,"The Globe",in The Dyer'sHand and OtherEssays (London, I962).
88J. W. Dickinson,"RenaissanceEquity of Measurefor Measure",SQ XIII (I962), 287-303.
He is the one who sees the play as builton an ascendingtriad,of law, thenequity,then,highest
of all, Christianmercy.A moresqueamishattitudeis thatof WilburDunkel, in the same journal,
who dismissesthe lowerclassesas unpleasantoafs,who smellto heaven.No one could have mercy
forpeople like that,he feels.Therefore, the play is merelya studyof two different
viewsof gov-
ernment.-("Law and Equityin MeasureforMeasure",ibid.,275-285).

I92 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
such considerations as thesemeetall the difficulties thatare liable to be raised

by the behaviorof the old fantasticalduke of dark corners?"asks one critic.89
"Probablynotentirely."
Maxwell himselffobs this off: perhapsShakespeareis just "conveyinga
sense of the sheerunaccountability and oddityof the way thingshappen" (p.
222). Anothergroup of criticsthinkhe may have had something moresubtle
in mind.
In i896, F. S. Boas took fourof Shakespeare'splays-Hamlet, Measurefor
Measure,Troilusand Cressida,and All's Well thatEnds Well-and suggested
thatperhapsShakespearehad setthemup deliberately as enigmas,as "Problem
Plays",somewhatin thefashionof WilliamArcherand Pinero."We are leftto
interpret theirenigmasas bestwe may" (p. 345).
Shaw too saw MeasureforMeasureas a ProblemPlay.Alwayssearchingfor
"intellectually coherentdrama",he agreedwithBoas; in MeasureforMeasure,
he said, "we find [Shakespeare]ready and willing to startat the twentieth
century-iftheseventeenth would onlylethim."90
In I93I, W. W. Lawrencemade the firstcoherentattemptto "answer"the
questionsShakespeareraised in this ProblemComedy.Lawrence studiedthe
sourcesthatShakespeareused. He wanted"the finalinterpretation of theprob-
lem comedies. . . ultimatesolutions"(p. 30), and indeed,thatis whatE. M. W.
Tillyard seems to have yearnedfor.Tillyard,writingin I949, admittedthat
Lawrence's solutionsseemed at best wishfulthinking.He decided the play
nevercame to a definitecoherentconclusion,becausetherewas a splitin styles,
afterIII. i. i5I (p. I29 ff.); and therefore theplay was a failure.
Yet he admittedthe strangepowerof theplay,and othercriticskepttrying
to figureout what Shakespearehad intended.William Empson feltthat al-
thoughthe play was ostensibly comedy,Shakespeare'smain aim was "keeping
the audience'steethslightlyand increasingly on edge."'" "We too are being
subjectedto a peculiarlyrigoroustestof our capacityformakinga truejudg-
ment",saysUre, echoingPater.92And he complains,"The resolutiongenerates
a strangeparadox.It is so typicalof the antithetical workingof thisplay as to
is
suggestthatShakespeare playing game a with us. He sharpensthe issuesby
invitingus to ask, 'And what if . . . ?" Caputi pointsout repeatedscenesof
debatebetweentwo characters, one civilized,one natural;theirargumentdraws
themapart.This suggeststhestructure, themeaning,even"The ScenicDesign
in MeasureforMeasure".93 Doran feelsthis"debate"(inheritedfrommedieval
drama) is perhapsthe sourceof the play's infuriatingambivalence.94 Ernest
Schanzer finally formulated what many problem-play critics
had been think-
ing aboutwordlessly forquitea while.95
Schanzerpointedout thatalmosteverycriticfeelsdisturbedby theplay,and
he suggestedsimplythat Shakespearemeant him to be. Schanzer feelsthat
89 Maxwell, p. 222.
90 G. B. Shaw, "Preface",PlaysPleasantand Unpleasant(London,i898), p. ix.
91W. Empson,The Structure of ComplexWords(London, 1951), p. 271. See J. B. Fort,"Les
problemesde MeasureforMeasure",EtudesAnglaises,VIII (I955), 326-329.
92 PeterUre,Shakespeare:ProblemPlays (London,i96i), p. i9.
93 In JEGP,LX (I96I), 423-424.
94 MadeleineDoran, Endeavorsof Art (Madison,Wisconsin,1954), pp. 3IO-322.
95 ErnestSchanzer,The ProblemPlaysof Shakespeare(London, I963).

Shakespearepurposelymade the moral issue appear problematicto the audi-

ence.96
The aim was to arouse interest,and to arouse new avenues of thinking.
Shakespearemeant to writea problemplay,so as to provoke"uncertainand
divided responsesto it in the minds of the audience."97(See also Krehayn,
"Problem und Kom6die in ShakespearesMass fur Mass.")98 MargaretLacy
even thinksthat therewas a definitegenre,"The JacobeanProblemPlay".99
Schanzerexpandedthe term"problemplay" to include Antonyand Cleopatra
and JuliusCaesar in additionto Measure for Measure; othercritics'00have
suggestedthat the termmightcoverall the plays of the i6oo-i6o6period.So
we mightsay that-in a modifiedform-thisconceptof Shakespeare'saimsand
artistryis gaining some support.(I will discuss some of its implicationsin
moredetaillater).
Other criticshave noted a similartendencyin the play,but-loyal to the
idea thata play mustcome to a definiteconclusion-havecondemnedtheplay
as only partiallysuccessful.In otherswords,it aroused them,but it did not
give them a panacea. "Measure for Measure, then,remainspoetically,like
Troilus,an abandonedplay."'0' 0. J. Campbell saw it as an unsuccessful at-
temptto writea secondcomicalsatire.102Quiller-Couchsaw it as a moralargu-
ment,flawedby the inconsistencies in Isabella's characterand the bad stateof
the text.'03Tillyardtook somethinglike thisline,blamingthe play'sinconsis-
tencyon Shakespeare'smisuseof the originalstory:"With significant action
denied to Isabella,Shakespearemusthave seen thatto carrythe play through
in thespiritin whichhe began it was impossible;and afterIII i i5i he threwin
his hand" (p. I39). MurrayKrieger'04notesa genuinemoraluncertainty about
the play,and feelsthatthe author'spurposeand pointof view were not suffi-
cientlycoordinated.His messagecame fromHooker,saysWhitaker,'05 but his
formwas Romance; that crippledhim, Krieger and Whitakeragree. (See
Pettet.)'06 But Crane'07feelsthisblend had alreadybeen achievedin Twelfth
Night; it would be strangeif thisproblemof genreswas such a greatobstacle
to Shakespeare.Perhaps Rossiterspeaks for many of these criticswhen he
confesses, "I believethatMeasureforMeasurewas intendedto finishas a play
of a higherethic,and thatethic'Christian.'But thisremainslargelyan aim . . .
96A. L. Rowse, WilliamShakespeare:A Biography(New York, I963), pp. 360-365, argues

