In the final trial of Measure for Measure (in Act 5), the Duke as the presiding judge condemns Angelo for the death of Claudio and imposes the death penalty. He summarizes his judicial reasoning when he proclaims (alluding to the name of the play):
The very mercy of the law cries out
Most audible, even from his proper tongue,
"An Angelo for Claudio, death for death."
Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure;
Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure.-- (5.1.463-7).
What kind of argument is he making? Is this a key idea of the Duke's jurisprudence or is he trying to mock it (after all he does pardon Angelo later in the scene)? Does the play make a comment on this kind of judicial reasoning? What is the measure of "measure for measure"?
PROMPTS: What kind of argument is he making? Is this a key idea of the Duke's jurisprudence or is he trying to mock it (after all he does pardon Angelo later in the scene)?
ReplyDeleteIn Act 5 of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, the Duke pushes the concept of “an eye for an eye” as a method of punishment Lord Angelo amidst previous events, but he ultimately uses the situation to demonstrate the absurdity of retribution. Once the Duke returns to the city after being disguised as a friar, he works with Isabella and Mariana to ultimately reveal Lord Angelo’s previous actions and acts of fornication as payment for sparing Isabella’s brother, Claudio. After working to save Claudio due to the harsh punishment of death, the Duke surprisingly exclaims, “’An Angelo for Claudio, death for death.’ / Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure; / Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure.-- (5.1.463-7). The Duke is explaining that due to Lord Angelo unjustly putting Claudio to death, he shall reap what he sowed and also be put to death. After all, the retribution system states that when someone does a crime, a similar punishment shall be given to them. Before that moment, the Duke proclaimed that Lord Angelo and Mariana shall be married, but then says Angelo would be killed. However, through further examination, the Duke was using the moment to mock that specific system of punishment. Earlier, he was working with Isabella and the Provost to make Lord Angelo believe Claudio was killed while instead killing someone else in his place. The Duke (disguised as a friar) originally raises this idea when stating, "Let this / Barnardine be this morning executed and his head / borne to Angelo" (4.2 184-186). Once he used Barnadine in place of Claudio’s execution, he was able to spare Claudio, meaning that he was never killed. Therefore, Lord Angelo’s punishment wouldn’t have been death. Instead, the Duke displays how some severe forms of punishment don’t represent all situations equally, especially in situations where people make mistakes. Claudio had no ill intention and was sentenced to death, and Lord Angelo followed his anger rather than his heart, but both have the capability to be spared. Lord Angelo saw how horrible his actions were once he supposedly about to be put to death, which made him change as a person and see how horrible he once was. Therefore, using mercy and fear as punishment served to display the humanity of everyone involved and allow people the second chance to correct their mistakes.
Justice, defined as to each their due, is most commonly understood as Plato conceived it - a virtue that establishes order in a given society. The Duke's initial claim of "measure still for measure" in the above passage appears to endorse a strict retributive model of justice, focused on deterrence by force as a means of preemptively stopping violations of law. When the Duke leads with "An Angelo for Claudio, death for death" and "Like doth quit like," he seemingly embraces a legal philosophy based on direct equivalence, where punishment perfectly mirrors the crime. Yet, this play is about character development, and his final decision towards the end to pardon Angelo paints a different picture. The Duke's seemingly merciful development to also pardon Claudio and Barnardine reveals the play's underlying message: retributive justice, when applied rigidly, fails to account for moral transformation or the complexities of human judgment. If the law were to function solely on the principle of equivalence, then Angelo's execution would be inevitable. Instead, the Duke extends mercy, demonstrating that justice cannot be reduced to a formula of exact retaliation and that justice can also be the pursuit of improvement. At the very end of the play, he proclaims, "She, Claudio, that you wronged, look you restore.— Joy to you, Mariana.—Love her, Angelo," showing how his investments in improvement have proved fruitful. Humanity and justice are two concepts that are too complex to be inflexible, leading the Duke's rulings to the play's broader critique of legal absolutism and reaffirming that justice must be led with self-awareness and mercy.
