Category: Measure for Measure

Disguise has played a major role in society and England during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The role of disguise was an extremely important concept in Shakespearean theatre, as it is used in to conceal the identity of one or more characters from other person in the play (Kreider 168). Often disguise within Shakespearean plays either exceeded the “boundary of any unitary image of subjectivity or resists what verisimilar role construction, emplotment of desire, and passion in relationships” (Weimann 798). An actor would take on the concealed identity of the character for the benefits of the production. The Plays Twelfth Night, or What you Will, written in 1601, and Measure for Measure, first performed in 1604, by William Shakespeare utilise disguise as an extension of the character, comedy, and identity. In this essay I will discuss how Shakespeare utilises disguise as a mode of protection, and how this deceives other characters within the plays. The characters Viola from Twelfth Night and the Duke Vincentio from Measure for Measure, both use disguise as a method of security and share the theme of as protection. I will discuss how the audience is made aware of the characters misunderstanding, and how these misunderstandings provide comedic elements to the plays plot lines. Despite the vast differences between both these plays, they both follow a similar structural pattern. The audience is made aware that the characters are in disguise from the beginning with dialogue from the characters in disguise explaining that they are going to dress in masquerade. Once the climax is reached, the reveal of true identity and the method of disguises is unveiled. Shakespeare utilises this structural pattern to allow for audience awareness, familiarity and suspense.

Shakespeare uses themes of disguise in the play Measure for Measure as a method of deceit. Many of the characters in the play seem to hold a dishonest nature, where their lies lead to the irony of the disguises. Shakespeare explores these concepts of disguise through the characters Isabella, who uses disguise for her own benefit and protection from a foreign land, and Duke Vincentio, who disguises himself as a friar to secretly watch over the order of the city in his absence. The Duke becomes an ironic character due his purpose of catching the untrustworthy Lord Angelo. Duke Vincentio adopts the masquerade scheme as “a sophisticated and effective mode of surveillance” (Kamps 248, 249). Through the character Duke Vincentio, Shakespeare spares the audiences ignorant knowledge of what may happen in the play. Instead, it is set up form the beginning for the audience that Vincentio will disguise himself as a friar to watch over the city while Angelo is in charge.

“Supply me with the habit, and instruct me

How I may formally in person bear me

Like a true friar.” (Shakeseare1.3.46-48)

Duke Vincentio expresses his motives to Friar Thomas, making the audience fully aware of his protective intentions. Vincentio indicates his fears of Angelo leading the city, which Ivo Kamps states is a representation of the city’s anxiety (249). Vincentio’s schemes replicate “the techniques of arousing and manipulating anxiety ” in the early modern era. These techniques are practices by the state and its representatives out of a fear of disorder and rebellion (Kamps 249). The rulers become a scheming, controlling, secretive character who spy on his subjects for the purpose of regulating their thoughts and behaviour. (Kamps 248). Although Vincentio can be viewed as a protector of the anxious city, whose hope is to instill once again a measure of respect for Vienna’s “strict statues and most biting laws” (Shakespeare 1.3.19) (Kamps 252). The fact that disguise is set up for the audience from the beginning means that other characters misundstandings provided comedic humour for the audience. The audiences awareness of this enables them to follow along with each characters journey and confusion upon approaching the reveal. Shakespeare does this through the interaction and dialogue between Duke Vincentio, disguise as a friar, and other characters in the play.

“Come your way, sir. Bless you, good father friar.” (Shakespeare 3.2.12)

Not only does this restate the masquerade to the audience but it also highlights the characters misunderstandings of the convincing disguise. Robert Weimann describs the gard of disguise as a meaningful extention of a charcter, where the performed act of disguise gains the upper hand of the image of the character (801). Thus, causing confusion and/or misunderstanding among the other characters; providing comedy for the playgoers; and concealing the true identity of the one in disguise. Another way in which this is done is through Isabella’s disguise. This mode of disguise is used as a mode of protecting Isabella’s innocents and virginity. After Lord Angelo insists that Isabella must sleep with him in order to save her brother from death, Duke Vincentio, disguised as the friar, convinces Isabella to save her purity through tricking Lord Angelo.

“I desire his company at Mariana’s house to-night. Her cause and yours” (4.3.149)

Angelo is tricked into thinking that the person he sleeps with is Isablla when in fact it is Mariana masquerade as Isabella. Angelo’s mix-up drives the comedy within the scene and the following reveal. Isabella’s disguise not only acts as a mode of protecting her purity but, like Duke Vincentio’s disguise, it acts as a trap for Angelo. Both their traps are identical as each want to catch Angelo in the same crime that Claudio committed. (Planinc 154). This is something the Duke is willing to do in public, but Isabella only in private. Shakespeare uses both Duke Vincentio and Isabella’s disguises as a mode of self protection which provides the comedic element of the plot line. The protective mode of survelliance the Duke undertacks protects not only himself but his city and Isabella. Which end in the propsal of Duke Vincentio and Isabella. Through each character disguise they are able to both protect themselves from forces much stronger than themselves, and shield the cities anxiety through the manipulation of masquerade.

In a similar way, disguise is used as a mode of protection through the similarities and contrast of characters Viola and Olivia from Twelfth Night. Both Viola and Olivia share common traits when it comes to their masquerade. The female protagonist use disguise as a mode of self protection. Douglas H. Parker claims that the two character are seamingly “non-generic twins” (24) in themselves. Although Viola is the twin of Sebastian, Olivia seams to hold common traits of disguise with Viola. Viola appear in male attair representing that of her brother whom she thinks has drowned at sea. This is just as purposeful as Olivia’s veil, where both types of disguise protect them from unknown dangers of one sort or another and permit them to legitimately keep their brothers’ memories alive (Parker 26).

“A brother’s dead love, which she would keep fresh

And lasting in her sad remembrance” (1.1.31-32).

Both Viola an Olivia have experienced the death of fathers and both mourn over the death of their brothers, despit Viola brother unknowingly still alive, this is is seen to be the characters non-generic twinning (parker 24) by Shakespeare. Viola disguises herself as Cesario to protect hersef from the foreign land and dangers of the city being a female in these times. The male attire and the strong physical resemblance to her brother makes Viola very much like Sebastian.

