On Shakespeare's Measure for Measure
Good Shepherds and Bad Shepherds: The Shifting of Political Authority in William Shakespeare's Measure for Measure
In his essay "Power and Reason" Michel Foucault theorized about the evolution of power in Western civilization, saying that the foundation of power has passed from the age of the monarchs, where a centralized power allowed the king to rule over his flock, to the formation of the modern state, where an individualizing power assisted politically appointed officials in ruling the land. In the transition from one from to the other, the authoritative body of the king was gradually replaced through a series of substitutions leading to a transformation of power relationships within the social sphere. This paper shows how Shakespeare uses Measure for Measure to portray a progression of power techniques similar to the theory advanced in Foucault's essay. In this essay, we will look at the differences between the methods used by two law-makers in Vienna; specifically, we will see the Vincentio practices a power oriented towards individuals, while Angelo employs a power that is intended to rule over his citizens in a continual and uniform way.
When the play begins, Duke Vincentio announces his plans to give up his position as Duke of Vienna, appointing a subordinate, Angelo, to take over his duties. As he says to Angelo:
In this passage Vincentio says that, because of the essential noble qualities of his character, Angelo has the ability to preserve the full fabric of history in his being. However, he warns Angelo that as the Duke of Vienna, he can no longer be said to own himself, neither his person nor his property; his life would not be his own, but would be subsumed within the province of the state, as the totalized body of his subjects. With this speech, Vincentio charges Angelo with his duties, and informs him that he will be severely tested in carrying out this task. Since life is such a short, transitory moment, Angelo must reflect the utmost virtue in every action he takes. If he wants the people to believe that he is a man of virtue, then he must display virtue at all times. In an important line, Vincentio speaks of himself and Angelo as one person, using the pronoun 'our' instead of 'your' or 'mine', as one might normally expect. By using this plural pronoun instead of the singular form the reader understands that, like his person and his property, Angelo's consciousness no longer belongs to himself exclusively; this 'our' in the historical consciousness of the king, of which both Vincentio and Angelo share together.
"In thou remove be thou at full ourself," Vincentio says, conflating both men into the figure of the ruler, thereby suggesting an image for Angelo to follow, an image that will lead to the disastrous outcome of his career as duke. In this reading, we see here that Vincentio has set up Angelo for failure. In making this statement Vincentio implies that even after he has departed, his presence still inhabits the position as duke, causing Angelo to see himself as only a substitute for a more authentic ruler who plans to return to his kingdom at an unspecified date. It is now up to Angelo to carry on in Vincentio's name, legislating 'morality and mercy' according to his incomplete understanding of Vincentio's personal moral judgments, rather then remaining authentic by staying true to his own judgment. As we will see, when Angelo assumes the role of the duke, his individuality will quickly be extinguished, suffocated by the intangible yet destructive force of Vincentio's authoritative presence. As a result, he quickly grows obsessive about ensuring the establishment of one of these terms (morality) and, in consequence, ignored his instructions on the need for the other (mercy).
Forseeing such unfavorable circumstances, Angelo confessed his skepticism that Vincentio is making the right choice in picking him over others such as Escalus: "Now, good my lord, / Let there be some test made of my mettle / Before so noble and so great a figure / Be stamped upon me" [I.i.47-50]. Why, then, does Vincentio place such trust in Angelo ? Perhaps one reason why Vincentio believes this man to be fit for the job is because of his strong identification with Angelo. In addition to his use of 'our' in referring to himself and Angelo simultaneously, Vincentio also says: "Your scope is as mine own, / So to enforce or qualify the laws / As to your soul seems good" [I.i.64-66]. This intense identification may help to explain Vincentio's decision for leaving. In the next two lines, he explains that he is disappearing because: "I love the people, / But do not like to stage me to their eyes" [I.i.67-68]. In our reading of the play, we interpret these lines as the pronouncement of a man who has realized that, whereas his authoritative presence was once indispensable in a society that needed a totalized consciousness to serve as its foundation, this form of authority is now obsolete in a world dominated by an expanded and non-totalizable social consciousness. These conjectures are part of a larger theory of how the shifting consciousness of the Elizabethan age affected the conception of political authority, issues that are to be explored in greater depth later in this essay.
