In the final trial of Measure for Measure (in Act 5), the Duke as the presiding judge condemns Angelo for the death of Claudio and imposes the death penalty. He summarizes his judicial reasoning when he proclaims (alluding to the name of the play):
The very mercy of the law cries out
Most audible, even from his proper tongue,
"An Angelo for Claudio, death for death."
Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure;
Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure.-- (5.1.463-7).
What kind of argument is he making? Is this a key idea of the Duke's jurisprudence or is he trying to mock it (after all he does pardon Angelo later in the scene)? Does the play make a comment on this kind of judicial reasoning? What is the measure of "measure for measure"?
When the Duke alludes to the name of the play in the final trial, he is derisively commenting on Angelo’s form of ruling which aligned with the concept of ‘an eye for an eye’. The Duke decides that as punishment for the crime Angelo has committed, he will have to marry Mariana and he will be killed. This does not match the way in which the Duke has been known to rule and punish in the past. Because of the particular situation being a punishment for the former harsh leader, Angelo, it is easy to see that perhaps the Duke did not ever plan on killing him. Rather, he was simply giving him a taste of his own medicine. He incited fear in Angelo for those moments that he believed he was going to be killed. Angelo was in the position to understand what it felt like to be on the other side of the punishments that he had been distributing during his rule. Of all people, Isabella stepped in and insisted that Angelo should not be killed. Seeing Isabella defend Angelo after all that he had done to her emphasizes the fact that this harsh form of punishment is unnecessary in many situations. Angelo killed Claudio and tried to take Isabella’s virginity, yet even Isabella feels that death is too extreme and there are other solutions. The play clearly takes a strong stance on this form of punishment, emphasizing many situations in which ‘an eye for an eye’ is unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteThough it seems like the Duke is mocking Angelo’s judicial reasoning during this speech, I think he is expressing his true thoughts, almost woefully, about how Angelo should be punished according to the law. He states that the “very mercy of the law cries out” for Angelo’s death given what he has done. The word “mercy” makes a connection to Angelo’s line earlier in the play: “I show [pity for the victims of crime] most of all when I show justice” (2.2. 127-28). The Duke essentially says that for the sake of Claudio and Isabel, who have been wronged by Angelo, it is only right for Angelo to die. However, he makes the statement not from his own perspective, but from the law’s. It’s almost as if he only sentences Angelo to death because the law requires it. It’s impossible to tell exactly what the Duke is thinking, but his decision to sentence Angelo to death definitely seems reluctant. Additionally, he immediately pardons Angelo when “learning” that Claudio has not actually been executed. However, he obviously has known all along that Claudio is not actually dead, so why does he pretend first to sentence Angelo as if he has actually caused Claudio’s death? Likely, it is his, or Shakespeare’s, way of increasing the drama, with Claudio being revealed dramatically in front of everyone. Thus, everything the Duke says before Claudio’s reveal about Angelo’s punishment is all part of an act. However, I think that he does honestly express some of his thoughts in this speech. Throughout the play, the Duke is shown to be extremely lenient in enforcing the law, and I think he reveals his empathetic disposition again in this speech by acting as if the demands of the law constitute the only reason why Angelo should be put to death.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in this scene, the pattern of the dukes reasoning ultimately discredits the concept of a measure for measure. Throughout this act the duke acts one way, only to contradict himself shortly-thereafter, showing that the initial action was wrong. This is most obviously seen when the friar is unmasked as the duke. Prior to the unmasking, the duke claims that Angelo is virtuous and innocent. After the unmasking, the duke exclaims that Angelo is guilty and has fallen from grace. In this instance the crowd cheers, which shows that the duke’s previous comments have now been overwritten as wrong. A similar thing happens towards the end of the act when the duke claims that Claudio is dead. Then, when the provost is called up Claudio is actually alive and the duke pardons him. Once again we see an instance where the duke contradicts himself, and his previous statement is incorrect. Then looking towards the speech regarding a measure for a measure the pattern continues. Despite claiming that Angelo must receive a punishment equal to his crime, The Duke later contradicts himself for a third time. He ends up pardoning Angelo. In this instance the audience must then follow the precedent set by the other two examples. The duke’s current stance, Angelo being pardoned, is correct, and the former position, a measure for measure, is incorrect and wrong. From this pattern of reasoning, the play makes it abundantly clear to the audience that a measure for measure is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteThe final trial of Measure for Measure highlights the retributive justice system’s focus on punishment over rehabilitation through the idea of measuring life under the law. The Duke embraces the modern notion of “an eye for an eye” and argues that Angelo’s life must be taken as a sort of revenge/payback for taking Claudio’s life. While in the modern age, we often critique a retributive justice system as being inhumane, this scene highlights how the Duke thinks this system is just. He uses the word mercy to highlight how the most humane and equitable aspects of the system believe that “an eye for an eye” is the correct theory of justice. While the Duke does pardon Claudio later on, he only does so once it’s revealed that Claudio is not dead; even though the Duke knew this fact the entire time, I think he chose to follow “an eye for an eye” because he was acting according to the letter of the law and because he was acting on the information that was available to all people. Thus, it can be inferred that the Duke’s argument is not on behalf of the Duke and the information he is privy to but rather on behalf of the law and the information that all citizens are aware of. This would make sense because only when it was revealed to EVERYONE that Claudio was alive did the Duke pardon Angelo. Thus, this scene highlights a potential method of measuring justice in the face of human life loss.
ReplyDelete