“I my brother know

Yet living in my glass; even such so

In favour was my brother; and he went

Still in fashion, colour, ornament

For him I imitate. “ (Shakespeare 3.4.416-420)

Masked as Cesario, Viola mourns over her brother suspected death by copying her brother. The disguise becomes much more than just a mode of protecting herself from unknown dangers. Another way in which Shakespeare explors disguise in Twelfth Night is without the garbs but rather hidden disguises. Twelfth Night explores ideas of crossing the line between men and women (Carter 2). While Viola uses her garb to protect herself from the dangers of a new city so is also seen as a mascline character. She is a female sailor, which was predominately seen as a dangerous act for women during this time. In contrast, Orsinio is widey seen as feminine. The disguise in gender plays an important role in this play in shielding each of the characters identity. The opening monologue from Orsino expresses

“If music be the fod of love, play on…

O! it came o’er my ear like the sweet sound

That breaths upon a bank of violets

Stealing and giving odour…

‘Tis not so sweet now as it was before.

O spirit of love!” (Shakespeare 1.1.1-9)

Orsino’s mind focuses on elements that are conventionally associated with femininity (Carter 3). Viola is set up as a strong-willed character from the beginning, whereas Orsino is seen as a soft character. Shakespeare uses these hidden disguises within the play to contrast the characters. This also provides alternate protection for that of Viola where she gains not only the grabs of man but also the masculinity. Both hidden disguises and costume disguise are representations of the characters shield from themselves and the unknown dangers. Shakespeare explores the idea of male and female bodies being in disguise through Orsino and Viola’s contrasting masculine and feminine qualities.

Similar to Measure for Measure, Twelfth Night uses disguise to benfit the audiences knowledge, however through this, Shakespeare decieves the characters in order to provided acquired knowledge for the audience. He allows the characters to express their actions of intention, where the audience end up gaining more knowledge than the other characters onstage. The character Viola uses disguise as a mode of protection from the unknown dangers of a foreign country (Parker 26). Although by taking on the outer garbs of man, specifically her brother whom she suspects has drowned, she falls into the possibility of going native (Moore 164) and naïve. Shakespeare steers his audience away from this possibility through the characters expression of thought.

“Conceal me what I am, and be my aid

For such disguise as haply shall become

The form of my intent.” (Shakespeare 1.2.51-53)

Throughout the play, many characters express their thought aloud for the audience to hear, causing the audience to obtain and piece together the miscommunications that the characters believe. For example, the audience is made aware that Violas brother Sebastian is alive, and that both twins believe the other has drowned. But for Viola, there is still a chance her brother lives. “The hopefulness of chance here also evokes the comedy of errors Viola instigates with her disguise.” (Moore 166). Shakespeare allows the audience to gain knowledge of each characters misunderstanding to allow for the comedy of errors that follow when the characters come to realisation. Similarly, to the way Measure for Measure reveals the disguises of Duke Vincentio, Isabella and Mariana, Twelfth Night reveals the confusion of disguise through the realisation on stage. The suspense is built up through the audience acquired knowledge. Upon the realisation Sebastian has, the comedy of errors unfolds.

“Do I stand there? I never had a brother…” (Shakespeare 5.1.236)

The audience are held in suspension for Sebastian and Viola do not recognise each other right away, providing a sense that Viola’s disguise has done more than just protect her from the foreign land, but also made her unrecognisable to her sibling and other character who think as her of a man. In contrast to this, Measure for Measure tackles the reveal in a much different way. Twelfth Night suggests that the identity mistakes are merely that and will go forgiven. However, the comedic element of disguise in Measure for Measure changes mode when Duke Vincentio is revealed. The Duke’s disguise becomes more than just the clothes he gathers, he speaks in a manner of a friar, concealing and protecting his identity further.

“Where is the Duke? ‘tis he should hear me speak.” (Shakespeare 5.1.291).

Other characters come to believe that Duke Vincentio is that of a friar due to his constant reminded that he is in fact a friar and not the Duke. The character believe this deception and speak disrespectfully of the Duke, unknowing that they are speaking directly to the Duke himself.

“And was the Duke a flesh-monger, a fool, and a coward…” (Shakespeare 5.1.333).

The misunderstandings for many of the characters delivers the entertainment of the plot line, providing apprehension and a comedic element for the audience. With this continuing until the revelation that the friar is not whom he said he was, but in fact Duke Vincentio.

“O my dread lord!

I should be guiltier than my guiltiness,

To think I can be undiscernible” (Shakespeare 5.1.367-369)

Duke Vincentio’s disguise becomes an act of authority above his surveillance. The characters cop the consequences from speaking behind the Duke’s back and the city regains its order. Through the audiences acquired knowledge throughout the play, Shakespeare allows each character’s journeys to hold innocence and suspension. The miscommunications and confusion in the disguises allow the audience to become conscious of the characters hardships and allows the humour of each scene to advance. The reveal of the deceits of each play follows with unexpected circumstances and enables the disguises to hold much more value than just the deceit itself.

Another similarity between both of Shakespeare’s plays, is the structural mechanism which is used to reveal to hidden identities and disguises of the characters. When time and circumstances decree that Shakespeare shall go no further with the story, he invokes the technique of the ancient anagnorisis (Kreider 178) to allow for the reunion and consequences between all the character who were in tricked. This structural pattern follows Shakespeare leading his audience to expect masquerade, then, the masked person reveals themselves to the audience, and finally when the climax is reached, the mummer is given an opportunity to disclose their identity and disguise to the other personage in the play. (Kreider 167). In Twelfth Night, the revelation of all characters is shown through the reunion of Viola and Sebastian.

“One face, one voice, one habit, and two persons…” (Shakespeare 5.1.226)

The other characters confusion of seeing the twins together contributes to the significance of the disguise on early modern Shakespearian stage, but also releases the audience’s suspense to when the characters find out. Shakespeare takes the theme of disguise a step further, when neither Viola nor Sebastian initially recognises the other. Shakespeare allows the characters to provide proof as if the disguises were protecting their identity and preventing the siblings to recognise each other.

“My father had a mole upon his brow.”