This interpretation is in contradiction to the one advanced by Northrop Frye, who believes that Vincentio has departed due to his frustration with the moral decay of his society. As it will be seen, this assumption is exactly the same mistake that Angelo makes. In his first action as duke, Angelo, wanting to be true to the spirit of his predecessor, decides to eliminate the moral disorder of Vienna. He speaks out on the need for the maintenance of the laws, and insists on the use of a high standard for exacting punishment for legal infractions: "We must not make a scarecrow of the law. / Setting it up to fear the birds of prey, / And let it keep one shape, till custom make it / Their perch and not their terror" [II.i.1-4]. Angelo believes that the best form of legal authority is the one that is able to maintain a uniform and consistent practice in any and all circumstances. In the following events, we see that although there are good intentions at the base of his project, by dedicating himself to enforcing the proper sexual conduct of his subjects, Angelo's untenable concept of legislating a standard of morality leads to his ultimate failure as a duke. As a result of his wish to fulfill Vincentio's commands, Angelo has Claudio arrested for having debauched Julietta. Carted off to prison and awaiting execution, Claudio blames himself for his situation. When Lucio asks him how this turn of events has come to pass, Claudio responds:
Here Claudio demonstrates that with the disappearance of the duke's univocal consciousness that had nourished the land, a number of self-imposed restraints develop within the social sphere. In reading this passage, one is immediately struck by a distinct similarity between Angelo and Claudio, for just as Angelo has set out to cleanse society of its pernicious social values that has led to excessive sexual practices, Claudio, too, blames his dire situation on his 'liberty'. Here Shakespeare shows us how, within the consciousness of both men, one seated on a throne and the other locked in a cell, lie deeply entrenched self-repressive mechanisms that develop when the individual is faced with difficult circumstances. Just as Angelo's conception of nobility leads to a prohibition of sexuality, so does Claudio's conception of the social norms leads to his acceptance of a life where his right to freedom is denied.
The difference between Vincentio's and Angelo's methods of running the state my be made more explicit my looking at the good shepherd/bad shepherd opposition. In the same essay mentioned earlier, Foucault derives this opposition from rabbinical commentaries on ancient Hebrew texts such as the Book of Exodus, which critics have long seen in terms of good shepherds versus bad shepherds. As it will be seen, this opposition is a good framework to use in the context of Shakespeare's play, for in Measure we have a good shepherd, Vincentio, who abdicated his throne and leaves a bad shepherd, Angelo, in his stead. Vincentio rules over his land in a fair and just way while Angelo tries to establish his power over the flock by remaining true to what Foucault calls "the letter of the law." The concept of authority is understood differently by Vincentio and Angelo for, while both agree that the good political leader will combat any hostilities to ensure that unity will reign over conflict, the bad shepherd uses his power to enforce a central authority over a dispersed set of individuals, while the good shepherd gathers his people together through the power of his voice alone. As Foucault says, when a good shepherd like Vincentio vanishes, the flock becomes dispersed as a result, for "the existence of the flock is dependent upon his immediate presence and direct action." Only the good shepherd can resolve conflicts, the bad shepherd can only create conflicts, actuating the erosion of laws that enable the good shepherd to endure. In light of these concepts, it is plausible to read Measure as advocating the implementation of a political system led by a sensitive ruler whose view of the law incorporates a pragmatic situational ethics, rather than a tersely sober ruler whose full compliance with the law exacts the proper penalty in all circumstances.
While the good shepherd sees it as his primary sees it as his primary duty to provide "fruitful and abundant nourishment" for his flock, the bad shepherd tries to oversee the development of the flock day by day. The good shepherd always displays kindness, seeing that all of his sheep are well-fed, secure and safe. When commenting on the Book of Exodus, it is an inveterate claim of Hebrew scholars that Yahweh chose Moses to be the savior of his people because when he was a shepherd, Moses left his flock to look after a single lost sheep. Continuing our reading of the play, this seems to be an appropriate analogy for the scene where Isabella pleads with Angelo for her brother's life. When she tests to see whether Angelo is a good, caring shepherd to is willing to show mercy to her brother, a single lost sheep, Angelo's response is not encouraging: "Your brother is a forfeit of the law, / And you but waste your words ... Be you content, fair maid, / It is the law, not, I, condemn your brother" [II.ii.71-72; 80-81]. Seeing that Angelo has decided to remain true to the law and its directives, Isabella asks him to consider whether his own consciousness may harbor a fault similar to Claudio's, and this question stirs up the surrogate duke's anxieties about his own reputation, for reasons we shall discover later on.
