Measure for Measure
Roger Peters Copyright © 2001
Shakespeare�s philosophy, articulated in the Sonnets of 1609, has not been
appreciated and only barely suspected over the last 400 years. The prevailing
biblical and Platonic paradigms have kept thousands of enquiring thespians,
academics and even the best poets in the language from understanding the
Sonnet philosophy. The application of inappropriate paradigms has caused
perennial problems for the interpretation of the poems and plays.
When the poems and plays are interpreted according to the traditional
Platonic/Christian paradigm, the paradigm validates only those aspects of
the works that seem to correspond to its dogmas. Since the philosophy of
the poems and plays provides a definitive critique of such dogmas, ironically
the paradigm is only favourable towards those parts of the works that
include the dogmas for the purpose of criticism. As the inadequate dogmas
are embedded within a play or poem based on natural logic, the remainder
of the work appears problematic to traditional idealist expectations. This has
been particularly the case with the so called �problem plays� written around
1599 to 1604.
Most of the objections in the literature to Shakespeare�s works are due
to the application of the inappropriate paradigms. From the evidence of the
prefaces and poems written either at the time the plays were first published
or later in the Folio by those who knew Shakespeare when he was alive, there
was a degree of empathy with his aims (see Volume 1, Appendices). But,
by the middle of the seventeenth century and then into the eighteenth
century, pedantic scholars such as Samuel Johnson were denouncing aspects
of the plays they could not comprehend or sanction. The reception of the
works has improved only gradually. The philosophic critique of the inadequacies
of Platonic/Christian ideas over the last 200 years has seen a greater
acceptance of plays once considered foul or corrupt.
While the plays are now treated much more sympathetically, their
inherent philosophy has remained a mystery. The attitude of commentators
to the Sonnets is symptomatic of the problem. Generally, the 1609 edition
is now accepted as authorial, but the commentators� unwillingness to
countenance the presence of a philosophy still prevails. The commentaries
in this volume offer the first appreciation of the plays and poems from the
vantage of the Sonnet philosophy.
Shakespeare first gave expression to the philosophy in the two long
poems of 1593/4, and in Love�s Labour�s Lost of 1598 and provided a precise
summary in The Phoenix and the Turtle of 1601. Because he gave the definitive
expression of the philosophy in the Sonnets in 1609, there should be
evidence in the plays from 1598 onward of his continuing deliberations. The
period corresponds to the dates for the plays considered problematic.
Of the �problem� plays, Measure for Measure (from around 1604) was
derided for centuries, and has been acted regularly only in the last half
century. Its favourable reception has been based largely on its success before
a modern audience. But its content still incites confusion and equivocation
in commentators. The roles of the Duke and Isabella cause particular unease,
as does the resolution of the final scene.
Ironically, the characters in Measure for Measure that arouse most
condemnation first attract and then repel commentators. The commentators�
conditioning by the traditional paradigm puts them at odds with
Shakespeare�s natural logic. No other play begins with a nun, albeit a
novice, as the leading female who, at the play�s end, unceremoniously
sloughs off the religious habit for the natural life. Shakespeare, in the
period after The Phoenix and the Turtle and before the rigorous critique of
idealism in the Sonnets, wrote a play that could not be more specific in
identifying the illogicalities of biblical-based dogma and simultaneously
suggest a resolution in natural logic.
To get some idea of the antipathy the play has generated from those who
have wanted to acknowledge Shakespeare as a great writer without wishing to
accept the content evident in his works, a few remarks from the 1922
Cambridge edition of the play are instructive. The editor, Sir Arthur Quiller-
Couch, comments that, �striking play though it be, genius does not manage
to pull it through�. So, he asks, �What is wrong with this play?� Not willing to
address the inadequacy in his own beliefs he questions Shakespeare�s motives:
�is there, then, some lurking dishonesty in this play � something artistically or
morally untrue�. The editor objects to �holy Isabel� introducing the bed-trick,
and to the Duke�s condemnation of Angelo for Claudio�s �death� that he
claims cheapens the �prerogative �likest God�s� of which so many fine things
have been so truly said in the course of the drama�.
The editor then affects �honesty� when he says of the �problem plays� that
�if they arrive at being comedies it is through fire; while we confess moreover
that they worry us and, if we are honest, that they worry us because we
understand them imperfectly�. But, he again places the blame on Shakespeare:
�Somewhere the author has allowed his thoughts to be confused, or his insight
has undergone a cloud. We have, then, to ask if Shakespeare�s judgment was
perchance unhinged during this while�. The problem is so acute for the
inadequacy of the editor�s paradigm he resorts to suggesting the �dark lady� of
the Sonnets was responsible for the �psychological� lapse.
The denigration of the Sonnets, and particularly the Mistress sonnets, to
mere psychology by generations of editors, has been a cover for the
psychology of the apologetics that has defended the inadequacies of the
Platonic/Christian paradigm. Once the psychological immaturity of the
traditional paradigm is addressed, as it is consistently in the Sonnets, the
psychological projection by the editors and others is evident. The popularity
of Measure for Measure with modern audiences suggests the time may be near
when the idealistic self-deceit fostered by the traditional paradigm can go
the way of Isabella�s �cold� nunnery.
