Lecture 4

Truth and Fiction: Moral Dilemmas in Measure for Measure

(Outside reading for Lecture)
Measure for Measure, Shakespeare (as told by Charles Lamb)
www.bartleby.com/1012/14.html

    Listen to Aristotle as he discusses in his conversational tone the central problem confronting us when it comes to ethical behavior:
 “So it is well said that it is by doing what is just or temperate that a man becomes just or temperate, and no one who is to become good will become good unless he does good things. Yet most men do not do these; instead they resort to merely talking about them, and think they are philosophizing and that by doing so they will become virtuous, thus behaving somewhat like patients who listen to their doctors attentively, but do none of the things they are ordered to do. And just as these patients will not cure their body by behaving in this way, so those who are philosophizing in such manner will not better their soul, for if mere talking could make us virtuous, we would all be better without effort.”
     “No one will become good unless he does good things.” The emphasis is on the word “does.” Ethical behavior is about actions that we take, based upon deliberation over certain ends. This is the very idea that Shakespeare explores in his well-known comedy, Measure for Measure. We all have an idea of how we would behave in a given situation. The person we regard highly would no doubt pass the moral exam when in a real difficult situation. The person we doubt, would fail. But this is exactly what Shakespeare challenges, taking up the words of Aristotle quoted above. Who is really good? Only those who really DO good things, not those who merely talk about them.
     So in this reading, put into plain language by Charles Lamb, you have the most pure Angelo, the Deputy Duke, whom everyone knows is morally pure. It is almost as if the law itself were measured by him, and not him by the law. But has he ever been tested? This character is balanced by the equally pure Isabella. She is not so sure of herself, not so reflective. What we know about her is that she is about to devote her life, both body and soul, to God. She is about to take solemn religious vows and become a nun. When the prioress of the convent tells her that after she takes the vows she cannot speak with a man for the rest of her life, Isabella’s only reply is that the requirement seems too soft.
     We can see what is about to happen here. Angelo in all the austerity of the political law meets Isabella in all the austerity of the religious heart. Neither has been tested before. So what is it that makes Angelo fail the test and Isabella pass? The dilemma is a complex one and very realistically portrayed by the master playwright Shakespeare. Isabella, who is on the eve of giving herself, body and soul, to Christ, must sacrifice her virginity to Angelo in order to save her brother’s life. It is an intriguing dilemma and makes us question our own values. It does no good to reply that we are not in the situation, so we do not really know how we will act. Many studies in moral development suggest that dilemmas help to clarify what we already believe, and what we believe is often what we act upon. To think out an act prior to undertaking it is not only a sign of prudence, one of the ancient virtues, it is also an opportunity to reflect on what we really feel. So we are confronted here with a dilemma.
     No one believes that Angelo is in the right, but there is much debate whether Isabella is or not. She decides that she will not sacrifice her virginity in order to save her brother’s life.
     Initially, we see the dilemma simply as a matter of the relative importance of a human life weighed against a maiden’s virginity. Who would not save the life of a human, much less a family member, if he could by nearly any means? We could even argue that this “evil,” sacrificing one’s virginity is not really her free choice at all, and so all the normal moral judgment we might feel toward a person behaving this way is cancelled. Claudio does not deserve to die; Isabella can save his life by sacrificing something less than her life; Angelo is manipulative and morally wrong. And that is that. But is it so easy?
     Isabella returns to prison to tell her brother what she has decided, except that she is so clear in her heart that she has made the right choice that she does not think about anything her brother Claudio might be thinking. She tells him he must die. We feel the shock and horror at the words and immediately jump to the conclusion that she is cold hearted and unfeeling, that she failed to measure a human life accurately, especially that of her brother’s. But what Shakespeare does here is quite brilliant. He does not let us argue from Claudio’s mere desire to live. Isabella tells him that if she were to lay down her life, she would do it without a moment’s hesitation, and we, the audience, tend to believe her. So what is it she values? She simply asks her brother if he would allow his sister to shame herself forever in order that he live a few more winters. When we hear those words, we feel the sense of honor that ought to accompany a truly morally noble life. Which man would willingly sacrifice his sister’s honor in order to preserve his own life? Who is right here? What would you do? If you had to instruct Isabella what would you tell her? If you had to instruct Claudio what would you tell him? What lesson is Shakespeare teaching us in this play? Remember that in spite of the promise that Angelo made to Isabella to spare her brother’s life, he ordered his death by 5 A.M. the following morning. If she had gone through with it, her brother would have died anyway, and her honor would have been stained, apparently to no avail.
     How should we talk about morals? Can walking through these dilemmas such as the one Shakespeare draws for us help us? Can imagination come to the aid of our characters and help to mold ethical character? These and other questions will be discussed in the next lecture on Dante’s Inferno.

Back to top