Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure 9781472554192, 9781472506214

Citation preview

To KATHLEEN

TILLOTSON

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

I

NDEBTEDNESS f o r h e l p w i t h a b o o k t h a t has been l o n g i n w r i t i n g lends i t s e l f p o o r l y t o formal expression. I h o p e t h a t I have p r o ­ f i t e d b y Professor F. P. W i l s o n ' s advice one h a l f as m u c h as I have v a l u e d i t . T h e m a n y friends w h o s e patience I m u s t have t a x e d b y a p p a r e n t l y inconsequent questions a n d p r o p o s i t i o n s w o u l d ( I surmise) rather g o u n t h a n k e d t h a n be n a m e d here. D e b t s t o p u b l i s h e d w o r k I have o f course a c k n o w l e d g e d i n t h e usual w a y , b y reference i n t e x t o r footnotes; b u t , as I l o o k b a c k o v e r these references, t h e y seem n o t t o t e l l the s t o r y t r u l y . T h e m o s t s t i m u l a t i n g antagonist f o r an a d m i r e r o f Measure for Measure is n o t even n a m e d ; b u t there is n o a r g u i n g w i t h B r i d g e s : y o u b o w t o the magnificence o f his language a n d his aristocratic t e m p e r , a n d t h e n — i f y o u c a n n o t agree—seek another r o a d . Johnson's n a m e , o n the o t h e r h a n d , m a y be t h o u g h t t o o c c u r t o o o f t e n ; b u t t h a t is because I believe t h a t m o d e r n c r i t i c i s m owes m o r e t o his c o m m e n t s o n the p l a y t h a n the critics themselves recognize: sur­ prise a n d petulance are the e m o t i o n s m o s t apparent w h e n r e c o g ­ n i t i o n is inescapable. Besides, v e n e r a t i o n f o r his c r i t i c a l sagacity compels m e t o attend t o w h a t he says, even w h e n I believe h i m t o be i n e r r o r . M a n y objections w i l l be f o u n d l e v e l l e d against the e d i t i o n o f the p l a y i n the N e w C a m b r i d g e Shakespeare. T h e i r a i m m u s t n o t be m i s u n d e r s t o o d . T h e y i m p l y n o w a n t o f r e c o g n i t i o n o f the value o f that b o d y o f w o r k o f w h i c h i t is a part—perhaps, n o t an e n t i r e l y representative p a r t . T h e y are there because this is the e d i t i o n m o s t relevant t o m y a r g u m e n t : the m o s t considerable, the m o s t i n f l u e n ­ t i a l and, i n its h a n d l i n g o f the t e x t , the m o s t radical, o f recent years. A n d m y a i m is t o s h o w that, h o w e v e r l i t t l e I m a y have been able t o c o n t r i b u t e t o the e m e n d a t i o n o f this t e x t , i t is n o t past m e n d i n g , a n d is w e l l w o r t h the l a b o u r . T h e suggestions as t o p a r t i -

viii

PREFACE

cular passages w h i c h I offer i n an A p p e n d i x are designed t o i l l u s ­ trate the n a r r o w m a r g i n b y w h i c h some obscure lines are separated f r o m i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , a n d the insignificance o f some discrepancies. I h a v e t o a c k n o w l e d g e a g r a n t f r o m the L e v e r h u l m e Research Fellowships i n 1945, a n d a t e r m ' s leave o f absence f r o m S o m e r v i l l e College. M.M.L.

A NOTE ON

REFERENCES

ALL quotations f r o m Measure for Measure show the Folio text; all refer­ ences are given to the Globe text. For all other Shakespearian quotations and references the Globe text has been used. W h e r e I refer to any o f Johnson's notes, I give Act-scene reference f r o m his Shakespeare (1765), f o l l o w e d b y Act-scene-line reference to the Globe. For Whetstone's Promos and Cassandra, I have used the edition o f 1578. For t w o other plays, frequently mentioned but seldom quoted— Middleton's Phoenix and Davenant's The Law against Lovers—I have referred the reader to standard modern editions: Bullen's o f Middleton's works, M a i d m e n t and Logan for Davenant's. I n default o f such an edition for a t h i r d play i n like case—Gildon's Measure for Measure, or Beauty the Best Advocate—I have used the quarto o f 1700.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

N

o one, I suppose, has ever read o r seen Measure for Measure w i t h o u t e x p e r i e n c i n g some b e w i l d e r m e n t . E v e n o n first acquaintance, the v a r i e t y o f impressions w h i c h the p l a y generates is d i s q u i e t i n g ; a n d g r a v e r v e x a t i o n awaits the resolute i n q u i r e r . I n t i m a t i o n s o f the play's significance seem t o be p r o f ­ fered, a n d presently d e n i e d ; a character assumes substance, e v e n such density as is t o be f o u n d n o w h e r e else b u t i n Shakespearian t r a g e d y — o n l y t o surrender i t a n d lapse i n t o t w o d i m e n s i o n s . ' I n a great w o r k , ' J o h n s o n says, 'there is a vicissitude o f l u m i n o u s a n d opaque parts, as there is i n the w o r l d a succession o f d a y a n d n i g h t . ' T h o u g h spoken o f M i l t o n , this has a p l a i n b e a r i n g o n Shakespeare a n d the v a r y i n g tension b y w h i c h d r a m a a c c o m m o ­ dates i t s e l f t o h u m a n capacity; b u t i t is p a r t o n l y o f a larger p r o p o ­ s i t i o n : ' I n e v e r y w o r k one p a r t m u s t be f o r the sake o f o t h e r s . ' A r e the parts o f Measure for Measure r e c o g n i z a b l y co-operative? D o t h e y n o t rather appear sometimes t o defeat one another's purpose? I f the reader s h o u l d t u r n f o r e n l i g h t e n m e n t t o the critics, his p e r p l e x i t y w o u l d m e r e l y be increased. N o t o n l y is there d i v e r s i t y o f o p i n i o n ; there is sharp o p p o s i t i o n , so sharp t h a t he m u s t s o m e ­ times m a k e an effort t o assure h i m s e l f t h a t t h e y are speaking a b o u t the same p l a y , f o r the difference is n o t m e r e l y o f degree, n o r does there seem t o be a n y h o p e o f r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . W h a t is he t o t h i n k w h e n t w o m e n o f the stature ( f o r e x a m p l e ) o f R . W . C h a m b e r s a n d Sir E d m u n d C h a m b e r s stand o v e r against o n e another, one m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t the significance a n d t e m p e r o f Measure for Measure are e x p l i c i t l y a n d u n q u e s t i o n i n g l y C h r i s t i a n , the o t h e r t h a t its atmosphere is one o f t h i c k darkness, i l l u m i n a t e d o n l y b y the l i g h t n i n g t h a t strikes a l l h u m a n i t y a l i k e a n d glances even t o ­ w a r d s d i v i n e providence? 1

1

B

Lives of the Poets, ed. G . B . H i l l ( O x f o r d , 1905), i . 187.

2

INTRODUCTION

W h a t effrontery i t t h e n appears t o offer an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this p l a y — w h a t f o l l y , t o a d d y e t another t o the already far t o o m a n y b o o k s o n Shakespeare! W h y a t t e m p t t o s w e l l superfluity, a n d w i t h so s m a l l prospect o f success? T o such questions this b o o k m u s t o f course i t s e l f g i v e the answer; i f an answer c o u l d have been g i v e n m o r e b r i e f l y , the b o o k need n o t have been w r i t t e n . B u t m e r e c i v i l i t y t o the reader asks at least some e x p l a n a t i o n o f the d e v o t i o n o f a w h o l e b o o k t o a single p l a y — a n d a l l the m o r e f o r this reason: a n y b o o k i n v o l v e s partnership b e t w e e n w r i t e r a n d reader, a n d i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r partnership I propose the reader's patience w i l l be r e q u i r e d . N o t o n account o f d i f f i c u l t y : difficult as the p l a y is, w h a t I have t o say is at b o t t o m simple, a n d i t can be said s i m p l y i f i t is said s l o w l y . I t is the reader's consent t o s l o w progress t h a t I r e q u i r e , t o g e t h e r w i t h a suspension o f j u d g e m e n t f o r so l o n g as the case is u n d e r consideration, a n d a resolute effort t o l i g h t e n m e m o r y o f certain associations, a c c o m p a n i m e n t s t o t h e r e a d i n g o f Shake­ speare's plays so h a b i t u a l t h a t t h e i r presence goes u n n o t i c e d . T h e r e are f o r us n o w t w o b i g i m p e d i m e n t s t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g , p a r t i c u ­ l a r l y o f those plays w h i c h m a y be f o r convenience called r o m a n t i c , because t h e y are f o u n d e d o n e x t a n t romances—that is, o n fictitious n a r r a t i v e . O n e o f these i m p e d i m e n t s is so insidious t h a t i t is h a r d t o recognize; the other, so o b v i o u s t h a t i t is h a r d t o take i t seriously. B e t w e e n us a n d E l i z a b e t h a n d r a m a stands a f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the n o v e l w h i c h , b e i n g early f o r m e d a n d l y i n g deep, is s e l d o m t a k e n i n t o conscious r e c k o n i n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t is r o m a n t i c novels w i t h w h i c h w e first b e c o m e acquainted, a n d the E n g l i s h r o m a n t i c n o v e l is d i r e c t l y s p r u n g f r o m the E n g l i s h w a y o f r e a d i n g Shake­ speare. T h u s o u r reactions t o his plays have been insensibly m o d i ­ fied b y those v e r y changes w h i c h are a c o n d i t i o n o f life f o r t h e i r offspring. T h e o t h e r d i f f i c u l t y is l i k e l y t o appear r i d i c u l o u s w h e n first f o r m u l a t e d : w e are possessed o f i n f o r m a t i o n at once t o o f u l l a n d t o o p a r t i a l . These plays, I believe, w e r e m o r e i n t e l l i g i b l e t o those w h o first discovered t h e i r connections a n d o r i g i n s t h a n t h e y are t o us, because the discoverers n o t o n l y f o u n d , b u t c o n t i n u e d t o read, t h e s t u f f o f w h i c h Shakespeare h a d m a d e use in its proper context, 1

Some apology is due for including Scott; but w h o , w i t h i n these islands, w o u l d be better pleased w i t h the t e r m British? 1

3

INTRODUCTION

t h e c o n t e x t f a m i l i a r alike t o d r a m a t i s t a n d audience; t h e y read i t i n those collections ( o r i g i n a l o r translated) i n w h i c h i t was available t o the E l i z a b e t h a n reader. A n d , b y a m i n o r i r o n y o f circumstance, t h e i r discoveries o p e n e d the w a y t o such s c h o l a r l y labours as have d o n e scholarship a sort o f disservice: t o r e p r i n t s o f single tales f r o m those collections, a n d even o f passages f r o m those tales, a n d e x ­ tracts f r o m those passages—all designed t o s m o o t h the reader's w a y t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g . Perhaps i t w o u l d be t o o m u c h t o say t h a t , t h e m o r e o u r convenience is consulted, the m o r e helpless w e b e ­ c o m e — b u t h a r d l y t o o m u c h t o guess that, w h e n w h a t w e i m ­ m e d i a t e l y need has been m a d e available, w e m a y n o t l o o k b e y o n d o r beside i t . W i l l n o t the c a n d i d reader a d m i t t h a t he has h a d , at some instant o r other, t o s h r u g h i m s e l f a w a k e a n d dispel the i l l u ­ sion t h a t Shakespeare f o u n d the stories f o r his plays i n a r o w o f c o m p a c t v o l u m e s labelled Shakespearian sources'? A n d t h e u n ­ h a p p y consequence o f o u r s i t u a t i o n is wasteful d i v i s i o n a m o n g Shakespearian scholars. T h e eager y o u n g researcher seeks m o r e a n d m o r e w i d e l y — a n d , t o t h e u n s y m p a t h e t i c eye, d i s t r a c t e d l y — f o r analogues, versions o f his originals w i t h w h i c h Shakespeare m a y o r m a y n o t have been acquainted; w h i l e t h e established c r i t i c d e v e ­ lops a p r i n c e l y indifference t o a l l such i n q u i r i e s , a l l attempts t o d i g i n the s o i l w h e n c e the plays grew—careless o f f o r m e r c u l t i v a t i o n , o r d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h t h e c r o p . I therefore b e g the reader t o l a y aside b o t h his r e m e m b r a n c e o f a c k n o w l e d g e d sources i n c o n v e ­ n i e n t reprints, a n d i m p a t i e n c e w i t h this d i g g i n g — a t least u n t i l the sod has been t u r n e d afresh a n d the tissue o f r o o t s l a i d bare. I f , i n w h a t I have t o say, I s h o u l d seem t o a t t e n d t o o l i t t l e t o those w h o have t i l l e d this soil before m e , i t w i l l n o t be f o r w a n t o f a t t e n t i o n t o w h a t t h e y have r e p o r t e d . I have listened, f o l l o w e d t h e i r directions, a n d even f o u n d s m a l l objects h i t h e r t o u n n o t i c e d — o n l y t o d o u b t t h e i r significance, a n d w i s h t h a t the n a t u r e o f this sort o f evidence m i g h t be considered afresh. N a m e s o f characters, for e x a m p l e , are surely a v e r y d u b i o u s w a y o f t r a c i n g t h e f o o t ­ steps o f a w r i t e r o f f i c t i o n ' i n o t h e r men's s n o w ' . A n d there is n o t 1

4

2

Malone and Douce, for example, between them o w n e d a b i g p r o p o r t i o n o f those books I shall have occasion to mention; their references often reflect the easy familiarity o f ownership. Arguments based o n the names o f characters i n Measure for Measure have been discounted b y the observation that Shakespeare had already used them elsewhere. 1

