King Lear is a tragic hero, doomed by the misfortune of his own error. A reigning example of how a noble man can be defeated by his flaws, he drives himself to the brink of insanity. King Lear’s flaws are that he is arrogant, prideful, and biased. It’s the reason for his insanity that brings out strong emotions in the reader. King Lear’s daughters Goneril and Regan are insincere about their love for him; they give a fantastical view of how daughters should love their father. Cordelia, however, gives her father a realistic view of a daughter’s love, which he isn’t equipped to handle. King Lear appears to be a good man, if not a bit egotistical and foolish. It is very easy to like him. Yet, consider that Goneril and Reagan may have turned out the way they did because their father has a clear biases, a favorite child in Cordelia. The idea that a parent has a favorite child is conceivable, yet to express that emotion so clearly can be damaging to a child’s psyche.
King Lear has always approached his daughters as the king, with an extreme expression of authority. He never visited his daughters as simply a father. It’s a shock to him when reality hits, and the love he thought he had was simply an illusion, and his only saving grace was Cordelia. At the end of the day, King Lear learns what it’s like to feel other people’s pain, but sadly with no rewards, he must find company in insanity.
Violence in King Lear
As one of the key terms mentioned in class is man, the acts of violence present in King Lear (though there are much more violent plays in Shakespeare’s repertoire) are key to understanding not only our similarities to Shakespeare’s audience in the attraction to graphic displays but also how violence reflects the nature of man.
In all fairness, the play wasn’t always as received well for the violence and suffering it depicts as it is presently. The tide turned for King Lear after the English Civil War (1642- 1651). Hence, a much more palatable version emerged by playwright Nahum Tate that occupied its own moment of popularity in history. Interestingly enough, in Tate’s adaptation The History of King Lear the character of the Fool is completely omitted.
Not only does violence play out in the form of a storm, but in Act 3 scene 7 we see the plucking of Gloucester’s eyes at the hands of Cornwall and Regan. The violence of nature contrasts to that of man. In Cornwall’s pursuit of authority, he is willing to perform the most violent of means against someone much older than him who has provided shelter. His actions beget more violence, and as we will find further on, lead to a devastating fate for Cornwall.
The violence that nature shows brings characters like Lear, Edgar, Kent and the Fool together, while the violence of man unites the more wicked of them all: Cornwall, Goneril, Regan and Edmund. In this grouping, we also see another way that the characters of the play are divided. There are those who act and those who suffer. In this division, there is *seemingly* some justice in that those who act become the source of their own ill-fate, but judging by the sentence passed down on Kent for honesty and Gloucester for naivety, suffering can come to those who do not deserve it as well. The conclusion that emerges in the following two acts will reflect how justice doesn’t always come to only those who deserve it, which is perhaps one of the most difficult points for the audience to come to terms with.The good guy doesn’t always win and the suffering that the bad guy gets in no way makes right that wrong.
Group 5 Scene Study: Introduction of the Fool
A few words on the philosophy of justice in Measure for Measure
Among all other themes in Measure of Measure, Justice is the central one towards which all characters and their actions are inclined. It all starts off with the protagonist’s, the Duke, plan to take a short leave from the power and empower someone well known for having profound integrity in justice and morality. Few questions rose to my mind while I was reading the opening scene of the play regarding the Duke’s intension of leaving his chair to Angelo, a man believed to have strong sense of ethics and duties, and disguising himself as a friar. However, as I continued to read the play, the underlying objectives of Duke’s plan started to unfold clearly in front of my eyes. It’s a test that he left for Angelo to conquer as a rational being, but Angelo, nonetheless, found himself as a human being, who was a slave to his personal necessities.
‘’If power changes purpose’’ (1.4.54), this quote hints the purpose of the Duke’s plan, to see whether power is superior to morality. Angelo’s verdict towards Claudio was objective at first, assuming Vienna had good laws, and he, as the interim Duke, followed the code of laws for the sake of good of societies and its citizens . However, It became subjective on the arrival of Isabella, who came begging mercy on her brother, Claudio. His action was justifiable at the beginning, but it started deviating from the moral ground while his desire for her started losing ground in his consciousness. Here, desires consumed duties.