So Measure for Measure, besides being a play intermediate between The
Phoenix and the Turtle and the Sonnets, is particularly suited for examining
the development of Shakespeare�s philosophy. Like The Phoenix and the Turtle,
it specifically addresses the gulf between Shakespeare�s natural logic and the
inadequacies of idealistic belief.
Analysis of Measure for Measure
When Duke Vincentio takes the stage in Measure for Measure, he assumes
command of the drama from beginning to end. His role is similar to that
of Prospero in the Tempest who resolves the injustices that have afflicted life
in Milan by temporarily isolating the protagonists on a �magical island�. In
the Tempest Shakespeare provides a model for the application of natural logic
to resolve a social/political dilemma. By removing the participants from their
normal environs, he is able to give them a crash course to realign their thinking
with natural logic.
The drama on the �magical� island is psychological in that the �magical�
processes Prospero employs have efficacy only on the island. The island is
a metaphor for the internal operations of the mind. It provides an opportunity
to address the personae of the mind that are at odds with natural
everyday activities. It re-orientates the mental faculties of persons who
should be in a consistent logical relation to Nature. The return to Milan
signals the end of the psychological recovery programme and the beginning
of its application in the world.
Like the temporary removal of the characters from Milan to Prospero�s
island, in Measure for Measure the Duke assumes ad hoc the role of a Friar
to show how the religious expectations of a community should be managed
to overcome idealistic excesses. The Duke remedies the injustices within
Vienna by assuming an identity that outwardly manifests the Christian status
quo. He disguises himself as a �Friar� to demonstrate the role idealised
religious belief should play in a society. Shakespeare applies the logic given
expression in sonnet 119 where evil is cured by administering a controlled
dose of the same evil. He shows how to correct the psychological problems
associated with the illogicalities of Christian dogma.
In the Tempest and Measure for Measure, events that occur on Prospero�s
magic island or under the direction of the Duke as Friar are also events in
the psychology of the mind. All the characters in the plays are both persons
in the world and personae in the mind. The events that happen in the city
of Vienna in Measure for Measure gain their maximum effect as drama because
Shakespeare faithfully represents their equivalents in the logic of the mind
and institutes a resolution consistent with the natural logic of truth and
beauty or the dynamic of understanding.
Commentators, who struggle with the irony that a play by Shakespeare
both attracts and repulses them, experience the unavoidable appeal of
Shakespeare�s natural logic at the same time as the natural logic challenges
the traditional dogmas and institutions on which their overwrought idealistic
expectations are based. Their difficulties are not surprising considering
that the logical consistency between persons and personae in Shakespeare�s
philosophy has no precedent in literature, and is only hinted at in the early
part of the twentieth century by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who
attempted to reconcile the body and the mind.
The Sonnet philosophy, with its critique of the idealised male pride in
the Master Mistress sequence, and with its acknowledgment of the natural
wisdom of the Mistress, provides the logical basis for the investigation of
the problems with idealism encountered in Measure for Measure. Although
no commentator has understood the Sonnet philosophy before its presentation
in these volumes, it is still a scandal that they blame Shakespeare for
the difficulties they have with the plays.
Shakespeare�s play differs from its Italian sources and other versions by
casting the �heroine� Isabella as a nun. She begins the play as a novice who
is about to take her final vows and counterpoints the role of the Duke who
disguises himself as a Friar to better conduct the progress of the play. The
Duke guides Vienna away from institutionalised chastity and sexual excesses
toward a society based in natural logic. When unworldly Isabella unexpectedly
becomes the advocate for her brother�s sexual transgressions, she
discovers that her unnatural idealism incites Angelo to sexual excess.
Shakespeare provides the Duke with insights similar to those articulated
by the Poet in the Sonnets, except the Duke lacks Shakespeare�s ability to
write mythic poetry and drama. His insight is sufficient so that when he
relinquishes power, before Claudio�s arrest for fornication, he anticipates
the consequences for Angelo and Isabella. And the effectiveness of the
Duke�s intervention as Friar leads eventually to a conclusion consistent with
natural logic.
Significantly, the only character in the play the Duke cannot communicate
with rationally is Barnardine the murderer. His attempts to
reason with Barnardine fail because the convicted murderer�s many near
execution experiences give him a wholly intuitive (and somewhat drunken)
appreciation of the natural logic of life and death. He does not respond
to reason because, unlike the Duke (and Shakespeare), he has not arrived
at his realisation of natural logic through a process of reason. Rather he
has sloughed off all outer pretences to be left with the immediacy of
natural logic.
When the action starts the Duke as a persona of Shakespeare speaks first
and at the play�s end speaks last. The Duke initiates the action by stepping
aside from a Vienna that, under his congenial tutelage, has degenerated into
vice and disorder creating a vacuum in which religious idealism has flourished.