2

4

INTRODUCTION

a l w a y s m o r e satisfaction t o be g o t f r o m e n u m e r a t i o n o f s i m i l a r incidents: i t means l i t t l e unless w e can f i n d a w a y o f differentiating b e t w e e n such details as a n y s t o r y - t e l l e r is l i k e l y t o i n t r o d u c e , a m p l i f i c a t i o n s g o v e r n e d b y necessity o r c o n v e n t i o n , a n d such as w i l l h a r d l y present themselves t o his i m a g i n a t i o n unless at another man's p r o m p t i n g . L e t m e illustrate b r i e f l y one p o s s i b i l i t y o f e r r o r . A m o n g s t t h e stories c i t e d b y Gaston Paris as analogues t o Cymbeline, there is one g r o u p o f w h i c h t h e characteristic p a t t e r n m a y be o u t l i n e d t h u s : a w o m a n deals w i t h a d i s h o n o u r a b l e p r o p o s a l (the result o f her h u s ­ band's w a g e r o n her fidelity) b y f e i g n i n g c o m p l i a n c e a n d sending another w o m a n i n her place. Presently, o n a n occasion c o n t r i v e d b y her husband t o b r i n g her t o o p e n shame f o r the i n f i d e l i t y o f w h i c h he n o w believes her g u i l t y , she t u r n s the tables o n h i m a n d o n her adversary, p r o v i n g t h a t i t was n o t she w h o k e p t the assign­ a t i o n ; a n d the o t h e r w o m a n , w h o has 'steaded u p her a p p o i n t ­ m e n t ' , is g i v e n the choice b e t w e e n e x a c t i n g the forfeit due f r o m t h e m a n w h o has w r o n g e d h e r (his l i f e ) , a n d m a r r y i n g h i m . Set t h e i n i t i a l w a g e r aside, a n d this c o u l d be added t o the analogues o f Measure for Measure, b u t w h a t w o u l d i t signify? O n l y the i n e x ­ haustible scope a n d e v e n t u a l f u t i l i t y o f such i n q u i r y , w h i c h , i f pushed b e y o n d the bounds o f c o m m o n sense, m u s t c o n c e r n i t s e l f w i t h c r u d e elements o f n a r r a t i v e possessing, i n c o m m o n w i t h o t h e r l o w f o r m s o f life, the p o w e r o f a p p a r e n t l y effortless increase. I t w o u l d be possible, b y the exercise o f tireless i n g e n u i t y , either t o m a k e i t appear t h a t one o r a n o t h e r o f Shakespeare's r o m a n t i c plays contains w i t h i n i t s e l f a l m o s t e v e r y k n o w n t y p e o f r o m a n t i c i n c i ­ d e n t ; or, t o s h o w t h a t the variants o f a single t y p e o f r o m a n t i c tale, b o l d l y d e p l o y e d , w i l l f u r n i s h incidents f o r a l l o f his r o m a n t i c plays. I believe i t is better t o l a u n c h o u t b e y o n d reach o f soundings t h a n t o f e r r y f o r ever across a n d across these l a n d - l o c k e d waters o f research. 1

For significant resemblances b e t w e e n Shakespeare's plays a n d such stories as he m a y w e l l have k n o w n , w e m u s t t u r n t o charac­ teristics less p a t i e n t o f a r i t h m e t i c . I t is n o t b y dress, o r even feature, 'Le Cycle de la Gageur' {Romania, x x x i i , Paris, 1903). See, further, the ballad version o f this story: C h i l d , English and Scottish Ballads (Boston and N e w Y o r k , 1882), v . 268. 1

INTRODUCTION

5

t h a t w e recognize a n acquaintance, b u t b y b u i l d , carriage a n d g a i t . A n d i t is f o r the e q u i v a l e n t o f b u i l d , carriage a n d gait t h a t w e m u s t l o o k , w h e n w o r k s o f i m a g i n a t i o n are t o be c o m p a r e d together. I w i l l n o t say t h a t c e r t a i n t y lies this w a y . T h e impressions o n w h i c h this sort o f r e c o g n i t i o n depends, h o w e v e r l i v e l y t h e y m a y be t o the apprehension, r e m a i n v e r y h a r d t o analyse; and, at the last, interchange o f o p i n i o n s o n the m a t t e r w i l l be baffled b y a residue o f such c o n v i c t i o n as springs f r o m n o t h i n g m o r e c o m m u n i c a b l e , n o r less personal, t h a n taste. B u t t h e d i f f i c u l t y is n o t w i l f u l l y sought; i t is i n h e r e n t i n l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . T h i s , t h e n , is w h a t I propose: t o use a m a n n e r as near n a r r a t i v e as the m a t t e r w i l l a l l o w — t o m o v e towards the p l a y t h r o u g h a suc­ cession o f possible sources a n d analogues, ' i l l u s t r a t i o n s ' , as t h e y used t o be called; t o m a i n t a i n a n u n h u r r i e d m o t i o n alongside i t , a n d h o p e t o recapture s o m e t h i n g o f the i m p r e s s i o n i t m a y have left o n the m i n d s o f t h a t first audience, w h i c h saw a n d heard w i t h o u t k n o w i n g w h a t was t o c o m e : undistracted b y o u r k n o w l e d g e o f the play's o u t c o m e o r its sequel, o f the w a y i n w h i c h Shakespeare was t o c o n c l u d e i t , o r the w a y i n w h i c h he was t o w r i t e w h e n i t was c o n c l u d e d .

I ILLUSTRATIONS ' I scarcely remember ever to have looked i n t o a b o o k o f the age o f Queen Elizabeth, i n w h i c h I d i d n o t find somewhat that tended to t h r o w a l i g h t o n these plays.' (Malone, Preface to his edition o f Shakespeare)

T

HE s t o r y o f a w o m a n c o m p e l l e d t o treat f o r t h e life o f a c o n ­ d e m n e d m a n seems t o be widespread, a n d various i n f o r m . T h e earliest o f those f o r m s b e a r i n g a n y resemblance t o t h e p l o t o f Measure for Measure w h i c h has c o m e t o n o t i c e is the anec­ d o t e o f A c y n d i n u s g o v e r n o r o f A n t i o c h , as i t is related i n St. A u g u s ­ tine's treatise De Sermone Domini in Monte Secundum Matthaeum. H e r e is the gist o f i t : a m a n o f A n t i o c h b e i n g unable t o p a y the a m o u n t o f t a x due f r o m h i m is threatened w i t h death b y A c y n ­ dinus. I n this strait he a l l o w s his w i f e t o sell herself t o a f o r m e r suitor f o r the s u m r e q u i r e d . T h i s m a n defrauds his v i c t i m , d e l i v e r ­ i n g t o her i n p a y m e n t a bag w h i c h contains n o t g o l d b u t d i r t . She, i n the bitterness o f d i s c o v e r i n g h o w she has been used, tells a l l . A c y n d i n u s is shocked i n t o r e c o g n i z i n g his o w n share o f responsi­ b i l i t y f o r w h a t has happened, and, i n a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f exces­ sive severity, h i m s e l f pays the t a x ; he m o r e o v e r c o n d e m n s t h e false suitor t o m a k e o v e r t o the w o m a n the p l o t o f g r o u n d f r o m w h i c h her b a g was filled. A l t h o u g h this i l l u s t r a t i o n o f a p r o b l e m i n c o n d u c t was v e r y l i k e l y k n o w n t o Shakespeare's g e n e r a t i o n ( D o n n e refers t o i t i n Biathanatos, a n d i t w o u l d agree w i t h c o n t e m p o r a r y taste f o r Liber Primus caput x v i . (Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Paris, 1861, x x x i v . 1254.) That Douce k n e w o f this, the manuscript note i n the Bodleian copy o f his Illustrations of Shakespeare (1807) witnesses, though the spelling o f the name sug­ gests that he may not have traced the story further back than Bayle. Biathanatos (1648), p . 127.1 owe this reference to Miss Helen Gardner. For an examination o f this fashion in paradox and problem, see W i l l a r d Farnham, Shake­ speare's Tragic Frontier (University o f California Press, 1950), i n w h i c h it is conjec­ tured that Biathanatos may have been written 'at some time between 1606 and 1609*. 1

2

1

2

ILLUSTRATIONS

7

f o r m a l p a r a d o x ) , y e t n o c o n n e c t i o n appears b e t w e e n this v e r s i o n o f the s t o r y a n d the p l a i n , b r u t a l a n d calamitous tale w h i c h became c u r r e n t i n E u r o p e a b o u t the m i d d l e o f the s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y . A m a n lies i n p r i s o n , at another's m e r c y — t h a t other, sometimes his superior officer, m o r e o f t e n a j u d g e o r magistrate, always a r e p r e ­ sentative o f c o n s t i t u t e d a u t h o r i t y . T h e prisoner's w i f e intercedes w i t h the j u d g e , w h o , c o v e t i n g her, proposes t o her a m o n s t r o u s w a y o f r a n s o m i n g her husband: i f she w i l l l i e w i t h h i m one n i g h t , his prisoner shall be d e l i v e r e d t o her. U n w i l l i n g l y she c o m p l i e s , a n d keeps h e r a p p o i n t m e n t ; b u t the j u d g e has treacherously o r ­ dained t h a t n i g h t f o r the e x e c u t i o n , a n d i n the m o r n i n g her h u s ­ band's b o d y is d e l i v e r e d t o her. W i t h n o t h i n g n o w t o lose, past fear a n d past shame, she appeals t o some h i g h e r a u t h o r i t y — t h e captain o r g o v e r n o r u n d e r w h o m her oppressor serves—for r e ­ dress, a n d obtains sentence against h i m . H e is t o m a r r y her, i n r e p a r a t i o n f o r the v i o l a t i o n o f her person, a n d t o lose his life, f o r the v i o l a t i o n o f his f a i t h t o her. I t m a y be c o n v e n i e n t i n r e f e r r i n g back t o this s t o r y - p a t t e r n t o call i t the story of the monstrous ransom. A l r e a d y at the b e g i n n i n g o f the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , D o u c e c o u l d instance a n u m b e r o f versions o f this tale. E a r l y i n this c e n ­ t u r y , L o u i s A l b r e c h t l a b o u r e d exhaustively i n the same f i e l d , c l a i m i n g i m p o r t a n c e f o r y e t another v e r s i o n . Presently, M r . F . E . B u d d increased the n u m b e r w i t h a m a j o r c l a i m a n t o f his o w n d i s ­ c o v e r y , a n d some m i n o r analogies, g i v i n g besides a fuller a c c o u n t o f the d i v e r s i t y a m o n g these versions. T h e i r n u m b e r is already f o r m i d a b l e , a n d m a y y e t increase; b u t d i s t i n c t i o n is possible: t h e degree o f relevance varies. P o p u l a r o r t r a d i t i o n a l versions can d o l i t t l e m o r e t h a n repeat the p a t t e r n ; t h o u g h t h e y m a y a m p l i f y , t h e y w i l l h a r d l y d e v e l o p ; a n d t h o u g h the circumstances m a y alter (the prisoner b e i n g n o w a malefactor, n o w a v i c t i m , a n d the j u d g e m o r e , o r less, culpable a c c o r d i n g l y ) the t h e m e remains constant: a representation o f w r o n g - d o i n g a n d r e t r i b u t i o n , o f p o w e r e x e r t e d t o the u t m o s t against weakness, a n d weakness at the last g a t h e r i n g 1

2

Neue Untersuchungen zu Shakespeares' Massfiir Mass* (Berlin, 1914). I n t w o articles: 'Rouillet's Philanira and Whetstone's Promos and Cassandra* {Review of English Studies, January 1930); and 'Material for a Study o f the Sources o f Shakespeare's Measure for Measure' {Revue de Litterature Comparee, October 1931). See also books and articles enumerated i n 'Epitia' and 'Measure for Measure\ b y R. H . Ball (University o f Colorado Studies, Series B , v o l . 2,1945). 1

2

8

ILLUSTRATIONS

i t s e l f u p t o appeal b e y o n d p o w e r t o a u t h o r i t y . L i t e r a r y versions, o n the o t h e r h a n d , w i l l bear the stamp o f the i n d i v i d u a l i m a g i n a ­ t i o n : a c c o r d i n g t o each w r i t e r ' s v i s i o n the s i t u a t i o n w i l l be d e v e ­ l o p e d ; a n d a c c o r d i n g t o the measure o f his p o w e r the b u r d e n w h i c h the tale carried f o r h i m w i l l be c o m m u n i c a t e d t o us. I t is these l i t e r a r y versions w h i c h s h o u l d d e t a i n us. I f w e consider the significant versions o f this s t o r y i n o r d e r o f p u b l i c a t i o n (so far as this can be ascertained), the first w i l l be the Philanira o f C l a u d i u s R o i l l e t u s , M r . B u d d ' s n o t a b l e d i s c o v e r y . R o i l l e t u s , P r i n c i p a l o f the C o l l e g e de B o u r g o g n e , flourished i n Paris i n the m i d - s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y . H e p u b l i s h e d i n 1556 a v o l u m e o f miscellaneous verse, Varia Poemata, c o n t a i n i n g , t o g e t h e r w i t h some f o r m a l dialogues, epigrams a n d epithalamies, f o u r plays. T h r e e o f these are o n religious subjects; a l l m a y be described as neo-classical i n f o r m , t h o u g h t h e y d o n o t observe s t r i c t l y e v e r y c o n v e n t i o n o f this k i n d . Philanira—perhaps, because its t h e m e is neither s c r i p t u r a l n o r legendary—is g u a r d e d b y a b r i e f prose p r e ­ face a n d e x p o u n d e d i n a n A r g u m e n t . A F r e n c h v e r s i o n o f i t a p ­ peared i n 1563, a n d again i n 1577; this is a t t r i b u t e d t o R o i l l e t u s h i m s e l f , t h o u g h he seems n o t t o have a c k n o w l e d g e d i t . M r . B u d d ' s case f o r the significance o f Philanira m a y be s u m m e d u p i n these t e r m s : i t is a r o m a n t i c p l a y , a n d , as such, t o be regarded as f o r e r u n n e r a n d m o d e l f o r E l i z a b e t h a n dramatists. T h i s p o s i t i o n is o p e n t o challenge. A n i r r e g u l a r l y f o r m e d classical p l a y does n o t g r o w r o m a n t i c — a n y m o r e t h a n a n o d d l y shaped apple w i l l g r o w i n t o a pear. A dramatist does n o t w r i t e a r o m a n t i c p l a y b y stretch­ i n g o r b r e a k i n g a f e w o f the c o n v e n t i o n s observed b y ancient dramatists, o r a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m b y renaissance admirers. W h a t R o i l l e t u s , i n his preface, pleads w i t h m o d e s t y a n d spirit is the r i g h t t o deviate f r o m the precepts o f H o r a c e , the practice o f Seneca, as he t h i n k s fit, a n d occasion requires. W h a t he is d o i n g is w h a t a l l b u t the strictest neo-classicists w e r e d o i n g , each i n his o w n w a y ; b u t , as a scholar, he k n o w s w h a t he is about, a n d says so. 1