“And so had mine.” (Shakespeare 5.1.252-253)

The expression of childhood memories that both sibling share does not seem enough proof (Moore 173) to reveal their identities. Viola’s masculine garbs and disguise has seemingly impacted Sebastian’s ability to recognise her feminine quality suggesting that Viola may have taken on the native of a masculine body. Shakespeare takes the concept of disguise further by expressing that once Viola obtains her “maiden weeds” (Shakespeare 5.1.265) she will be able to confirm her identity as Viola and not Cesario. Thus, Shakespeare highlights how important one’s garments are in order for one’s identity to be known. This also represents how a character’s garments become an extension of their character (Weimann 801). Upon the threshold of discovery characters may have “heightened romantic excitement inherent in the masquerade, as when Duke Orsino enumerates the qualifications of Cesario, he lists only strictly feminine traits” (Kreider 177). In a similar way, Measure for Measure utilises the anagnorisis to allow for reunion and putting society life back to ‘normal’. However, unlike Twelfth Night, the Duke’s reveal happens through the stage directions and not the dialogue.

Pulls off the friar’s hood and discovers the DUKE. (Shakespeare 5.1.356)

Subsequently, the Duke Vincentio is the only personage who, after a protracted disguise, adopts this naïve method of recovering his former positions in society (Kreider 178). Although, after characters have abandoned their disguises and have returned to normal relationships, the Elizabethan love of narrative synopsis sometimes asserts itself (Kreider 179). Shakespeare utilises the structural pattern throughout both these plays to highlight the significants of disguise and the importance of the reveal. The structural pattern allows the audience to follow along with each of the characters misunderstandings and their journey to the reveal.

Disguise within the Shakespearian Theatre has acted as a mode of concealing a character’s true identity, providing them with a shield against foreign lands and people, surveillance for an anxious ridden city, and hiding true intentions and disclosing information. Disguise also acts as an important method of protection for several characters within Shakespearian plays. Measure for Measure, and Twelfth night or what you will, are two of Shakespeare’s plays that highlight masquerade as being protective in many different ways. The use of the structural pattern allows the audience to follow along with each of the character journeys to the reveal. It also permits comedy to be a through line in both the plays, where the character misunderstandings allow for comedy and suspension. Disguise is used as security, surveillance and protection in both these plays.

Throughout the extensive criticism written on Shakespeare plays, the definition of these problematic plays has been a constant topic for debate. Kiernan Ryan suggests critics focus either on these plays all having in inherently ‘political implications’, or a form of deconstructive, or psychoanalytical analysis. Yet the potential for another opinion could still be valid as expressed by critics such as Jonathon Dollimore and Kathleen McLuskie who have implied that the plays are not at all problematic in the ways previously suggested. This then draws light on the problematic nature of defining problem plays at all; the defining of the plays is arguably as much of a problem as the plays themselves. This essay will try and look at some of the viable ways that the plays do connect and stand as a group of problems, but also try to expose the dangers of naming these connections, and the wider problems with genre and the categorization of Shakespeare’s plays.

When looking for examples that link the plays together, of course there are obvious connections. Similar themes, paralleled characters, and the formal conventions of the plays can all be seen as viable links to grouping the three plays as problem plays. As Nicholas Marsh notes in the final pages of his book Shakespeare: Three Problem Plays, ‘critics…seem to be in agreement about one thing: that the problem plays cause problems…they reflect an experience of plays which are not solved: not susceptible to, or provided with, a unified and stable resolution.’ Their refusal to not be resolved and remain unsatisfactory can be seen in the formal elements of the three plays. In All’s Well that Ends Well the play could have easily finished in the first act with Helena’s decision that Bertram ‘is the man’ of her choosing and the King’s declaration, ‘take her young Bertram, she is thy wife; creating the perfect ending to the chivalric quest of love that Helena embarked on, and Bertram’s hand as her rightful prize. Yet, Shakespeare continues and the remainder of the play can be seen as a doubling of the previous plot. This doubling causes Helena, again to travel to seek her husband, and culminates in her again successful wining of Bertram’s hand. An act that is approved of by everyone in the court and by Bertram’s, perhaps begrudgingly, ‘I’ll love her dearly, ever ever dearly’. In this phrase we can also see a doubling occur in the very language uttered by the characters further expressing the notion that Bertram is ‘doubly won’. The use of the plot doubling and going back on itself suggests that the play is dragging its audience back to unanswered or unexplained problems, forcing us to re-evaluate the situation presented to us, thus robbing the audience of a satisfying comedic ending. Similarly, a breaking up of form can be seen in the sporadic scene jumps between Troilus and Cressida’s tragic love story and the cynical war setting; and the constant need for reassertion of positions in Measure for Measure, juxtaposed with the plays linguistic inabilities to place Mariana within a status, ‘maid, widow, nor wife’, mirrors the wider world and the inability to resolve anxieties about problems of society.

There are of course other things that have been championed as links between the plays. For example, religious dogma and the obsession with human spectacle are both heavily present in the plays. The final theatrical act of the Duke at the end of Measure for Measure, embodies both of these as he publically shames Angelo and Lucio by binding them in marriage, ‘Marry her instantly’, and his unmasking of himself addresses issues of public spectacle. His political role as Duke and his guise of a friar, raises heavy questions about religious right to rule and suggests that the audience experienced a disillusionment and unmasking of religious dogma parallel to the literal unmasking of the Duke. This disillusionment is also present in Troilus and Cressida through the complete lack of religion in the play and resetting of the classic story into a secular scene. The treatment of Cassandra is a key scene highlighting the disillusionment with religious dogma, and even by the end of the play when the prophecy is fulfilled, we as an audience do not look back to Cassandra’s ‘Cry, Trojans, cry!’, or ponder over the fact it was fate that caused the death of Hector, as one may do with the ‘fickle fortune’ of Romeo and Juliet. Hence further highlighting a disassociation with religion.

However, despite these similarities with the plays, we should not forget to also view them in relation to Shakespeare’s whole canon; something that arguably weakens the idea of the three plays being a separate group in the same way that the comedies and tragedies are separate. By viewing all the plays in relation each other it helps highlight the problematic qualities of all plays. In his book Shakespeare’s Problem Plays, Tillyard mentions many other potential problem plays: The most obvious being Hamlet which is Tillyard’s whole reason for dubbing the group ‘problem play’ rather than ‘problem comedies’ He argues that the links between Hamlet and Troilus are too strong to ignore; in particular, the ‘doughy’(IV. 5. 3) male characters of both which present ‘unbaked’ males not ready for the responsibilities spaced on them. Here he also brings in Bertram, and to an extent Angelo, as other doughy characters; they are lacking something that makes them not yet fully a man and Tillyard suggests this is a factor that links the four plays together. Indeed, strong connotations of Angelo’s ‘What’s this? What’s this?’ can be seen in Hamlet’s ‘To be, or not to be’ highlighting the use of interiority to address areas of lack in the unbaked males of these plays.

