Measure for Measure. Spoilers.

I know the reading that is due for tomorrow's class is only Acts I and II. But I have the literary lingo assignment due on Thursday so I have read almost the whole thing. When I first picked up this play, I was thinking that it was going to be a hard read, but after getting into the language it has become easier and I'm now seeing why its a comedy. This play is hilarious.
This duke guy decides to step away from his role and to give it away to Angelo. But the whole time the duke never goes away, he is just in disguise as a friar. Angelo lets all this power rush to his head and starts enforcing rules that were never enforced to begin with. Claudio is imprisoned and sent to be hung because he has sex with his girlfriend, Juliet, before they were married. Claudio's sister, Isabella, is brought in the picture to talk to Angelo on her brother's behalf. Angelo wants to take advantage of the situation and tells her that the only way to save her brother is if she has sex with him. Isabella says that will never happen and tells Claudio to get ready for his death. The Friar, aka the original DUKE, comes up with a plan for Marianna to sleep with Angelo instead of Isabella. Angelo is a wuss and kills Claudio anyway. Then time goes back and Angelo never does Claudio and Isabella wrong.
This whole play is like a really cheesy day time soap opera with really bad acting that no one watches.

Why does the Duke need to step away to see how justice is done?

The duke, Vincentio, aka Friar Lodowick, thinks he has been too lenient on his people over the years. It is not fair for him to start punishing people for things he used to let them get away with. And I totally agree with him. For example, I have never had a curfew. EVER. And I now live on campus, when I go home every weekend, it would be totally unreasonable for my dad to give me a curfew. It just wouldn't make sense and I would not obey by his "new" rule. This is the same thing that Vincentio, aka Friar Lodowick, is trying to avoid. He is trying to be fair to his people, a good ruler, and not get over run by them as well. However, after seeing Angelo in power, Vincentio needs to come back ASAP because he has just gone crazy; killing people for having sex before marriage, when he is guilty of the same thing.

Next question: Why would Isabella rather let her brother die than to sleep with Angelo?

When I first read about the proposition that Angelo gave Isabella, I thought "Oh Man, its not an ideal situation, BUT she's going to be a good sister and sleep with this man really quickly so she can save her brother's life. But NOOOOOOOOOOO. She doesn't do that. She decides that Claudio can die before she sleeps with Angelo, which I mean in that time wouldn't really be tooooo bad because he is in power and has money. But maybe I'm just thinking like a gold digger. However, we have to remember that Isabella is a VIRGIN. And she plans to stay that way because she is joining a convent. The nuns are under strict rules at this convent. They cannot talk to a man without the presence of the profess and she cannot show him her face. The worst part is, is that Isabella wants stricter rules. This girl is tripping. She is an extremist. So, there are all these brothels and diseases running about in the beginning of the play. Maybe she is not trying to get all caught up and doesn't want to be corrupt. She wants to be all holy, which isn't a bad thing. But, Isabella can't even say the word sex. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there in the world like this, but it isn't common and a little funny to me, well her extreme ways. She would rather let her brother die than to save him. I'm pretty sure God will forgive her especially since her heart is in the right place, trying to save her brother. Shakespeare wrote this play based off of another story and in the other story, the girl that mirrors Isabella, sleeps with the man to save another life.

Why is it called Measure for Measure anyway???

Who seeks what? Who seeks who?

So we are introduced to four main characters in Act I. Duke, Angelo, and Escalus. Escalus is an old man who praises Angelo, as well as Duke. Claudio was another character introduced. He seems to speak with a lot of wisdom and is sensitive. Claudio has a sister and speaks about her eloquently. However, his overall impression seems to be a very smart and calm man.

After the characters are introduced and I get a sense of them, the play get confusing. The action of the play seems to take place on two different levels, going back and forth. However, all the characters seem to be suffering from Angelo's laws and power.