2

3

4

Philanira m a y be l i k e n e d t o a g r o u p o f b a r o q u e statuary—figures See, i n particular, his earlier article (Review of English Studies, January 1930), to w h i c h I am indebted for much information. Claude Roillet, or Rouillet. Paris. See Les Bibliotheques Frangoises de la Croix du Maine et de du Verdier Sieur de Vamprisius, ed. Roley de Juvigny, 1772. 1

2

4

3

ILLUSTRATIONS

9

frozen i n attitudes o f extravagant a n i m a t i o n . T h e r h e t o r i c is h i g h l y w r o u g h t a n d d e c l a m a t o r y ; the e m o t i o n a l t o n e h i g h p i t c h e d ; b u t n o t h i n g m o v e s . T h e s t o r y f o l l o w s the course I have described, w i t h this sole a d d i t i o n ; w h e n sentence has been g i v e n o n the unjust j u d g e , his v i c t i m (Philanira) pleads v e h e m e n t l y f o r his life, and, f a i l i n g , p r o c l a i m s herself inconsolable a n d threatens suicide. T h e a m p l i f i c a t i o n s are a l l such as c o n t e m p o r a r y d r a m a t i c c o n v e n t i o n m i g h t suggest: a c o n f i d a n t f o r the j u d g e , another f o r the r u l e r ; t w o s y m p a t h e t i c handmaidens a n d three w a i l i n g c h i l ­ d r e n f o r P h i l a n i r a ; a messenger, a n d a C h o r u s p r o m p t t o say w h a t the occasion demands. A l t h o u g h there is a t i m e - i n t e r v a l (the fatal n i g h t ) , there is n o i n d i c a t i o n o f change o f scene, a n d change o f interest is deliberately a v o i d e d : the a c t i o n is single a n d the t o n e unvaried. T h e influence o f Philanira c a n n o t be measured u n t i l its successors have been surveyed. T h e first o f t h e m appears i n t h a t f o r m so attractive t o E l i z a b e t h a n dramatists: the I t a l i a n novella. T h e f i f t h tale o f the e i g h t h d a y o f G i r a l d i C i n t h i o ' s Hecatommithi tells, w i t h b o l d variations, the tale o f the m o n s t r o u s r a n s o m , a n d has gener­ a l l y been a c k n o w l e d g e d a p r i n c i p a l source, d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , o f Measure for Measure. T h e degree o f indebtedness is indeed n o t i n d o u b t , b u t the nature o f the relationship asks fresh consideration. G i o v a n n i Battista G i r a l d i C i n t h i o , a g e n t l e m a n o f Ferrara— a d m i n i s t r a t o r , scholar and m a n o f letters—spent his m o r e p r o s ­ perous years u n d e r the p a t r o n a g e o f the d u c a l house o f Ferrara. T h i s p e r i o d d r e w t o a close i n 1560. H i s enemies t o o k , as he t h o u g h t , advantage o f the death o f his p a r t i c u l a r p a t r o n , D u k e H e r c o l e , a n d forestalled h i m i n the f a v o u r o f the n e w d u k e , A l f o n s o . Estrangement d r o v e h i m t o seek p r o t e c t i o n elsewhere. Established u n d e r the p a t r o n a g e o f the house o f Savoy, he p u b ­ lished i n 1565 the c o l l e c t i o n o f tales o n w h i c h he h a d been engaged since 1528: the Hecatommithi, f r a m e d o n the m o d e l o f Boccaccio's Decameron. T h e setting is a v o y a g e . I n a distressful t i m e , a p a r t y o f fugitives f r o m R o m e makes a leisurely progress b y w a t e r , occasion1

2

See Louis Berthe de Besaucele, J - B . Giraldi, Etude sur VEvolution des Theories Litter aires en Italie au XVIe Siecle (Paris, 1920). Degli Hecatommithi di M. Giovanbattista Giraldi Cinthio (Mondovi, 1565). M y references are to the second edition (Venice, 1566). 1

2

10

ILLUSTRATIONS

a l l y resting a n d h o l d i n g a session, i n w h i c h the disputants are sup­ posed t o illustrate w i t h tales t h e i r estimates o f h u m a n relationships. Sometimes these tales are closely connected w i t h the t h e m e o f the d a y ; sometimes t h a t t h e m e is so f r a m e d t h a t a s t o r y o f m e n a n d w o m e n can h a r d l y miss i l l u s t r a t i n g i t ; sometimes the c o n n e c t i o n is tenuous. W e i g h t is l e n t b y three substantial Dialoghi della vita Civile. T h e p r e v a i l i n g t o n e is g r a v e r t h a n t h a t o f the Decameron; there are, indeed, some tales o f m e r e i n t r i g u e a n d adventure, b u t there is l i t t l e h u m o u r , a n d the a u t h o r seems happiest w h e n he is engaged i n j u s t such r o m a n t i c n a r r a t i v e as m i g h t furnish a p l o t f o r t r a g i - c o m e d y — a f o r m w h i c h he h a d a r d e n t l y defended i n his Discorsi. I n his t r e a t m e n t o f this tale, G i r a l d i ' s m o s t n o t a b l e i n n o v a t i o n — t h a t f r o m w h i c h the rest seem t o f o l l o w — i s the change i n t h e r e l a ­ t i o n s h i p o f the v i c t i m s : husband a n d w i f e t o b r o t h e r a n d sister, V i c o a n d E p i t i a . T h e tale is offered as a n i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the t h e m e w h i c h governs the e i g h t h day's discourse, i n g r a t i t u d e . S t i r r e d b y a f o r e g o i n g account o f benevolence i l l r e w a r d e d , some o f the c o m ­ p a n y w o n d e r t h a t G o d a l l o w s such w r o n g - d o e r s t o l i v e ; b u t t h e m o r e experienced c o n c l u d e t h a t he ' a l l o w s the w i c k e d t o c o n t i n u e a m o n g the g o o d , i n o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y serve as a p e r p e t u a l exer­ cise o f the others' v i r t u e , a n d as i t w e r e a spur, t o m a k e t h e m resort t o h i m ' . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t is a r g u e d t h a t magistrates, w h o are G o d ' s deputies i n this w o r l d , o u g h t t o p u n i s h i n g r a t i t u d e as severely as t h e y w o u l d crimes o f w h i c h the l a w takes cognizance, h o m i c i d e , a d u l t e r y , theft. T h e tale o f E p i t i a is t o l d t o s h o w h o w such an act o f i n g r a t i t u d e was p u n i s h e d b y a r u l e r w h o thus p e r f o r m e d his p r o p e r f u n c t i o n — o r w o u l d have been punished, b u t f o r the signal generosity o f the v i c t i m . F r o m the outset, a s l i g h t b u t d i s t i n c t emphasis is l a i d o n the r e l a ­ t i o n o f this r u l e r (the E m p e r o r M a x i m i a n ) t o the d e p u t y w h o m he appoints, i n his o r d i n a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e course, t o g o v e r n I n n s ­ b r u c k : Juriste. M a x i m i a n w a r n s h i m o f the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t he 1

2

3

Venice, 1554. The name appears as Vieo i n several early editions: viz., 1565,1566,1584. B o t h Vico and Vieo occur i n 1608. The correct f o r m must be Vico; moreover, this is the f o r m i n Giraldi's play; see below. The w o r d had then a w i d e r sense: ill-doing o f w h i c h the guilt is heightened b y breach o f obligation. 1 2

3

ILLUSTRATIONS

II

w i l l i n c u r b y accepting office, b u t he lacks s e l f - k n o w l e d g e a n d is t o o m u c h elated w i t h the prospect o f a d v a n c e m e n t t o e x a m i n e himself. Such i n d i v i d u a l traits as he is a l l o w e d are those o f a cus­ t o m a r i l y u p r i g h t m a n w i t h unsuspected springs o f headstrong, unreflective greed. T h e c u l p r i t , V i c o , l i k e w i s e headstrong, is a m e r e b o y . H i s offence is rape. H i s sister, E p i t i a , t w o years t h e elder, has shared w i t h h i m t h e i n s t r u c t i o n o f an o l d p h i l o s o p h e r , a n d is clearly the m o r e resolute spirit. I n her a p p r o a c h t o the j u d g e , she relies o n a r g u m e n t : her b r o t h e r ' s offence has d o n e n o i n j u r y b e y o n d w h a t he can a n d w i l l repair, a n d therefore, h o w e v e r t h e l a w m a y r e g a r d i t , is i n e q u i t y capable o f p a r d o n ; i t is, m o r e o v e r , a magistrate's f u n c t i o n thus t o d i s c r i m i n a t e a n d g i v e sentence a c c o r d i n g l y . Juriste, h o w e v e r , i n t e n d i n g i l l , promises t o p o n d e r her a r g u m e n t a n d enjoins her presently t o r e t u r n . W h e n she comes again f o r a decision, he c o n f r o n t s her w i t h his m o n s t r o u s p r o ­ posal, h i n t i n g t h a t he m a y perhaps m a k e her his w i f e . V i c o , w h e n he learns o f these terms, entreats his sister t o r a n s o m h i m , a r g u i n g t h a t m a r r i a g e w i l l repair the w r o n g . U p o n this s t i p u l a t i o n she sur­ renders, b u t is b e t r a y e d ; i n t h e m o r n i n g , her b r o t h e r ' s b o d y is d e l i v e r e d t o her, w i t h t h e severed head l a i d at t h e feet. E p i t i a , as one ' i n s t r u c t e d i n p h i l o s o p h y ' , conceals g r i e f a n d anger and, after c o n s i d e r i n g a n d r e j e c t i n g a p r o j e c t o f assassination, resolutely sets o u t alone i n search o f the absent E m p e r o r , a n d f i n d i n g h i m at V i l l a c o tells h i m her w h o l e tale. F r o m this p o i n t t o t h e close M a x i m i a n is present a n d active, b u t i t is E p i t i a w h o determines the course o f the a c t i o n . W h e n the E m p e r o r has c o n f r o n t e d Juriste w i t h his v i c t i m , a n d w h e n she has silenced his legalistic q u i b b l i n g a n d c o n v i c t e d h i m o f g u i l t , t h e f o r c e d m a r r i a g e is decreed, a n d E p i t i a sent a w a y t h a t t h e second p a r t o f the sentence m a y be p r o ­ n o u n c e d i n her absence. B u t she, l e a r n i n g o f i t , reasons w i t h herself as t o the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n vengeance a n d j u s t i c e , and, r e t u r n i n g t o the E m p e r o r , re-opens the case. She is s o m e t h i n g o f a d o c t r i n ­ aire, a n d s o m e t h i n g o f a r h e t o r i c i a n ( n o t i n f r e q u e n t a c c o m p a n i ­ ments o f h e r o i c v i r t u e a m o n g G i r a l d i ' s characters), b u t she praises m e r c y n o b l y a n d the E m p e r o r is m o v e d b y her m a g n a n i m i t y , a n d a l l o w s her plea. W e are t o l d t h a t E p i t i a a n d Juriste l i v e d h a p p i l y together. T h e Hecatommithi

has n o t as a w h o l e been translated i n t o E n g -

12

ILLUSTRATIONS

lish. A f e w o f the tales appeared severally i n E l i z a b e t h a n c o l l e c ­ t i o n s , b u t n o t (so far as is k n o w n ) this tale o f E p i t i a . I t was t o be read o n l y i n the c o m p l e t e Hecatommithi i n I t a l i a n o r i n F r e n c h . A F r e n c h t r a n s l a t i o n was m a d e b y G a b r i e l C h a p p u y s , a m a n o f letters a n d translator o f w i d e repute, a n d appeared i n t w o v o l u m e s , t h e tales o f t h e first five days i n 1583, the rest i n 1584, u n d e r t h e t i t l e : Cent Excellentes Nouvelles de M. Jean Baptiste Giraldy Cynthien. T h e three dialogues h a d m e a n w h i l e appeared separately i n 1583, the F r e n c h a n d I t a l i a n side b y side: Dialogues Philosophiques et tres-utiles Italiens-Francois, touchant la vie Civile? T h e tale o f E p i t i a seems n o t t o have been translated i n t o E n g l i s h before the eighteenth century. T h i s s t o r y G i r a l d i fashioned afresh as a p l a y . T h e date c a n n o t be ascertained, b u t i t is generally considered late w o r k , a n d m a y have been w r i t t e n n o t l o n g before his death i n 1573. I t has been c l a i m e d as a l i k e l y source f o r E l i z a b e t h a n versions. T r u e , i t deviates f r o m G i r a l d i ' s tale i n t h a t v e r y d i r e c t i o n w h i c h was presently t o be t a k e n b y W h e t s t o n e a n d Shakespeare; b u t against this m u s t be set its u n p o p u l a r f o r m a n d its inaccessibility: i t was u n l i k e l y t o please, a n d h a r d t o c o m e b y . G i r a l d i ' s stage is c r o w d e d w i t h figures, b u t n o t as the p o p u l a r E l i z a b e t h a n stage is c r o w d e d : there is n o stir o f life, n o r e f l e c t i o n o f the m a n y - c o l o u r e d h u m a n scene; there is n o t even bustle. T h e t h r o n g is c o m p o s e d o f intermediaries, b y w h o m e v e r y t h i n g is transacted, w i t h o u t w h o m the principals can n e i t h e r resolve n o r act. E v e n Juriste has n o m o t i o n o f his o w n : he is a p u p p e t i n the hands o f another character—one w h o exists o n l y t o p r o m p t Juriste. M o r e o v e r , e v e r y event o f consequence happens ' o f f ' , a n d the o r i g i n a t o r o f the s i t u a t i o n , V i c o , never appears. T h u s , the a c t i o n is d e v e l o p e d i n n a r r a t i v e , t o the a c c o m p a n i m e n t o f v o l u b l e c o m m o n p l a c e s b y confidants a n d chorus. 1