ReplyDeleteIn the final trial of Measure for Measure, the Duke sentences Angelo to death for his crime of fornication. The Duke exclaims, “An Angelo for Claudio, death for death…and measure still for measure” (5.1.463-7). After all, Angelo, who condemned Claudio for the same crime of fornication, should have to suffer the same fate. Yet, the Duke does not truly believe in this form of justice. Rather, he is mocking Angelo’s philosophy of an “absolute justice”, where no matter the circumstance, the punishment should always be exercised for the crime. Angelo displays his ideals when sentencing Claudio to death for fornication and denying his sister’s plea for mercy. He explains, “It is the law, not I, condemn your brother. Were he my kinsman, brother, or my son, It should be thus with him. He must die tomorrow” (2.2.105-7). No matter the circumstance, no matter whether the accused was his beloved son or brother, Angelo would punish them with death just as he does Claudio, as death is the punishment for fornication. The Duke has a much less absolute view of justice. Throughout the entire play, we can observe him being lenient. He takes pity on Claudio, and schemes to save his life, even though Claudio truly is guilty of fornication. While the law would say that Claudio must die, the Duke empathizes with him and takes into account the fact that Claudio was basically already married to his wife, he just did not have a dowry. Should Claudio really have to die for that? The Duke’s speech in the final trial, of “death for death” and “measure for measure”, was simply to mock Angelo’s idea of justice which he finds ridiculous, as ultimately the Duke does not falter from his view of justice, and spares Angelo’s life.
ReplyDeleteIn the final trial in Act 5 of "Measure for Measure," the Duke initially uses retributive justice to punish Angelo on the grounds which he sentenced Claudio: death. After his return to the throne, the Duke exposes Angelo for his crimes of fornication and is determined to execute him. He justifies his reasoning using a concept very similar to the popular "Hammurabi's Code," declaring,
ReplyDeleteThe very mercy of the law cries out
Most audible, even from his proper tongue,
"An Angelo for Claudio, death for death."
Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure;
Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure.-- (5.1.463-7).
The Duke argues that it is important to take one's time in making a proper sentence, and that fairness demands equal repayment through retributive justice. Since Angelo sentenced Claudio to death for a crime he too committed, it is only proper that he receive the same punishment. However, despite the Duke's firm stance in a "Measure for Measure" form of judging, he eventually pardons Angelo upon the request of Isabella. While it may appear that the Duke went back on his philosophy, Isabella's begging made his judgement even more justified, since most of the story was a setup, and Claudio never died. Both Claudio and Angelo married the women they slept with as a sentence, which aligns with the Duke's jurisprudence. The Duke highlights the importance of fairness in sentencing in Act 5 of “Measure for Measure,” using his principles to conduct a trial resulting in a fair, but merciful sentence for Angelo.
BEN MIYARES:
ReplyDeleteIn Act 5 of Measure for Measure, the Duke relies heavily on the fabled idea of “Do unto others as doth done to you.” Angelo committed the same crime as Claudio, if not worse, and was going to get away scot free. The Duke, however, knowing all of Angelo’s wrongdoings, chooses to punish him exactly the same way as Angelo punished Claudio. This was, however, astray from his previous actions, as the Duke acted with much empathy and sound reasoning (although we would learn later that his empathy would get the better of him). In doing this, the Duke says, “Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure;
Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure.” (5.1.463-7). The Duke is giving Angelo a taste of his own medicine, as someone who is so rigid on the interpretation of the law shouldn’t be acting so far out of line. This kind of judicial reasoning works in our society because we don’t have such strict laws. That being said, the decisions are still made by an impartial jury based on the facts presented. There were no juries in Vienna at the time, and certainly no impartial ones. Rather, Angelo’s ruling stood above all as the highest court in the land. THe play highlights this as well, because if Shakespeare had just had Angelo put to death, he would prove nothing. The biggest takeaway from this book is far and away that empathy matters–there’s a story behind everything, and by listening and understanding, we can make a more accurate verdict. The play discounts the kinglike operations of Angelo, and instead favors understanding the circumstances (or getting rid of silly laws like fornication in the first place). I think it was a little optimistic for the Duke to immediately assume that Angelo was fit for the real world again–he just committed an incredulous act of hypocrisy and now all he has to do is marry Mariana? Kill them with kindness, I suppose. I think Measure for Measure tells a real story about how criminal justice should be interpreted: more emphasis on the story behind the misgiving instead of viewing the offender as an agent and looking at their life exclusively from a legal standpoint. There’s no benefit to interpreting the law in a harsh way. There’s a reason that they all changed in the first place, and we don’t hear about people being put to death for fornication anymore.