Escalus asks Angelo to consider the time an place of a crime he would have been guilty of. Angelo states "Its one think to be tempted, Escalus/ Another thing to fall" (17-18). It is kind of ironic because doesn't Angelo comment the same crime towards the end of the play?

Im a little confused now, because in Act II we are introduced to a lot of characters to focus on (Elbow, Froth, and Pompey). Then Isabella reappears. She is speaking on her brothers behalf. She mentions Christ and forgiveness. She's saying that Christ shows mercy. Isabella asks Angelo to consider his guilt.

So yeah, this play was off to an okay start if you ask me? Hopefully I can get a better understanding in class tomorrow.

No Justice, just Lies

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages."

In Measure For Measure, all the characters play many parts, and put on many faces.  What makes any one of those characters or the roles they play any more real that the original character?  Is a false face on a false face any more fake that the real face?  The entire play is set around false identities and false accusations and names.

The Duke pretends to be a friar, leaving Angelo to rule in his absence, so all the things Angelo does in the name of the Duke makes the Duke be in two places at once, as an absentee ruler and a friar.  The Duke is trying to see how Angelo would rule without him, but he still manipulates the other characters to put on false identities of their own, thus still ruling when he was trying to observe.  He then retains his leadership even when he is trying not to.  The Duke is a just ruler and a good man, and this is shown even when he tries to change his face.   Thus, is he ever pretending to be anything he is not? Can he really ever be someone else, when at the sight of any mishap, he falls into his natural ways?

Isabella and Claudio also take on false identities for their own sake under the manipulation of The Duke.  Isabella is pious and cannot put her defining characteristic away for the good of her brother, and must remain faithful to God, but is able to change places with Mariana.  This trickery to get Angelo to marry his ex-fiancé is manipulated by The Duke.  But why?  What does The Duke gain out of keeping a woman's chastity?  But to keep it for himself when he offers to Marry Isabella.

While the characters put on false identities to solve their problems, what I found concerning, was that this simple trickery always worked, and the characters did not ever question the moral dilemma in any of their actions.  They were always pardoned through falsities and never had to face the truth.  I want the characters to have to face their problems, I wish the city fell apart when The Duke left, and Isabella had to questions her option to sleep with Angelo, and Angelo should have to face quite a few of his problems.  But these are all solved and pushed under the rug.  Where is justice in this play? 

                                                                                                                               

But Lord Angelo.. Remember You're Only a Substitute Ruler...

Measure for Measure is a lovely example of power corruption. Lord Angelo is a manipulative asshole who uses the law and his own beliefs to make his actions non-hypocritical, even though they totally are. How do I break that down?

Act 2 scene 4 ll. 213-214 show Angelo reflecting upon Isabella’s plead by acknowledging that “Thieves for their robbery have authority/ When judges steal themselves” – this is what people have been saying to him this entire play in hopes that he will draw back Claudio’s execution, but he refuses to acknowledge how logical the idea is until he feels sexual temptation in the moment. This is his defense for trying to sexually bribe Isabella because he knows she wants to save her brother. Angelo believes “Tis one thing to be tempted… Another thing to fall” (act 2 scene 2 ll. 18-19) and therefore only when he “falls” is he willing to give mercy to Claudio. If he is only tempted, meaning if Isabella does not have sex with him, he has not sinned and his actions are not punishable by law as Claudio’s are. Additionally, if he does not have sex with her, he has not contradicted his own beliefs and words (even though he tries.) If he does, he will not execute Claudio, and therefore cannot be seen as hypocritical, because he will have acknowledged his own faults. Manipulative jerk, and everybody knows it, especially Isabella (mind her naiveté when she doesn't realize he’s trying to sleep with her.)

Isabella makes the argument that “it is excellent/ To have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous/ To use it like a giant” (act 2 sc. 4 ll. 135-137). She recognizes his abusive power, so how it slips by her when he does it to her for so long during their second meeting is beyond me. Negating her ignorance, let’s get back to Angelo. What kind of person says there is “charity in sin” (act 2 sc. 4 ll. 67) so long as it saves Claudio, but doesn’t find the charity in forgiveness of “unlawful” consented sex?