2

4

5

See M . A . Scott, Elizabethan Translations from the Italian (Boston and N e w Y o r k , 1916). Paris. Ever since George Steevens referred t o i t disparagingly i n a note o n Othello (Johnson's Shakespeare, 1773, x. 357 n. 1), it has been called faulty and incomplete. I can discover no reason for these charges. T h e separate publication o f the D i a ­ logues may explain them. Charlotte Lennox, i n her Shakespear Illustrated (1753), gives a free version. See L . Albrecht, Neue Untersuchungen zu Shakespeares 'Mass fur Mass , and R. H . Ball, 'Epitia and 'Measure for Measure . 1

2

3

4

5

1

1

1

ILLUSTRATIONS

13

W h e n Epitia opens, the three p r i n c i p a l characters have c o m e t o an agreement a n d are e x p e c t i n g t o e n j o y its fruits. V i c o is r e ­ p r i e v e d , a n d E p i t i a a n d Juriste are o n the eve o f a m a r r i a g e t o w h i c h an air o f respectability is l e n t b y the a p p r o v a l a n d g o o d offices o f Juriste's sister A n g e l a , a n d the s y m p a t h e t i c c o n c e r n o f a l l the o t h e r characters b u t one. T h i s one is the f o r m i d a b l e M a y o r o f I n n s b r u c k , a stickler f o r l e g a l i t y ; a n d i t is u n d e r his pressure t h a t the colourless Juriste breaks f a i t h , a n d , a m i d a t u m u l t o f u n a v a i l i n g entreaties a n d a c o n f u s i o n o f orders a n d counter-orders, ordains the e x e c u t i o n . E p i t i a is dissuaded f r o m t a k i n g the l a w i n t o her o w n hands b y the counsels o f her a u n t Irene a n d the o p p o r t u n e a r r i v a l o f the E m p e r o r i n I n n s b r u c k . H a v i n g h e a r d her tale, he calls A n g e l a as witness, a n d i t is this t h a t e v e n t u a l l y gives Juriste an advocate; f o r i t is A n g e l a w h o , h o r r i f i e d at h a v i n g m c r i m i n a t e d h i m , pleads o n his behalf. E p i t i a is i n e x o r a b l e . A t this j u n c t u r e , a n officer o f j u s t i c e , w h o has been h i n t i n g at a pleasant surprise i n store, reports that, o n t h e occasion o f V i c o ' s supposed e x e c u t i o n , he t o o k the l i b e r t y o f s u b s t i t u t i n g another man's head, a n d can therefore p r o d u c e V i c o w h o l e . T e n years after G i r a l d i ' s death, his son, Celso G i r a l d i , b r o u g h t o u t a v o l u m e o f his plays. I n his d e d i c a t i o n o f Epitia t o the Duchess o f Ferrara he stated t h a t this p l a y h a d never been m a d e p u b l i c , either o n the stage o r i n p r i n t . T h i s d e d i c a t i o n is dated 1583. T h u s , u n t i l 1583, i t was p r a c t i c a l l y inaccessible t o a n y o n e outside the Giraldis' i m m e d i a t e circle, a n d even after p u b l i c a t i o n i t was a v a i l ­ able o n l y i n this single c o l l e c t i o n , w h i c h chance alone c o u l d have b r o u g h t i n t o E n g l i s h hands. T h e a c k n o w l e d g e d a n d p r i n c i p a l source o f Measure for Measure, a m o n g E n g l i s h versions o f this s t o r y , is W h e t s t o n e ' s p l a y , Promos and Cassandra, p u b l i s h e d i n 1578. L i k e o t h e r Shakespearian sources, i t has been r e p r i n t e d oftener t h a n i t i n t r i n s i c a l l y deserves, 2

1

3

Whetstone has changed all names: Juriste becomes Promos; Epitia, Cassandra; V i c o , A n d r u g i o , and the E m p e r o r M a x i m i a n , K i n g Corvinus. Innsbruck becomes Julio. I n his dedicatory epistle, dated 29 July 1578, Whetstone says: ' O f late I perused divers o f m y imperfect workes', this among them, leaving the reader to surmise h o w recently i t had been begun. See: J. Nichols, Six Old Plays (1779); W . C . Hazlitt, Shakespeare's Library (1875); J . S. Farmer, Tudor Facsimile Texts (privately printed, 1910). 1

2

3

14

ILLUSTRATIONS

a n d this m a y have d o n e i t some disservice: i t is s e l d o m m e n t i o n e d w i t h o u t disparagement. A s a p l a y , i t is amateurish; as a n i l l u m i n a ­ t i o n o f the E l i z a b e t h a n scene, a n d o f the character o f a m a n w h o p l a y e d a p a r t sometimes p i t i a b l e , sometimes l u d i c r o u s , b u t n o t altogether discreditable, Promos and Cassandra is a d o c u m e n t w h i c h w e c a n n o t afford t o neglect, n o r even t o read i m p a t i e n t l y . G e o r g e W h e t s t o n e ' s l i f e was, even b y the standards o f a dangerous age, short a n d u n l u c k y . I t used t o be supposed t h a t he was b o r n i n 1544. I f his latest b i o g r a p h e r is r i g h t , the date s h o u l d be corrected t o 1551, c u t t i n g o f f seven o f his f e w years. H e was a m e m b e r o f a prosperous f a m i l y b u t , w i t h his n u m e r o u s brothers a n d sisters, was left o r p h a n e d , and f o r his o w n p a r t was usually i n w r e t c h e d c i r ­ cumstances. A m o n g his w r i t i n g s are scattered m a n y u r g e n t a n d h i g h - p i t c h e d w a r n i n g s t o p r o d i g a l s . These, i t is t r u e , are c o m m o n e n o u g h i n E l i z a b e t h a n p a m p h l e t s ; b u t i n one o f his didactic pieces [A Touchstone for the Time, 1584) W h e t s t o n e refers t o a n o t h e r o f these ( T h e Rocke of Regard, 1576) i n such terms as t o suggest t h a t its c l o s i n g passage is a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l ; a n d he often hints at d i r e experience. A n u n h a p p y characteristic m a r k s a l l these passages, a n d is i n d e e d perceptible t h r o u g h o u t his w o r k : i t is e v i d e n t t h a t he t h o u g h t o f h i m s e l f i n the first place as a m e m b e r o f a p a r t i c u l a r social class, a n d ( i t is a frequent c o n c o m i t a n t ) believed t h a t the w o r l d was v e r y h a r d o n this class. Society seemed t o h i m so f r a m e d as t o offer the largest possible t e m p t a t i o n s a n d the least possible rewards t o y o u n g g e n t l e m e n o f g o o d f a m i l y a n d h i g h spirits. A t a deeper l e v e l i n his w r i t i n g s lies the evidence that he h a d k n o w n error and misfortune, and had lived a m o n g faulty and u n l u c k y people. W h e t s t o n e t r a v e l l e d a n d saw service abroad. H e t o o k p a r t i n Sir H u m p h r e y G i l b e r t ' s disastrous v o y a g e t o N e w f o u n d l a n d i n 1578-9. B y his o w n account ( i n The Honorable Reputation of a Souldier, 1585) he h a d v i s i t e d 'the D u c h y o f M i l l a i n e , a n d k i n g d o m e o f Naples', a n d was p r e v e n t e d o n l y b y a q u a r r e l w i t h a Spaniard f r o m e n t e r i n g R o m e . L i k e so m a n y o f his generation, he 1

2

The fullest and most recent account is T . C. Izard's George Whetstone ( N e w Y o r k , 1942), to w h i c h I owe much information. The date o f Whetstone's Italian journey is fixed b y references i n three o f his works: The Honorable Reputation of a Souldier (A. i i . . ) ; The English Myrror (1586, p. 156); The Censure of a Loyall Subject (1587, F. 4 . ) . He was there i n 1580. 1

2

v

r

ILLUSTRATIONS

15

w e n t o u t t o fight i n the L o w C o u n t r i e s ; b u t , i f this was n o t u n t i l 1587, he was dead i n a d u e l w i t h i n a m o n t h o f his a r r i v a l . N e e d a n d a restless m i n d h a d d r i v e n W h e t s t o n e t o l i t e r a t u r e . H e seems t o w r i t e w i t h equal h u r r y i n verse a n d prose. H i s p u b l i s h e d stuff, v o l u m i n o u s f o r so short a career, m a y be considered i n f o u r groups. O n e , w h i c h is o f n o interest here, consists o f verse o b i t u ­ aries o n n o t a b l e persons l a t e l y dead. A second, m o r e v a r i o u s l y c o m p o s e d , can best be described as the o u t p o u r i n g s o f a l o y a l a n d anxious c i t i z e n — w a r n i n g s a n d e x h o r t a t i o n s addressed t o a l l his f e l l o w - c o u n t r y m e n , b u t m o s t p o i n t e d l y t o magistrates a n d o t h e r c i v i l authorities. These, b e i n g i l l u s t r a t e d b y n a r r a t i v e passages, m e r g e w i t h a t h i r d g r o u p : tales, gathered f r o m m a n y sources f a m i l i a r t o t h e needy scribbler o f t h a t age, tales r o m a n t i c a n d r i b a l d , sententious a n d scandalizing, offered w i t h general profes­ sions o f didactic i n t e n t i o n . T h e f o u r t h sort is represented b y Promos and Cassandra, W h e t s t o n e ' s sole p l a y . T h i s touches the p r e c e d i n g g r o u p at one p o i n t , f o r W h e t s t o n e h a n d l e d the s t o r y i n n a r r a t i v e f o r m also: as one o f the tales i n his Heptameron of Civil Discourses (1582).* 1

2

3

The Right Excellent andfamous History e, of Promos and Cassandra: Devided into two Commicall Discourses is a p l a y i n t w o parts, o f five acts each. A m a i n p l o t , w h i c h tells a v e r s i o n o f the s t o r y o f the m o n s t r o u s r a n s o m , is a c c o m p a n i e d b y a s u b - p l o t w h i c h , seeming t o be o f the dramatist's o w n d e v i s i n g a n d i n t e n d e d t o serve as c o m m e n t a r y , reflects his r e a d i n g o f this s t o r y . W h e t s t o n e ' s Hepta­ meron is m e r e l y an i n e x p e r t i m i t a t i o n o f such fashionable c o l l e c ­ tions as the Decameron a n d the Hecatommithi? T h e a u t h o r r e p r e ­ sents h i m s e l f as a traveller, b e n i g h t e d o n C h r i s t m a s E v e , a n d c a l l ­ i n g at a stranger's d o o r t o ask his w a y t o Ravenna. T h e master o f the house, 'Segnior P h y l o x e n u s ' , h o s p i t a b l y constrains h i m t o keep Christmas w i t h i n , a n d t o j o i n i n a f o r m a l session o f debate a n d M r . Izard argues that it was his elder brother, Bernard, w h o fought at Zutphen: op. cit., p. 28. N o t , however, quite so voluminous as i t appears; more than one w o r k was re-issued w i t h a fresh title-page. For reprints o f this tale, see J. P. Collier, Shakespeare's Library (1843 [1850]), and W . C. Hazlitt, Shakespeare's Library (1875). Re-issued as Amelia (1593). The ' C i v i l Discourses' composing i t are designed as dialogues w i t h narrative illustrations, bearing on man's life i n society. 1

2

3

4

5

i6

ILLUSTRATIONS

s t o r y - t e l l i n g . H i s sister, A u r e l i a , a p p o i n t e d queen o f the cere­ m o n i e s , sets the c o m p a n y t o debate the claims o f the m a r r i e d a n d single state, w i t h n a r r a t i v e illustrations. T h e i r taste i n these is n o t fastidious. Nevertheless, the general t e n o r o f the w o r k m i g h t f a i r l y be represented b y the o p e n i n g o f one o f the song-interludes: T w o Soveraigne Dames, Beautie and Honestie, L o n g m o r t a l foes, accorded are o f late. A n d n o w the one, dwels i n m y Mistresse eye, A n d i n her hart the other keepes her state. 1