thattheplayis nota problemplay,but "problematical".
97 Schanzer,p. 6.
98 In Sinn and Form,X (1958), 904-9i6.
99 Dissertation LXVI (1956), I899-I900.
Abstracts,
100A. P. Rossiter,AngelwithHorns (New York,i96i), p. 115.
101Charles Williams, The English Poetic Mind (London, I932), reprintedin Shakespeare
Criticism1935-1960, ed. Ridler(London, I963), p. 199.
1020. J. Campbell, Shakespeare'sSatire (London, I963), pp. 135, 140. D. L. Stevenson
thoughtit a success.To argue this,Stevensonhas to dismissboth the historicalcriticsand the
Christianinterpreters;and thenhas to tracethe titlenot to the Bible but to Aristotle.-"Design
and Structure in MeasureforMeasure",ELH, XXIII (1956), 256-278.
103 Quiller-Couch, New Cambridgeed. (Cambridge,I922).
"Introduction",
104Murray Krieger,"Measure for Measure and ElizabethanComedy",PMLA, LVI (1951).
775-784.
105 Virgil K. Whitaker,"Philosophyand Romance in Shakespeare's'Problem' Comedies",
in The Seventeenth Century(Stanford,1951), pp. 339-354.
106E. C. Pettet,Shakespeareand the Romance Tradition(London, 1949), pp. I56-i6o.
107 Milton Crane, "Shakespeare'sComediesand the Critics",SQ, XV (I964), 67-74.

194. SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
carriedout neitherby characterdevelopmentnor (more importantly)by the

textureof thewriting.It goes thin"(p. i69).
A few critics,like Quiller-Couch,blame it on the text."If a playwright,
expertas Shakespearewas in i604, puzzle his auditors,teasingthem with
inconsistencies; if his manuscript,printedin i623, equally tease the reader;
we are drivento choose betweenthe alternatives-either he had a drama in
gestationwithinhim, but nevercontrivedto bringit clearlyto birth(which
means that he never thoroughlythoughtout Measure for Measure at any
time); or thatthe textof MeasureforMeasure as we have it,does his play an
injustice" (p. xxxv). Quiller-Couch reviews the evidence and concludes:
"Mischiefexists,is serious,and mustbe accountedfor" (p. xxxvi). Greg says,
"Careless compositionhas perhapsbeen made worse by subsequentpatching.
. . . I thinkit must have been rathercarelesslymade fromfoul papersthat
had beena good deal altered."'08
This additionaltwist-thatthe play was probablyrevised,at one or more
times-enunciatedby Saintsbury,'09 and takenup by Mathew,"10 has playeda
small part in recentcriticism.Dover Wilson feelsthat the play was cut for
performancein i604, and he postulatesan inferiorreviserto accountfor a
hypothetical"prose expansion";"' similarly,Robert Wilson imagines that
ShakespearehimselffollowedWhetstoneto the letter,and thatall innovations,
like Mariana,are merelythewhimsyof a laterweak-mindedreviser."12 Robert-
son1i3suggestedthis mightbe Chapman, but his argumentthat a mass of
evidencein characterization, conception, method,vocabulary,style,and phrase
suggestsChapman's meddlinghand has not won much acceptance.
The great majorityof the theme-hunters hold that the play must be
perfectShakespeare,and thatthatrequiresan explicitmessage.They thentake
up any of a numberof approachesto provethattheirown statementof that
messageis correct.
Some take up a modifiedcharacter-analysis, tryingto findout exactlywhat
Shakespeare'sjudgmenton the characterswas; J. R. Brown, for instance,
defendsthis method."Indeed, as the most trivialaction,like the tyingof a
shoelace,can expressa whole personalityto someone who knows and loves
the person who is doing the action, so the choice of a single word can
expressthe personality, the philosophyand attitudeto life,of the one who
uses it" (p. 23). Raleigh had an answerto such studiesas earlyas 1907. "The
ready judgments which are often passed on Shakespeare'smost difficult
charactersand situationsare like the talk of children.Childhoodis amazingly
moral, with a confidentdictatorialunflinchingmorality.The work of ex-
perience,in those who are capable of experience,is to underminethis early
pedantry,and to teach tolerance,or at least suspenseof judgment."'114
Other criticstherefore turnedelsewhere,still unsatisfied."Scenes that are
psychologically bafflingmay be allegoricallylucid: and when so considered,
'08W. W. Greg,The EditorialProblemin Shakespeare(Oxford,1942), p. 146.

