A Critical Analysis of William Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure

Perhaps the least classifiable of Shakespeare’s plays, the anomalous nature of Measure for Measure is best illustrated by the attempts made at classifying it as either a “comedy” or a “tragedy.” In technical terms, the play has been formally classified as a comedy. However, it has also been identified as a “problem play,” first because it identifies a set of problems sought to be solved, but also because its plot causes something of a problem insofar as it is entirely distinct from the melancholic elements of Shakespeare’s other works, be they comedy or tragedy. Ultimately, Measure for Measure seems to present a consideration nowhere else considered by Shakespeare: can moralistic leadership ever be sufficient to maintain an orderly society in and of itself.

The Duke rules Vienna, though not with an iron fist. In turning over his kingdom to the Lord Angelo, a staunch adherent to the letter of the law, the Duke claims to be leaving Vienna for a time. Instead, he has disguised himself as a friar and remains disguised for the vast majority of the play, during which the Duke not only observes the conduct of Angelo and his subjects, but also dictates and manipulates it. There is a kind of dishonesty to the Duke’s conduct, though he is presented as the play’s moral compass. And yet, the Duke seems to be placing his subjects in positions of abject dishonesty, where they are expected to unwittingly perpetuate some form of espionage or intrigue. While this is presented as the Duke’s means of better understanding Angelo’s machinations and the manner in which he abuses his authority as a Judge, there is a kind of voyeuristic quality to the Duke’s plan. Indeed, one begins to realize that if the Duke were merely interested in determining the quality of Angelo’s character, he could unmask himself and put an end to Angelo’s scheming at any time.

In a sense, the Duke becomes the purveyor of disorder through his manipulations, though their ends are revealed as just. In order to restore order by rooting out corruption, the Duke must himself engage in the very same kind of deception in which Angelo engages for purposes of appropriating justice as not merely a tool for disguising his moral depravity, but also a tool by which he may exercise this depravity. This paradoxical state of affairs is succinctly captured in Act II: “The tempter or the tempted, who sins most?” (2.2.162). While Angelo’s temptations towards Isabella are viscerally contemptible, he is only able to indulge them fully as a result of the opportunity presented by the Duke’s supposed departure. In this sense, while the Duke’s disguise is what enables him to preclude the play’s most potentially unjust outcomes, it also represents a failure of leadership in that the potential for these outcomes would likely never have materialized but for the Duke undertaking to disguise himself, thereby tempting Angelo into an abuse of his authority.

This paradoxical moral state of affairs is highlighted several times in the play, but no more aptly than it is in Act II, Sc. I: “Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall. (2.1.42). The question then emerges: might the laws of G-d and man be insufficient to effect an ordered society? Or, as Shakespeare puts it, “[M]ight there not be a charity in sin…? (2.4.64). We see this sentiment presented in reference to Isabella’s decision to forebear intercourse with Angelo for the purpose of saving Claudio’s life. Isabella refuses, despite her brother’s pleas to the contrary, because she feels that an act of sin will not only compromise her service as a nun, but would also condemn to damnation the party benefitted by it (i.e. Claudio). However, Shakespeare seems to suggest, Isabella’s expression of piety in this regard nearly guarantees her brother’s death. In a similar sense, while the Duke’s dishonesty is inherently amoral, it functions to prevent Angelo’s far more destructive moral transgressions, on more than one occasion.

The play’s central theme begins to emerge through consideration of the morally paradoxical world in which it is set: a man is not defined by his words, but rather by his actions. Both Angelo and the Duke verbally present themselves as something other than what their deeds reveal them to be. In Angelo’s case, he is a scrupulous administrator of the law. In reality, however, Angelo abuses his authority not only in and of itself, but also by manipulating the law to suit his own ends. Similarly, the Duke claims to be departing Vienna. In reality, he is merely disguising himself, though these means are ostensibly justified by virtue of his noble ends. As such, the reader is not challenged to consider the morality of the Duke’s deeds, but only the extent to which the deeds themselves further a moralistic order: “Condemn the fault and not the actor of it? (2.2.37).” Shakespeare thus seems to present a world in which actions are measured not by the motivation most deeply underlying them, but rather by the kind of outcome they provoke for those effected by them.

The reader begins to suspect that the Duke understands how a leader must balance moralism if he is to lead effectively: his manipulative acts increase in frequency as the play progresses, as the Duke appears to process that he must balance pious qualities with contemptible ones. Indeed, by the play’s end, we see the Duke extending merciful treatment to those who committed the same transgressions as he--disguising deeds in words to the contrary, albeit towards a different end. And yet, the Duke’s personal ends are not necessarily as savory as his more global ones. In this sense, we can take Isabella’s silence in reply to the Duke’s marriage proposal as either tacit approval or tacit disapproval of the manner in which the Duke has re-manipulated his kingdom towards order, while also seemingly accounting for his own personal interests regarding Isabella.

Ultimately, the concept of a change in morals, as gleaned from this dichotomy of words and deeds, is best exemplified by Angelo, who goes so far as to recommend his own execution. While Angelo’s recommendation is certainly in the spirit of the law and, moreover, would serve to strictly effectuate the letter of the law, the Duke chooses to pardon him. We are thus returned to the paradoxical morality that permeates the play’s suggestions regarding the kind of leadership required for purposes of administering an orderly society--it is Angelo’s capacity for strict adherence to legal tenets that the Duke seems unable to adopt, though Angelo lacks the capacity for mercy so readily demonstrated by the Duke. As such, it is the Duke’s sense of measure that Shakespeare identifies as leadership’s most necessary evil; morality cannot be incorporated into any set of laws because it must be deviated from when justice so requires.

In Measure for Measure, Shakespeare orchestrates a paradoxical moral order so as to illustrate the challenges of leadership and societal order predicated only upon moral justice. In presenting both Angelo and the Duke as men engaged in the disguising of their actions through their words, Shakespeare suggests a socio-political dichotomy unique to his oeuvre: that “the best men are moulded out of faults, And, for the most, become much more the better For being a little bad.” (5.1.440). Only through this little bit of badness can genuinely just outcomes be achieved. Otherwise, “strict statutes and most biting laws” are themselves insufficient for purposes of ordering society in such a way as precludes the potential for overwhelmingly unjust outcomes (1.3.21).

Work Cited

Shakespeare, William. “Measure for Measure.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, n.d.,http://shakespeare.mit.edu/measure/full.html