A t times, h o w e v e r , the debate descends (as such debates w i l l ) i n t o m e r e w r a n g l e b e t w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n ; a n d i t is a passage o f this sort t h a t gives rise t o the tale o f P r o m o s a n d Cassandra. T h e p r e ­ c e d i n g i l l u s t r a t i o n has been concerned w i t h the i n t r i g u e s o f a friar, t a k e n f r o m the Decameron at its m o s t anti-clerical. I t is suggested t h a t as m u c h i l l m i g h t be t o l d o f nuns. W h e r e u p o n ' D o n n a Isa­ bella', w h o has been chosen arbiter o n the w o m e n ' s side, u n d e r ­ takes t o r e c o u n t so b l a c k a tale against a m a n t h a t n o t h i n g w h i c h can be said against w o m e n w i l l counterbalance i t . T h e s t o r y w h i c h f o l l o w s agrees w i t h the m a i n p l o t o f the p l a y b u t retains n o trace o f t h e s u b - p l o t ; a n d the t r e a t m e n t is i n e v e r y respect slighter. T w o questions are posed b y W h e t s t o n e ' s versions o f this s t o r y : w h a t is the n a t u r e o f t h e i r relationship t o the several f o r m e r v e r ­ sions, a n d w h a t does he b r i n g t o i t himself? M r . B u d d , w h o sup­ poses h i m t o o w e s o m e t h i n g t o R o i l l e t u s , has s h o w n t h a t Philanira was n o t u n k n o w n i n E l i z a b e t h a n E n g l a n d . T h e evidence f o r its h a v i n g been accessible t o W h e t s t o n e is, h o w e v e r , s l i g h t : a refer­ ence t o a p e r f o r m a n c e at C a m b r i d g e w h e n he was o n l y t h i r t e e n , the s u r v i v a l o f a c o p y w h i c h was i n the possession o f an E n g l i s h ­ m a n e i g h t years after the p u b l i c a t i o n o f his o w n first t r e a t m e n t o f the s t o r y — t h i s m a y p e r m i t b u t does n o t encourage the b e l i e f i n his acquaintance w i t h i t ; a n d o f this acquaintance I can find n o m a r k i n either v e r s i o n o f Promos and Cassandra. W h e t s t o n e eagerly i n ­ vokes precedent f o r w h a t he means t o d o , i n his d e d i c a t o r y epistle, b u t i t is precedent d r a w n f r o m established c o m e d y : M e n a n d e r , Plautus a n d Terence are c i t e d . I f he h a d i n d e e d k n o w n Philanira, 2

3

4

G. i i i . (the second day). O n the fourth day. 'Rouillet's Philanira and Whetstone's Promos and Cassandra' (Review of English Studies, January 1930, p . 47). Accepting M r . Izard's date for his b i r t h . 1

v

2

3

4

17

ILLUSTRATIONS

a t r e a t m e n t o f the v e r y t h e m e he was a t t e m p t i n g , i n a c o n v e n t i o n w h i c h c o m m a n d e d the prestige o f classical t r a g e d y , surely he w o u l d have hesitated a n d endeavoured t o e x p l a i n h i m s e l f ? T h e i n t e n t i o n o f Promos and Cassandra i n b o t h its f o r m s is i n ­ d u b i t a b l y c o m i c . T h e p l a y , i n d e e d , is d o u b l y c o m m i t t e d . Its m a i n p l o t c o n f o r m s t o a p a t t e r n w h i c h a n y m e d i a e v a l theorist w o u l d recognize f o r the p a t t e r n o f c o m e d y : i t tells a s t o r y w h i c h m o v e s f r o m a s o r r o w f u l a n d fearful b e g i n n i n g t o a h a p p y a n d c o n ­ f i d e n t e n d i n g . W h e t s t o n e thus leans t o w a r d s G i r a l d i ' s p o s i t i o n . H e accepts that relationship b e t w e e n the t w o i n p e r i l w h i c h seems t o have o r i g i n a t e d w i t h the Hecatommithi—brother a n d sister—and f o r his offence prefers rape t o h o m i c i d e , f u r t h e r softening the act b y suggesting t h a t i t m i g h t be regarded as m u t u a l consent b e t w e e n i m p a t i e n t lovers t o anticipate m a r r i a g e . T h u s Cassandra has f r o m the first n o d o u b t o r scruple i n p l e a d i n g that the o l d l a w r e v i v e d b y P r o m o s as the K i n g ' s d e p u t y i n J u l i o is t o o severe; a n d w h e n A n d r u g i o urges t h a t she m a y w i t h a clear m i n d b u y his life o n the terms proposed b y P r o m o s , o n l y s t i p u l a t i n g f o r her o w n sake t h a t m a r r i a g e shall f o l l o w , she demurs b u t f a i n t l y , talks f o r m a l l y o f r e p u t a t i o n , a n d is easily reassured. T h e n c e f o r w a r d , W h e t s t o n e ' s s t o r y f o l l o w s a straighter course t o w a r d s the h a p p y e n d i n g t h a n t h a t o f the Hecatommithi. A compassionate gaoler releases A n d r u ­ g i o , s u b s t i t u t i n g f o r his head t h a t o f a m a n already dead. M e a n ­ w h i l e , u n t i l persuaded o f her brother's death, Cassandra still l o o k s f o r m a r r i a g e w i t h P r o m o s , a n d w h e n j u d g e m e n t has been d e l i ­ v e r e d a n d the first p a r t o f P r o m o s ' sentence carried o u t she r e ­ proaches herself, and as his w i f e grieves b i t t e r l y that he s h o u l d d i e . M o v e d b y her grief, A n d r u g i o intervenes a n d the K i n g relents. M o r e o v e r , he does n o t hesitate t o restore the p e n i t e n t P r o m o s t o office a n d d i g n i t y . 1

2

G i r a l d i , t h e n , rather t h a n R o i l l e t u s governs the course o f W h e t ­ stone's m a i n p l o t — b u t G i r a l d i as a u t h o r o f novella o r o f play? A d m i t t e d l y , w h e r e Promos and Cassandra departs f r o m the course For a discussion o f the double heritage o f Elizabethan comedy, see N e v i l l Coghill, 'The Basis o f Shakespearian Comedy', i n Essays and Studies (English Association, 1950). H e is not very clear or consistent i n his references to it. I n other versions o f the story the condemned man lies under sentence for a variety o f offences; but the commonest is some act o f violence, i n v o l v i n g homicide. 1

2

C

i8

ILLUSTRATIONS

t a k e n i n t h e Hecatommithi i t corresponds w i t h Epitia; b u t this m a y p r o v e a m i s l e a d i n g correspondence. B e f o r e accepting Epitia as W h e t s t o n e ' s source w e s h o u l d have t o suppose t h a t he h a d v i s i t e d I t a l y b y 1578—it is strange, i f so, t h a t h e s h o u l d three times m e n ­ t i o n the 1580 v i s i t a n d never this o n e — t h a t he h a d b e c o m e i n t i ­ m a t e w i t h the y o u n g e r G i r a l d i , a n d read a p l a y w h i c h was l y i n g i n m a n u s c r i p t a m o n g his father's papers—read i t t h r o u g h w i t h close a t t e n t i o n — t h o u g h o f this w h o l e experience n o trace remains. T h i s is a b i g s u p p o s i t i o n i n d e e d ; a n d t o dispense w i t h i t A l b r e c h t has t o advance a b i g g e r : t h a t Celso G i r a l d i was l y i n g w h e n he said i n 1583 t h a t the p l a y h a d never been p r i n t e d n o r p e r f o r m e d ; there was a p e r f o r m a n c e , o r e d i t i o n , o f w h i c h n o trace remains; o r else, i f W h e t s t o n e h a d n o t v i s i t e d I t a l y b y 1578, Giraldi's p l a y i n m a n u s c r i p t m u s t have visited E n g l a n d . T h i s is surely t o suppose t o o m u c h . I t is besides unnecessary. W h e t s t o n e need n o t have been i n d e b t e d t o a n y p a r t i c u l a r source f o r the i n c i d e n t o f the f e i g n e d e x e c u t i o n ; a n d his t r e a t m e n t o f i t differs a l i t t l e f r o m G i r a l d i ' s . I f he r e q u i r e d the assurance o f l i t e r a r y precedent f o r using so c o m ­ m o n a device as the substituted v i c t i m , he h a d n o t t o l o o k f u r t h e r t h a n t h e p o p u l a r G r e e k romances. M o r e o v e r , i n Promos and Cassandra, A n d r u g i o ' s transaction w i t h his gaoler, his subsequent exile a n d the course b y w h i c h he comes t o i n t e r v e n e i n P r o m o s ' t r i a l are f u l l y i m a g i n e d a n d presented w i t h such circumstance as W h e t s t o n e can c o m m a n d . I n Epitia, o n the o t h e r h a n d , w e have a f u l l b u t (as afterwards appears) false a c c o u n t o f the e x e c u t i o n f r o m a messenger ( p r e s u m a b l y confederate w i t h the officer responsible), a n d are left supposing i t t r u e u n t i l the f i n a l disclosure, also m a d e i n n a r r a t i o n . Such m o t i v e s as m i g h t p r o m p t W h e t s t o n e t o this altera­ t i o n m a y have been shared b y Shakespeare, a n d therefore can be considered presently. W h e t s t o n e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f this s t o r y c a n ­ n o t be r e c k o n e d w i t h o u t some reference t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e ­ t w e e n his t w o versions o f i t . W a n t i n g the s u b - p l o t , a n d a d d i n g 1

2

3

The Argument w o u l d have told h i m nothing as to its conclusion. Neue Untersuchungen zu Shakespeare's 'Massfur Mass\ pp. 120-4. There are various sorts o f feigned execution i n the i£thiopica o f Heliodorus and the Leucippe and Clitophon o f Achilles Tatius, the one already available i n English, the other i n Latin, Italian and French. See S. L . Wolff, The Greek Romances in Elizabethan Prose Fiction (Columbia, 1912). 1

2

3

ILLUSTRATIONS

19

n o t h i n g o f consequence, the n a r r a t i v e v e r s i o n c o u l d be a n a b r i d g e d r e d a c t i o n o f the d r a m a t i c , o r else o f Giraldi's tale re-read; b u t , i n default o f conclusive evidence, I a m i n c l i n e d t o surmise t h a t events m a y have t a k e n another course. W h e t s t o n e (let us suppose), w h e n he first became acquainted w i t h the Hecatommithi, d r a f t e d a p l o t , based o n G i r a l d i ' s tale, b u t a m p l i f y i n g i t here a n d there. T h i s draft was fuller t h a n the A r g u m e n t he p r e f i x e d t o the p r i n t e d p l a y , t h o u g h i t corresponded w i t h i t i n t h e absence o f reference t o c o m i c episodes o r characters. I t was u p o n this draft that he w o r k e d w h e n he h a d presently t o f u r n i s h a tale f o r the f o u r t h day o f his Heptameron. Eccentricities o f n a r r a t i v e m a n n e r — f a i l u r e t o m e n ­ t i o n w h o the persons are at the first, o r even second, occurrence o f t h e i r names; lapses i n t o the present tense w i t h o u t apparent purpose —these seem t o h i n t at an o l d p l o t w o r k e d u p i n haste. T h e r e is, o n the o t h e r h a n d , n o t h i n g t o suggest t h a t W h e t s t o n e h a d read the Hecatommithi afresh, a n d some o f the amplifications he h a d p u t i n t o the p l a y recur i n the t a l e . O n e , surely, is better h a n d l e d : b o t h the c o n t r i v a n c e o f the c l i m a x and the expression o f w h a t i t i m p l i e s are clarified. T h e play's k n o t h a d been u n r a v e l l e d thus: after his release, A n d r u g i o appears as an o u t l a w a n d learns o f P r o m o s ' d o w n ­ f a l l , and, i n t w o a w k w a r d l y separated soliloquies, s u m m o n s reso­ l u t i o n t o discover h i m s e l f ; a n d the o u t c o m e is r e p o r t e d b y a mes­ senger: ' A n d r u g i o lives: a n d P r o m o s is r e p r i v d . ' I n the tale, A n d r u g i o is m o v e d t o a t t e n d his enemy's e x e c u t i o n , i n h e r m i t ' s disguise; a n d there, t o u c h e d b y his sister's distress, obtains f r o m K i n g C o r v i n u s the saving clause t h a t P r o m o s m i g h t l i v e w e r e A n d r u g i o b u t revived* a n d discovers h i m s e l f . W h e t s t o n e t h e r e b y conveys the idea t h a t t h e k i n g ' s w i l l t o m e r c y is l i b e r a t e d b y the generous plea o f the sister; his p o w e r , b y the unselfish act o f the b r o t h e r , w h e n f o r her sake he puts his enemy's safety before his o w n . W h a t e v e r the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the t w o versions o f Promos and Cassandra, w e c a n n o t ( I believe) afford t o i g n o r e 1

2

3

There is, for example, the trick o f page's disguise for Cassandra. 2 Promos and Cassandra, I V . i i . Ibid., V . i a n d i i i . A n d r u g i o pleads: ' I f l a w may possibly be satisfied, Promos' true repentance meriteth pardon.' The K i n g replies: ' H e can not live, and the l a w satisfied, unless (by miracle) A n d r u g i o be revived.' A n d , sounded further: ' I f y o u r prayer can revive the one, m y mercy shall acquit the other.' 1

