What are the moral debates in Measure for Measure

Measure for Measure, like the period in which it was written, is marked by the juxtaposition of two mismatched ideologies and their related dramatic forms. The play begins as a romantic comedy, but at the end of the second act, both its ideological perspective and its formal structure undergo a ‘metamorphosis’ and from this point on the play proceeds to its conclusion according to the form and ideas of the ‘disguised monarch play’- where the Duke starts to take control of the situation.

There are many different moral debates within the play, which are explored in different ways. Is fornication a bigger crime than killing? ‘ – is the ‘sexual debate’, which also links in with the ‘hypocrisy debate’ of the play. It is an important one because the play evolves around the question – whether or not Isabella should sleep with Angelo. Shakespeare presents us with this overwhelming situation between her and Angelo – Isabella faces a moral uncertainty, where religion stands against fornication: – “Better it were a brother died at once than that a sister, by redeeming him, should die forever. ”

Shakespeare makes this debate interesting to an audience by doing something he has often done before: he does not provide any kind of descriptions of Isabella. Therefore, in theatre and film productions, her character has been interpreted and presented in many different ways. In parts, she appears to be a deeply moral and religious person who not only feels that her religion is her life, but also feels a requirement for introduction of further rules: – “I speak not of desiring more, but rather wishing a more strict restraint upon the sisterhood… ”

However, at other times, considering the fact that she is the focus of the play’s sexual dynamic, she appears to have a rather erotic persona. Isabella uses various sexual metaphors and we can see her repressed sexuality blooming in some of her speeches: – “That is, were I under the terms of death, th’impression of keen whips I’d were as rubies, and strip myself as to a bed that long I have been sick for, ere I’d yield my body up to shame. ” Sometimes, her language seems to be overweighed with sexual meaning and throughout the play, she appears to be a very ambiguous character and it is her charisma that attracts both Angelo and the Duke.

The play is full of notorious contradictions – its characters as well as its moral debates, and frustrated expectations. The ‘power debate’ is very important in the play because it is liked to the debate about justice and morality: Does Angelo symbolize justice and an ideal ruler? Is what Angelo does an example of justice? The way the Duke rules, after abandoning his power and disguising as a friar (Act 1), is he soon begins to take control of the situation in the play (Act 3 onwards) and ‘play God’.

Whereas the way Angelo rules is through hypocrisy, therefore its difficult to establish which ruler out of Angelo and the Duke symbolises the better one. The opposition of ‘Duke opposed to everyone else’ in the play is very significant: the whole play encapsulates this political and generic conflict, when the Duke abandons his power, and hands it over to Angelo. It results in many ideological and formal critical problems, but it also helps us to understand the complex political climate of the early seventeenth century and the play’s role in it.

In 1603-1604, the likely years of Measure for Measure’s was written, England after years of anticipation and anxiety finally saw the accession of its new king: James I. The changeover from Elizabeth to James I was peaceful, and for most people it was something they greeted with enthusiasm coming from a sense of relief. One of James’ acts as a monarch was disguising himself and leaving his throne in order to go and live amongst British citizens. He condemned people to death and then as he would ‘come back’, he would release them and therefore gain great support and reputation.

This is exactly what the Duke has done in the play and it raises a moral debate: is what James I and the Duke have done ethically moral or selfish and egocentric? Shakespeare makes the main plot of the play interesting and stimulating by successfully using the subplot, because that is where most of the comedy takes place. The subplot in a way may be seen as a pantomime: its topical and relevant contents is full of topical puns and full of obvious and visual comedy: – “Thou’rt a three-piled piece, I warrant thee.

I had as life be a list of an English kersey as be piled, as thou art piled, for a French velvet… The subplot represents what was going on in England at the time: Prostitution, brothels, crime, diseases, and people could understand and relate to these moral issues and that is what was so entertaining for Shakespeare’s audience at the time. The main dramatisation effects Shakespeare tried to create, he created using language. Most characters use very dramatically heightened language at some point during the play, Claudio is a very good example of this: – “To bathe in fiery floods, or to reside in thrilling region of thick-ribbed ice, to be imprisoned in the viewless winds and blown with restless violence round about the pendent world… His terrifying vision of death is the consequence of the moral debate on whether or not Angelo is going to execute Claudio.

Dramatisation is also created through the shift between prose and verse. Even though there is no clear ‘class-based’ distinction between the prose and verse speakers, the shift comments on the status and mood of the speakers at the time. Shakespeare tries to raise a number of different topical, moral debates in Measure for Measure through a variety of techniques such as comedy, language, structure, and the using relevant historical influences – king James I.

The importance of understanding the play, especially its moral debate on the theory of judgment, is suggested by the Biblical source of the play’s title: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shal be judged, and with what measure ye mette, it shal be measured to you againe” (Geneva Bible, Matthew 7:1-2). As the other characters see it, Angelo’s legal inflexibility towards Claudio and his romantic insensitivity towards Isabella are linked by his lack of empathy.

In explaining Angelo’s strict application of the law against fornication, Lucio characterizes Angelo as: – “A man whose blood is very snowbroth; one who never feels the wanton stings and motions of the sense… ” (Act 1, scene 4). The way Shakespeare concludes his play would be interesting to the audience because it concludes with a comical ending and leaves us thinking about the generic movement towards marriage at the time, which is connected thematically by the debate on empathy, mercy and justice.