Meanwhile Vincentio, disguised as a friar, stands on the margins of the play, giving his thoughts on the shifts in the political landscape he has witnessed: "No might nor greatness in mortality / Can 'censure scape; back-wounding calumny / The whitest virtue strikes. What king so strong / Can tie the gall up in the slanderous tongue ?" [III.ii.74-77]. This speech, which betrays Vincentio's lack of faith in the truthfulness of the political arena, is in direct contrast to his earlier pronouncement on the unimpeachable status of the good shepherd: "No, holy father, throw away that thought, / Believe not that the dribbling dart of love / Can pierce a complete bosom..." [I.iii.1-3]. No longer able to lord over a province where a univocal consciousness promoted the harmonious coexistence of differences, Vincentio states his belief in the total devaluation of morality as there exists no strength--moral, physical or political--that can combat the radical demolition of social values unleashed in the modern world. It is my interpretation that Vincentio has abandoned Vienna because of a fundamental change in the perception of authority developing from a radical shift stemming from a shift in the perspectival appreciation of the self during the European Renaissance. This shifting perception was reflected most immediately in a series of changes in the authoritative basis governing the textual representation of the self within the legal codes of the day. Foucault gives credence to this argument when he says that the shifts in the Elizabethan world-picture incorporated a preponderance of new legal forms that dramatically changed the legal structure of Elizabethan society.
Later in the play, Angelo confronts the mirror of Claudio's crimes when Mariana reveals that, like Claudio and Julietta, they too have been on intimate terms with one another without being married. When the truth of personal history is exposed neither the man who issues the law the man who is condemned by it are unclean. The story of Mariana provides a counterpoint to Angelo's sentencing of Claudio, for each of the two men are revealed to have deferred their weddings, breaking off their engagements due to financial obstacles. Mariana's entrance into the play reveals that, by threatening to have Claudio executed for consummating his love with Julietta, Angelo is being a hypocrite. The major difference is that while Angelo has been empowered by concealing his illegitimate past, Claudio has been criminalized by freely confessing his love. As these two cases mirror each other we see that the law, upon being confronted with two similar states of affairs, has been inconsistent in its application, as these two opposite figures, the authoritarian and the condemned man, are shown to have developed from similar positions of lawlessness. Even more than Claudio's condition, Angelo's unmarried status if the result of what Marilyn Williamson calls "an abridged contract."
Northrop Frye points out that the re-entrance of Vincentio as an important figure is a definitive moment in the play, for here the play breaks in two parts. Now it is Vincentio, the authority wearing a disguise, who arranges the defeat of the supplementary law [NF 148]. When Vincentio returns Angelo begs for death because as a violator of the law, he too must face the same penalty as Claudio - judgment for judgment, measure for measure - yet Vincentio refuses to condemn him to death. Why does he do this ? Remembering that Vincentio represents the good shepherd, let us compare him to another biblical figure - not Moses but Jesus. When the Pharisees admonished Christ for breaking the law by permitting the disciples to harvest grain on the Sabbath, Jesus explained to them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man who was made for the Sabbath [Mark 2: 23-28]. In exactly the same manner, Duke Vincentio returns to explain that the law was made for man, rather than man having been made for the law, as it had been practiced under Angelo's rule. Vincentio says: "If he be like your brother, for his sake / Is he pardoned, and for your lovely sake-- / Give me your hand and say you will be mine-- / He is my brother too" [V.i.86-89]. With Vincentio's return to power, the supplementary law is defeated and the divinity of state reason is restored, as he proves his essential nobility, displaying a Christ-like mercy as the condemned Claudio becomes a free man again. Ever the good shepherd, Vincentrio unites the sexes in marriage by rendering Claudio's love for Juliette legitimate, commanding Angelo to marry Mariana and asking Isabella to be his wife. Having resumed the role as Duke of Vienna once again, Vincentio is the maker of the world, the apotheosis of the good shepherd who, by controlling the production of children and the nourishment of the state, decrees that all men are brothers.
