Angelo defends his conviction and execution of Claudio in Act 2 in the face of Escalus' protests that he himself might one day find himself in the same situation. He argues that
I do not deny
The jury passing on the prisoner's life
May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two
Guiltier than him they try. . . . [But]
You may not so extenuate his offense
For I have had such faults; but rather tell me,
When I that censure him do so offend,
Let mine own judgment pattern out my death,
And nothing come in partial (2.1.19-21;29-33).
In this speech he argues that empathy has no place in jurisprudence and that a judge's own vice and guilt should play no role in her rulings. Yet, is this ideal of consistency too difficult to achieve? Isn't this a recipe for hypocrisy? After all, even the virtuous Angelo (his name suggests virtuous perfection) fails to live up to his own strict standards. Yet, on the other hand, when his crime (the very same act of fornication he convicts Claudio of committing) he clings to his ideal of consistency and retribution: "But let my trial be mine own confession./ Immediate sentence then and sequent death / Is all the grace I beg." (5.1.418-20).
What is this play telling us about such things as hypocrisy and consistency?
The play's portrayal of morality is challenged by the characters' human imperfection, including those in authority. Angelo is a perfect example of someone who gives into temptation. He is an extremely harsh ruler and a killjoy at the start of the play, but he is not yet a hypocrite. He punishes offenders, especially those who commit crimes without harming anyone, in order to prevent bad future behavior. Angelo's sincerity is demonstrated by his willingness to face the same harsh retribution if he is found guilty of a similar crime. Angelo has yet to imagine himself succumbing to the temptations that led to Claudio's "crime." Angelo's hypocrisy begins when he acknowledges his own sensual impulse yet continues to act as if he is immune to it. He's baffled when he realizes he's not all that different from Claudio and the individuals he's previously ruled over. Wise people might acknowledge their own imperfect natures and resolve to be kinder to others, including not decapitating young men for getting their girlfriends pregnant. Angelo, on the other hand, is quite disturbed by the disparity between his previous record of purity and this sudden inclination to sin. He makes the traditional mistake of blaming others for his feelings and responses to them. Little by little Angelo rationalizes his predatory behavior by relying on his own identity as a victim. He criticizes the fact that he asked for chastity and inner strength but did not obtain them, placing the blame for his actions solely on God. The insanity comes to an end only when Angelo is caught by the Duke and forced to face the consequences of his acts.
ReplyDeleteThe consistency and hypocrisy in the story Measure for Measure change depending on the character and their actions. The Duke is the main example of a character that recognizes people’s personalities and has empathy at the end of all of the people that committed crimes. When Angelo is convicted of fortification with Isabelle the Duke says in Act 5, sc. 1 line 128, “First, his integrity stands without blemish; next, it imports no reason that with such vehemencey he should pursue faults proper to himself.” The judge is considering Angelo’s behavior in the past and therefore finds it hard to believe he would commit such a crime. On the contrary of this idea of this empathetic and understanding approach, Angelo is guilty himself and so he has no problem with trying to kill Claudio. Act 4 sc. 2 line 135, “For my better satisfaction, let me have Claudio’s head sent me by five.” Angelo is not giving any leniency towards Claudio because he doesn't want to be caught with his crimes and actions. With the systems in place, they contradict each other based on person and intention. However, at the end of the story, all of the crimes that are committed by various individuals are pardoned with the idea of marriage. One example is when the Duke is talking with Lucio, Act 5 sc. 1 line 592 “Upon mine, honor, thous shalt marry her. Thy slanders I forgive and there withal Remit thy other forfeits.” All of the “strict” laws in place are pardoned because no one follows them. Everyone is human and, in the end, the Duke thinks marriage is the best outcome for the criminals and their partners.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure exhibits a game of tug and war between consistency and empathy among the rulers of Vienna. This game reveals the subconscious hypocrisy that is deeply ingrained in the judicial system that drives the plot of the play. Angelo, with the name meaning “virtuous perfection,” exemplifies such hypocrisy, but not from the beginning. When Angelo was promoted to be the duke, he quickly established himself as a mean and merciless ruler. He firmly believes in upholding the law, and punishing those in ways he feels will strike fear in others. However, after Isabella learned of her brother’s death sentence, she decided to plead his case in front of Angelo. This led to Angelo falling victim to hypocrisy by bribing Isabella to partake in an act of fornication in exchange for Claudio’s life, and even breaking his own law when he committed fornication with Mariana. Being the person he is, he immediately blamed others for his acts and resorts to the natural behavior of a predator by telling Isabella that no one will believe her. This hypocrisy is brought to an end when he is caught by the duke and realizes he must be punished the way he punished others, saying, “But let my trial be mine own confession./ Immediate sentence then and sequent death / Is all the grace I beg." (5.1.418-20). The play ultimately demonstrates a strong correlation between power and hypocrisy, as Angelo uses his power to get away with his sins. In the end, Shakespeare uses this correlation in order to show that even with consistency, there will always be ways in which some will try to become above the law, and the consequences that follow.