Whilst this connection may seem obvious, Tillyard also mentions other plays that have a similar vein to the so-called problem plays. For example, during a slight tangent, Tillyard mentions the crucial theme of forgiveness in The Winter’s Tale and how wonderfully it fits in with the play’s plot as a whole, the finale being the ultimate act of forgiveness, something he states, Measure for Measure attempted but ultimately failed to achieve. However, in a previous chapter of the book he suggested that the contemporary Elizabethan audience would have preferred finales where everything is revealed in a big scene, (as seen in Measure for Measure, All’s Well, and arguably even with Troilus’ discovery of Cressida as unfaithful). If we were to place the plays in contexts of the audiences viewing them as he did, then would it not be acceptable to the suggest that The Winter’s Tale rather than being about great forgiveness, has the same problems as Measure for Measure? The forgiveness in The Winter’s Tale is not earned. To a modern audience it feels bitter, in a very similar way to Isabella’s fate to be silently married, seemingly against her will, does in Measure for Measure. Yet despite this connection which Tillyard makes so clear, The Winter’s Tale, is not a problem play. therefore, we must question just how much do the ‘similarities of the problems plays’ cause them to stand out from the rest of the canon and how much they actually create a notion of continuity between Shakespeare’s already extremely varied works.

According to Nicholas Marsh ’we must not spend our time trying to classify them [the problem plays as such]. or even assume that they are a group at all.’ This statement does call into question our need to group these three into a deliberate group, especially in light of the many similar aspects in the plays. The label “problem” is shown to be an incredibly unstable one. Ironically, the instability is incredibly fitting for the plays, yet one cannot say that these plays are a group purely on the content, as they all share much in common with other plays. Tillyard suggest that the plays were in the development stages for Shakespeare where he was developing ideas seen in his previous plays, and expressing them fully in the plays after and around the problem plays. This provides a good explanation for the similarities in the plays rather than intentional decision by Shakespeare to create problematic plays. Though Tillyard’s suggestion of a development is valid, thinking of these plays as developments is not as enjoyable as supporting the idea that they still have substance in their own right. Furthermore, the category of problem plays is awkward to use because it assumes that like all the other categories, that they will follow a specific pattern. For example, the romantic comedies all have a period of freedom before converting back to society and of course the marriages at the end. An assumption which Kiernan Ryan states is ‘the problem with most criticism …[and] its compulsion… to reduce them to a recognizable version of a creed…. that is already known’. If this assumption of Shakespeare as the ‘champion of aesthetic common sense’ must be avoided when discussing plays in the romance genre then, likewise, the problem plays risk a similar generalization. These plays are together for exactly the reason that they do not conform, which begs the question why give them a category in the first place? Critics attempts at trying to pins them in a specific genre or find connections suggests an attempt to de-problematize the plays, something that if was ever successful, would deny the plays of their only investing factor: their problematic nature.

So to conclude, quite simply, these plays all present problems and can be seen as having both formal and plot driven connections that suggest the plays are addressing similar topics. Un-resolvable predicaments in an anxious commentary about the constructs of society, that cannot be solved no matter how much the play tries, is what makes them problematic. However, this does not necessarily give us a right to label them as problem plays, separate from the canon because they were experiments or failures. Furthermore, looking again at Shakespeare’s wider canon, to suggest these plays are problematic for the reasons suggested would be to in part accuse all of Shakespeare’s work as a problem. There is unquestionably an abundance of plays that appear more problematic to a modern day audience, causing, to some extent, a watering down of the problem plays harsh problems in a modern context. Therefore, if the plays require a label at all, it should be that they are problematic but not problems. In other words, rather they are problematic in their content, and force the audience to question their own moral opinions, but this is merely a shifting scale in Shakespeare’s plays in which Troilus and Cressida, Measure for Measure and All’s Well That Ends Well are further along.

Isabella is the strongest female character in “Measure for Measure.” She debates with Angelo on an equal level and is not undermined by his authority. Her strength as a character derives from several sources; her chastity being one of the most significant. Isabella’s chastity provides her with a tool which most of the other females in this play lack, since they have all been sexually dominated by men. Her status as a nun also helps Isabella convince others of the accuracy of her convictions since she can appropriate the Christian doctrine as her own. Despite these two powers, it is her ability to manipulate two sets of laws, human and divine, and apply these to her advantage which truly allow her to continue to participate in situations typically attributed to males. Finally, Isabella manages to achieve her goal without compromising her values, but eventually bows down under male authority, in her implicit acceptance of the Duke’s marriage proposal. Regardless of the male dominated conclusion, Isabella’s powers of chastity, speech and interpretation of law allow her the opportunity to advance as far in the plot as to free her brother and debate with male authority, two events in which a woman’s participation were inconceivable in this time period.

One of Isabella’s most unique characteristics is her chastity. She has renounced a sexual life in order to become a nun of the religious order of St. Clare. This decision elevates Isabella’s status in society due to the importance placed on chastity as a symbol of purity and legitimacy of birth at that time. “In a patriarchal society, men are privileged with authority, yet, somewhat paradoxically, that authority depends upon the chastity of women” (Baines, 286). When an unmarried woman is chaste she is guaranteeing the legitimacy of her children, thus ensuring the patriarchy of the family. Purity in blood relations was an important issue in Shakespeare’s time, and therefore it was the female’s responsibility to be chaste in order to preserve the family’s honor as well as her own. The Duke exemplifies this mentality when confessing Juliet, and declaring her sexual proclivity “a sin of heavier kind” (37, 29) than that of Claudio, who was equally responsible for her pregnancy. The excessive sexual license in Vienna leads the Duke to enforce chastity through a law which values chastity above a human’s life. The new valorization of chastity in Vienna increases the respect Isabella’s chaste status receives in the Viennese society; this is made evident in Lucio’s praise of her as a “thing enskied and sainted, by your renouncement an immortal spirit..”