According to Foucault, a second rabbinical commentary says that Moses would send each of his sheep to graze in turn, first the youngest and then the oldestsheep and then, finally, the most elder sheep, who could graze on the crudest grass. Here is an example of how the good shepherd demonstrates his empathy through the "individual attention he pays to each member of the flock" [PR 63]. Like Moses, the good shepherd Vincentio refuses to punish sexual relations between unmarried partners such as Claudio and Julietta; he sees this expression of sexuality as the natural privilege of their youth. Also in the final act, we see what is perhaps the greatest evidence of Vincentio's status of the good shepherd in the pardon he gives to Lucio, for here he demonstrates a particularized individual kindness: "Thy slanders I forgive and therewithal / Remit thy other forfeits" [V.i.314-315]. Through this extension of forgiveness to Lucio, Vincentio proves that like both Moses and Christ, he is the model of the good shepherd, as he cares for each and every member of his 'flock'.
While there are several themes that are shared between Measure and these Hebraic texts, this is not meant to suggest this this conception of authority should be understood as a direct representation of the most effective model of power. This oppositional schematic of good shepherds and bad shepherds serves to illuminate the shifts in the structure of authority in this dramatic work. The major political shift in Measure, Vincentio's abdication and Angelo's succession, also bear correspondence with the Platonic world, which is itself divided into two distinct phase. The first phase, the phase of divine rule, occurs at the beginning of the play, as Vincentio is installed as Duke of Vienna. In this phase a state of harmony permeates the world, as the human flock is led by the deity who exercises his authority through a figure who is his direct representation on earth. Plato calls this phase the era of the genius-shepherd. It is only in the second phase, when the deity disappears, that this natural harmony is inverted. No longer protected by their shepherd, humankind is forced to create their own system or moral and ethical standards; this occurs simultaneously with the creation of a new code of legality. Rather than being subsumed under the power of a divinely appointed king, the right of the individual to exercise his right to liberty becomes embodied in a political constitution.
Although he now occupies that status held by the king, the politician does not use his authority to take on the role of the departed shepherd; rather, he sees as his primary concern the manufacture of a social network strong enough to unite the city. Whereas kingship had originally meant ensuring the maintenance and preservation of "feeding, nursing and breeding offspring," the greater part of political duties is taken up by what Foucault calls "binding." By uniting a range of contradictory rights, perspectives and voices to the best of his ability, the secularized authority weilds its power and forces its edicts on the people in the forms of a set of laws. Under the Platonic model, the royal ruler understood his duty to be to collect the member of his kingdom into a "community" that was able to manifest its solidarity in the form of a univocal consciousness, whereas the politicized ruler has no choice but to affirm the development of a number of divergent acts of consciousness.
Angelo, a political appointee, is not legitimately authorized as a manager of power; he does not have the authentic authority that Vincentio, the true shepherd, does. Angelo carries out his duties without regarding for giving his citizens the encourgement they need to live lives of virtue. As the bad shepherd, his sole concern is with directing his political might so that he might sediment his position as a member of the ruling class. This is a far cry from Vincentio, who not only turns a politically tragic state of affairs into a comic one, but also as the maker of marriages witnesses the regeneration of his society. These ancient texts, says Foucault illustrate that this problem, the sturggle between the one and the many, arose in the earliest phase of Western civilization; indeed, they "span it entirely." While it is appropriate to say that Measure achieves its effects by working between the tensions of mercy and justice, it is not appropriate to suggests that it can be read as either a religious or a political document. Measure should not be read as a dramatization of scriptural passages for, as Frye points out, because religious readings can only highlight structural analogies, they can be deceptive if applied in an overly naive fashion. The other 'vulgar' reading of the play, the reading that puts politics before literature, seeks either to attack or to legitimize the use of the law to promote the establishment of an unequivocal authority. This reading, too, is naive, because it bypasses many important literary aspects of Shakespeare's play. As modern readers of literature, we must see that Shakespeare does not place an emphasis on either the political or the religious reading. Instead, with the insights we have gathered, we see that in abdicating his throne, Vincentio initiates a series of events that appear to be heading for a tragic ending. Only when his authority is concealed with a disguise is he successful at developing a new society based on kindness, participation and love, rather than one based on the fear and threats made by Angelo, a man who wears the disguise of authority.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For the
same way that you judge other, you will be judged, and with that measure you
use, it will be measured to you." - Matthew 7:1-2
"Reason thus with life: If I do lose thee, I do lose a
thing none but fools would keep" - Shakespeare, 1604
"Reason of state: a rule of art enbabling us to
discover how to establish peace and order within the Republic." - Palazzo, 1606
In his essay "Power and Reason" Michel Foucault theorized about the evolution of power in Western civilization, saying that the foundation of power has passed from the age of the monarchs, where a centralized power allowed the king to rule over his flock, to the formation of the modern state, where an individualizing power assisted politically appointed officials in ruling the land. In the transition from one from to the other, the authoritative body of the king was gradually replaced through a series of substitutions leading to a transformation of power relationships within the social sphere. This paper shows how Shakespeare uses Measure for Measure to portray a progression of power techniques similar to the theory advanced in Foucault's essay. In this essay, we will look at the differences between the methods used by two law-makers in Vienna; specifically, we will see the Vincentio practices a power oriented towards individuals, while Angelo employs a power that is intended to rule over his citizens in a continual and uniform way.