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare argues that one individual is incapable of administering justice. All three judges in the play have different advantages and disadvantages to their philosophy. Angelo is a strict interpreter of the law and refuses to waver from how they are written. While Angelo can be an efficient judge, the play shows how his philosophy quickly falls apart in the case of Claudio. By any other metric, Claudio would not be punishment due to the circumstance of his crime. However, Angelo is incapable of wavering from the law and sentences him to death for, essentially, sleeping with his wife. The Duke has the opposite problem; he is way too empathetic to enforce the law. In the final scene of the play, not only does he revert all the punishment given to Angelo, Lucio, and the Provost, he even promotes the Provost and marries Angelo and Lucio to their now respective wives. The Duke is incapable of enforcing the law and proves Angelo right; he has made a scarecrow of the law. Escalus is the best option of the two, but he is stuck as a subordinate to the Duke and Angelo. In his limited action as judge, Escalus gives out reasonable punishments to Pompey and Froth, showing his ability to use empathy and enforce the law. However, Escalus is never given the chance to exercise his judgement from there on. In Measure for Measure, Shakespeare creates a spectrum of empathy, but never allows for a compromise between the two extremes.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure beautifully explain the complex correlation between power and hypocrisy. This is a connection that is not exclusive to this play, but has been seen to repeat itself time and time again throughout both literature and history. A position of power is a fragile one and people tend to trust authority figures. This situation creates the space for the abuse of power which is exactly what Angelo tried to get away with. He thought that he was doing such a good job as a ruler that he could get away with one little mistake. The same mistake he was sentencing someone to death for. I think for Angelo, it was hard to stay humble when he had power. He was presented with and abused the opportunity to use his empathy to people of his choosing. By doing this, he attempted to excuse himself of his crime. Measure for Measure and Shakespeare also has interesting things to say about consistency. Through all the ups and downs of the play, I find it incredibly interesting all the characters faced the same, relatively consistent punishment at the end, marrige. The Duke exhibited a completely different version of hypocrisy and empathy. He felt too strongly for everyone else, thus excusing everyone from their crimes. The Duke proves why the way Angelo and him rules are flawed and perhaps the ideal middle are the ideas of Escalus. He finds the balance between empathy unique to each cases, considering the circumstances, and a proper punishment serving deterrence and retribution. Overall, Measure for Measure displays the range of correlation between power, hypocrisy, empathy, and consistency.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure shows that when an individual receives a large amount of power, they begin to think they are above others and therefore hypocritical, in this specific case, Angelo essentially thinks he is invincible from the laws that he enforces on the people of Vienna. At the beginning of the play, Angelo establishes himself as a merciless, principle-based decision-maker. He sentences Claudio to death for committing a harmless crime, fornicating with a woman who was nearly his wife. He backs up his statements by saying, “You may not so extenuate his offence for I have had such faults; but rather tell me, When I, that censure him, do so offend, Let mine own judgment pattern out my death, And nothing come in partial. Sir, he must die.” (2.1 28-32) He ensures that he would face the same punishments if he ever committed the same crime as Claudio; however, later on in the play, he tries to tempt Isabella into the very act he swore death upon. It isn’t wrong for him to have feelings for Isabella, but rather that he didn’t see them as comparable to Claudio’s. He tried to commit fornication with a woman he barely knew. Claudio committed fornication with a woman who he was on track to marry. The fact that Angelo further pushed for Claudio’s death shows that he thinks he is better than those that he rules. He is completely hypocritical in his actions and inconsistent with his judicial decision-making. The play, Measure for Measure, uses Angelo’s character to show that it is impossible to consistently deal punishment for crimes that the decision-maker can’t justify giving themselves, and it proves that one must relate to and empathize with those that they judge otherwise they will continue handing out punishments that don’t fit the crime.