We define justice to be universal, uniform and equal to every one regardless of one’s status and situations. In a true rational world, we define our morality, according to Immanuel Kant, based on reasons. Kant gave us an account on justice and morality, which depend on freedom and reasons. From the Kantian point of view, given this situation, Angelo as a Duke didn’t do justice on Claudio out of duty, but rather out of inclination, out of his personal interests towards Isabella. As a result, his motive of judgment lacked moral value. His determination of will, sentencing death penalty to Claudio, wasn’t autonomous as he wasn’t following the reasons; he was following the trail of his personal necessities. He wasn’t acting freely, autonomously, but he was acting heteronomously.
Angelo’s actions would have been moral, if he hadn’t chosen the Claudio as a means to an end, his desire for Isabella, if he hadn’t acted out of the motive of inclination. It would have been moral, if he had made the justice for the sake of justice, if he acted out of the motive of duty.
‘’Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.’’
Immanuel Kant.
For Kant, motive is what gives our actions moral value. So when we have motive of duty, not the motive of inclination, then we only act out of duty, then we resist our motive for acting on our self-interest.
Angelo failed to rise above his self-interests. He failed to respect Isabella’s dignity. Even after she agreed with his proposal to save her brother’s life, he yet secretly gave the provost order to have Claudio executed. He didn’t keep his promise, which is odd with the categorical imperative. He used Claudio as a means to an end. His motives were the motives of inclination, his determination of will was heteronomous and his reasons were hypothetical.
Therefore, his all actions were immoral.
Angelo hasn’t given ground to his desire to Isabella, but he has to his morality to justice.
The Efficacy of Law in Measure for Measure
In Measure for Measure, authority figures often anthropomorphize the law of Vienna. For instance, during his conversation with the Friar, the Duke describes Vienna’s laws as “strict” and “biting” (1.3.19). Similarly, Angelo callously assures Isabel that “It is the law, not I, [who] condemns your brother (2.2.80). Through their syntax, Angelo and the Duke separate themselves from the law, which offers an interesting insight on the way the law is perceived in the play: it is an objective, stand alone entity.
But in light of the play’s final scene,where one “fornicator” is absolved of his “crime” and the other is “punished,” are Angelo and the Duke right to take this view of the law?
Is Marriage Worse than Death?
Within Measure for Measure we are presented with the situation that bearing a child out of wedlock, despite out of love, is equivalent to death. (Having sex prior to marriage is illegal.) Although Claudio truly loved Juliet, the woman bearing his child, he was to be executed for his illegal actions. As we all know, he eventually escapes execution and is happily reunited with Juliet, leaving the possibility for the assumption that they marry and live “happily ever after.” But for some of the other characters, their ending was not so merry.
Lucio claims :”Marrying a punk, my lord, is pressing to death, / whipping, and hanging:” (5.1.30) This suggests that the woman who bore his child is a prostitute whom he did not love or care for marrying. Despite the severity in the repercussions, he still wished to not marry her. In effect, he preferred death, or any punishable acts, over being forever bound to a prostitute, or any woman whom he did not love.
A similar situation is presented to Angelo when the Duke orders him to marry Mariana for having pre-marital sex with her. Although he obeys the Duke, he never speaks a word, implying his dissatisfaction with the event that has occurred. This may be going too far into it but the fact that he sentenced Claudio to death may have implied that he was doing him a favor. By not believing in the true love between Claudio and Juliet, he would save him from a life of suffering. (This may of course be an invalid interpretation but i thought it was a bit humorous.)
Surprisingly, Isabella is confronted with the same situation. When she is finally told that her brother is alive and well, the Duke suggest that he has done her a favor. Most individuals believe that no favor is done out of pure kindness but rather because there is something that’s wanted out of the act. This applies to this event. After implying that he has done her a favor by forgiving the illegal act of her brother, and in effect, saving his life, he asks for her hand in marriage. She remains silent after the proposal but we are unsure whether she is silently happy or silently upset. One can assume that the silence is her expression of disbelief that she is once again being conned by a powerful figure. (Angelo attempted a similar action) “If he be like your brother, for his sake/Is he pardon’d; and, for your lovely sake,/Give me your hand and say you will be mine” (5.1.61).
