Critics have often seen Vincentio, the Duke in
Shakespeare's play Measure for Measure, as
performing a function similar to that of Prospero in The
Tempest. The reasons for such an assumption is clear
in the very first scene of the play, as both characters
set the plot into motion by exercising their power,
withdraw to observe events from behind the scenes, then
return to restore order at the end.
The Duke, seeing that the city of Vienna has degenerated
and is desperately in need of reform, decides to remove
himself from the post for a period so that his successor
Angelo can rectify the problems, even though those
problems were created and nurtured by the over-indulgence
of the Duke himself. The Duke is practical, he is aware
that a sudden strict application of the law might destroy
or tarnish the legendary reputation that he has built up
for himself. His purpose is made clear when he says to
Friar Thomas;
Sith 'twas
my fault to give the people scope,
'Twould be my tyranny to strike and gall them
For what I bid them; for we bid this be done,
When evil deeds have their permissive pass
And not the punishment. Therefore, indeed, my father,
I have on Angelo imposed the office,
Who may, in th'ambush of my name, strike home,
And yet my nature never in the fight
To do in slander. [Act I Scene iii]
Thus Lord
Angelo, who subsequently misuses the power that has been
bestowed on him, is initially set up to be a scapegoat;
someone who has to drive the nail in, a task the Duke
evades, fearing the loss of his subjects' good will.
From this opening, the plot can, in my view, be seen in
terms of game-playing, with the Duke, the supreme master
of the game, having the reins in his hand. It is the Duke
who sets things up and later, disguised as a friar,
visits Vienna to keep an eye on the progress of his plan.
But the Duke's plan to reform society fails, and at the
end he has to resort to his second plan of revealing
himself and restoring order once more, to save his
reputation. What the Duke does not take into account,
although he perceives that Viennese society has been
eaten up from within, is that the law-keeper he appoints
may be a part of the rotten society, rather than someone
with a missionary zeal. As a result, after a certain
point, the game which the Duke had chalked out starts
devising its own rules, and the Duke himself becomes
merely a pawn in the larger scheme of things.
The term 'problem play' has often been applied to Measure
for Measure. F. S. Boas coined the term in his book Shakespeare
and his Predecessors (1968), where he found four of
Shakespeare's plays which presented a society
sophisticated, artificial, rotten-ripe, in which 'abnormal'
conditions of mind arose and 'intricate cases of
conscience' demanded 'unprecedented methods of solution'.
The four plays that Boas had in mind were: All's Well
that Ends Well, Measure for Measure, Troilus and Cressida
and Hamlet. According to Boas these plays dealt
with the problem of a rotten, degraded, degenerate
society, and the fifth act adjustments were no real
solution to the problems they had posed.
Perceiving an Ibsenite touch in the 'problem plays' of
Shakespeare, George Bernard Shaw in his preface to Plays
Pleasant and Unpleasant assumed that Shakespeare
would have been Ibsen if he'd had the chance;
Shakespeare
. . . has left us no intellectually coherent drama,
and could not afford to pursue a genuinely scientific
method in his studies of character and society,
though in such unpopular plays as All's Well, Measure
for Measure and Troilus and Cressida, we find him
ready and willing to start at the twentieth century
if the seventeenth century would only let him.
The term 'problem
play' came finally to be applied to Measure for
Measure in 1931, when Professor W. W. Lawrence of
Columbia University described these plays under the
heading of 'Shakespeare's Problem Comedies'. By
using the word 'comedies', Lawrence had excluded Hamlet
from the category.
In my view, the real problem at the heart of Measure
for Measure is the problem-ridden society. The Duke's
plan to reform society turns against itself when the
supposed agent of justice betrays it because of the
degeneration within him. The agent too is a part of
society, and the degeneration has seeped into his veins,
and the play moves between two extremes: love that is
characterised by lust and power, and death, the final end.
Angelo, blinded by power and driven by lust, offers a
choice to Isabella - either to yield to his passions or
to watch the beheading of her brother Claudio;
Admit no
other way to save his life -
As I subscribe not that, nor any other,
But in the loss of question - that you, his sister,
Finding yourself desired of such a person
Whose credit with the judge, or own great place,
Could fetch your brother from the manacles
Of the all-binding law, and that there were
No earthly mean to save him, but that either
You must lay down the treasures of your body
To this supposed, or else let him suffer:
What would you do? [Act II, Scene iv]
At this point
the power-play shifts to Angelo, who starts building up
his own game strategy in the framework provided by the
Duke. The very fact that he is in a position to command
and has been bestowed authority that he believes he can
misuse, makes him, though temporarily, the master of the
game.
Isabella, torn between the prospects of Claudio's death,
or the eternal damnation of her own soul, has to resort
to the Duke for another strategy by which she can save
her brother without having to lose her honour.