Isabella’s position as a nun also allows her to challenge Angelo using Christian doctrine in defense of her brother’s life. The doctrine is one of the few elements of authority which even Angelo must obey, since God’s laws apply to everyone, including those of the highest authority on earth. Upon Isabella’s first encounter with Angelo she condemns the ease with which Angelo judges others and tries to dissuade his stern judgment of Claudio by asking “How would you be, if he, which is the top of judgment, should but judge you as you are?” (33, 76) Here Isabella is trying to make Angelo identify with Claudio by implying that even Angelo himself is not free of sin. This vision of all humans as sinners and therefore not apt to pass judgment comes directly from the Christian proverb “let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone”. Angelo cannot refute Isabella’s imposition of religious doctrine and defends himself by citing the earthly laws as responsible for the condemnation of her brother. Isabella skews Christian law and interprets it to her advantage. Though her brother has committed the sin of premarital sex, she tries to convince Angelo that exculpating him “is no sin at all, but charity” (42, 63). After Angelo proposes the idea of a “compelled sin” in order to save Claudio’s life, Isabella changes her perspective on Claudio’s death and tries to uses religious justification to excuse her from renouncing her chastity. “Is’t not a kind of incest to take life from thine own sister’s shame?” (53, 138) Here Isabella uses the definition of all Christians as siblings in order to transform Angelo’s proposal into a societal sin, that of incest. This could also be interpreted on a more personal level, since Claudio is taking advantage of Isabella’s sex to lure Angelo into pardoning him. In both cases, the use of incest, a sin in Christian doctrine, is being highlighted. Isabella’s role as an exemplary model of Christian worship gives her the opportunity to use Christian doctrine as laws which empower and validate her actions and opinions.

Isabella, though desiring to be a part of the religious world, continues to value the norms imposed by the Viennese society. She uses these standards as arguments in defense of her brother, referring to the power of authority since “that in the captain’s but a choleric word, which in the soldier is flat blasphemy”. Isabella focuses on the ability of authority to corrupt the laws of society to their advantage, a common practice during that time, yet a taboo subject to discuss. Her separation from that world because of the convent allows her to breach such subjects without fear of repercussion, since she is not looking to marry and become a part of Viennese society. She knows how authority hides behind the laws and therefore questions Angelo on the legal possibilities of releasing her brother, “but might you do’t and do the world no wrong…” The issue of bastardy, key to Viennese society, is also important to Isabella. “I had rather my brother die by the law than my son should be unlawfully born”. Though Isabella seems willing to disregard society’s judgment, which would condemn Claudio to death, the dishonor of birthing an illegitimate child supersedes her affections for her brother. This shows Isabella’s true regard for upholding certain standards of Viennese society; she wants to be held in an exemplary position by this society and is not willing to sacrifice this status for her brother.

Isabella uses both divine and human law to justify herself, usually invalidating one set of laws to further validate the other. Her decision to “live chaste, and, brother, die: more than our brother is our chastity,” constitutes an example of her use of religion to validate her chastity, while invalidating the moral law which would encourage her to sacrifice her chastity for Claudio’s life. Nuns participate in a “marriage” with Christ; by giving herself to Angelo, Isabella would abandon the opportunity to join the sisterhood. She would thus pollute her soul, which should be the purest element of her being. Isabella thinks “better it were a brother died at once, than that a sister, by redeeming him, should die forever” (44, 106). Isabella has decided to elevate the worth of her soul above that of Claudio’s body. This stance could be considered hypocritical. If purity of soul were above that of the body, by giving herself to Angelo Isabella would be saving her brother’s body and would not have to put her soul at risk. This act would be a sacrifice of her body, similar to Jesus’ corporeal sacrifice, forced upon her by others, thus lacking the participation of her soul. Despite Isabella’s repeated allusions to the death of her soul, it is her fear of dishonor and rejection by both the divine and Viennese society which truly motivates her to reject Angelo’s offer. Isabella also rejects one set of laws in order to further her purpose when Mariana begs her to forgive Angelo, in order to prevent his death. Isabella persuades the Duke to exonerate Angelo by claiming that “thoughts are no subjects, intents but merely thoughts” (106, 451). Since Angelo did not succeed in his attempt at illicit sex Isabella believes that he should not be charged. This reasoning, though permissible in human law, where charges are lessened if the actual deed does not take place, is unacceptable by Christian standards. In the book of Matthew Jesus tells his worshippers that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Therefore, Christianity condemns the thought as strongly as the action, yet Isabella chooses to ignore this and convince the Duke using society’s laws regarding guilt. Isabella needs the support of a given set of laws to persuade the male characters of the accuracy of her statements, yet she is willing to use divine and human law interchangeably to achieve the desired result, keeping both her chastity and honor intact.

Despite the allure of chastity as a rare value in the Viennese society, Isabella does not understand or recognize men’s attraction towards her. She has chosen to devote her life to God, and it is this “marriage” which she considers holy, not the union between man and woman encouraged by society. One could consider her apprehensive towards men, desiring a “more strict restraint upon the sisterhood,” and telling Lucio that “my power, alas, I doubt,” when regarding her ability to convince Angelo to release her brother. This could be a factor in Isabella’s decision to join a nunnery; the isolation from men would prevent her from suffering the dishonor so prevalent among the majority of the female characters in this play, who are subjugated by men. By the end of the play, Isabella begins to grasp the power she holds over men, and defends Angelo by claiming that “a due sincerity governed his deeds till he did look on me”. She now recognizes the power of her beauty and chaste nature in influencing men’s actions.

Isabella’s newfound understanding does not indicate her acquiescence with the societal union the Duke offers her, “what’s mine is yours and what is yours is mine”. The uncharacteristic silence which ensues after the Duke’s proposal for her hand in marriage marks Isabella’s dissatisfaction with the idea of marrying him. The Duke is responsible for saving her brother’s life, which makes Isabella indebted to him. Her initial duty, that of preserving her chastity and devoting her life to God, will now be neglected as Isabella is subjugated by the Duke’s authority. This moment marks one of the most significant changes in Isabella’s personality. The impending loss of her chastity, a characteristic which increased her power and value, destroys Isabella. She must now succumb to the authority of a male, the very idea she has been fighting against throughout the course of the play. Marriage represents both a loss of chastity and value to Isabella, who must reject her religious ideals and thus lower her status from a pure worshipper of God to a common female bowing down under the authority of a male.