109 GeorgeSaintsbury, "Shakespeare",CHEL, V (London, 1910).
110 FrankMathew,An Image of Shakespeare(London, 1922), pp. 301-306.
111 DoverWilson,MeasureforMeasure(Cambridge,1922), p. 97.
112 In PQ, IX (1932), 341-350.
118 J.M. Robertson, The ShakespeareCanon,II (London, 1923).
114 WalterRaleigh,Shakespeare(London, 1907), p. 165.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE AND THE CRITICS:TOWARDSA NEW APPROACH 195
theyfall intoplace."115JohnVyvyanstatesthecoreof anothertypicalapproach

to The ShakespeareanEthic, the allegoricalone. In i9ii Figgis116suggested
this as the only possibleway to get meaningout of the play; I. Gollancz re-
peated the idea, with ramifications, in Allegoryand Mysticismin Shake-
speare;117S. L. Bethell'sfinechapteron the "Hidden Meaning" did much to
justifysuch methods.118 Unfortunately,the criticscould not agree on exactly
what kindof allegoryit mightbe,or evenon whatit mightmean.Battenhouse,
for instance,followedSt. Bonaventure'ssystemof interpretation and proved
that the play told the storyof the Atonement;whereas Coghill, following
Dante, foundit a divinecomedy.
So other criticsturned to Shakespeare'scontemporaries. Albrechtand
Winstanley119 investigatedChalmers'120 and CharlesKnight's121idea thatthe
Duke represented JamesI, and thatthe play was a studyof thatking'sideals
of rulership.Stevenson122 expandedthisargumentin I959, and Nathan treated
the final marriageas straightflattery;123 Schanzer concurs,and views the
portraitas "idealized" (p. II7). Suddard,124Sehrt,and McGinn125see the
play as an attack on the Puritans.Chilton Powell knew part of the play's
difficultylay in thecontroversy as comparedto thatof
overClaudio's betrothal,
Angelo; he thereforeinvestigatedEnglish Domestic Relations,i487-i653126
(see also,G. E. Howard,A Historyof MatrimonialCustoms,127and J. Q.
Adams, A Life);128 in I95o, Davis Harding made a detailedcomparisonof
"Elizabethan Betrothalsand Measure for Measure".12n Norman Nathan fol-
lowed this up ("Marriage of Duke Vincentioand Isabella")130and Roscelli
investigatedthe general topic of "Isabella, Sin, and Civil Law".131 Schanzer
summarizedmost of such work in his "Marriage Contractin Measure for
Measure",132and arguedthatShakespearewas exploitingcontradictions inher-
115 JohnVyvyan,The Shakespearean Ethic (New York, 1959), quoted in Shakespeare'sCritics,
ed. Harrisonand Eastman(Ann Arbor,1964), p. 68.
116DarrellFiggis,Shakespeare:A Study(London,1911), pp. 264-266.
117 London, 1931.
118 In Shakespeareand the Popular Dramatic Tradition(London, 1944). M. C. Bradbrook
("Shakespeareand theUse of Disguisein ElizabethanDrama", Essaysin Criticism,II (April,1952)
used the "two levels" to suggestthat the Duke was on one level a tempterand on another
the judge. His disguise was moral-true seeming.Twentieth-century spectatorshave difficulty
shiftingback and forth,however,and sometimesdeny that anyone could. (See F. P. Wilson,
Elizabethanand Jacobean(London, 1945), p. ii8.)
119 Lilian Winstanley,
Hamletand theScottishSuccession(London, 1921).
120 George Chalmers,A SupplementalApology for the Believersin the Shakespeare-Papers
(London, 1799), pp. 404-405.
121 CharlesKnight,Studiesin Shakespeare(London, 1849), p. 319.
122 D. L. Stevenson,"The Role of JamesI in Shakespeare'sMeasure for Measure",ELH,
XXVI (x959), 188-208.

128 Norman Nathan, "The Marriageof Duke Vincentioand Isabella", SQ, VII, 43-45.
124 Mary Suddard, "Measure for Measure as a Clue to Shakespeare'sAttitudetowards
Puritanism", Studiesand Essays(London, 1912), pp. 136-152.

125D. J. McGinn, "The Precise Angelo", in 1. Q. Adams MemorialStudies (Washington,
1948), pp. 66-82.
128 London, 1917.
127 I, 287 if. (London, 1904).
128 J. Q. Adams,A Lifeof WilliamShakespeare(Boston,1923), p. 69.
XLIX (1950), 139-158.
129 JEGP,
1805Q, VII (1956), 43-45.
of Kansas CityReview,XXVIII
181W. J. Roscelli,"Isabella,Sin, and Civil Law", University
(1962), 215-227.
182 ShakespeareSurvey13 (i960), pp. 81-89.