2

3

4

20

ILLUSTRATIONS

either: W h e t s t o n e ' s clumsiness a d m i t s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t w e m a y find i n one w h a t he i n t e n d e d , b u t failed t o say i n the o t h e r . T h a t W h e t s t o n e h a d s o m e t h i n g t o say w h e n he was w r i t i n g his p l a y is surely clear f r o m the design o f its s u b - p l o t . T h i s , w h i c h is m e a n t t o recall L a t i n c o m e d y a n d thus t o f u l f i l the o t h e r o b l i g a ­ t i o n k n o w n t o E l i z a b e t h a n t h e o r y a n d (infrequent) p r a c t i c e i n c o m e d y , is d i d a c t i c satire, c a r e f u l l y adjusted t o t h e m a i n p l o t . Such is t h e p r o j e c t o f a m a n w h o believes t h a t he has learnt, at some cost t o h i m s e l f , w h a t is amiss w i t h the w o r l d , a n d is b e n t o n setting i t t o r i g h t s ; one, m o r e o v e r , w h o has t h o u g h t a b o u t d r a m a t i c ends a n d means, t h o u g h he lacks p r a c t i c a l k n o w l e d g e o f the theatre. H e r e is n o m e r e succession o f d r o l l interludes, b u t a coherent s t o r y o f t h e fortunes o f a set o f characters w h o (true t o a t h e o r y p r o p o u n d e d b y t h e dramatist i n his d e d i c a t o r y epistle) never m e e t the charac­ ters o f the m a i n p l o t o n the stage n o r deal d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e m , b u t w h o have been c o n c e i v e d i n a certain r e l a t i o n t o t h e m . B e h i n d a n d alongside the m a i n streets o f J u l i o r u n lanes a n d alleys a n d m e w s , t e e m i n g w i t h knaves a n d t h e i r v i c t i m s . H e r e L a m i a t h e courtesan reigns u n t i l , f r i g h t e n e d b y her servant Rosko's r e p o r t t h a t P r o m o s has p r o c l a i m e d the r e v i v a l o f the o l d l a w , she addresses h e r s e l f t o the D e p u t y ' s agent a n d e v i l genius, P h a l l a x , w h o s e v e n a l i t y is w e l l k n o w n , a n d sells h e r s e l f t o h i m f o r her o w n safety, as Cassandra is f o r c e d t o sell h e r s e l f t o P r o m o s f o r her b r o t h e r ' s . M e a n w h i l e her m a i d D a l i a traffics w i t h a r i c h s i m p l e t o n , a n d R o s k o snaps u p w h a t falls. A n d r u g i o ' s o w n s t o r y is d o u b l e d , as i n a r e f l e c t i o n , b y the l a m e n t a b l e fortunes o f a t r a i n o f ' p o o r rogues' h u r r i e d t o t h e i r d e a t h because i t is t o the advantage o f e v e r y ' c h u r l i s h officer' i n J u l i o t o m u l t i p l y offences a n d p u n i s h m e n t s . A g a i n , a farcical tail-piece shows a s i m p l e t o n ( n o t Dalia's v i c t i m b u t a n o t h e r ; W h e t s t o n e is p r o d i g a l o f m i n o r characters) f o r c e d t o b u y o f f the i n f o r m e r s w h o have m u l t i p l i e d u n d e r P r o m o s ' r u l e . E x a m i n e d severally, the p e r ­ sons o f this s u b - p l o t seem t o be m e r e c l u m s y i m i t a t i o n s o f P l a u t i n e types; y e t , seen as the design o f the p l a y g r o u p s t h e m , t h e y c o m ­ pose a c r u d e b u t v i g o r o u s p i c t u r e o f W h e t s t o n e ' s L o n d o n as he saw i t . I n d e e d , t h e c o m i c episodes are t h e m o s t serious p a r t o f t h e p l a y ; t h e y w e r e p r o m p t e d b y s o m e t h i n g t h a t t o u c h e d experience, a n d w h e r e i t t o u c h e d i t h u r t . I t is t o a c l o w n t h a t W h e t s t o n e gives 1

1

'Ducke alley, Cocke lane, and Scouldes corner' (2 Promos and Cassandra, I V . i ) .

21

ILLUSTRATIONS

the p e r t i n e n t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i t is m o s t p r u d e n t t o appeal d i r e c t l y to supreme a u t h o r i t y . A n d i t is the s u b - p l o t w h i c h asks m o r e i n ­ sistently t h a n the m a i n p l o t the question w h i c h haunts W h e t s t o n e ' s i m a g i n a t i o n : w h o t h e n is fit t o be trusted w i t h a u t h o r i t y ? B y piecemeal c o m p a r i s o n o f similar items w e m a y perhaps discern a resemblance b e t w e e n C o r v i n u s ' discourse o n j u s t i c e a n d a speech o n j u s t g o v e r n m e n t b y R o i l l e t u s ' r u l e r , P r o r e x . W i d e r observa­ t i o n o f the t w o plays shows h o w a t o p i c canvassed b y a character i n one becomes an issue raised b y the w h o l e t e n o r o f the other. W h e t s t o n e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this s t o r y c o n ­ sists i n the r e l a t i o n o f the events a n d characters t o t h e i r b a c k g r o u n d — a n d b y b a c k g r o u n d I m e a n the w h o l e o f the space c o m m a n d e d by the g r o u p o f characters o n w h i c h i m a g i n a t i o n is i n v i t e d t o d w e l l , a n d the use t o w h i c h the dramatist puts i t . P r o m o s , Cassan­ d r a a n d A n d r u g i o o c c u p y t h e i r share o f a p a r t i - c o l o u r e d w o r l d w h i c h (as J o h n s o n said, i n d e f e n d i n g t r a g i - c o m e d y ) corresponds w i t h the w o r l d o f f a m i l i a r experience i n that i t 'partakes o f g o o d a n d e v i l , j o y a n d s o r r o w , m i n g l e d w i t h endless v a r i e t y o f p r o p o r ­ t i o n a n d i n n u m e r a b l e modes o f c o m b i n a t i o n ' , a w o r l d ' i n w h i c h , at the same t i m e , the reveller is hasting t o his w i n e , a n d the m o u r n e r b u r y i n g his f r i e n d ' . T h e p r o b l e m c o n f r o n t i n g a n y w r i t e r w h o attempts this k i n d o f representation i s — w h a t the m o u r n e r a n d the reveller have t o say t o one another w h e n t h e i r w a y s cross. A r t m u s t c o n c e r n i t s e l f w i t h this; a n d so p o s i t i v e a n d d o w n r i g h t an art as W h e t s t o n e ' s c a n n o t w e l l leave i t t o be inferred. T h e n e x t considerable f o r e r u n n e r o f Measure for Measure is a s t o r y i n T h o m a s L u p t o n ' s Siuqila, w h i c h appeared i n t w o parts, one i n 15 80, the o t h e r i n 15 81 —earlier, t h a t is, t h a n the p u b l i c a t i o n , t h o u g h n o t necessarily earlier t h a n the c o m p o s i t i o n , o f the tale o f P r o m o s a n d Cassandra i n W h e t s t o n e ' s Heptameron. Since the t i m e o f D o u c e ' s Illustrations of Shakespeare i t has been k n o w n f o r an 1

2

3

4

5

2 Promos and Cassandra, I I I . i i . Ibid., I . v i i i ; Philanira, Act I V . Preface to Shakespeare (1765), p. x i i i . Siuqila. Too good, to be true; and The Second part and knitting up of the Boke entituled Too good to be true. 1.155. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps added the information that it occurs in the 1581 continuation. (Memoranda on Shakespeare's Comedy of Measurefor Measure, 1880.) 1

2 3

4

5

22

ILLUSTRATIONS

analogue, b u t w h a t is o f c h i e f interest—the context—has n o t been e n o u g h regarded. Siuqila, l i k e its a u t h o r , is l i t t l e k n o w n ; w h i c h is understandable, f o r n o one, k n o w i n g a l i t t l e o f L u p t o n a n d his w r i t i n g s , w o u l d desire his better acquaintance. H i s p u b l i s h e d w o r k s bear the m a r k s o f a gross a n d i l l i b e r a l m i n d . A p a r t f r o m a p o p u l a r b o o k o f n o s t r u m s , t h e y are a l l didactic, a n d o f a p a r t i c u l a r c o m ­ p l e x i o n . S i n a n d chastisement compose his f a v o u r i t e t h e m e , a n d he addresses h i m s e l f t o i t w i t h a p p a l l i n g relish. T h e first p a r t o f Siuqila suggests a n a t t e m p t t o f o l l o w M o r e ' s Utopia, at some distance. T h e n a m e o f the b o o k , a n d the p r i n c i p a l places a n d persons, are s i m p l e anagrams. S i u q i l a ( A l i q u i s ) comes f r o m A i l g n a ( A n g l i a ) t o the f r o n t i e r o f M a u q s u n ( N u s q u a m ) a n d there encounters one o f its citizens, O m e n ( N e m o ) , w h o w i l l n o t a l l o w h i m t o enter f o r fear o f the m o r a l i n f e c t i o n he m a y b r i n g . B y w a y o f c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r this d e n i a l , he recounts t o h i m the glories o f the f o r b i d d e n c o u n t r y , w h i l e p o o r S i u q i l a m u s t c o m p l e ­ m e n t e v e r y assertion a n d anecdote w i t h some confession o f the i m ­ perfections o f his o w n l a n d . L u p t o n saw E n g l a n d f r o m the stand­ p o i n t o f a n a r r o w sect. T o a v e i n o f anti-papist i n v e c t i v e he adds a n t a g o n i s m t o the r i c h a n d merciless censure o f the shiftless p o o r . L i k e W h e t s t o n e , L u p t o n speaks p r i m a r i l y f o r the social class t o w h i c h he supposes h i m s e l f t o b e l o n g , a n d sees life w e i g h t e d against i t . I n M a u q s u n , i t seems, the l a w is so f r a m e d as t o redress this balance: i t is g r o u n d e d , so he alleges, o n C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d c o m m o n sense. I n practice, this means the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f sin a n d c r i m e , w i t h a d e v i s i n g o f such punishments, t o m e e t a n d m a t c h a l l offences, as m a k e the penal code o f the Thousand and One Nights appear l i b e r a l a n d h u m a n e . A s f o r L u p t o n ' s C h r i s t i a n i t y , i t c o n ­ sists i n s e l f - w i l l e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f certain selected passages f r o m t h e B i b l e . T h e i n j u n c t i o n ( q u o t e d i n the o p e n i n g a n d o f t e n r e ­ iterated), ' W h a t s o e v e r y o u w o u l d t h a t m e n shoulde doe t o y o u , e v e n so d o y e t o t h e m ' , is t w i s t e d t o read: ' W h a t s o e v e r , i n the darkness o f y o u r heart, y o u w o u l d — g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y — h a v e d o n e t o others, t h a t shall be d o n e t o y o u . ' ( ' D o as y o u w o u l d be d o n e b y ' ; b u t n o t , ' F o r g i v e as y o u w o u l d be f o r g i v e n ' . ) T h i s system is sustained b y an a r m y o f i n f o r m e r s , a n d a readiness o n the part o f authority to make information profitable. T h e simplicity 1

1

p . 32.

23

ILLUSTRATIONS

w h i c h O m e n claims f o r i t is a s i m p l i c i t y o f d e n i a l : whereas W h e t ­ stone a n d other reformers h a d asked t h a t pleasure s h o u l d be r e g u ­ lated, L u p t o n asks t h a t i t s h o u l d be f o r b i d d e n . T h i s s i m p l i c i t y , together w i t h the efficiency o f i n f o r m e r s , has reduced c r i m i n a l cases t o such p r o p o r t i o n s that the k i n g can attend t o t h e m a l l h i m ­ self; thus, there is n o c o u r t o f appeal. T h e first p a r t o f Siuqila ends a b r u p t l y , b u t this is n o t o u t o f k e e p i n g w i t h the clumsiness o f the w r i t i n g ; there is n o t h i n g t o suggest i n t e n d e d c o n t i n u a t i o n . I t m a y , h o w e v e r , have been suffi­ c i e n t l y w e l l received t o encourage L u p t o n t o c o n t i n u e . O f this second part, o n l y one e d i t i o n is k n o w n ; a n d y e t i t is the m o r e c u n n i n g l y f r a m e d f o r e n t e r t a i n m e n t . T h e t w o persons o f the f o r m e r d i a l o g u e again converse, a n d again the h a p p y state o f M a u q s u n is displayed, 'against the e n v y o f less happier lands'. T h e r e j u s t i c e regulates disposal o f benefices a n d l a n d tenure. O m e n illustrates at l e n g t h his thesis that e q u i t y i n M a u q s u n rests firm o n the t r i p l e f o u n d a t i o n o f respect f o r its principles i n the hearts o f the j u d g e s , ferocious severity i n p u n i s h i n g a l l miscarriages o f j u s t i c e , and lavish r e w a r d for r e p o r t i n g t h e m . A j u d g e h i m s e l f may, b y disclosing an a t t e m p t t o b r i b e h i m , recover h a l f the s u m offered. Some j u d g e s , i n t h e i r zeal, have j o i n e d the c o m p a n y o f i n f o r m e r s . ' T h e r e was a J u d g e w i t h us that feared G o d , a n d l o v e d equitie so m u c h , t h a t divers times he w o u l d w a l k i n the streates early a n d late, i n u n k n o w n e apparel, o n l y t o spie p o r e strangers a n d Suters, a n d t o enquire o f t h e m the cause o f t h e i r t r a v e l l a n d sute.' T h e K i n g h i m s e l f has been k n o w n t o p l a y such a p a r t . I t is i n d e e d a f a v o u r i t e device; a n d i t is the g r o u p o f tales i l l u s t r a t i n g its use w h i c h f o r m s the setting f o r the s t o r y o f the m o n s t r o u s r a n s o m i n Siuqila. F o r the p o o r traveller, seeming t o w e a r y o f his a l l o t t e d part, undertakes t o s h o w that, even i n his o w n c o u n t r y , j u s t i c e is sometimes t o be f o u n d — a t the t o p . 1

2

3

4

T h e s t o r y belongs t o the p o p u l a r t r a d i t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h the v i c t i m s o f the unjust j u d g e are husband a n d w i f e , a n d the e n d calamitous. I t is, h o w e v e r , t o l d at u n c o m m o n l e n g t h : a n i n t r i g u e 5

' I perceyve y o u have manye g o o d lawes, and evill kepte: but w e have but fewe, and very w e l l kepte'—i.e., enforced (p. 34). I t was to be reprinted i n 1584 and 1587. T. i v . . Z. ii. . I t occupies pp. L . i i i . . to O . i v . . 1

