Summary:
In William Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure," Angelo was spared for his crimes. But instead of justified punishment, the reader can feel indignation when he finds him spared.
Question: Samuel Johnson says that in William Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure," "Angelo's crimes were such, as must sufficiently justify punishment and I believe every reader feels some indignation when he finds him spared." Discuss.
Answer: Johnson says that 'every reader feels some indignation when' Angelo is 'spared', this thought I feel depends on what genre you think the play is and the person you are. 'Measure for Measure' has always been mainly referred to as a problem play because of its dark nature and sardonic questioning of the values and beliefs of both the characters and readers that constantly leaves us in a bewildering and uncertain manner. With these judgements in mind why do we the readers expect the ending to be any different, to come to a complete resolution where good triumphs evil? Thus Johnson's indignation is noted but in my opinion dismissed as the real question is why Angelo is spared and if so to what extent? Johnson says that he 'believes' instead of 'knows' this shows us that perhaps that there is more to feel than indignation.
Angelo marriage to Marianna is seen by the Duke as a suitable punishment, so marriage in the eyes of the Duke can be seen as a punishment. As we know using the historical context of the play that most men wanted to be bachelors, so marriage was a negative idea and punishment works best when it is long lasting and so are the effects. Whilst death can be swift it can be seen as an easier way out as you don't experience the pain of living with someone you would rather not. But the Duke himself asks for Isabella's hand in marriage, so marriage isn't really a punishment for him but perhaps reconciliation of old and new identities and the difficulties before. As we can see by the end of the play that Angelo is a changed man and his betrothed has still kept her old identity. I believe alongside Johnson that marriage is an unusual punishment, but it could show the end of Angelo political career and the beginning of his family life. This for some can be viewed as a punishment.
Technically, Angelo should be put to death. As under his own law of fornication, his crime is punishable by death but the Duke it could be said tailors Angelo's punishment to suit his character. As Angelo is willing to accept death 'That I crave death more willing than mercy', shows that to Angelo marriage is worse than death. But due to the nature of this problem play we are unable to truly see how sincere Angelo is and this is why this has to lead to some such as Johnson to questions Angelo's punishment. I believe he was being sincere as Angelo is an absolute character, he sees things in black and white similar to the biblical teaching in the historical context of the play. That an 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth', as Claudio's crime was punishable by death so will be his. This opinion is reinforced with the statement 'we must not make a scarecrow of the law' by Angelo.
When we 'find him spared' is a question of the readers own beliefs, in my opinion the crimes of Angelo is no worse than the Duke who himself gets away with it. The crimes being Angelo's attempted rape, although it could be said that you cannot really accuse someone of attempted rape without the victim willing admitting that she would of allowed her 'body up to shame' and as Isabella doesn't show an evidence of her giving up her virginity or submitting to Angelo's wishes there is no attempted rape. Angelo's crime of attempted murder of Claudio, from the perspective of the fornications laws that was in place is punishable by death therefore it's not murder but a capital punishment. We the audience only hate Angelo for reinforcing this law and call it attempted murder because of our own moral attitude and dramatic effect, Shakespeare has interwoven the characters so deeply within our own hearts and minds that we no longer see the crime and the broken law but just the punishment that Claudio is about to face. If we never knew about the past and presents deeds of Angelo we wouldn't actually be against him. When looked at from this perspective the crimes that Angelo commits cannot be truthfully punished as is not really physical crimes but emotional blackmail, deceit and hypocrisy against the characters. These are characteristics that we hate and because of this we do 'feel some indignation' like Johnson, as we can see his truer nature.
Johnson like other readers judge him by the standards set by the Duke and the others in the play and our own governing system of moral and legal justice. We can acknowledge that if Angelo's plan succeeded it would have been evil, but we are unable to see what the Dukes governing of Vienna were like. The Duke himself said that he was in some ways too lenient in his governing of Vienna when he says 'I have seen corruption boil and bubble' and he is referred to as the 'dark Duke' twice by Lucio. I think if we look at this from another perspective we are able to see to a certain degree why he lets Angelo off with just marriage, as perhaps in the Dukes rule he has done worse crimes that Angelo and would see himself as a hypocrite if he condemns Angelo.
What would we the reader have done in the Dukes position, the play itself shows that there is more justice when laws are made with mercy. If we ourselves sentenced Angelo to death as some readers feel that is his right punishment, wouldn't we be compared to Angelo as an absolutist? Seeing things only in black and white unable to see pass the flaws of Angelo, the Duke in some ways see this as he says 'Lord Angelo is precise...scarce confesses, that his blood flows'. Using this quote we perhaps see a different side to the man we view as and a lying self-deceiving fraud, as the Duke shows us Angelo's loss of identity. We are now able to see that he isn't 'a conscious hypocrite rather a man whose chief-faults are self-deception and a pride in his on self-righteousness. So it could be said that the Dukes punishment of marriage is rather the continuation of Angelo's self knowledge about himself that he has learnt through his difficult situations with Isabella and the other characters. Therefore I feel that Angelo's punishment should be and is a reformation instead of a condemnation. Through this perspective again Johnson indignation is noted but dismissed as we the readers don't find Angelo 'spared'.
On the other hand 'Lord Angelo' regardless of his sins is a higher class than the others because of his status as the Dukes deputy. Therefore due to being a member of the elite similarly to the Duke, the Duke it could be said is unable to punish Angelo justly as he cannot see past his status. Evidence of this is that Lucio is slightly punished more than his other counterparts; this could be because of him calling the Duke 'dark' and hinting at his corruption or because of his lower-class. This is basically the never ending battle between the powerful and the powerless; when we look at Angelo punishment with this thought in mind we do feel some 'indignation'. Perhaps this is the real reason why Angelo is 'spared', as Shakespeare enriched 'Measure for Measure' with the political, social and economic concerns of early seventeenth- century England and this idea of the powerful and powerless of society was known and Johnson himself perhaps was aware of it and that is why his response to the play is indignant.
Overall Shakespeare uses a mixture of social and moral context of the play to end it, as the Duke can be seen as both justice and mercy, designed to reform sinners. The play itself leaves us with a truer image of the person we are and what it would be like if we governed society, as if I felt the same indignation that Johnson felt. I would take less notice of the individual such as Angelo and punish him harshly, and by doing this I am becoming him; an absolute. And the fact is that Shakespeare shows us that there is more justice when the law works 'through wisdom and mercy, to reform and not just to punish', as there is an uncertain line between legal justice and moral justice. That also the idea of justice in both the Old and New Testament in the Bible has to be balanced to achieve the ideal justice system we all desire. Thus I don't feel indignation but satisfaction as in some ways I have a balanced judgement and I have also gained self knowledge and understand that judging someone isn't as simple as it looks.
This is the complete article, containing 1,499 words
(approx. 5 pages at 300 words per page).