ent in the system.W. W. Lawrencehad defendedthe entireplay as justifiable

on purelyElizabethan terms; and this feelingpromptedBradbrook'sessays
on Authority,133 Pope's studyof theElizabethanconceptsof justiceand mercy
(pp. 66-82),Parker'son justice,Watson'son honor,and Southall'son Protestant
Ethic.'34 Cook studied "MetaphysicalPoetryand Measure for Measure"'.135
These specializedstudiesall open up facetsof the play.They show thatwhen-
ever therewas a contemporary controversy, Shakespearesomehowmanaged
not to take sides.He was concernedwitha greatnumberof ideas,and debated
themall.
To pin him down even more exactly,othermen have gone into Shake-
speare'ssources136-notably Albrecht,Lawrence,Craig,137Lascelles,Tillyard,
Muir,137and Prouty.137None of thesescholarsquite agreeas to thesignificance
of Shakespeare'stransformations; theyhave all pinned down the major plot
changes,but each has evolved his own privateinterpretation of what those
changesmean.
So it goes. In almosteveryapproach,new factsare turnedup, new material.
Our understanding of the conflicts which Shakespearewas settingin motion
has grown; our grasp of the importantElizabethan attitudesinvolved has
become more sophisticated;our convictionthat Shakespeareknew what he
was doinghas becomeevenmoreintense.
But with the theme-hunters, we seem condemned to almost as many
interpretations as thereare critics.This is indeeda tributeto Shakespeare.It is a
rare play that has made hundredsof men excitedenough to take pen and
put down on paper what they think this thing,this dream, this illusion,
mighthave meant.
In the last ten yearsor so, moreand morecriticshave recognizedthe skill
with which Shakespearewent about shapinghis play in thisway. A new ap-
proachis developing,it seemsto me. It goes beyondthephilosophy-mongering
thatsome Christianexegesishas led to,and it breaksfreeof theonus of Ibsen-
ism inherentin the"ProblemPlay" approach.
The art historianWolflinhas pointedout thatmostRenaissanceart is de-
signed so thatit conveysmany meaningsall at once. He calls this a kind of
"multipleart".In I954, Madeleine Doran applied thisconceptto Measurefor
Measure,arguingthatwe shouldnot limitthe play to onlyone narrow"mes-
"138
sage"
133 M. C. Bradbrook,"Authority,
Truth, and Justicein Measure for Measure",RES, XVII
(I94I), 385-399-
134 RaymondSouthall,"Measurefor Measure and the Protestant
Ethic", Essays in Criticism
XI (i96i), IO-32.
135 Accent, XIII (953), I122-I27.
136The mostcomprehensive surveysare thoseof Albrecht,R. H. Ball (University
of Colorado
Studies, I945, pp. I32-I46), G. Bullough ("Introduction,"Narrativeand DramaticSources of
Shakespeare;II, The Comedies, 1597-1603 (London, i958), 399-4I7), F. E. Budd ("Materials
fora Studyof the Sourcesof Shakespeare'sMeasureforMeasure",Revue de Litte'rature Comparete
(OctoberI931), pp. 7II-736), and Lascelles.
137 Hardin Craig, "Motivationin Shakespeare'sChoice of Materials",ShakespeareSurvey4,
(i95i), pp. 26-27, Plays; Muir,Shakespeare'sSources: Comedies and Tragedies (London, I957),
pp. io5-io9; C. T. Prouty,"Whetstoneand the Sources of Measure for Measure", SQ, XV
(i964), I3I-I45.
138 Doran, pp. 3IO-322, and pp. 385-389. All quartersseem to be repudiatingthe excessesof
the "theme-mongerers" (Craig)-an almost Victorian essay by Hardin Craig calls for "the study
"the regionof the concepthas been developedto
of the human heart",ratherthan metaphysics;

MEASURE FOR MEASURE AND THE CRITICS: TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH 197
Elizabethan weremuchmorecongenial
artists thanthat.Theylikedvillains,
and theywereoftenangeredbya herowhoseemedtoocoldlyvirtuous. They
likeda mixture inthings.
Partof theirtasteforsuch"mixture" camefromthemedievalstage.The
polyscenic stageof juxtaposition led the eye fromone obviously theatrical
houseto another. The blatanttheatricality of it was takenforgranted. It was
partofthefun.
Similarly,in theElizabethan period,theplaywright feltno qualmsabout
leapingfromone veryrealistic scenewithcriminals, and horses, and hay,to a
scenewherethe devilarguedin debatewithangels.The audienceenjoyed
Variety. Variety itis as Nature.
delights;
Shifting back and forththisway may have seemeda bit difficult for
spectators broughtup in the theme-hunting tradition.Like F. P. Wilson,
W. W. Lawrencerecognized thattheplayjumpedfromscenesof reasonably
realisticactionto sceneswhichwere palpablyallegorical, or, worse,mere
puppetry: "We mayas well admitthatShakespeare's artoscillates between
extreme psychologicalsubtlety and an equallyextreme disregard ofpsychologi-
cal truth, in theacceptance of stocknarrative conventions" (p. ii8). Tillyard
tookup thepointagain,quotingLawrence, and againturning to thesources
forsomepossibleexplanation. To menbrought up on Ibsenand Shaw,such
shifts toadjustto;theywerefailures
weredifficult ofa kind.
It tooka studyof thelaterplaysto bringoutwhatShakespeare mayhave
been drivingat. Tillyardnotesthatin theseplays,"Shakespeare presented
thedifferent planesof reality in fairlylargeand simplecontrasts".139 In fact,
thepoetwas "moreexercised in hismindbythecomplexity ofpossibleworlds
thanat anyotherperiodof his workingcareer"(p. 67). Takingthisphrase
as hiscue,S. L. BethellshowsthatShakespeare enjoyedthepossibilities ofhis
tradition,the inheritance of mysteries and moralities in whichplaywrights
could pursuethe actionthroughrealisticscenesand theninto highlyun-
ones.The audiencewas awareof whatwas goingon. And theyen-
realistic
joyedit.Momentto moment, theywereshifted fromone "planeofreality" to
another. For thisreason,watching theplay"becomes an activity ofthewhole
mind"(p. 33).
Bethellcallsthis"multiconsciousness".Forwe shift our"modesofattention"
overand overagain(p. 27). For example, in a playabouta Danishprince, a
suddenallusionto contemporary Londonchildplayerswouldnotupsetthe
audience;rather, theywouldappreciate it forwhatit was. Similarly, those
spectatorswhohad readJamesI's BasilikonDoronwouldtakeit as an added
treatthattheDuke in MeasureforMeasurewas actually a composite ofKing
what looks like a maximumdegree" (p. I47). A typicalritualistattackwould be Holloway's

clottedThe Storyof the Night.More reasonable,and perhapsmorehistorically sound,are studies
grounded in actual Elizabethan conventions,works like Bradbrook'sand Bethell's. (0. J.
Campbell has a good essay summarizingthe confusionsand mistakesof some of the New
Critics;they are too systematic.Shakespeare'spoetrywas "designedto reveal and to intensify
the comprehensiveness and complexity of humanlife,and not to adumbratea gauntmetaphysical,
ethical,or sociologicalproposition."Stoll held similarviews.)-Craig, "IdeationalApproachto
Plays",PQ, XLI
Shakespeare's (i962), I47; The StoryoftheNight(London,i96i),
Holloway,
pp. I-2o;J. Campbell,"Shakespeareand the 'New' Critics",J.Q. Adams MemorialStudies
0.
(Washington,I948), p. 96; Stoll,"Symbolism in Shakespeare", in MLR, XLII (I947), 9-23.
Last Plays (London, I954), p. 8i.
139E. M. W. Tillyard,Shakespeare's