ReplyDeleteI believe the argument the Duke is trying to make is that the law requires Angelo also to be sentenced to death because it would be hypocritical of him to escape free from his crimes while Claudio had to die for the same crime Angelo committed allegedly. However, I also believe the Duke said those things to give the illusion that Claudio really did die to show he is unbiased and is abiding by the law. I believe the Duke is mocking the jurisprudence system because as the text shows, he sets Claudio and Angelo free. He was trying to show that mercy is greater than simply following and accepting the law. I think the play makes a comment on this kind of judicial reasoning in that while abiding by the law is necessary for the functionality of society, showing mercy or pardoning people for some specific crimes is necessary as the law possesses too harsh of a punishment for a crime. The measure of “measure for measure” refers to the idea of justice being served proportionally, where individuals receive punishments or rewards that are "measured" against their actions. In this case, the measure for both Angelo and Claudio was they would be scared of their impending death, but they were both pardoned for their crimes.
I believe the Duke wants every crime to be met with an appropriate punishment; ideally, the same crime they committed shall be their punishment. The Duke does not mock this way of thinking by pardoning Angelo; he was forced to fear death just like Claudio, and the only way to do that is to sentence and pardon Angelo. The only “crime” Angelo actually committed was fornication, so, along with Lucio, they were forced to marry the woman they fornicated with. While Claudio did fornicate with Juliet, he wishes to marry her, so no punishment is needed. No one dies unjustly in this play, so no one is killed for a crime; those who fornicate must marry, and those who tried to kill must fear death. Measure-for-Measure relates to the fact that every crime must be met with an appropriate punishment; the world is better off once that takes effect at the play’s end. The play supports this thinking even if the modern world has different views. “An eye for an eye” is most similar to the phrase “measure for measure,” even though we use the former in a different way. The modern extension of the phrase is “an eye for an eye, and the world goes blind.” This pushes against measure-for-measure style punishment and by looking to end any violence through diplomatic means, rather it comes back to you. However, the play takes a firm stance that every crime must have a punishment of equal severity, no more or less. The measure taken is the measure given, and all will be well in the world, according to Shakespeare.
ReplyDeleteDuring the final trial of Measure for Measure, the Duke sentences Angelo to death, just as Angelo did for Claudio. Because Angelo would have killed Claudio through the judicial system, the Duke believed that Angelo should also be punished by death. This form of conviction and punishment mirrors the crime, "Angelo for Claudio, death for death" (5.1.463-7). The Duke ends up pardoning Angelo, ignoring the death penalty he had just administered. The play begins and ends in a shockingly similar state with the question of punishment fitting the crime. The Duke contradicts his own thinking with the pardoning of Angelo. Originally, giving Angelo the same fate as Claudio was an example of mirroring the crime and punishment. However, pardoning Angelo disproves his point, showing punishment does not have to fit the crime. The Duke’s actions also question if a judge should be merciful or distribute justice. Because of Isabella, the woman he later proposes to, the Duke is merciful towards Angelo shortly after being strict. The Duke often confuses mercy and justice throughout the play, getting Vienna's crimes and punishments back where they started. The play, in its entirety, comments on the differences in judgment between Angelo, Escalus, and the Duke. Angelo judges with only law and a lack of empathy, Escalus has more of a balance between mercy and justice, and the Duke is left with only judgment based on forgiveness. Measure for Measure puts a judicial system on display, exposing its flaws and advising change throughout the scenes.