ReplyDeleteThrought the play, Escalus is presented as the best of both judicial concepts, and is presented as the ideal balance of judicial empathy and deterrence. The Play shows the similarity of the Duke and Angelo's extreme judicial styles and shows how both of their styles are bad for society. The play portrays Angelo as much too harsh throught the film. Angelo used fear and deterrence as his ideological beliefs when acting as a judge. He viewed himself as a metaphorical scarecrow, which served to deter the crow or people from committing sins. He looked to the future rather than the past, to deter people from committing their crimes. Due to his belief in strictness and harshness, he did not consider different circumstances when judging, but gave everyone the same punishment for their crimes. One example of this is with the case of Claudio, where he gave him death for fornication, even though everyone else knew that he and his fiancée were basically already married. The play also portrays the Duke’s judging as harmful through the play, but for opposing reasons. The Duke’s judging style is much more lenient than Angelo’s, but is empathetic to an excessive degree. The Duke looks to the future of the people he judges, he sees their potential and himself in their situations, rather than looking to their past crimes. Both the Duke and Angelo focus on the future entirely over the past. The ending of the play was almost comical in nature due to how the Duke just freed all of the characters that had been built up of their crimes. The Duke did not take circumstance into account, but had everyone get the same punishment. Claudio, Angelo, and Lucio all were freed equally, even though Claudio only committed fornication by technicality, and Angelo sexually coerced someone. The play presents Escalus, however, as the ideal balance of both virtues, using retributive justice to keep both factors in account. Throught the film, all of Escalus’ trials end positively for both sides, such as when he forgives Froths of his crime, but still tells him he will not get another warning, since this was his first offense. Escalus considers several other factors rather than the need to be harsh, or just judging based on moral empathy. Some things Escalus considers before deciding are moral character of the individual, extenuating circumstances that might change his opinion on the crime, and the proportionality of the punishment to the crime. Escalus is looking to both the future of how they will act afterwards, but also to the past, and how the events that happened might change the verdict. Escalus' judgment style throught the play was shown as empathetic and Flexible, and he took the whole big picture into account when acting as a judge. The play considers this to be the ideal balance of empathy and rigidity that society should have, and uses Angelo and the Duke to show the how polar extremes of either sides do not help society.
ReplyDeleteThe play measure for measure walks the line between empathy and consistency with the different rulers running Vienna in very different ways. The Duke tends to be very inconsistent with his punishments, does not seem to care a whole lot, and is very “loosey goosey” in his methods of ruling. Angelo on the other hand, perfectly represents the hypocrisy within Vienna’s judicial system. With a name that translates to “virtuous perfection”, he really lives up to his name. Opposite from the Duke, Angelo is very consistent and harsh with his punishments and hold a very high moral standard for the members of Vienna. Angelo is a strong believer in following the law very closely and has little to no empathy for someone that breaks the rules of the kingdom. When looking back on the play, the phrase “with great power comes great responsibility” comes to mind. As we see when the Duke is running the show, he does not do a great job of using his power to control the city of Vienna. He is not very responsible and most of the time makes up an excuse, and gets the person who committed a crime out of trouble. The Duke’s lack of responsibility made him an immoral leader who was unfit to run Vienna. When looking at Angelo, the man of virtuous perfection totally abuses his power. He holds an extremely high moral standard and expects everyone in Vienna to have the same moral standard as him. Obviously, this is not the case, so when he judges someone for breaking the law, he brings down the hammer when it comes to the punishment.
ReplyDelete