I98 SHAKESPEAREQUARTERLY
James'ssetof virtues.Schficking spokeforan earliergenerationof criticswhen

he said, "One mightas well todayinterrupt the performance by readingthe
latesteditionof the eveningpapers to the audience" (p. 24). Recentcritics,
having more of a tastefor what Schiickingcalls the "primitive"art of the
Tudor period,have begun recognizingthatsuch shiftsare actuallyan amuse-
ment.They transport us back and forth.
They are a delight."The mixtureof comedyand tragedy,so oftendebated
by criticswho take theirPoetics seriously,is foundedpsychologically on the
popular audience's ability to shift rapidly its modes of attention."'40As
Thomas Marc Parrottpointsout, "the originalthemeis essentiallytragic",'41
and we are encouragedto take it in thatway, but, aftera while,the Duke
stepsin, and we findwe can relax,forhe saves all, unknotsthe tangles,and
harmonizesall.
Other criticsgo farther.They feel Shakespearewas shiftingthe audience
fromone mode of attentionto anotherformore seriouspurposes.Rossiterin
his lectureseries,Angel withHorns,seestheplayas expressing "thetragi-comic
view of man."142That view includesany or all of the followingattitudes, or
any combinationof them: (i)A continualfeelingthatthereis anotherside to
human affairs-"and thatthe 'otherside' to theserious,dignified,
noble,famous,
and so forth,is comic." (2) An urge to look behinddignity,to see what lies
underneath.(3) A comicmood,but withit "a gratingqualitywhichexcludes
genialityand ensuresdisturbingafterthoughts". (4) A corresponding attitude
towardstraditionally funnysubjectswhich "insinuatesthatin some way they
are serious,or thatthe stockresponseto themby-passespain at human short-
comings,or wickedness;or that this stock responsedepends on a lack of
sympathy or insightwhichan authorcan make us awareof withoutabolishing
thecomicsituation"
(p. 117).
As A. P. Rossiternotes,Montaignegave Shakespearegood precedentsfor
such a feelingabout man. And, indeed,it was a typicallyElizabethanstyle.
For it is "an art of inversion,deflation,
and paradox" (p. II7). Oppositesare
even stressedin the language-"Over and over again, we hear how a single'
thing containsin itselfa pair of opposites."Norman Holland stressedthat
"The special relationbetweenoppositesin Measure for Measure is that first
we see one thingand thenitsoppositebecomesvisible."1143 A good deal of the
playis involvedwithleadingus on in thisway.
The contradictions are setup, and we are encouragedto tryto resolvethem.
We are constantly being given new and different information, and havingto
readjustour opinion.We lean forward,tryingto figureout exactlywhat is
goingon-and we are hooked.
As Rossiterpointsout,Shakespearedrawsus on in thisway.He encourages
us to tryto make our own senseout of what is going on-and, wordlessly, we
are drawnintotheaction,and sweptalong.
This makes eminentlygood dramaticsense. "The complexityof shifting
and sharplycontrasted viewpoints,the inquiringnessof so muchof bothplays
140 Bethell,p. zo8.
141 Parrott,
Shakespeare'sComedy(New York,1949), p. 36i.
142 Rossiter,
Angel aithHorns (New York,i96i), p. ii6.
148 NormanHolland,The Shakespearean Imagination(New York,1964), p. 222.

[Measure forMeasure and All's Well] eggs us on to ask questionsabout the

mindsof the participants in thesetheatricaldevices."'144Shakespearehas "set
our witsto work."
Lawrencefeelsthat"Dramaticeffect was theessentialthing."'145 This device
certainlyimpliesthatShakespearehimselfwas a verygood dramaticcraftsman,
being able to arouse such interest.Shakespearestood outside,and above,op-
eratingthe charactersand dialogue in such a way that we would be led
rapidlythroughtheplot.His main concernwas to keep us interested. Whether
we can thengo on to say that,because this was his habitualdevice in play-
writing(as it was) it gives evidenceof his philosophicopinions-thatis an-
othermatter.Rossitermakes a good case for what he calls the "tragicomic
view".
Essentially,he feels,Shakespearewas acutelyaware of the factthat"The
web of our lifeis of a mingledyarn,good and ill together. ..146 Paterhad
alreadypointedout how the play encouragesus to make finerdistinctions, to
lean forwardand make a reallyjust judgment.Shakespearemay have been
encouragingjust that when he wroteMeasure forMeasure,with its concern
for judging rightly.He may in facthave been pointingto Montaigne."We
tastenothingpurely.. . . When I religiously confessmyselfuntomyself, I find
the best good I have hath some vicious taint. . . . If Plato in his purest virtue
had listenedto it . . . he would have heardthereinsome harshtune,of human
mixture,but an obscuretune,and onlysensibleto himself.... Man, all in all,
is but a botchingand party-colored work. The verylaws of Justicecannot
subsistwithout some commixture of Injustice.'47
Shakespearecertainlyfollowedthatphilosophyin workingout his charac-
terizations.We have seen how many criticsfoundthe characterspuzzling-
and succumbedto the temptation to put mattersright.148Bridgesmanagedto
resistthe temptation, but he still condemned the inconsistencies which Shake-
speare had writteninto the roles. "It cannot be conceded that any character
is capable of any action: There is a limit. And Shakespeare seems to delight
in raiding across it" (p. 70). Later critics stressed the delight. Stoll argued
thatit was on purpose.'49Coe praised his skill in keeping his characters from
144Rossiter, p. i95.
145W. W. Lawrence,"Measurefor Measureand Lucio", SQ, IX (I958), 448. Lawrencesaw
the effectas purelydramatic."Its management is governedby theartsof thetheatre.This does not
mean of coursethatShakespearewas not interested in otherissues.There is much talk of justice,
and mercy,of sin and forgiveness, much questioningof sexual moralityand the inscrutable
purposesof God, and so forth,and it may be safelyassumedthatsuch matterswere much in
Shakespeare'smind.If we are lookingformorals,a varietymay be deducedfromthisplay. But I
thinkwe should be verycautiousabout assumingthatit was writtenprimarily to give expression
to ethical,social,or religiousconvictionsor witha didacticor reformatory purpose"(pp. 444-445).
146 All's Well thatEnds Well IV. iii. 67 ff.
147 Montaigne, Essays,tr.,Florio (New York,1934), II, 46-48.
148 RobertOrnsteincautionsus: "When the long history of Shakespearestudiesindicatesthat
certaincharacterizations are ambiguous,scholarlyinformation cannoterase those ambiguities, for
theyariseeitherfromdetachedironicor ambivalentconceptions of character.""HistoricalCriticism
and theInterpretation of Shakespeare",SQ, X (I959), 9.
149 Art and Artifice (London, 1933). In stressingthe role of the artist,Stoll opened the way
for a new balance in characterstudies.Criticswere now quite aware of theirown responsesto
the characters-almostas if theywere real-and to the artistry thatmade such marionettes work
thatway.
John Palmer, for instance,sounds almost late Victorianin describingAngelo. But then,
thanksto Stoll's work, he pointsto the poet's craft:"The poet suddenlytook chargeand the