ReplyDeleteThe Duke is primarily responsible for incorporating balance within the judicial system. The duke is making the argument that just because Angelo is a part of the law, doesn’t mean that we should treat his punishment any differently than Claudio’s punishment. The duke presents the ideology of an eye for an eye and how balance is essential for the development of the judiciary system. This ideology can be seen within the play:
ReplyDeleteThe very mercy of the law cries out
Most audible, even from his proper tongue,
"An Angelo for Claudio, death for death."
Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure;
Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure.-- (5.1.463-7).
Aside from the meaning of the actual excerpt the Duke is later seen mocking these principles after he had pardoned Angelo. This shows how at times the Duke can be seen as hypocritical undertone throughout the play and also shows his manipulative ways which have already been shown by how he changes from the duke to the friar in order to see what would happen when someone like Angelo had the judicial power of Vienna. This raises the question that if we have a manipulative/hypocritical person in charge of government affairs will the government and countries social systems carry out positive or negative outcomes for those affected by the judicial systems. Do we have real world examples of rulers/government officials doing the same in other places/time periods. Ultimately we can see a polarity of tone within the Duke throughout the entire play; from him as a friar to him revealing that he is a duke at the final scene.
I think that the Duke is trying to make a critical moment in the play, which allows for an argument for the true means of justice. In the statement that the Duke had made it had seemed like he was advocate for a more strict, retributive form of justice, where the punishment would match the crime, and whom ever was the punished should have a punishment equal to their crime. "An Angelo for Claudio, death for death." In essence, this argument promotes the idea of "measure for measure" that justice should be proportional, with the wrongdoer's actions determining their punishment. The reasoning for this appears to follow a very traditional set of view of justice, one that is worried about giving the person an punishment that fits the severity of the crime. It reminds me of the principle which is "Eye for an Eye." But as we see in the later parts of the play, this principle doesn't fit every shoe. We see that the Duke is able to pardon Angelo, which is strange because it is like a mockery of the justice system. This contradiction in the Duke's actions raises an important question about the limitations and complexities of the judicial system. Even though the "Measure for Measure" theory comes into play, we can see that justice isn't just rigid or black and white. It requires wisdom, discretion, and, at times, the flexibility to apply mercy. In the play, we see that it critiques the idea of a purely retributive system, suggesting that justice is not simply about applying equal punishment but also involves the ability to forgive and show mercy.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, the Duke carries out his sentencing under the principle that the punishment must fit the crime or as it’s called in the play, “measure still for measure” (2.2.467). Angelo was punishing people through the act of consistency, making sure that every single person got the same sentence for the same crime. In Claudio’s case, that punishment was death for the crime of fornication. However, when the Duke came back, he carried out the punishments in a whole new way, making sure the punishment fits the crime. The Duke shows this in the way he punishes Angelo for his crimes. Angelo asks, “But let my trial be mine own confession. Immediate sentence then and sequent death Is all the grace I beg” (5.1.419-421). Angelo’s thoughts on consistency cause him to feel as the just punishment for him would be death, but the Duke changes it because death does not fit his crime. Angelo never killed Claudio as we find out he’s still alive, so the only punishment he deserves is for the crime of fornication. As he only had premarital sex, his punishment fits his crime and Angelo is forced to marry the person he had premarital sex with. This is also the punishment of Lucio who did the same thing. When he says, “measure still for measure,” Shakespeare is referring to what is now known as “eye for an eye.” By judging things as an eye for an eye, it creates a fairer judging system as opposed to Angelo’s method of making an example through death even for minor crimes.
ReplyDelete