In the process Mariana, who appears to love Angelo in
spite of his 'pernicious purpose', is substituted for
Isabella. Angelo, who has been given check by the Duke,
is unaware of the substitution until everything is
revealed in the end. The Duke approaches methodically,
substituting Isabella with Mariana, and Claudio by a dead
criminal, but what surprises us is the risk he takes in
order to bring his game to a suitable if not a grand
finale. The plot is unnecessarily prolonged. The Duke
could have revealed himself earlier. At any point during
the play he could have thrown off his garb of the friar
and declared himself. What surprises us is that he does
not do so, he advances methodically and plans his
strategy with meticulous detail. Thus the provost is
ordered to behead Bernardine instead of Claudio and his
head to be disguised as Claudio's and shown to Angelo.
And in the course of the play we remain painfully aware
that a wrong move on the Duke's part may cost Claudio his
life. It is power-play that guides Measure for
Measure, and it assumes the structure of a card game
where the trump card changes hands swiftly.
Umberto Eco, while discussing Ian Fleming's narrative in
his book The Role of the Reader, said that there
are certain signs by which a James Bond novel can be
identified. All the Bond novels, according to Eco, follow
a certain game-like structure, which is familiar to the
reader, and this familiarity accounts for the immense
popularity of the Bond stories. The reader, the moment he
starts the first chapter, becomes aware of the 'scheme of
things', as there are certain 'signifiers' in the novel
which have their counterpart 'signifieds' in the mind of
the reader, that are shaped by his reading of Bond
stories. Eco says, 'The novel, given the rules of
combination of oppositional couples, is fixed as a
sequence of 'moves' inspired by the code and constituted
according to a perfectly prearranged scheme.'
The scheme Eco provides is somewhat like this -
A. M moves and gives task to Bond.
B. Villain moves and appears to Bond (perhaps in
vicarious form)
C. Bond moves and gives first check to villain or villain
gives first check to Bond:
D. Woman moves and shows herself to Bond.
E. Bond takes Woman
F. Villain captures Bond (with or without woman)
G. Villain tortures Bond (with or without woman)
H. Bond kills Villain (or kills his associates, as the
supreme villain in Bond's novels is the Russian
organisation SMERSH.)
I. Bond, convalescing, enjoys Woman, whom he then loses.
Such a structure characterizes a James Bond novel, and
even if in a novel like From Russia with Love
James Bond dies at the end, the reader is aware that he
will return, as immaculate and active as ever, in his
next adventure.
In my view a similar game-like structure can be discerned
in Measure for Measure, largely because
Shakespeare was writing a comedy, and had to provide,
even if forced to do so, a happy ending. Thus in this
play we find a certain scheme of things similar to that
of a game. We can show a structure similar to Eco's model
of James Bond stories:
A. Duke bestows power on Angelo
B. Angelo gives first check to the Duke by arresting
Claudio and making known his pernicious purpose to
Isabella.
C. Duke gives check to Angelo by substituting Isabella
with Mariana.
D. Angelo again gives check to Isabella and the Duke's
strategy by ordering Claudio's death.
E. Duke outwits Angelo by substituting Claudio by another
prisoner.
F. The Duke reveals himself and Angelo is punished for
his crimes. Duke proposes to Isabella
Thus the main plot of the play can be seen as assuming a
game-like structure, and the advances of the comic
villain Angelo are repeatedly checked by the Duke. But
the 'problem' remains in spite of the strained resolution.
It is imperative, according to the rules of comedy, that
the villain has to pay for his crime, and so he does. But
what would have happened if he had succeeded, or if the
Duke in order to satisfy the structure of his game had
failed to save Claudio? The alternatives seem gruesome.
The game has power at its base and we have two principal
players - the Duke and Angelo. It also concentrates on
the changes brought about by the shifting of power.
Angelo, for example, having vowed to serve the law, moves
away from his purpose the moment he sees Isabella, and in
Act II, Scene ii, he reflects upon his situation;
Is this
her fault, or mine?
The tempter or the tempted, who sins most, ha?
Not she: nor doth she tempt: but it is I
That, lying by the violet in the sun
Do as the carrion does, not as the flower,
Corrupt with virtuous season. [Act II, Scene ii]
And later,
showing his awareness of the absence of firm moral
standards, he says,
Oh, let
her brother live:
Thieves for their robbery have authority
When judges steal themselves.
The power of
his position also comes into play when Isabella threatens
to expose him. He answers, asserting his position,
Who will
believe thee, Isabel?
My unsoiled name, the austereness of my life,
My vouch against you, and my place i'th' state,
Will so your accusation overwigh
That you shall stifle in your own report
And smell of calumny. [Act II, Scene iv]
Later we find
the Duke exercising his own authority to outwit Angelo by
defeating him in his own game and pardoning him.
Just as Angelo has the power to punish, the Duke has the
power to pardon, and this seems to be the only moral that
Measure for Measure conveys. The problem of the
corrupt society remains unresolved. In this context it
can still be called a 'problem' play, because the play
does not satisfy the problems outlined in the exposition.
But if it is seen as a game with the society only as a
backdrop then it seems understandable that Shakespeare
did not attempt to settle the troubles that beset the
society.
Bibliography
Boas, F. S. Shakespeare and his predecessors. 1968
Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the
Semiotics of Texts. 1984
Lawrence, Professor W. W. Shakespeare's Problem Comedies.
1931
Shaw, George Bernard. preface to Plays Pleasant and
Unpleasant. 1922
© Tannistho Ghosh, October 2002
email the author
|