200 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
being wholly one thing-even his darkestvillains are but "demi-devils".150

M. C. Bradbrookexplainedhis cunning:"The Elizabethansliked the villain-
hero,the ambiguouscharacterwho excitedparadoxicalfeelings.... The two
views are held simultaneously and yet quite separatelyin his mind with a
terrifyingclearness,and yettheyare irreconcilable. It is thiswhichmakestheir
peculiarintensity."''5'
We try to reconcilethem, and, in the effort,we are drawn into the
characterevenmoredeeply.For instance,taketheDuke. As L. C. Knightssaid,
"it is the slight uncertaintyof attitudein Shakespeare'shandling of him
thatexplainssome partat leastof the play'sdisturbingeffect."'52 S. L. Bethell
followsSchfickingin treatingthe Duke as a characterof "double nature"-at
one momenta human being,the nextmomentan allegoricalfigure.The aim
is the intensificationof each episode.("When a singlecharacteris made to do
double service,the [spectator's]associationsgatheredaroundhis firstpersonal-
ity have to be thrustaside forhis secondpersonality to function;uncertainty
and a degreeof disharmonyare bound to result"(p. 93). The spectatorthere-
forecan shiftback and forthbetween"two diverseaspectsof the same charac-
ter:therepresentational, and thesymbolic.")
The audience is also interestedby the inconsistencies in the othercharac-
ters-and attempts to understand them.As Rossitersays,"It is notonlyIsabella's
characterwhich is 'double'. The whole play is full of equivocalspeeches,of a
kind wherethereis no resolvingthe ambiguities, sincebothmeanings'belong'
in the play-frame"(p. i63). And the reasonings,the analyzing,"the ethical
subtletieswe are drawn into half compel a casuisticfine-spinning attention,
which,despiteourselves,runs beyondthe warrantof the text"(p. i64).
It compelsour attention;it makes our mind work faster;and, in losing
ourselvesin the play,we oftengo a bit farin our analyses.We have seen that
happen all too oftenin the courseof the criticism of theplay.But perhapsthat
is not such a sin. Perhapsit is just anothertributeto Shakespeare'scraftsman-
ship. As Palmer says,"It is worthnotingthat such apparentcontradictions
becomemorefrequentas Shakespearegrowscreatively moreabsolute.... In his
tragiccharacters, theybecomemaster-strokes of delineation"(p. i).
Shakespeareseems to have done much the same thing in dealing with
theme.Broughtup in the atmosphereof themoralityplay,he mustoftenhave
been forcedto reflect how dull a play can be when the authorstatesthe theme
in Act One, Scene i, and then,withoutwaveringan inchfromhis point,ham-
mersit home,scene afterscene. (It is ironicthatso many criticspostulatean
ideal play in which the charactersare single,and the themeone. They spend
a great deal of energy-as we have seen-tryingto prove that Shakespeare
actuallywrotea play of thisnature.If theyevertook the timeto considerthe
man who has been exposedto our derisionbreaksintoa crythatmakeshim one withourselves"
(p. xi).
Palmer says elsewhere,"Commentators on Shakespeareare puzzled by such inconsistencies
and some criticshave egregiously discoveredthemto be faults.But in no respectis Shakespeare's
genius more manifestthan in allowinghis charactersto act in ways which,at firstsightand to
the strictlylogical mind, seem at variancewith theiressentialqualities."PoliticalCharactersof
Shakespeare (London,1945), p. I.
150 C. NortonCoe, Demi-devils:The Character of Shakespeare'sVillains(New York, I962).
151 M. C. Bradbrook,ElizabethanStage Conditions(London, 1932), p. 93.
152 L. C. Knights,"Ambiguity in Measurefor Measure",Scrutiny,X (1942), 225.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE AND THE CRITICS: TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH 20I
play they are imagining,theywould realize that the genre which best fits
theirideal, with single-souledheroines,and one clear message,is nineteenth-
centurymelodrama.)
Criticshave come to appreciatethe fineambiguitiesof Shakespeare'spoliti-
cal loyalties(as in Henry IV, say,or King John). And Montaigne,with his
scepticism, does seem to have been lurkingbehindmany of the plays of this
period.Lafeu may indeedbe speakingforthe author,as Rossiterclaims,when
he callsall theworlda mingledyarn,ofgood and evilintermixed.
But theremay be other reasonswhy Shakespeareadopted this teasingly
ambiguousapproach.Shakespearelearnedearlyto dismissthe unrealapproach
of the categoristas unwieldy,or oversimplified at best.By movingalways to
the concrete,the particular,Shakespearefindsout more about men than a
man like Ford, with all his theories,and all his postulates.Shakespeareseizes
on the individualtrait,the unique flairof character-andit is only the critic
who thenmakesan abstraction ofit,and callsit Truthor Vice.
More subtly,Shakespeareseems to have realized that almost involuntary
tendencyin man to categorize.The simplerour minds,the simplerour cate-
gorizations.The housewifetakesone glanceat thepainter,and denounceshim
as "a bad lot",or "He's a good 'un." The criticfeelsmore mature,as he says
theman is "an illusionist", or "a prophet".
Shakespeareknew that we like to do this.And he knew that the people
we call "interesting" are thosewhom we findhardestto categorize-wefindit
hard to dismissthemwith a wave of the cliche.As we have seen,he creates
his most"interesting" charactersin just thisway-by makingthemdifficult to
categorize.
Thematically,he does almost the same thing. He seems to promiseus
meaning-particularly withall thereferences to abstractions Mercy,
like Justice,
and Divine Grace-but, as criticshave found out to theirrue, he carefully
skirtsthe issues.He neverquite comes down on one side. We thinka scene
will surelyforcehis hand, but, as J. I. M. Stewartsays,"It may almostbe
said to be the rule that when his characterscome hard up againsta moral
problemproper-a moral dilemmaor hard choice-the dramatistfindsmeans
to let themoff.The issueis suspended,dissolved,or dodged; sometheatricality,
some trickof distraction is broughtin. Even in MeasureforMeasure,the play
most commonlycited in argumentshere,the dramatistis thoroughly evasive
in the end.'53
Surelysuch techniquesare brilliantdramaturgy. Severalcriticshave begun
to thinkin these terms.S. L. Bethell,as we have seen, sees Shakespeareas
tryingabove all to elicit"thisdual awareness",thathe calls multiconsciousness.
It piques our interest;it rousesour curiosity. "Lightnessis darkened,and dark-
ness lightened;oftenduringwhole actions,Shakespeareso managestheaware-
nessesas to make simple,singleresponsesimpossible,and to demandcomplex,
conflicting ones."'54Bethelland Evans see thetechniqueas primarily dramatic.
It does sparkthe "activityof the whole mind"'"55We all tryto findsome
answerto thequestionswhichShakespearehas raised,somedefinitemessageor
153 J. I. M. Stewart,"Shakespeare'sMen and theirMorals", StratfordLecture (I959), re-
inShakespearean
printed Criticism,
1935-i960, ed.Ridler(London,I963), p. 303.
154 BertrandEvans,Shakespeare'sComedies(London, i960), p. i89.
155 Bethell,P. 33.