Angelo somehow sees himself as a good human being, defending his nature by noting “Blood, thou art blood./ Let’s write “good angel” on the devil’s horn./ ‘Tis not the devil’s crest” (act 2. Sc. 4 ll.15-17). He’s only human, so temptation is inevitable and just because he does something bad, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s a good person. This is both his defense and hypocrisy of power at its finest. He fails to see this as an excuse for Claudio, but it is perfectly suitable for him.

Isabella, bless her heart, informs him “Ignomy in ransom and free pardon/ are of two houses. Lawful mercy/ is nothing kin to foul redemption” (ll. 119-121) to which Angelo gets all grumpy and threatens to painfully draw out her brother’s death (great human being, right?). Angelo finally outwardly and openly abuses his power (which may we recall, is only temporary as the Duke is gone) by telling Isabella that “[his] false o’erweighs [her] true” (ll. 184).

For someone who’s never been a huge Shakespeare fan, this is actually really enjoyable and has some pretty sweet lines that I like to put in my blogs in case I write my essays on them.

Escalus to Angelo, referring to Claudio’s execution: Act 2 scene 1 ll. 42 “Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall.”

Lucio to Isabella who thinks she cannot save her brother: Act 1 scene 4 ll. 85-87 “Our doubts are traitors/ And makes us lose the good we oft might win/ By fearing to attempt”

Pompey Act 2 scene 1 ll. 264 “The valiant heart’s not whipped out of his trade”

Act 2 scene 2 ll. 127-128
Isabella: “Yet show some pity”
Angelo: “I show it most of all when I show justice”

The King of all Pricks: Lord Angelo

From the start, I knew I was going to hate Lord Angelo. My suspicions were rewarded when I began reading Measure for Measure. Usually, I don’t love or hate characters in books, plays or novels, but I’m stuck hating Angelo. I just want to take his big dummy head and squish it. I mean, come on, why does he think it’s remotely okay to execute a man whose girlfriend is about to have a baby? Does Angelo really think Isabella is going to hop in bed with him to save Claudio’s life when Angelo is condemning Claudio for the act he is asking Isabella to participate in?

The arrogance! The conceit! I just can’t take it. I haven’t despised a character this much ever. Angelo has a firm place on my literary hit list along with Don John from Much Ado About Nothing. Angelo reminds of an unemotional, stoic and arrogant man who cares only to maintain his reputation and instill fear in the people. He thinks with his head, not his heart.

When Isabella meets Angelo for the first time, it is not his heart but, ahem, other senses, that desire to take her for his own. I don’t believe him when he says in Act 2, Scene 4, line 152, that he loves Isabella. Angelo is just using that to get into her dress. I love the fact Isabella rejects him and can’t believe Angelo would ask such a thing of her. For the longest time, she had no idea what he was talking about with his innuendos.

This being said, I think Lord Angelo and Isabella are foil characters. While he is merciless, cruel and stoic, she is virtuous, caring and loyal. Though Isabella does not condone what Claudio did, she still intercedes on her brother’s behalf to save him. Angelo has a hard-fist and stands firmly in the decisions he makes whether or not they are moral. He doesn't consider the reverberations or consequences clearly.

Angelo sees Claudio’s execution as the beginning to a new reign in the state, where before the people ignored the laws. He wants to put fear back into the crowd to stop the unclean and improper lifestyles that have arisen over time. He chooses Claudio to make an example of him so others will stop or not attempt what put Claudio in prison. I find Angelo’s reasoning to be faulty and undignified.

 I agree with Isabella when she told Angelo to punish Claudio for the sin, not the deed. Why should Claudio lose his life when he can spend the rest of it atoning for what he did? Is that not punishment enough? But I doubt Lord Angelo will change his mind as the play continues. He is a jerk and so a jerk he shall remain, unless, by the grace of God, he is a dynamic character. I find that to be highly unlikely though. 