When the play begins, Duke Vincentio announces his plans to give up his position as Duke of Vienna, appointing a subordinate, Angelo, to take over his duties. As he says to Angelo:
There is a kind of character in thy life,
That to th' observer doth thy history
Fully unfold. Thyself and thy belongings
Are not thine own proper, they on thee.
Heaven doth with us as we with torches do,
Not light them for themselves; for if thy virtues
Did not go forth of us, 'twere all alike
As if we had them not
...
Hold therefore, Angelo:
In our remove be thou at full ourself.
Mortality and mercy in Vienna
Live in tongue and heart. .... [I.i.27-35; 42-45]
In this passage Vincentio says that, because of the essential noble qualities of his character, Angelo has the ability to preserve the full fabric of history in his being. However, he warns Angelo that as the Duke of Vienna, he can no longer be said to own himself, neither his person nor his property; his life would not be his own, but would be subsumed within the province of the state, as the totalized body of his subjects. With this speech, Vincentio charges Angelo with his duties, and informs him that he will be severely tested in carrying out this task. Since life is such a short, transitory moment, Angelo must reflect the utmost virtue in every action he takes. If he wants the people to believe that he is a man of virtue, then he must display virtue at all times. In an important line, Vincentio speaks of himself and Angelo as one person, using the pronoun 'our' instead of 'your' or 'mine', as one might normally expect. By using this plural pronoun instead of the singular form the reader understands that, like his person and his property, Angelo's consciousness no longer belongs to himself exclusively; this 'our' in the historical consciousness of the king, of which both Vincentio and Angelo share together.
"In thou remove be thou at full ourself," Vincentio says, conflating both men into the figure of the ruler, thereby suggesting an image for Angelo to follow, an image that will lead to the disastrous outcome of his career as duke. In this reading, we see here that Vincentio has set up Angelo for failure. In making this statement Vincentio implies that even after he has departed, his presence still inhabits the position as duke, causing Angelo to see himself as only a substitute for a more authentic ruler who plans to return to his kingdom at an unspecified date. It is now up to Angelo to carry on in Vincentio's name, legislating 'morality and mercy' according to his incomplete understanding of Vincentio's personal moral judgments, rather then remaining authentic by staying true to his own judgment. As we will see, when Angelo assumes the role of the duke, his individuality will quickly be extinguished, suffocated by the intangible yet destructive force of Vincentio's authoritative presence. As a result, he quickly grows obsessive about ensuring the establishment of one of these terms (morality) and, in consequence, ignored his instructions on the need for the other (mercy).
Forseeing such unfavorable circumstances, Angelo confessed his skepticism that Vincentio is making the right choice in picking him over others such as Escalus: "Now, good my lord, / Let there be some test made of my mettle / Before so noble and so great a figure / Be stamped upon me" [I.i.47-50]. Why, then, does Vincentio place such trust in Angelo ? Perhaps one reason why Vincentio believes this man to be fit for the job is because of his strong identification with Angelo. In addition to his use of 'our' in referring to himself and Angelo simultaneously, Vincentio also says: "Your scope is as mine own, / So to enforce or qualify the laws / As to your soul seems good" [I.i.64-66]. This intense identification may help to explain Vincentio's decision for leaving. In the next two lines, he explains that he is disappearing because: "I love the people, / But do not like to stage me to their eyes" [I.i.67-68]. In our reading of the play, we interpret these lines as the pronouncement of a man who has realized that, whereas his authoritative presence was once indispensable in a society that needed a totalized consciousness to serve as its foundation, this form of authority is now obsolete in a world dominated by an expanded and non-totalizable social consciousness. These conjectures are part of a larger theory of how the shifting consciousness of the Elizabethan age affected the conception of political authority, issues that are to be explored in greater depth later in this essay.
