Read 1.2.122-32. This passage encapsulates the moral and legal issues around which the entire play revolves. Arrested and on his way to jail, Claudio claims that he and Julietta—whose pregnancy is “writ” on her body with “character too gross” (i.e. is obvious because she’s far along)—are married, more or less. The language he uses is fuzzy. Julietta “is fast my wife,” Claudio proclaims, and he slept with her “Upon a true contract.” This latter phrase suggests a grey area in the marriage laws current at the time (see your footnote); so it is far from clear that the couple is to be considered legally married. Claudio himself admits as much when he allows that his union with Julietta is based on a private betrothal (the “true contract”) and lacks the public ratification of an official ceremony, what he calls an “outward order” (126).
Why, according to Claudio, has the couple neglected to ratify their marriage vow publicly, and of what Shakespeare play and situation does this remind us?
Duke Vincentio, the magistrate responsible ultimately for enforcing the law, confides in a holy man at 1.3.19-31 that he (the Duke) has neglected to do so for fourteen years. To what does he compare this neglect, and what do you think of the metaphor?
Now, look at the remedy for this neglect that he describes at lines 40-54. What do we think of this, or what do you find most striking about the proposal? One question I have, for example: if the problem has been lax enforcement, why not just start enforcing? Why does the Duke feel the need to bring in Angelo?
Similar to the Court/Tavern and City/green-world alternations of 1 Henry IV and Dream,
this play juxtaposes two social realms, the “legitimate” world of
Viennese law and order, and that world’s seedier underside. (There are in fact
other locations in this play, subsidiary to these, which we’ll deal with as they
arise.) In the other plays, as we have seen, otherwise clear boundaries between
the two worlds are not so rigid as they first appear. Be on the lookout for a
similar erosion in this play.
We are first introduced to Vienna’s sub-altern world, for example, just prior to the Claudio/Julietta appearance discussed earlier. Examine 1.2.76-91, the conversation between Mistress Overdone, the brothel madame, and Pompey, her pimp or “bawd.” Do you see already how one world is leaking into the other? In what sense is this the case? Are there additional ironies or bits of humor on which you wish to comment?
Examine 1.4.1-13, where we are first introduced to the ill-fated Isabella (Claudio’s sister, as it happens) in conversation with Francesca, a nun. What does this brief exchange tell us about Isabella’s character? And what are we to make of the rule described by Francesca at lines 10-13?
Lucio, Claudio’s friend, is there to implore Isabella to intervene for her brother, who is to be executed for his crime of impregnating Julietta. Examine their exchange and either comment on anything you find striking, or ask questions about anything you find odd.
The Duke, you will recall, has appointed Angelo and Escalus as his substitutes whilst he is away (supposedly) on state business. (Note that the Duke disguises himself as a friar to spy on his citizens—the magistrate or state power combined symbolically with the authority of the church). Examine 2.1.1-31, an exchange between Escalus and Angelo that suggests a sort of good-cop/bad-cop scenario. It is obvious by this point that Angelo is zealous for the law, and that Escalus is more moderate. (Indeed, we might see the two deputies as representing conflicting aspects of the Duke’s judicial temperament.) Yes, Angelo is a hypocrite and (as it turns out) a nasty, nasty man. This much is obvious. Yet, in a typically Shakespearean move, what he says here is not entirely (or at least easily dismissed as) without merit—is it?
Escalus challenges Angelo to temper his zeal with humility and empathy—to allow for the possibility that under similar circumstances he might find himself in the same predicament as Claudio. Look at Angelo’s response (17-31). What is his argument, and is it valid?
Scenes two and four of Act 2 develop the central plot in which Isabella, pleading for clemency on Claudio’s behalf, is faced by Angelo with a stark choice: either “Redeem thy brother / By yielding up thy body to my will, / Or else he must not only die the death,” but do so by way of drawn out and “ling’ring sufferance” (2.4.163-67).
In one sense at least, Angelo is nothing if not consistent. In keeping with his answer to Escalus at 2.1.17-31, he tells Isabella that “It is the law, not I, condemn your brother” (2.2.82). Examine the remainder of the exchange between Angelo and Isabella at 2.2.92-167. What are the relative merits of their arguments? Identify specific points in those arguments, both sides, and offer your own judicial assessment.
Examine and comment upon Angelo’s soliloquy at 2.2.167-91. Avoid merely stating the obvious (that he’s an asshole). Concentrate instead on the workings of his psyche, the features of his experience and character that have led him to this moment of shock in which he openly recognizes his capacity for lust.
Now, examine the soliloquy’s continuance at 2.4.1-17, and consider it in light of a passage from the Elizabethan Articles of Religion, where it is said with respect to Holy Communion (or the Eucharist) that those “void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth … the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.” Like this Article (#29), John Calvin’s sacramental theology allowed that only those whom God has chosen receive grace in Communion; the rest, or the “wicked,” are those who “press with the[ir] teeth” rather than “eat with the[ir] heart[s]”—or, in Angelo’s case here, “God in my mouth / As if I did but only chew his name” (4-5). Of which character in which play might Angelo here remind us?
The moral and ethical dilemma faced by Isabella in her second interview with
Angelo (2.4) comes down to the question he poses: “Might there not be a
charity in sin / To save a brother’s life?” In other words, might not
Isabella’s sleeping with Angelo to save Claudio be a good deed because a kind of
charitable self-sacrifice, one of the greatest of Christian virtues? Or put
another way, might not Isabella’s refusing to sleep
with Angelo and thereby forfeit her brother’s life be a sin greater than that of
yielding her “body up to shame” (104)? Examine their debate in its
entirety (2.4.31ff.) and weigh the relative merits of their respective
arguments.
Returning to Vienna’s seedier(?) underside, examine 2.1.44-126. Pompey the bawd and Master Froth have been arrested by Elbow, a police constable, and brought before Angelo and Escalus for judgement. What are their crimes, who is involved, and what are we to make of Elbow’s wife?
Now examine Escalus’ administration of justice at 2.1.171-244. Notice the difference between his treatment of Froth and Pompey. What is the difference, on what is it based, and why does it matter?
Finally, examine in particular the exchange between Escalus and Pompey at 2.1.200-17. This is splendid, no? Comments?