A Critical Commentary of William Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure; Act II, scene IV, Lines 88-119
This section of Measure for Measuresees Angelo’s initial attempt to persuade Isabella to part with her virginity in exchange for her brother’s freedom.He begins by affirming his authority over the matter, he is the one whose “own great place, / Could fetch your brother”(l.5-6), and confirming there is “no other way to save his life”(l.1). This technique, establishing his position of power before revealing his desire, ensures Isabella mustlisten to his request influenced by this knowledge, and hence with the parameters of the situation established. Phrases such as “manacles / Of the all-binding law”(l.6-7) and “No earthly mean to save him, but”(l.8), emphasise and bring focus to both the perilous nature of Claudio’s situation, and Angelo’s hold over it. Moreover, Angelo makes the question hypothetical by saying “But in the loss of question”(l.3), asking whether she would have sex with him should she not be prevented by questioning herself, or by the presence of her morality.This, along with phrasing in the past tense, allows him to circumnavigate the inhibitions – and the contemporary obligation that, as ruler, he must set a cultural tone – which prevents him giving an outright request. Therefore, while Angelo is enticed and attracted to Isabella, he remains weighted by ingrained sensibilities and a fear of how she may use the knowledge of such desires. His use of the phrase “lay down the treasures of your body”(l.9), cleverly attempts to flatter Isabella while morally distancing her from sex, emphasising its physicality. He assumes her objections are going to be moral ones, rather than a lack of physical attraction, and so “your body” implies a possessive object, separate form that which would be judged by God. The use of “treasures” adds an economic context to the argument, but continues with the simplifying and distancing strategy; suggesting Isabel’s virginity for Claudio’s life is a simple economic exchange.
Giving into the very sin for which he has sentenced Claudio to death, Angelo is rebuffed by Isabella, as she would rather her brother die than be freed by such an act. By explaining this through hypothetically trading positions with Claudio, she is able to equate physical pain of torture with the emotional, moral damage of having sex with Angelo. Furthermore, her use of “I”(l.13), “I’d”(l.14) and “myself”(l.15), combats Angelo’s attempts to distance her moral self from her physicality. The idea that she would “wear as rubies”(l.14) the results of a punishment that would protect purity, glorifies her own chaste state and the fate of her brother – who now becomes a sacrifice to ensure her virginity – but also makes her seem naive. The romanticised nature of such language suggests she doesn’t quite comprehend the horror of the torture she is describing. This sense of innocent lack of comprehension is furthered when, in the same argument, she uses such sexualised language as “keen whips”(l.14), “strip”(l.15) and “longing”(l.16). Her chaste, innocent and deeply religious nature should explain such language and romanticising; a future nun she wouldn’t be expected to have an awareness of the sexual connotations of such words. Despite this, it does maintain the sexualised nature of the conversation and emphasise her innocence, a characteristic that had initially attracted Angelo. This allows for the interpretation of Isabella as a woman who is, either intentionally or not, playing on Angelo’s temptation.
Isabella concludes that it would be better Claudio “died at once”(l.20) than she “die for ever”(l.22), meaning face eternal damnation. To this, Angelo argues “Were not you[Isabella] as cruel as the sentence / That you have slandered so?”(l.23-4), suggesting that Isabella is now a contributor to the execution by not taking this only opportunity to sway Angelo. He is again attempting to use logic to overcome her faith, attempting to twist her morality to fit his agenda. Her response is to emphasise the difference between “lawful mercy”(l.26) and “foul redemption”(l.27),addressingthe fact that, in her perception of religious morality, Angelo possesses the capabilities to pardon Claudio, but her purity would be at threat should she use any means other than pleas, prayers and persuasion, to save her brother. Angelo reasserts his power by accusing Isabella of attempting “to make the law a tyrant”(l.28), for which she apologises. This re-establishes Angelo as the man with the power to save her brother, rather than a leader ordering an execution, as referencing the law reasserts his obligation to follow it.
Angelo’s propositioning of Isabella serves to query the religious ethics of the constituency he temporarily rules, Vienna, but also contemporary London. The modern Austrian capital’s lack of cultural relevance to Jacobean audiences, allows for a blank canvas on which to portray the audiences’ home city. The relationship between Angelo and Isabella questions the dominance of religious doctrine over humanistic desires and hedonistic cravings. In this passage, the conflicting objectives of the two characters both seem to be endorsed, to a greater or lesser extent by Luke 6:37. Isabella pleads for “lawful mercy”(l.26), as “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven”(Luke 6:37), meaning he should give mercy in exchange for lenience from God’s judgement. But Angelo can equally justify his position through the biblical reference, as he wishes to be forgiven in exchange for forgiving. He wants to have sex with Isabella, but his difficulty in asking her directly suggests he sees forgiving Claudio as a way to evade moral judgement for his lust. The publication of the King James Bible in 1611, seven years after the play’s initial performance, highlights the growing importance of religious scripture, specifically the need for the public to be given a direct interpretation to follow. This passage, however, highlights the contemporary problems in religious interpretation, especially the conflict between fundamentalism and humanistic nature of temptation.