This interpretation is in contradiction to the one advanced by Northrop Frye, who believes that Vincentio has departed due to his frustration with the moral decay of his society. As it will be seen, this assumption is exactly the same mistake that Angelo makes. In his first action as duke, Angelo, wanting to be true to the spirit of his predecessor, decides to eliminate the moral disorder of Vienna. He speaks out on the need for the maintenance of the laws, and insists on the use of a high standard for exacting punishment for legal infractions: "We must not make a scarecrow of the law. / Setting it up to fear the birds of prey, / And let it keep one shape, till custom make it / Their perch and not their terror" [II.i.1-4]. Angelo believes that the best form of legal authority is the one that is able to maintain a uniform and consistent practice in any and all circumstances. In the following events, we see that although there are good intentions at the base of his project, by dedicating himself to enforcing the proper sexual conduct of his subjects, Angelo's untenable concept of legislating a standard of morality leads to his ultimate failure as a duke. As a result of his wish to fulfill Vincentio's commands, Angelo has Claudio arrested for having debauched Julietta. Carted off to prison and awaiting execution, Claudio blames himself for his situation. When Lucio asks him how this turn of events has come to pass, Claudio responds:
From too much liberty, Lucio, liberty.
As surfeit is the father of much fast,
So every scope by the immoderate use
Turns to restrain. Our natures do pursue,
Like rates that ravin down their proper bane,
A thirsty evil, and when we drink we die [I.ii.121-125].
Here Claudio demonstrates that with the disappearance of the duke's univocal consciousness that had nourished the land, a number of self-imposed restraints develop within the social sphere. In reading this passage, one is immediately struck by a distinct similarity between Angelo and Claudio, for just as Angelo has set out to cleanse society of its pernicious social values that has led to excessive sexual practices, Claudio, too, blames his dire situation on his 'liberty'. Here Shakespeare shows us how, within the consciousness of both men, one seated on a throne and the other locked in a cell, lie deeply entrenched self-repressive mechanisms that develop when the individual is faced with difficult circumstances. Just as Angelo's conception of nobility leads to a prohibition of sexuality, so does Claudio's conception of the social norms leads to his acceptance of a life where his right to freedom is denied.
The difference between Vincentio's and Angelo's methods of running the state my be made more explicit my looking at the good shepherd/bad shepherd opposition. In the same essay mentioned earlier, Foucault derives this opposition from rabbinical commentaries on ancient Hebrew texts such as the Book of Exodus, which critics have long seen in terms of good shepherds versus bad shepherds. As it will be seen, this opposition is a good framework to use in the context of Shakespeare's play, for in Measure we have a good shepherd, Vincentio, who abdicated his throne and leaves a bad shepherd, Angelo, in his stead. Vincentio rules over his land in a fair and just way while Angelo tries to establish his power over the flock by remaining true to what Foucault calls "the letter of the law." The concept of authority is understood differently by Vincentio and Angelo for, while both agree that the good political leader will combat any hostilities to ensure that unity will reign over conflict, the bad shepherd uses his power to enforce a central authority over a dispersed set of individuals, while the good shepherd gathers his people together through the power of his voice alone. As Foucault says, when a good shepherd like Vincentio vanishes, the flock becomes dispersed as a result, for "the existence of the flock is dependent upon his immediate presence and direct action." Only the good shepherd can resolve conflicts, the bad shepherd can only create conflicts, actuating the erosion of laws that enable the good shepherd to endure. In light of these concepts, it is plausible to read Measure as advocating the implementation of a political system led by a sensitive ruler whose view of the law incorporates a pragmatic situational ethics, rather than a tersely sober ruler whose full compliance with the law exacts the proper penalty in all circumstances.
While the good shepherd sees it as his primary sees it as his primary duty to provide "fruitful and abundant nourishment" for his flock, the bad shepherd tries to oversee the development of the flock day by day. The good shepherd always displays kindness, seeing that all of his sheep are well-fed, secure and safe. When commenting on the Book of Exodus, it is an inveterate claim of Hebrew scholars that Yahweh chose Moses to be the savior of his people because when he was a shepherd, Moses left his flock to look after a single lost sheep. Continuing our reading of the play, this seems to be an appropriate analogy for the scene where Isabella pleads with Angelo for her brother's life. When she tests to see whether Angelo is a good, caring shepherd to is willing to show mercy to her brother, a single lost sheep, Angelo's response is not encouraging: "Your brother is a forfeit of the law, / And you but waste your words ... Be you content, fair maid, / It is the law, not, I, condemn your brother" [II.ii.71-72; 80-81]. Seeing that Angelo has decided to remain true to the law and its directives, Isabella asks him to consider whether his own consciousness may harbor a fault similar to Claudio's, and this question stirs up the surrogate duke's anxieties about his own reputation, for reasons we shall discover later on.