2

3

r

4

r

5

v

v

24

ILLUSTRATIONS

is devised t o p r o d u c e the s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h the husband k i l l s his f o r m e r f r i e n d ; the w i f e discusses the case w i t h the j u d g e at a first i n t e r v i e w ; w h e n she is recalled a n d presented w i t h his d e m a n d f o r a s u m o f m o n e y a n d her surrender, a n d signifies her u n w i l l i n g c o m p l i a n c e , his instructions are m i n u t e a n d c i r c u m s t a n t i a l . I t is these circumstances t h a t s u p p l y her w i t h evidence w h e n , u p o n the news o f her husband's death, she tells her tale t o the 'Magistrates a n d the c h i e f Rulers o f the C o u n t r e y ' . ( M a n y o f L u p t o n ' s stories t u r n o n a question o f evidence.) T h e usual sentence o f m a r r i a g e a n d e x e c u t i o n f o l l o w s ; a n d the w o m a n is left s e e m i n g l y w e l l satis­ fied w i t h her w i d o w ' s j o i n t u r e . A n o t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f the p o p u l a r t r a d i t i o n requires p a r t i ­ cular m e n t i o n , f o r the w r i t e r , l i k e L u p t o n , has entered i n t o the circumstances o f the tale w i t h some fulness o f i n v e n t i o n . I t is f o u n d i n the latter p a r t o f the Cinquieme, et dernier volume des nouvels de Bandel, w h i c h was p u b l i s h e d i n 1583 at L y o n s , b r i n g i n g t o a close the w e l l - k n o w n Histoires Tragiques. T h i s w o r k , appearing v o l u m e b y v o l u m e f r o m 1559, h a d been at the outset a translation o f stories f r o m B a n d e l l o b y Pierre Boisteau a n d Francois de B e l l e forest. T h e 1583 v o l u m e , h o w e v e r , is w h o l l y Belleforest's, a n d this latter p a r t o f i t is c o m p o s e d n o t o f translations b u t o f stories f o r w h i c h he takes the sole r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I t is grave a n d m o n i t o r y i n tone, a n d this particular s t o r y , w h i c h occupies a substantial share o f this part, is e x p l i c i t l y offered as a w a r n i n g against the disastrous p o w e r o f lust, w i t h a reference t o the h i s t o r y o f U r i a h the H i t t i t e . T r u e t o F r e n c h n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n , i t makes sense: the s i t u a t i o n is l o g i c a l l y conceived, m o t i v e a n d a c t i o n are i n t e l l i g i b l e . T h e v i c ­ t i m s are a rash a n d quarrelsome y o u n g soldier, a n d his w i f e , w h o goes i n t e r r o r o f p r e c i p i t a t i n g a fatal b r a w l ; t h e i r oppressor is a captain w h o has f r o m the first schemed t o get t h e m i n t o his p o w e r . H e plays o n the y o u n g man's weakness, m u c h as Iago plays o n Cassio's p r o p e n s i t y t o q u a r r e l w h e n d r u n k . A u t h o r i t y is r e p r e ­ sented b y the M a r s h a l , 'Messire Charles de Cosse, Seigneur de Brissac, G o u v e r n e u r de P i e d m o n t ' , celebrated f o r j u s t i c e a n d 1

2

3

0 . i. . 'Ces Trois Dernieres Histoires sont de r i n v e n t i o n de Francois de belle Forest.. Historical names occur i n many versions o f the story. The namelessness o f Lupton's characters is exceptional, 1

2

3

r

25

ILLUSTRATIONS

c l e m e n c y . H e has discipline t o preserve, a n d m u s t take care h o w he proceeds against an officer w h o , i n d e a l i n g s u m m a r i l y w i t h a b r a w l , has c o m m i t t e d n o technical offence. T h u s there is occasion f o r f i r m l y k n i t i n t r i g u e , f o r manoeuvre a n d counter-manoeuvre, o n the p a r t o f the three p r i n c i p a l characters. T h e design o f w r o n g ­ d o i n g and r e t r i b u t i o n is i n e x o r a b l y traced. T h r e e subsequent versions, a l l c u r r e n t i n some f o r m before the p r o b a b l e date o f Measure for Measure, r e q u i r e c u r s o r y n o t i c e . T h e first o f these shifts the emphasis s l i g h t l y . T h o m a s D a n e t t p u b l i s h e d his v e r s i o n o f C o m m i n e s ' h i s t o r y i n 1596. I n his d e d i c a t i o n t o B u r g h l e y he says t h a t the translation was m a d e some t h i r t y years ago, has circulated since i n m a n u s c r i p t a m o n g his friends, a n d has, w i t h t h e i r h e l p , been r e c e n t l y enlarged. O n e substantial a d d i t i o n is a Supplie (supplement) f o r the years 1483 t o 1493. I t contains this story, f r a m e d t o illustrate the t h e m e o f a favourite's f a l l : the e x t o r ­ t i o n e r suffers p u n i s h m e n t because he survives the death o f his p r o ­ tector. T h u s there is n o occasion f o r the courage, o r desperation, w h i c h elsewhere i m p e l s the v i c t i m t o o b t a i n j u s t i c e at w h a t e v e r cost. T h e second, a b a l d l y t r a d i t i o n a l f o r m o f the story, appears i n T h o m a s Beard's c o l l e c t i o n o f h o r r i f y i n g tales, The Theatre of God's Judgements (1597). I t is o f n o interest. T h e t h i r d , again a p l a i n , harsh tale o f oppression b r o u g h t t o l i g h t t o o late f o r redress b u t i n t i m e f o r r e t r i b u t i o n , was t o l d b y S i m o n G o u l a r t , i n the first p a r t o f his Histoires Admirables et Memorables de Nostre Temps, w h i c h appeared i n Paris i n 1600, a n d a translation o f w h i c h b y E d w a r d G r i m e s t o n was t o appear i n 1607. T h e v i c t i m is a c i t i z e n o f C o m o . A u t h o r i t y , i n the person o f the D u k e o f Ferrara, i n t e r ­ venes o n l y t o p u n i s h , a n d the p u n i s h m e n t takes the usual f o r m . 1

2

3

T h i s , I believe, completes the tale o f the versions o f this p a i n f u l s t o r y w h i c h m a y have been k n o w n t o Shakespeare w h e n he w r o t e The Historie of Philip de Commines Knight, Lord of Argenton. Admirable and Memorable Histories containing the Wonders of our Time. Grimeston seems to have translated only this first part, not those which followed i n 1601 (II and III), and 1604 (IV). See L . C.Jones, Simon Goulart (Geneva, 1917) for the editions o f Goulart's w o r k , and G. N . Clark, 'Edward Grimeston' (English Historical Review, 1928, xliii. 585-98) for the limited scope o f Grimeston's transla­ tion. Goulart was familiar also w i t h a similar story, told b y Henri Estienne i n his Apologie pour Herodote (Geneva, 1566), i n which no mention is made o f punish­ ment. 1

2

3

26

ILLUSTRATIONS

Measure for Measure, a n d t o one o r another a m o n g the audience w h e n i t was first p e r f o r m e d . O n e f u r t h e r illustration s h o u l d h o w ­ ever be considered, i f o n l y as a n analogue. T h e r e is a g r o u p o f plays, n o t far i n date f r o m Measure for Measure, i n each o f w h i c h a character o f some i m p o r t a n c e plays a p a r t w h i c h has i n v i t e d c o m ­ p a r i s o n w i t h Shakespeare's V i n c e n t i o . H a z l i t t n o t i c e d this, b u t t h e course o f his i m m e d i a t e a r g u m e n t b o r e h i m a w a y f r o m Measure for Measure, a n d (perhaps b y reason o f his a n t i p a t h y t o this p l a y ) he never t o o k occasion t o r e t u r n a n d f o l l o w u p the c o m ­ parison. O f M a r s t o n ' s Fawn he remarks ( i n his Lectures on the Age of Elizabeth) t h a t its disguised d u k e ' m a y p u t i n a c l a i m t o a sort o f f a m i l y likeness t o the D u k e , i n Measure for Measure , t h o u g h he admits t h a t this Hercules o f Ferrara 'is o n l y a spy o n p r i v a t e follies', a n d so b u t d i s t a n t l y related t o V i n c e n t i o . W i t h The Fawn he presently couples The Malcontent a n d its disguised observer, M a l e v o l e , a r g u i n g t h a t such characters are designed t o mediate the t h e m e o f the p l a y t o us. T o M a r s t o n ' s n a m e , Professor W . W . L a w r e n c e i n his t u r n adds M i d d l e t o n ' s . H e m e n t i o n s The Phoenix, b u t does n o t d e v e l o p the suggestion, a n d i t is the c o m p a r i s o n w i t h M a r s t o n alone t h a t has attracted a t t e n t i o n . M r . O . J. C a m p b e l l associates w i t h The Malcontent a n d The Fawn, Antonio and Mellida, l i k e n i n g Felice t o Shakespeare's D u k e . I t is, h o w e v e r , i n M i d d l e t o n ' s Phoenix alone that I f i n d a s i g n i ­ ficant a n a l o g y w i t h Measure for Measure. M a r s t o n ' s malcontents d o i n d e e d 'spy o n p r i v a t e follies', a n d are licensed t o c o m m e n t o n t h e m , i n Thersites' m a n n e r , l i k e parasites t i c k l i n g those w h o m t h e y infest. S o m e o f t h e m m a y , at some j u n c t u r e , i n t e r p r e t some p a r t o f the m e a n i n g o f the p l a y t o us, i n t h e i r set pieces o f d e c l a m a t o r y satire—but even here t h e y d o n o t c o m e near the D u k e , w h o is quite devoid o f their melancholic h u m o u r . Middleton's Phoenix, h o w e v e r , is engaged i n a n enterprise w h i c h bears some resem­ blance t o his, at least i n the e x p o s i t i o n . T h e son o f an ageing D u k e o f Ferrara, he has reason t o suspect l a x a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a n d t h e r e ­ fore gives out t h a t he w i l l t r a v e l abroad, the better t o l u r k i n d i s ­ guise at h o m e a n d discover h i d d e n abuses. T h e suggestion t h a t he 9 1

2

3

1

2 3

Works, ed. H o w e (1930-4), v. 226. Shakespeare*s Problem Comedies ( N e w Y o r k , 1931), p . 215. Shakespeare's Satire ( O x f o r d , 1943), p . 127.

27

ILLUSTRATIONS

s h o u l d leave Ferrara has c o m e f r o m treacherous courtiers, a n d p a r t o f his success consists i n the u n r a v e l l i n g o f a conspiracy a m o n g those w h o have w i s h e d h i m o u t o f the w a y ; p a r t , i n his i n t e r v e n ­ t i o n i n the affairs o f those w h o (as he h a d suspected) are h i n d e r e d o f access t o j u s t i c e . B y an i n g e n i o u s t r i c k — h e hires h i m s e l f o u t t o each o f the evil-doers i n t u r n — h e obtains the i n f o r m a t i o n needed f o r eventual i n t e r p o s i t i o n . I t is an u g l y p i c t u r e t h a t he sees f r o m his c o i g n o f vantage: l a w hides m o r e f r a u d a n d v i o l e n c e , m a r r i a g e m o r e licence, t h a n w e r e ever t o be seen i n t h e d i s o r d e r l y quarters o f a c i t y . E v e r y c o u r t i e r e n c o u n t e r e d is a t r a i t o r , a n d the c h i e f a m o n g t h e m plans t o assassinate the o l d d u k e , a n d fasten the g u i l t o n his absent son. T h i s a r g u m e n t fritters i t s e l f a w a y i n l o o s e l y i l l u s t r a t i v e episodes: scenes e x h i b i t i n g the l i t i g i o u s m a n , the v e n a l magistrate a n d his bullies, the licentious m a r r i e d w o m a n . N e v e r ­ theless, the e v i d e n t i n t e n t i o n is analogous w i t h Shakespeare's. Since c r i t i c a l o p i n i o n has tended t o shift the date o f M i d d l e t o n ' s p l a y b a c k t o 1603, Phoenix m a y w e l l have preceded Measure for Measure, a n d been k n o w n t o Shakespeare: b u t its interest derives rather f r o m a n a l o g y t h a n f r o m precedence. T h i s m e d i o c r e p l a y w i l l s h o w w h e r e l a y the o p p o r t u n i t i e s , a n d w h e r e the l i m i t s , o f this o l d s t o r y o f the p r i n c e i n c o g n i t o setting a l l t o r i g h t s : w h i c h parts w i l l take the strain a n d a d m i t d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d w h i c h are agreeable o n l y t o the taste o f a p a r t i c u l a r age. I t m a y serve t o measure w h a t can, a n d w h a t cannot, be d o n e w i t h o u t the Shake­ spearian m a g i c . 1

2

3

T w o o t h e r plays stand i n an i l l u s t r a t i v e relationship t o Measure for Measure: D a v e n a n t ' s The Law against Lovers, and Gildon's Measure for Measure, or Beauty the Best Advocate; b o t h b e i n g attempts t o improve i t . Pepys saw a p e r f o r m a n c e o f The Law against Lovers i n F e b r u a r y o f 1662, b u t i t was n o t p r i n t e d u n t i l the 41

Bullen put it at 1606; E. K . Chambers, 1604; R. C. Bald argues from the con­ dition o f the theatres that i t belongs to the end o f Elizabeth's reign, and from its style that i t may be as early as 1602 ('The Chronology o f Middleton's Plays', Modem Language Review, 1937); Baldwin M a x w e l l , that the political allusions point to the summer o f 1603 ('Middleton's Phoenix i n John Quincy Adams Memorial Studies, N e w Y o r k , 1948). 1607. ed. Bullen, Works, 1885-6, v o l . i . V . O . Freeburg {Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama, N e w Y o r k , 1915) men­ tions the resemblance i n plot between Phoenix and Measure for Measure, but remarks nothing further. Ed. Maidment and Logan, Dramatic Works (Edinburgh, 1872-4), vol. v . 1

9

2

3

4

28

ILLUSTRATIONS

p o s t h u m o u s f o l i o o f Davenant's Works appeared i n 1673. I t is a m e d l e y c o m p o s e d o f parts o f Measure for Measure (considerably changed), the passages b e t w e e n Beatrice a n d B e n e d i c k f r o m Much Ado about Nothing (these again altered) a n d a c o n c l u s i o n o f D a v e n ­ ant's o w n i n v e n t i o n . Measure for Measure, or Beauty the Best Advo­ cate appeared i n q u a r t o i n 1 7 0 0 — a n o n y m o u s l y , b u t the a s c r i p t i o n t o Charles G i l d o n has r e m a i n e d unquestioned. G i l d o n ( w h o owes s o m e t h i n g t o D a v e n a n t ) abolishes a l l traces o f l o w life a n d b o r ­ r o w s Purcell's Dido and AEneas t o f i l l the vacant spaces. (This, i t has been conjectured, m a y account f o r the success o f his v e r s i o n o n the stage.) W i t h the parts o f Shakespeare's p l a y that he retains, he takes some t r o u b l e . O f these t w o travesties, his is the m o r e interesting.