Angelo, the next Faustus

I cannot decide who upsets me more Angelo or Faustus. they have both made really bad decisions, which will eventually end in someone's death (that much is certain). I can already tell that Angelo is going to anger me throughout this entire play. Seriously, if being an scumbag was a crime he would have been sentenced to death before this play even began. He is the perfect example of how not to get a girl, especially, a girl who is training to become a nun. Really Angelo? you're already engaged. I want his fiance to find out what a cheating bastard Angelo is, it's poetic justice, actually, it is justice.  If this is similar to any other Shakespeare play that I have read then Angelo will eventually get what he deserves (which in my opinion is no less than imprisonment for life, which in Shakespeare pretty much translates to, he's gonna die before the play is over).  I think that may be one of my favorite parts of reading Shakespeare, it is like with superheros, the bad guys are always punished. Granted the difference is that in a Shakespearean tragedy the good guys usually die too but hey, what are you going to do.

The Duke is intriguing character to say the least. I am curious to see what he does with his "spare time." Am I the only one who is really curious as to why the Duke chose to go undercover as a friar? I feel like there is a really interesting back story here.

Isabella, so far I like Isabella as a character. She is smart (thus far), she is kind, and she is virtuous. I am curious to see Claudio's reaction to Isabella's decision to let him be killed instead of giving up her Chasity in exchange for his life. Isabella is certain that he brother would not want her to give up her morals so that he can live but is this what Claudio wants. He is in love with Juliet and he is waiting to die so his mindset might be skewed due to circumstance. Claudio is Isabella's brother and as far as we know they have a good sibling relationship. Is Isabella willing to lose her brother in the name of God or will she change her mind? Is she making the right choice? Can her decision be justified?

A variety of interesting characters (none of whom I like).

In a (not so) shocking change of events, I really don't care for most of the characters in this play. (Sorry Dr. MB) That may change but for now I'm a little iffy on most of them.

Angelo, who I know I  detest, seems at first like he's doing his job (which is more than you can say for the Duke) even if he is getting a little power drunk. That changes in Act II. Scumbag over here with a fiancée tries to blackmail Isabella into sleeping with him. It's gross. He's gross. This isn't the kind of man who should be in charge of punishing people for lecherous behavior. Honestly he doesn't seem like the type of man who should be in charge of anything.  If the Duke was wandering around as a Friar for shits and giggles just to see how Angelo deals with the power, that'd be something I could find okay or even funny. The fact that he puts Angelo in charge to make him handle getting the city back under raps is just cowardly. It's like he's trying not to give up his "cool parent" status so he's making Angelo the mean step-parent. It's the Duke's mess, he should learn to clean it up. 

As for Claudio? Look, I get that he was panicking a bit while being sent to his death, but pimping out your sister? That's low. If it wasn't pathetic enough, his sister is a novice, she's about twelve hours away from never leaving the convent. And maybe it's just my modern brain but they seem like a pretty strict convent, what with that whole "never talk to a man unless in the presence of the Prioress and even then with a veil on" thing. Then she goes and says she wishes the rules were more strict. And this is the girl he thinks is going to use her feminine ways to get him off of death row. Okay dude. He can say he wants her to use her quick wit all he wants but when that fails she's still just the sacrificial lamb. 

As for Isabella, she's currently the redeeming factor for me. I appreciate her love for her brother but I also enjoy her respect for herself. I certainly wouldn't ever be able to commit myself to life in a convent the way she has. My siblings mean the world to me and there isn't much I wouldn't do for them. That being said I'm pretty sure I would react much less gracefully to someone trying to blackmail me for my sibling's life. (Honestly I would probably take a brick to their head.) 

I can see why this play would qualify as a "problem play". It's not tragic and it's not really that funny. So where does that leave it?