Meanwhile Vincentio, disguised as a friar, stands on the margins of the play, giving his thoughts on the shifts in the political landscape he has witnessed: "No might nor greatness in mortality / Can 'censure scape; back-wounding calumny / The whitest virtue strikes. What king so strong / Can tie the gall up in the slanderous tongue ?" [III.ii.74-77]. This speech, which betrays Vincentio's lack of faith in the truthfulness of the political arena, is in direct contrast to his earlier pronouncement on the unimpeachable status of the good shepherd: "No, holy father, throw away that thought, / Believe not that the dribbling dart of love / Can pierce a complete bosom..." [I.iii.1-3]. No longer able to lord over a province where a univocal consciousness promoted the harmonious coexistence of differences, Vincentio states his belief in the total devaluation of morality as there exists no strength--moral, physical or political--that can combat the radical demolition of social values unleashed in the modern world. It is my interpretation that Vincentio has abandoned Vienna because of a fundamental change in the perception of authority developing from a radical shift stemming from a shift in the perspectival appreciation of the self during the European Renaissance. This shifting perception was reflected most immediately in a series of changes in the authoritative basis governing the textual representation of the self within the legal codes of the day. Foucault gives credence to this argument when he says that the shifts in the Elizabethan world-picture incorporated a preponderance of new legal forms that dramatically changed the legal structure of Elizabethan society.
Later in the play, Angelo confronts the mirror of Claudio's crimes when Mariana reveals that, like Claudio and Julietta, they too have been on intimate terms with one another without being married. When the truth of personal history is exposed neither the man who issues the law the man who is condemned by it are unclean. The story of Mariana provides a counterpoint to Angelo's sentencing of Claudio, for each of the two men are revealed to have deferred their weddings, breaking off their engagements due to financial obstacles. Mariana's entrance into the play reveals that, by threatening to have Claudio executed for consummating his love with Julietta, Angelo is being a hypocrite. The major difference is that while Angelo has been empowered by concealing his illegitimate past, Claudio has been criminalized by freely confessing his love. As these two cases mirror each other we see that the law, upon being confronted with two similar states of affairs, has been inconsistent in its application, as these two opposite figures, the authoritarian and the condemned man, are shown to have developed from similar positions of lawlessness. Even more than Claudio's condition, Angelo's unmarried status if the result of what Marilyn Williamson calls "an abridged contract."
Northrop Frye points out that the re-entrance of Vincentio as an important figure is a definitive moment in the play, for here the play breaks in two parts. Now it is Vincentio, the authority wearing a disguise, who arranges the defeat of the supplementary law [NF 148]. When Vincentio returns Angelo begs for death because as a violator of the law, he too must face the same penalty as Claudio - judgment for judgment, measure for measure - yet Vincentio refuses to condemn him to death. Why does he do this ? Remembering that Vincentio represents the good shepherd, let us compare him to another biblical figure - not Moses but Jesus. When the Pharisees admonished Christ for breaking the law by permitting the disciples to harvest grain on the Sabbath, Jesus explained to them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man who was made for the Sabbath [Mark 2: 23-28]. In exactly the same manner, Duke Vincentio returns to explain that the law was made for man, rather than man having been made for the law, as it had been practiced under Angelo's rule. Vincentio says: "If he be like your brother, for his sake / Is he pardoned, and for your lovely sake-- / Give me your hand and say you will be mine-- / He is my brother too" [V.i.86-89]. With Vincentio's return to power, the supplementary law is defeated and the divinity of state reason is restored, as he proves his essential nobility, displaying a Christ-like mercy as the condemned Claudio becomes a free man again. Ever the good shepherd, Vincentrio unites the sexes in marriage by rendering Claudio's love for Juliette legitimate, commanding Angelo to marry Mariana and asking Isabella to be his wife. Having resumed the role as Duke of Vienna once again, Vincentio is the maker of the world, the apotheosis of the good shepherd who, by controlling the production of children and the nourishment of the state, decrees that all men are brothers.