see Shakespeare
moral.Thesecritics becauseof dramatic
as abovethat-either
good sense or philosophicwisdom.BenedettoCroce,'5"forinstance,feelsthat
Shakespeareis not beyondthesepassions,but thathe is beyondbeingon one
side or the other.He burnishesthemall. He surpassesthemby strengthening
our interestin them,good or evil,sorrowor joy.
Similarly,Harbage sees the techniqueas a means to an end-it arouses
our moralbeing,and makes us exerciseit; withoutholdingany firmmessage,
Shakespearewas "inducingmoral excitement". 157 This would certainlybe in
line with the Elizabethan aim of producinginstruction along with delight.
MadeleineDoran concurs,and arguesthatShakespearemay have been aiming
at suggestingmany different in the mannerof Renaissance
interpretations,
"multipleart".'58
In fact,Rossitersees the techniqueas derivingfromShakespeare's"tragi-
comic view of life" (p. ii6), just as Holland findsit expressingthe profound
divisionsof such a world.'59Willard Farnham'00shows thatShakespearehas
an almost medieval charityfor folly.Perhaps Shakespearedid indeed enjoy
"lookingon theothersideof thecoin".
Perhaps it was his sympathythat allowed him to do so, suggestsPalmer.
The secretof Shakespeare'scomedylies in "the quality of his imaginative
reactionto lifeitself.We shall findourselveswatching,in an infinite varietyof
moods and forms,thatconstantinterplayof thoughtand feeling,detachment
and sympathy,ridicule and affection, serene judgmentand passionateself-
identification,which lies at the heartof genius."'' Perhaps,in fact,the shifts
in the mood of the play representthe changesin the mood of the author,as
his sympathy shifts.
Perhaps,as WalterPaterhad said in the lastpartof thenineteenth century,
Shakespearereallyis encouragingthe finerjudgment,the finerdistinctions,
based on thatkeenersympathy thathe himselfhas.
For he has done what Prosperomakes Ariel,his familiarspirit,do in The
Tempest.Prosperoasks Ariel:
Who was so firm, thatthiscoil

so constant,
Wouldnotinfect his reason?
Ariel: -Not a soul
Butfelta feverofthemad,and played
Sometricks ofdesperation.All butmariners
Plungedin thefoaming brineand quitthevessel;
Thenall afirewithme theKing'ssonFerdinand,
Withhairup staring (thenlikereeds,nothair)
Was thefirstmanthatleapt;cried,'Hell is empty,
And all thedevilsarehere!'
156BenedettoCroce,Ariosto,Shakespeare,and Corneille(London, I920).

AlfredHarbage,As They Liked It: A Studyof Shakespeare'sMoral Artistry
157 (New York,
1947), P. i6.
158 Doran, pp. 310-322, and pp. 385-389. See also her reviewof Evans,MP, LX, pp. 51-55.
159 Holland, "Measure for Measure", The ShakespeareanImagination(New York, 1964),
p. 23I.
160 Willard Farnham,"The Medieval Comic Spiritin the EnglishRenaissance",1. Q. Adams
MemorialStudies(Washington,1948), pp. 429-437.
161 Palmer, p. ix.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE AND THE CRITICS:TOWARDSA NEW APPROACH 203
Shakespearehimself,in writingMeasureforMeasure,has keptus feverish