In conclusion, we can now see that death has typically projected a better outcome than that of marriage. If we took a step back, in the play. and attempted to imagine what it would be like if anyone who engaged in sexual actions prior to marriage, would be sentenced to death, how would it affect the characters. Who would change for the better? Would it change anything at all?
Measure for Measure: Uneven measurements of sin?
Isabella’s sound reprimand of her brother when he dared to ask her to consent to what was essentially her rape(3.1) seemed, at the time, wholly justifiable to me. Whether she was afraid of her own basic, human desires more than the act itself was not a major concern, simply because it was her decision, a very personal and possibly emotionally scarring decision. In the same position, many women would be torn and miserable if asked to make such a decision no matter what course of action they may choose.
However, this view changed when I was confronted by her rather abrupt change if heart in falling to her knees to beg for the salvation of Angelo (5.1). The strong overtones of Christian imagery make this an enlightened and beautiful act of growth and true justice, but it calls to my mind questions of her true reasons for her anger at Claudio. Her love of her brother was not strong enough to allow her to even entertain the thought of being bedded for his salvation, but the man who in essence attempted to rape her and murder Claudio is deemed forgivable? Her brother who simply begged to be saved, called on her ‘love’ to save him she condemned to bitter, restless death but Angelo was worthy of her falling to her knees for his life? This draws into question yet again the idea of degrees of sin. Are some sins more forgivable than others? Is Lucio more sinful than Claudio? Is Mariana less sinful than Juliet?
Rereading the scene in the prison between Claudio and Isabel, I have decided that the “lady doth protest too much” (Hamlet 3.2). No longer does she appear as the chaste, inexperienced woman balking at an insult against her Christianity and purity and instead has transformed into a woman terrified of her own desires, of the possibility of enjoying that which she has been taught to view as sinful.
(I rather like the differences between these two interpretations of the Act 3 Scene 1.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUaCwSASd24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7siwW5Oqnk
Some by virtue fall
There is a recurring theme in Measure for Measure, a paradoxical relationship between vice and virtue where one becomes a vehicle for the other. This is reflected in both the plot, such as the duke’s deceptive approach to justice, as well as in the actual language of the characters.
Deception becomes a means for learning the truth and meting out justice. The duke disguises himself as a friar so he may learn about the goings on of the city: “Hence shall we see, / If power changes purpose, what our seemers be” (1.4.54). In this quote the duke reveals his intention to disguise himself, so he may discover Angelo’s true nature, not just who he seems to be. But what does this reveal about the duke’s own nature? He prefers to manipulate in shade, rather than govern in a straight forward manner.
The duke’s questionable antics allow him to bring about what he perceives as a happy ending. Once he discovers the truth about Angelo he uses his disguise as a friar to save Claudio’s life, Isabella’s virginity and Mariana’s betrothal. He uses a morally questionable instrument to balance the scales.
Isabella’s virtue becomes a vehicle for sin in that her purity and innocence incites carnal desire in Angelo. Also, her unyielding adherence to the oath she made to the church forces her to abandon the one way of saving her brother’s life.
After Isabella’s supplication, Angelo admits that: “Most dangerous is that temptation that doth goad us on to sin in loving virtue” (2.3.180). Isabella’s saintliness is highly desirable to Angelo, perhaps because he sees himself as an upstanding man up to that point. Or perhaps because he represents that quality in human nature that desires to defile that which is pure. In either case her chastity becomes a vehicle for lasciviousness.
Escalus echoes this theme in act 2 scene 1, when he says: “Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall.” Angelo “falls” because of Isabella’s virtue. Similarly, one could argue that Isabella falls because of her own virtue in that she is so chaste she is causes the audience to question her morality. What really is the good of virtue, it one will not sacrifice a part of themselves to save the life of one they love?