He concludes the action when Angelo and Isabella, and Lucio and
the bawd (amongst others) have demonstrated by their idealistic excesses the
logical consequences of Vienna�s state of �sin�. By wisely using the various
forces at his disposal, the Duke achieves what he could not expect to achieve
if he acted alone. He restores Vienna to a just society where natural logic
is respected.
At the beginning of the first scene, the Duke briefs Escalus about his
plan to hand him the instruments of Government. He acknowledges Escalus�
greater insight into the �nature of our people�, his understanding of the
�City�s Institutions�, and his appreciation of the �Terms for Common Justice�.
In giving the �Commission� to Escalus he recognises someone who �would
not�warp�. Even the name Escalus (E-scalus) conveys his �disinterest� in
�scaling� the heights of power. Throughout the play Escalus� language is
largely perfunctory, he talks in clich�s and proverbs, and facilitates the
conversations of others. He is a valued bureaucrat, trusted not to suffer pride
or fools.
Escalus could not take over all the Duke�s functions as that would require
political judgment and social management based in a philosophy of the
world. Escalus� speech lacks the appropriate engaged words such as �nature�,
�pregnant�, and �Organs�, which the Duke�s opening speech contains. At
most, he engages in bawdy repartee, as in his later response to Pompey�s use
of the word �bum�.
To further achieve his philosophic purpose the Duke requires the services
of an egotistical male who thinks he is made for power. He requires a man
whose puritanical ambitions can be focused on Vienna�s sexual malaise and
religious excesses. He asks Escalus what he thinks of Lord Angelo, a man
he has �elected with special soul� to address the problem of Vienna�s �soul�.
Escalus� response demonstrates his inability to acknowledge the potential
duplicity beneath Angelo�s idealised facade.
If any in Vienna be of worth
To undergo such ample grace, and honour,
It is Lord Angelo. (1.1.25-7)
Instead the Duke has �lent him our terror, dressed him with our love�,
and acknowledges Angelo�s evil within goodness necessary to ensure the
success of the Duke�s plan. Angelo�s name captures the duplicity in his
attitude revealed in the play. His name begins with �angel� ends in �o�, the
letter for nothing or naught with its erotic reference to the female sexual
organ. The idealistic male Angelo carries within his name the logical conditions
for his recovery. (Shakespeare repeats the idea in the structure of the
Sonnets where the Master Mistress sequence can be read as the shape of a
penis facing the lunar circle of the Mistress. See Volume 1.)
When the Duke greets Lord Angelo he addresses him directly as
�Angelo�, signaling his intention to take him at his name. He says that there
is an aspect of Angelo�s life that, to the Duke as an observer, fully unfolds
his �history�.
Angelo:
There is a kind of Character in thy life,
That to th�observer, doth thy history
Fully unfold: (1.1.32-5)
Angelo�s name is �a kind of Character� that reveals the style of his �life�
as an idealist (Angel) with a latent sexual propensity (o) that is obvious to
an �observer� like the Duke/Shakespeare. However, Angelo�s role in the play
is not just about his personal �Character�. He symbolises the whole �history�
of excessive Platonic/Christian idealism. In him the history of such
�Character� �fully unfolds�. In the play he does not belong to himself.
Thy self, and thy belongings
Are not thine own so proper, as to waste
Thy self upon thy virtues; they on thee: (1.1.35-7)
The play will demonstrate that Angelo�s idealism, which he holds to be
a virtue (as does the niggard idealistic youth of the increase sonnets) should
not be wasted on himself but put to use to reveal its logical role in �life�.
The ideal state, as with �heaven�, is not something that should exist for itself
but like a torch light not itself but others.
Heaven doth with us, as we, with Torches do,
Not light them for themselves: For if our virtues
Did not go forth of us, �twere all alike
As if we had them not: (1.1.38-41)
�Heaven� cannot logically be self-contained because �spirits� cannot be
made fine except through �issues� or increase.
Spirits are not finely touched
But to fine issues:nor nature never lends
The smallest scruple of her excellence,
But like a thrifty goddess, she determines
Herself the glory of a creditor,
Both thanks, and use; (1.1.41-6)
The Duke�s first words to Angelo, and his first significant statement of
the play, establish the logical priority of �issue� over �spirits� (or increase over
the attributes of the mind as truth and beauty). In the same line he mentions
�nature� who is the �thrifty goddess� who determines for herself the value of
those who are owed �thanks� if they have �used� their capacity for �issue� rather
than hoard it. As in the Sonnets where Nature, the sovereign mistress, brings
the idealistic excesses of the youth to �Audit�, Nature the thrifty goddess,
and not God (heaven or spirit), is the one who makes the final judgment
about the youth�s adherence to natural logic.
...continued in Volume 3, William Shakespeare's Sonnet Philosophy
Back to Top
Roger Peters Copyright © 2001
Introduction
Venus and Adonis
Lucrece
Love's Labour's Lost
The Phoenix and the Turtle
Measure for Measure
Macbeth
A Lover's Complaint
|