According to Foucault, a second rabbinical commentary says that Moses would send each of his sheep to graze in turn, first the youngest and then the oldestsheep and then, finally, the most elder sheep, who could graze on the crudest grass. Here is an example of how the good shepherd demonstrates his empathy through the "individual attention he pays to each member of the flock" [PR 63]. Like Moses, the good shepherd Vincentio refuses to punish sexual relations between unmarried partners such as Claudio and Julietta; he sees this expression of sexuality as the natural privilege of their youth. Also in the final act, we see what is perhaps the greatest evidence of Vincentio's status of the good shepherd in the pardon he gives to Lucio, for here he demonstrates a particularized individual kindness: "Thy slanders I forgive and therewithal / Remit thy other forfeits" [V.i.314-315]. Through this extension of forgiveness to Lucio, Vincentio proves that like both Moses and Christ, he is the model of the good shepherd, as he cares for each and every member of his 'flock'.
While there are several themes that are shared between Measure and these Hebraic texts, this is not meant to suggest this this conception of authority should be understood as a direct representation of the most effective model of power. This oppositional schematic of good shepherds and bad shepherds serves to illuminate the shifts in the structure of authority in this dramatic work. The major political shift in Measure, Vincentio's abdication and Angelo's succession, also bear correspondence with the Platonic world, which is itself divided into two distinct phase. The first phase, the phase of divine rule, occurs at the beginning of the play, as Vincentio is installed as Duke of Vienna. In this phase a state of harmony permeates the world, as the human flock is led by the deity who exercises his authority through a figure who is his direct representation on earth. Plato calls this phase the era of the genius-shepherd. It is only in the second phase, when the deity disappears, that this natural harmony is inverted. No longer protected by their shepherd, humankind is forced to create their own system or moral and ethical standards; this occurs simultaneously with the creation of a new code of legality. Rather than being subsumed under the power of a divinely appointed king, the right of the individual to exercise his right to liberty becomes embodied in a political constitution.
Although he now occupies that status held by the king, the politician does not use his authority to take on the role of the departed shepherd; rather, he sees as his primary concern the manufacture of a social network strong enough to unite the city. Whereas kingship had originally meant ensuring the maintenance and preservation of "feeding, nursing and breeding offspring," the greater part of political duties is taken up by what Foucault calls "binding." By uniting a range of contradictory rights, perspectives and voices to the best of his ability, the secularized authority weilds its power and forces its edicts on the people in the forms of a set of laws. Under the Platonic model, the royal ruler understood his duty to be to collect the member of his kingdom into a "community" that was able to manifest its solidarity in the form of a univocal consciousness, whereas the politicized ruler has no choice but to affirm the development of a number of divergent acts of consciousness.
Angelo, a political appointee, is not legitimately authorized as a manager of power; he does not have the authentic authority that Vincentio, the true shepherd, does. Angelo carries out his duties without regarding for giving his citizens the encourgement they need to live lives of virtue. As the bad shepherd, his sole concern is with directing his political might so that he might sediment his position as a member of the ruling class. This is a far cry from Vincentio, who not only turns a politically tragic state of affairs into a comic one, but also as the maker of marriages witnesses the regeneration of his society. These ancient texts, says Foucault illustrate that this problem, the sturggle between the one and the many, arose in the earliest phase of Western civilization; indeed, they "span it entirely." While it is appropriate to say that Measure achieves its effects by working between the tensions of mercy and justice, it is not appropriate to suggests that it can be read as either a religious or a political document. Measure should not be read as a dramatization of scriptural passages for, as Frye points out, because religious readings can only highlight structural analogies, they can be deceptive if applied in an overly naive fashion. The other 'vulgar' reading of the play, the reading that puts politics before literature, seeks either to attack or to legitimize the use of the law to promote the establishment of an unequivocal authority. This reading, too, is naive, because it bypasses many important literary aspects of Shakespeare's play. As modern readers of literature, we must see that Shakespeare does not place an emphasis on either the political or the religious reading. Instead, with the insights we have gathered, we see that in abdicating his throne, Vincentio initiates a series of events that appear to be heading for a tragic ending. Only when his authority is concealed with a disguise is he successful at developing a new society based on kindness, participation and love, rather than one based on the fear and threats made by Angelo, a man who wears the disguise of authority.
posted by Andrew B. Noselli at 2:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home