and afire.He has made us fascinated, and we attendmorecloselyto the
action.It seemsto me thatShakespeareprobably meantit to be thatway.He
probably was mostinterestedin theaction-andhe wantedus to be. He drew
our attentionby pretendingto be ambiguous and in
in his characterizations,
hismessage. prove.
We areeasilydrawnin-as all thesecritics
I am notsayingthatShakespeare himselfheldno opinionswhatsoever. I
thinkthathe beganeachplaywitha fairly definiteideaofwhateachcharacter
wouldbe like.In working outhisplot,he wouldhavehadtoevolvesomesuch
basicunderstanding.
Similarly,he probablywould have come to somegeneralfeelingabout
whattheplayas a wholemeant.It wouldhavemeantseveralthingsat once,
and he wouldprobably haveknownwhatthesewere.A manis giftedas he
was in bringing out the innerfeelingswouldhardlyhave written in total
unconsciousness.
All I am arguingis thatShakespeare did notfeelhe had to clingto these
conceptions too desperately. He knew how dull a play couldbe whenthe
authorhad givenawayhis hero's characterin Scenei, and thewholepointof
theplayin Sceneii. You might as well go home. Therewas nothing moreto
be learned.
Shakespeare therefore made it a habitto alterhis characters, momentby
moment, or rather,sceneby scene, to keepus from categorizing them,pigeon-
holingthem,dismissing them as "the ingenue" or "thedirty old man".
Similarly,he learnedto setup one sceneas ifhe werecomingoutforIsa-
bella,in her protests of virtue-inthe next,he would be quite carefulto
undermine herwholeargument. This puzzlesus. We wantto findoutexactly
whathethinks.
Justthepoint.We takeinterest. Thatis whathe caresmostabout.
Converting us? No. Shakespeare knewthatanyplaythattriedto do that
automaticallydug itsowngrave-assoonas we knewwheretheauthorstood,
we coulddismiss it.
Moreimportant, though,Shakespeare knewhe didnothaveto convert. He
was not writingplaysto persuadepeople,to beatthemabouttheears.He
coulddo thatin hissparetime,at home,or,morelikely, withtherecalcitrant
attheGlobe.
actors,
And he couldasserthispoweroverpeoplein subtler ways.Morepowerful
ones,too,as we have seen.He createda dramawhichhas perplexed and
arousedpeopleforcenturies. Certainly thesewere"Spiritsto enforce, artto
enchant."
A playwas no placeto arguephilosophy. It was notsomething hard,some-
thingreal,a butcher's tablein a darkshop.It was an aerynothing. It was a
"dreamandan illusion".
Whatwas thelifein a play,ifit didnotcontinually provoke newdreams?
It was something delight,
to inspire, and console.Like Ariel,it shouldleadits
hearerson,frommoment tomoment.
Clearlywhatis needednowis a complete reviewofthevarioussuggestions
Shakespeare seemsto be throwing outto us here,bothofcharacter andtheme,
a reviewin whichwe aremoreacutely awareofthewaysinwhichShakespeare

manipulatesour feelings and thoughts; we mustcontinueto exploreall the

issuesin profound detail;but if,like mostinvestigators,
we discoverShake-
speareadroitly finessingissues,thenindeedwe mustbeginto decidewhy.
I myselfbelievethathe doesso deliberately,in orderto makeus think,and
feel,morefinely thanwe do. I believehe wouldbe pleasedto haveprovoked
sucha rangeof passionate reactionand hardthinking.That,afterall,is the
bestafter-life
a playcan have:in themindsof hisaudience, as theytry,again
and again,to resolve
paradoxes thatanguished him,conflict
thatseemstohave
tornhimaparttoo.
We mustnot,then,ceaseour investigations of the historical,
allegorical,
literary
backgrounds of theplays;rather,we shoulddo evenmore;and,once
we havedoneso, we mustnextconsider thewaysin whichShakespeare has
goneaboutdrawingus intosuchwork.How has he madeus careso passion-
atelyaboutthedramaofMeasureforMeasure?
New YorkUniversity


Price 1969

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Price 1969

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

George Washington University

Measure for Measure and the Critics: Towards a New Approach

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

EOPLE have spent a good deal of time trying to make a

1See Hazelton Spencer,ShakespeareImproved,The RestorationVersionsin Quarto and On

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

giveness,the scene which moderncriticshave taken as a momentof highly

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

34Sir ArthurQuiller-Couch, "Introduction",MeasureforMeasure (Cambridge,i922), p. xvii.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

implications".45 They wanteda "finalanswer"to the "emotionalstrugglesand

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

In England, Bagehot,Pater,and Raleigh took up the fight,each seeing the

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

prefacedwith the same argument;64 Dodds"- wrote at lengthon Angelo's

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

human life on a Christianinterpretation has for Shakespeare"(p. 223). This

83 J. L. Harrison,"The Convention of 'Heart and Tongue' and the Meaningof Measurefor

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

such considerations as thesemeetall the difficulties thatare liable to be raised

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

Shakespearepurposelymade the moral issue appear problematicto the audi-

96A. L. Rowse, WilliamShakespeare:A Biography(New York, I963), pp. 360-365, argues

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

carriedout neitherby characterdevelopmentnor (more importantly)by the

'08W. W. Greg,The EditorialProblemin Shakespeare(Oxford,1942), p. 146.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

theyfall intoplace."115JohnVyvyanstatesthecoreof anothertypicalapproach

XXVI (x959), 188-208.

Puritanism", Studiesand Essays(London, 1912), pp. 136-152.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

ent in the system.W. W. Lawrencehad defendedthe entireplay as justifiable

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

what looks like a maximumdegree" (p. I47). A typicalritualistattackwould be Holloway's

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

James'ssetof virtues.Schficking spokeforan earliergenerationof criticswhen

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

[Measure forMeasure and All's Well] eggs us on to ask questionsabout the

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

being wholly one thing-even his darkestvillains are but "demi-devils".150

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

Who was so firm, thatthiscoil

156BenedettoCroce,Ariosto,Shakespeare,and Corneille(London, I920).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

Shakespearehimself,in writingMeasureforMeasure,has keptus feverish

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

manipulatesour feelings and thoughts; we mustcontinueto exploreall the

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:46:47 AM

You might also like