Isabella’s speech, peppered with religious doctrine and societal morals, persuades most of the male characters in the play. Unfortunately, her beauty and sexuality work against her, tempting Angelo to propose illicit sex as payment for her brother’s freedom. The implication of Isabella’s transformation from a nun, renouncing sexual activity, to a whore, giving herself over in exchange for her brother’s life, is impossible for her to accept, and she chooses to let Claudio die. Isabella’s chastity, at the beginning a persuasive tool, turns into a distinguishing part of her identity which must be guarded at all costs, even if this cost is Claudio’s life. Isabella’s power is such that she is able to save her brother and keep her chastity, through her cunning and speech. Yet, in a tragic turn, Isabella unwillingly succumbs to male authority and her powers vanish; she is now a common female whose opportunities have been thwarted by societal norms.

‘Different audiences respond to Isabella in different ways.’ Show how Shakespeare’s presentation of Isabella could lead to a wide range of responses.

The mere mention of Isabella’s name appears to strike indignant fear into the heart of the literary critic. Her character divides them into factions of warring interpretations, just as her moral dilemma divides an audience. In the words of Quiller-Couch, critics make ‘two opposite women of her, and praise or blame her accordingly.’ As Measure For Measure has aged, new dimensions of moral outrage and blind exoneration have added to this complexity, which is, in essence, the confused reactions of writers and audiences to Isabella’s decision in the face of Angelo’s ‘sadism’.

To the esteemed Quiller-Couch (1922), there is a ‘rancid’ element in Isabella’s chastity brought to the surface when she turns into a ‘bare procuress’ substituting Marianna shamed body for her own. He highlights the divide between Isabella’s morally ‘righteous choice’ and her own deplorable self-preservation. Rosalind Miles (1976) also remarks on her ‘unscrupulous readiness to place another head on the block intended for herself’ after the unshakeable righteousness of her decision to refuse Angelo. This could, perhaps, be seen as evidence of Isabella’s fall from grace. Is it possible that she came to the wrong conclusion in the face of her dilemma?

Mary Suddard (1909) has arrived at an entirely contrary conclusion in the face of the same play. She describes how Isabella is a representation of ‘Puritanism under its most favourable aspect …intense in its moderation, passionate in its self-control.’ This peculiarly Puritan paradox is confronted with ‘real life’ and the full consequences of human frailty and immorality, before reaching a new moral high ground where Isabella’s early nunnery training has been ‘not only transcended but unconsciously condemned’. The lofty rules of Isabella’s faith are transformed into narrow constraints, just as the locked doors and walled gardens of her abode are, as the play closes, about to be replaced by the Duke’s palace of light.

Many critics are swift to condemn Isabella for her ‘triumphant preservation of chastity’ (Ellis-Fermor 1936). More shocking to Mrs Lennox in 1753 was Isabella’s abuse of her brother:

‘That torrent of abusive language, those coarse and unwomanly reflections on the virtue of her mother, her exulting cruelty to the dying youth are the manners of an affected prude, outrageous in her seeming virtue; not a of a pious, innocent, and tender mind.’

Mrs Lennox proclaims Isabella ‘a vixen’ for her cruelty and ferocity in Act 3, and perhaps she is correct in thinking that, whatever her distress, Isabella’s rage at doomed Claudio’s desperate attempts to save his life could not be exonerated. Nevertheless, J. W. Lever (1965) has tried, pointing out that this is ‘her second male solicitation in a short space of time,’ and the trusted brother on whom she was relying for rescue betrays her, dashing her hopes of salvation. Thus the once clear waters of social acceptance are muddied again. He does however, suggest that though Isabella pleads for her brother’s life, her actions are against her true convictions, contriving to comment on the extremely unusual form of Isabella’s mercy plea. Far from attempting to vindicate her brother, she questions Angelo’s fitness to judge other human beings, and pleads the principle of mercy.

‘Go… and ask your heart what it doth know that’s like my brother’s fault. If it confess a natural guiltiness … let it not sound a thought upon your tongue against my brother’s life.’

Although a argument relevant to Angelo’s later revelations, it is still strange that Isabella foes not address the mitigating circumstances of Claudio’s case, and thus make more a feature of the distinction between civil betrothal and holy wedlock introduced as a theme earlier. F. R. Levis (1952), Harriet Hawkins (1978), S. Moore (1982), R. A. Levin (1982), Ronald Huebert (1983), and Carolyn E. Brown (1986) have all presented a more damning explanation. Moore remarks that Isabella’s persuasions to Angelo have a strong unconscious sexual suggestiveness, and Hawkins describes Isabella as a counterpart of Angelo’s hypocrisy in her professed hatred of sex and unrealised keen appetite. It is Brown, however, who takes the hypothesis to its fullest extent, basing her interpretation of Isabella as a sexual masochist unconsciously offering herself in fantasy to a sadistic Angelo. Brown is keen to stress Isabella’s helpless postures before Angelo, how her plea is based on the possibility of Angelo feeling lust, and the ‘graphic envisioning of her ‘violation’ which could be extrapolated from Act 2 sc. iv lines 100-104. Here Angelo’s shocking transformation from purity to perversity is more understandable is Isabella’s innocent suggestiveness and inadvertent sexual invitations ‘acts as a stimulus to Angelo’s overwrought imagination’ (.

It is, however, perhaps worth remembering here the hatred of the Puritans for contemporary playhouses and vice versa. Puritans claimed that plays set examples of immorality; that such conventions as the playing of women by boys encouraged perverse and lascivious thoughts; that on Sundays the theatres seduced the people from church attendance, and that the public playhouses were haunts of the dissolute and lecherous. When the Puritans came to power in 1642 following the revolution, one of their first moves was to close the theatres completely. Isabella and Angelo, as symbols of Puritanism, would hardly be treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, but were more likely to be turned into ridiculous figures of fun like poor Malvolio for their rigidity.Conversely, R. W. Chambers (1939) suggested that to a fifteenth-century audience, Isabella’s ‘fanaticism’ was well understood in Shakespeare’s day as necessary and swift action in a ‘stern age’. Martyrs were commonplace and the Smithfield fires were still in living memory. Isabella’s cruelty to her brother might have been better received four hundred years ago.