Shakespeare’s Substitutions
In Measure for Measure, Shakespeare takes characters and plays with their identity, to the point that most people in the play have dual identities. The best examples of this are: the Duke, Isabella and Claudio. This duality creates two sides to each person, and in some cases it creates a private side and a public side to each person. In the case of the Duke he is a man of power, yet he does not like to be in the public eye. He is lenient when enforcing lesser crimes and for the most part is considered to be a good man. When he needs to enforce the law, he shrinks away, putting another man, Angelo into power to clean the streets. The Duke disguises himself as a friar, a very private figure; one who is often isolated from the world within the walls of a monastery. He plays both sides, and in doing so, avoids blame for any actions he may have done.
Isabella is Claudio’s sister, soon to become a nun. She is called upon to help save her brother, Claudio, who has been imprisoned and sentenced to death for sexual relations out of wedlock. Claudio asks her to try to use her feminine charm against Angelo, the man the Duke left in power in his absence. He hopes that she will do anything to save the life of her brother. It is revealed that the only way to save Claudio’s life is for Isabella to sleep with Angelo. Being a woman of God, she refuses, and the friar (Duke in disguise) suggests pulling the “bed trick”. This entails switching Isabella for someone else; in this case it is Angelo’s fiancée Mariana. This swapping is yet another instance of hiding someone’s identity in hopes of coming out of the situation untouched.
Finally, we have Claudio, who has been sentenced to death. He is in jail and begged his sister to help him. The bed trick was successfully pulled off, yet Angelo did not keep his word, as a result Claudio was to die by morning. The Duke in disguise comes in and suggests yet another swap. This time, they will say that Claudio has been beheaded, but they will send the head of a pirate in its place. Then Angelo will be satisfied and Claudio can escape/be released once the Duke returns (receiving a pardon). One of the themes of this play is concealing identity in order to avoid a punishment. In other words, they don’t want to become victims and face the law, whether it is an eye for an eye, or as Shakespeare put it, measure for measure.
Was Shakespeare an early Feminist?
In Act 5 Scene 1 of Measure for Measure, I found the moment when Isabella kneels and pleads for Angelo’s life to be not only beautiful, but also particularly revealing of her character’s growth and development throughout the play. In begging the Duke to pardon Angelo, I strongly believe that she was implicitly pardoning her own internal desires that never quite manifested themselves. Although Isabella was originally planning on becoming a nun, we see throughout the play that she has exhibited a sense of sexual curiosity and feminine power that she may or may not be aware of. I would argue that by the play’s end, in the segment where she is shown kneeling, Isabella has become aware of not only her power over the men around her, but also the power of the human psyche and how it is often difficult to control. She says, “For Angelo,/ His act did not o’ertake his bad intent,/ An must be buried but as an intent/ That perished by the way. Thoughts are no subjects,/ Intents but merely thoughts” (5.1, 453-458). At this point, she senses that it is in our nature as human beings to think unclean thoughts; the text suggests that she may be forgiving herself for any such thoughts she has had in the past, for she herself did not yield to them. It becomes evident through these actions that Isabella will not be returning to the convent. Her posture in this scene is highly religious, but rather than choosing to dedicate her life to God, Isabella has found peace in knowing that one can assert control over their actions and still manage to live a virtuous life, even if his or her thoughts aren’t necessarily pure.
The irony in all of this is that just as Isabella has this epiphany and is essentially granted free will, the Duke proposes to her. Although the audience doesn’t hear her response, we are likely to assume that she agrees to the marriage because the Duke saved Claudio. With this, her freedom of choice is revoked. This makes the play seem rather tragic in my eyes because just as Isabella is beginning to recognize her power and how it can free her mind, she becomes trapped within the confines of marriage. And even if she rejects the Duke, it is probable that she will be shamed back to the nunnery, resulting in a Catch 22 of sorts. In either instance, Isabella’s potential to become a powerful member of society has been hindered by the men around her. With this being said, I cannot help but begin to wonder if Shakespeare himself was a bit of a feminist through his portrayal of women in plays such as Measure for Measure.