Critics have yet to reach a consensus on Isabella’s moral dilemma, J. C. Maxwell (1949) even going so far as to declare it irrelevant, unimportant, and ‘undramatic’. Her ‘unattractive moral grandeur’ (Mrs Jameson 1832) was interpreted by M. Doran (1954) as ‘superior strength and nobility of character’; and by J. Masefield (1911) as an obsessive fire of ‘white generosity’ and Puritanism equating to Angelo’s religious fervour. W. Temple felt her preservation of chastity was the only theologically right thing to do, and A. E. Taylor (1901) argued that it was impossible to pass moral judgement on Isabella. Shakespeare’s ambiguity makes this character impossible to define. However, this does not seem to stop critics from trying.

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to study the character of the Duke and how he is developed in Act 3. The Duke acts principally as an observer, watching Isabella and Claudio argue before sweeping in to resolve the situation. He is also, however, involved with the characters despite his assumption of religious real authority echoing his real status. The Duke is clearly wounded by Lucio’s painful analysis of his motives and dubious virtues in scene two, and also by Angelo’s treacherous behaviour, despite not being unexpected.

Act 3 is punctuated with reminders of Angelo and his authority in Vienna. Both Pompey and Mistress Overdone are carried off at his behest, emphasising his presence although he does not physically appear onstage in the whole act. The concoction of a plan to expose his lechery is also placed centre stage, both by the Duke and the playwright, making this absentee character seem all the more important. This is contrasted strongly with the Duke’s presence for the entirety of the act. The Duke acts as an observer for much of the time, and seems apart from the other characters, not least because he is also in disguise as a friar. There is a strange comparison between the omnipresent but not actually present Angelo with his treacherously short-lived power, and the Duke who, although entirely in control of the other characters, appears hidden and only semi-present. Both characters could be said to be involved in a tempestuous sea of power and deception, with the audience denied a lifeboat of unshakeable morality. The Duke certainly tries to make it seem that he is still in control, referring to Angelo as ‘my deputy’ in the last scene. He also cries out’Twice treble shame on Angelo, to weed my vice, and let his grow!’This line shows the Duke’s shock by its punctuation, and perhaps astonishment at the depths to which the angel has sunk. Angelo, however, is not heard from in the scene. Perhaps it is this which dooms him: the Duke is ultimately in control because only his character is allowed to interact with the audience in Act 3 in the same way that Angelo was in Act 2. The balance of power has been shifted back in favour of the Duke by Angelo’s actions. This strange kind of semi-real power struggle helps to hold the audience’s attention in this less dramatic section of the play.

Despite his power, the Duke’s judgements are, however, highly questionable. He seems to question Angelo’s ability to command even by his decision to remain in Vienna to observe him. Does the Duke set Angelo up in the expectation of his fall from grace? Perhaps the character can be excused this, as there could have been no play without Angelo’s sudden elevation to power. However, the Duke seems deliberately cruel to Claudio, manipulating him and crushing his hope in scene one. Claudio’s crimes, as Pompey was at pains to point out, is singularly undeserving of his fate. It could be argued that the Duke is merely trying to make Claudio accept his wrongdoing, and so find salvation. This alternative interpretation does, however, rather hinge on the assumption that the Duke is acting purely out of good principles, and that itself has not been determined. Perhaps Claudio’s anticipation of his death is its own punishment. The audience is here presented with a supposed good man, the Duke, acting badly. This questions the Duke’s own authority; coupled with Lucio’s own alternative interpretation of the character as a drunken fool who has himself dabbled in sin, and the Duke’s name seems well and truly sullied. However, Claudio is not present on stage for most of the time, and when he is he seems pitiable but powerfully wronged by Angelo, not the Duke. The Duke himself is much more at the focus of an audience’s attention, and it is possible that Shakespeare meant his treatment of Claudio not to be an issue.

It is interesting that the Duke lies to Escalus, declaring himself to be sent by no less than the Pope himself. Even in his deceptions, the Duke has a high opinion of himself. Perhaps he is also arrogant in his shock and horror to hear Lucio’s opinion of himself. The audience is left with a quandary; do they believe Lucio’s gossip, despite having just seen him betray his once-friend, Pompey, with mockery? Or perhaps they believe in the Duke’s untarnished honour and justice. Is the Duke:

‘A very superficial, ignorant, unweighing fellow,’as Lucio suggests, or is he instead’He who the sword of heaven will bear … holy as severe’as he seems to view himself? It is hard to reach a compromise between the two extremes, and it is important to realise that the Duke’s plan is one of manipulation and immorality. When attacked verbally, although third party, by Lucio, he responds with anger and threatens the return of the Duke. He admits his own ‘vice’, but is quick to highlight Angelo’s misdeeds.

Perhaps more importantly, the Duke spends the whole of Act 3 in disguise. He accuses Angelo ironically at the end of scene ii, saying’O, what may man within him hide, though angel on the outward hide!’He could just as easily be describing himself here for he too is a man who is shrouded in a fa?ade of religious impunity in his donning of a friar’s habit. He too has a veneer of power and extreme religious and legal strictness, and yet has shown himself inept at combating it.

In light of the Duke’s sanctimonious speeches to the petrified Claudio and his frequent calls for harsh punishments on the sinful, the Duke to me appears as a selfimportant man full of high morals. In reality, he is out of touch with his people and unable to comprehend poor Claudio’s fear and his people’s shock at the sudden cleansing of Vienna. The audience is unsure of him as he shifts between Duke and friar, and invents deeply immoral schemes to catch red handed a man he set up in power. He descends to trickery and manipulation, and yet delivers sermons on the need for ‘correction and instruction’. It is through his ambiguousness that the audience interest is maintained. Also the Duke is responsible for driving the plot forward in this scene, producing the ‘bed trick’ from the dusty recesses of his mind. Thus he is a very dynamic and dramatically interesting character.

‘Measure for Measure’ features female characters from various backgrounds, representing the whole of Viennese society. Women from the upper-classes, such as Isabella, are featured alongside their lower class compatriots, such as brothel keeper Mistress Overdone. However, all of them have one thing in common; in maledominated Vienna, women are portrayed, first and foremost, in terms of their sexuality.

One of the ways in which Shakespeare presents women is through dialogue, or lack thereof. In the play, Isabella is the main female character, and the one to whom the most lines are given .However, she speaks entirely of her own volition in only two scenes- that of her second meeting with Angelo and her chastisement of Claudio. She uses strong language and fiery rhetoric in order to express her emotions and reject the attempts of both men to make her give up her maidenhead (which, in her ‘measure’, weighs more than Claudio’s head). In every other scene she is encouraged by Lucio or has her words scripted by the Duke, making her a mere conduit for someone else’s words. As soon as the Duke takes over, Isabella’s speech gradually fades away. Her words are taken over by the Duke, as she submits to his control (“Show me how, good father.”). At the end of the play she is completely silent, forcing the Duke to repeat his marriage proposal twice. This can be interpreted as a silencing of the independent voices of women, forcing them to conform to masculine control.

Further proof lies in the fact that Isabella is the only woman who has over a 100 lines, a privilege shared by other male side characters including Pompey and Escalus. By contrast, the next most important female, Mariana, has only 68 lines, far lower than Isabella’s 420 lines. Thus, women are meant to be seen and not heard. Even when they do speak, their words eventually become layered with sexual overtones. This is expected from characters such as Mistress Overdone, whose usage of sexual slang differentiates her from upper-class women such as Isabella. However, Isabella’s metaphysical debate on the nature of justice with Angelo, in Act 2, Scene III only serves to awaken his lust (“she speaks, and ‘tis such sense that my sense breeds with it”). In Act 2, Scene IV, her words language reflects how she subconsciously responds to Angelo’s sexual overtures, with imagery reminiscent of masochistic beating fantasies (“Th’impression of keen whips I’d wear as rubies/And strip myself to death as to a bed….”).

Instead of their voices (and by extension, their rational thoughts), the body language of women is emphasized as a means of communication. The pregnant Juliet is silently present on stage for an entire scene, and Claudio refers to her pregnant body (“the stealth of our most mutual entertainment, with character too gross is writ on Juliet). In Act V, Mariana uses physical gestures to emphasize her point, including kneeling, unveiling (“this is thy hand…thy face..and so on)”. In speaking of his sister, whom he wants to persuade Angelo, Claudio speaks of her body first- “A prone and speechless dialect” refers to her body language. He places her talent for rhetoric second, although theoretically it is the latter which should be more important as an instrument of persuasion. The dramatic device of a bed-trick also shows how women’s bodies are more important than their speech. The substitution of Mariana for Isabella satisfies Angelo’s desire. But ironically, it was Isabella’s rhetorical skill which attracted him in the first place. When women are objectified, they cease to become individuals. Hence Angelo asks Isabella to “put on the destined livery”, indicating that a woman’s sole purpose is to satisfy a man’s desires.

Besides that, in the play, women are also identified in terms of their relationship to a man. In Act V, the Duke questions Mariana, invalidating her existence if she is “neither maid, nor widow, nor wife”. These three categories have one thing in common- firstly, they designate women to a particular role in society based on her relationship to a man. Secondly, they fit a woman’s sexuality into socially acceptable boundaries. In a patriarchal society such as Vienna, women being seen as sexual objects mean that their sole purpose is to fulfill a man’s sexual desires in a socially acceptable waymarriage. Those who do not do so seem unnatural, because they resist masculine control. This is shown by the two figures who are at opposite ends of the sexual spectrum- the nun and the prostitute, who are conflated into one by the corrupting gaze of Angelo. By staying chaste and being hypersexual respectively, both step out of the acceptable categories of sexual behavior, and must be subjugated as both do not derive their identities from any single man. Hence, the Duke acknowledges the identities of neither, and proposes to Isabella to fit her sexuality into a socially acceptable category. An argument which takes a favorable view of the Duke’s proposal to Isabella is that sexual abstinence is unnatural. Shakespeare shows this by having various initially abstemious characters, such as the Duke and Angelo, eventually show interest in a woman. So, the Duke is giving Isabella a chance to stop surprising her latent sexual urges (shown by the sexual overtones of her words in Act 2, Scene 4, as mentioned earlier). Simultaneously, the other figure, the prostitute Kate Keepdown, is made more respectable by being married off to Lucio, symbolically bringing that aspect of a woman’s sexuality under control.

However, it can be argued that the ambiguity of Isabella’s decision is a sign of hope for independent women. In the play, the power of women to arouse desire in men does constitute a kind of power, and is the only one they have. As soon as a woman gives up her chastity, she becomes an object like all the rest, but the chaste woman exudes a purity that makes men desire her. Although he sees Isabella’s beauty first (“as your cheek roses proclaim that you are no less”), the foul-mouthed Lucio initially holds her in high regard (“I hold you as a thing enskied and sainted, by your renouncement an immortal spirit”). Her purity attracted Angelo (“with saints doth thou bait they hook!”). Even the Duke, when he first sees her, equates beauty with goodness (“the hand that had made you fair hath made you good.”) An alternative reading of the Duke’s proposal to Isabella is that he, like his substitute, Angelo, is attracted to Isabella because of her purity- this makes him strive to assist her, and in the end, propose marriage, which is advantageous for her. Lucio commented “when maidens sue, men give like gods”. To make both the Duke and his substitute desire her is a sort of achievement. However, the consequence is that both attempt to control her. Isabella is only saved from either giving to Angelo or watching her brother die at the expense of becoming the Duke’s pawn, and lying in public in Act V, thus sullying her reputation. Thus, Isabella’s power is somewhat superficial.

Nevertheless, unlike the other three women married off in the end, Isabella is the only one with her chastity intact, which lends another interpretation to her silence- she is immortalized as a woman who has the power to make her own choice. Kate Keepdown and Juliet’s illegitimate children are proof of their sexual activities, for whose maintenance the Duke may have ordered them to get married. Mariana’s confession is endorsed by the Duke. She also risks getting pregnant. Throughout the play, references to sexually transmitted diseases and illegitimate children abound, and are always taken as evidence of sexual transgression. Only Isabella is still a virgin. Although her reputation is tainted by her initial confession of having slept with Angelo, she has none of the aforementioned physical evidence to betray her. The ambiguity of her silence thus reflects that she is free to accept the Duke or refuse him and return to the nunnery, as per her own wishes.

In conclusion, women in Vienna are effectively portrayed in terms of their sexuality and their relationship to men, which enables the rulers of Vienna to control them. Out of all the women in the play, only Isabella resists control- yet critical views of her chastity are divided, with some seeing it as unnatural, while others see it as a way to escape the hotbed of vice that Vienna has become. In any case, audience reactions will be influenced by their personal attitudes towards women and sex- Shakespeare’s usage of complex characters creates uncertainty and admits multiple interpretations.