II THE POSITION OCCUPIED BY MEASURE

FOR

MEASURE

'There is no great merit i n telling h o w many plays have ghosts i n them, and h o w this ghost is better than that. Y o u must shew h o w terrour is impressed o n the human heart.' (Johnson, as reported b y Boswell, 1769)

W

HERE does Shakespeare stand—first, i n r e l a t i o n t o others w h o have t o l d the s t o r y he tells i n Measure for Measure; t h e n , i n r e l a t i o n t o those currents o f t h o u g h t a n d feeling w i t h w h i c h i t has n o w a n d again been charged? T o his predecessors he m a y be i n debt, d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , a c c o r d i n g as t h e y are i n d e b t e d t o one another. R e c k o n i n g b a c k ­ w a r d s f r o m the e n d o f the sixteenth c e n t u r y , w e find t h a t the s i g ­ nificant figures i n the h i s t o r y o f this tale a m o u n t t o five: R o i l l e t u s , G i r a l d i , W h e t s t o n e , L u p t o n , Belleforest. A m o n g s t these, w e shall h a r d l y expect a close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a n y w r i t e r w h o makes the m a n a n d w o m a n husband a n d w i f e , a n d the e n d calamitous, a n d one w h o makes t h e m b r o t h e r a n d sister, a n d brings a b o u t some sort o f h a p p y e n d i n g . Nevertheless, there m u s t always r e ­ m a i n the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t either k n e w , even t h o u g h he d i d n o t choose t o f o l l o w , the other's v e r s i o n , a n d t h a t this k n o w l e d g e w i l l be s o m e w h e r e reflected. N o w , Shakespeare's acquaintance w i t h W h e t s t o n e , a n d at least t h r o u g h h i m w i t h G i r a l d i ' s tale, is so e v i ­ d e n t a n d so generally accepted t h a t w e m a y surely take i t as a fixed p o i n t f r o m w h i c h t o w o r k : t h r o u g h Promos and Cassandra he w o u l d receive so m u c h o f the tale o f E p i t i a as W h e t s t o n e h i m s e l f was able t o apprehend a n d c o m m u n i c a t e ; b u t b y this channel he w o u l d n o t , o n m y s h o w i n g , receive a n y t h i n g t h a t is t o be f o u n d 1

Assuming that w e have not to reckon w i t h a missing intermediary—always a possibility i n that age, as the records o f lost plays r e m i n d us. 1

30

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE*

o n l y i n Giraldi's play; or, i n that o f Roilletus. A r e w e to a l l o w for the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t he h a d h i m s e l f read either o f these, o r t h a t he k n e w m o r e o f G i r a l d i ' s tale, o r tales, t h a n W h e t s t o n e c o u l d t e l l him? T h i s poses the o l d q u e s t i o n o f Shakespeare's k n o w l e d g e o f o t h e r languages besides his o w n — a q u e s t i o n t h a t is n o t l i k e l y ever t o be q u i t e resolved. W e m a y , h o w e v e r , start afresh f r o m Professor F. P. W i l s o n ' s f i n d i n g , as t o the three languages here i n v o l v e d : L a t i n , Italian, French—Roilletus' play being extant i n L a t i n and French, G i r a l d i ' s p l a y i n I t a l i a n o n l y , his tale o f E p i t i a i n I t a l i a n a n d F r e n c h . W e shall say . . . that his Latin, small indeed i n comparison w i t h J o n son's, was yet sufficient to make h i m n o t w h o l l y dependent u p o n trans­ lation. . . . T h a t he read O v i d as w e l l as Golding's O v i d , some Seneca and V i r g i l as w e l l as English Seneca and V i r g i l is, I t h i n k proved On these matters there is general agreement. . . . he could and d i d read i n the originals some Terence and Plautus, some O v i d and V i r g i l ; . . . possessing a reading knowledge o f Latin all those short-cuts to learning i n florilegia and compendia were at his service i f he cared to avail h i m ­ self o f t h e m . . . B u t granted that Shakespeare could read Latin, is there any evidence that he had access to any m o d e r n tongue other than his own? Here, I t h i n k , there is no general agreement. The evidence that he read Italian depends solely u p o n the fact that n o English versions are k n o w n o f some o f the tales f r o m w h i c h he t o o k his plots. For Cymbeline did he t u r n t o the Decameron, for Othello t o C i n t h i o , and for Measure for Measure to Cinthio's novella and play as w e l l as to George Whetstone's rendering o f Cinthio? T h a t an Englishman w h o can read Latin can make sense o f an Italian novella has been p r o v e d experimentally again and again, but that Shakespeare read at all easily and w i d e l y i n Italian literature—in Petrarch, Ariosto, and Tasso as w e l l as i n the writers o f novelle—has not, I think, been proved. A n d as doubtful is the extent o f his reading i n French literature. 1

L e t m e c a r r y this b u t a l i t t l e further, before b r i n g i n g i t t o bear o n the i m m e d i a t e p r o b l e m . A r g u m e n t as t o Shakespeare's k n o w ­ ledge o f languages used t o h a n g o n the d i s p u t e d p o i n t , w h e t h e r i t was possible f o r h i m t o have d o n e w h a t he d i d w i t h o u t k n o w i n g o t h e r tongues t h a n his o w n . T h e processes o f genius b e i n g m y s t e r ­ ious, w e m a y w e l l believe t h a t a m a n e n d o w e d w i t h i t can dispense F. P. W i l s o n , 'Shakespeare's Reading' (Shakespeare Survey 3, Cambridge, 1950, pp. 14,15). 1

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE'

31

w i t h w h a t w e call c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e — t h a t c o m p l e x tissue o f fact a n d o p i n i o n o n w h i c h w e ourselves depend. B u t t h a t is n o reason f o r assuming, w i t h o u t substantial p r o o f , t h a t he is w a n t i n g i n i t . T o argue so is m u c h l i k e supposing t h a t a craftsman, r e p u t e d t o have been so s k i l f u l t h a t he c o u l d d o d e f t l y w i t h one h a n d w h a t o t h e r m e n d o c l u m s i l y w i t h t w o , m u s t have been one-handed. I f Shakespeare was l i k e o t h e r m e n o f his t i m e a n d place, m e n w h o s e business b r o u g h t t h e m a c q u a i n t e d w i t h d w e l l e r s i n , a n d visitors t o , E l i z a b e t h a n L o n d o n , t h e n he shared t h e i r i n d u c e m e n t t o m a k e themselves conversant w i t h o t h e r tongues besides t h e i r o w n , f o r , w a n t i n g a k n o w l e d g e o f F r e n c h , I t a l i a n , Spanish, a l l three, he w o u l d be c o n f i n e d t o a v e r y n a r r o w r o o m . I t h i n k w e can h a r d l y realize h o w different the w o r l d m u s t have appeared t o E n g l i s h m e n before sea-faring a n d c o m m e r c e h a d c a r r i e d o u r language r o u n d i t . A n d o p p o r t u n i t y b o r e some p r o p o r t i o n t o need. A L o n d o n e r c o u l d hear F r e n c h , F l e m i s h o r I t a l i a n s p o k e n i n the Protestant refugee c o m m u n i t i e s , w i t h o u t personal acquaintance a m o n g s t t h e m . T h e r e w e r e f o r e i g n b o o k s f r o m E n g l i s h presses o r b r o u g h t h o m e b y travellers, a n d the means o f l e a r n i n g t o m a k e t h e m o u t : h a n d b o o k s o f i n s t r u c t i o n i n F r e n c h a n d I t a l i a n , vocabularies a n d b o o k s o f f e r i n g t w o o r m o r e versions o f a w o r k p r i n t e d i n p a r a l l e l c o l u m n s — t h e u n r e a d y l i n g u i s t k n o w s h o w useful these can be. M o r e o v e r , Shakespeare h i m s e l f m u s t h a v e h a d his f u l l share o f t h a t relish f o r l i n g u i s t i c i n n o v a t i o n o n w h i c h he c o u l d e v i d e n t l y c o u n t i n his audience; a n d , since this i n n o v a t i o n consisted l a r g e l y i n t h e i m p o r t a t i o n o f f o r e i g n w o r d s , he w h o h a d n o t a n ear f o r these n e w - c o m e r s w o u l d be at a loss e v e n i n c o m m o n t a l k . A n d there is one f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t has been t o o l i t t l e r e g a r d e d : scholars a n d travellers, f r o m B e n J o n s o n o n w a r d s , have never been able t o realize o n h o w s m a l l a l i n g u i s t i c c a p i t a l the rest o f us are able t o pursue those i n q u i r i e s t o w h i c h c u r i o s i t y p r o m p t s us, n o r t o a l l o w t h a t — w h a t e v e r else m a y be b e y o n d o u r m e a n s — w e can usually m a k e o u t a story i n a n y language o f w h i c h w e have so m u c h as a s m a t t e r i n g . L e t us, t h e n , r e c k o n w i t h the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t w h a t was e x t a n t i n F r e n c h o r I t a l i a n m a y h a v e been w i t h i n Shakespeare's reach, b u t 1

See G. D . W i l l c o c k , Shakespeare as Critic of Language (Shakespeare Association, 1934). 1

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY ^MEASURE FOR M E A S U R E '

32

n o t a d m i t the p r o b a b i l i t y o f his r e a c h i n g o u t f o r b o o k s difficult t o o b t a i n o r t o read, i n either language. C o m p a r e d w i t h W h e t s t o n e he had j u s t so m u c h m o r e o p p o r t u n i t y o f acquaintance w i t h these t w o plays as the t i m e - i n t e r v a l b e t w e e n Promos and Cassandra a n d Measure for Measure gives; b u t he h a d surely far less i n c e n t i v e t o l o o k i n t o t h e m , t o penetrate the distasteful r i n d o f an u n c o n g e n i a l d r a m a t i c c o n v e n t i o n , the h a r d shell o f a f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e — a n d a l l f o r so d r y a k e r n e l : a s t o r y w i t h w h i c h , v e r y l i k e l y , he was already f a m i l i a r o n easier terms. W h e t s t o n e , w h e n he w r o t e his p l a y , h a d been a y o u n g m a n w i t h aspirations after a t h e o r y o f d r a m a , a n d w i t h o u t d r a m a t i c experience. Indeed, a n y a r g u m e n t f r o m accessibility leads t o w a r d s a p o s i t i o n w h i c h n o one w o u l d w i l l i n g l y h o l d , f o r i t w o r k s o u t l i k e t h i s : W h e t s t o n e c o u l d n o t have k n o w n Epitia a n d m a y therefore be credited w i t h e n o u g h i n v e n t i v e p o w e r f o r m a j o r i n n o v a t i o n s ; Shakespeare c o u l d have k n o w n i t , a n d therefore is n o t t o be sup­ posed capable o f i n v e n t i n g even those circumstances i n respect o f w h i c h Measure for Measure comes nearer t o Epitia t h a n Promos and Cassandra h a d d o n e ; y e t such circumstances are t r i f l i n g , w i t h i n the capacity o f the merest artificer t o i n v e n t , at need. I believe t h a t w e m a y dismiss the t w o plays w i t h o u t f u r t h e r c o n c e r n ; b u t the Hecatommithi is another m a t t e r altogether. N o t ­ w i t h s t a n d i n g its m u c h greater dispersion, m y c l a i m f o r i t w i l l rest neither o n this n o r o n p a r t i c u l a r similarities b e t w e e n the fifth tale o f the e i g h t h d a y and Measure for Measure, b u t o n s o m e t h i n g o f w i d e r i m p l i c a t i o n s . I n the Hecatommithi, G i r a l d i tells the tale o f the m o n s t r o u s r a n s o m three several t i m e s ; a n d n o t o n l y is i t a f a v o u r ­ i t e s t o r y - p a t t e r n — i t carries the b u r d e n o f some o f his f a v o u r i t e themes. I n default o f an E n g l i s h translation, the f o l l o w i n g e p i ­ tomes o f those t w o versions w h i c h have n o t h i t h e r t o been n o t i c e d m a y be useful. 1

2

3

The style o f Giraldi's play is more formal and difficult than that o f his tales. I have read only the original Latin o f Roilletus' play, but there seems no reason for supposing the French version to be any less rhetorical and high-pitched. This must seem a very summary w a y o f dismissing the careful arguments o f Albrecht, B u d d and Ball, but close and prolonged scrutiny o f the particulars has convinced me that they have not the significance claimed for them. T h o u g h the first edition had been printed at M o n d o v i , those o f 1566, 1574, 1580,1584 and 1593 all issued f r o m the important Venetian presses. 1

2

3

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE*

33

T h e s t o r y occurs t w i c e i n t h e series o f stories assigned t o the fifth day, o f w h i c h the r u l i n g subject is: d e v o t i o n o n the p a r t o f husband o r w i f e i n the teeth o f adverse f o r t u n e . W i t h i n this series, these t w o f o r m p a r t o f a smaller g r o u p o f s i m i l a r tales, i n each o f w h i c h t h e w i f e rescues t h e husband f r o m danger b y d a r i n g , c u n ­ n i n g o r effrontery. T h e second tale o f this f i f t h d a y is b o l d l y r o m a n t i c . I n the t i m e o f C o n s t a n t i n e , Viaste governs C o n s t a n t i n o p l e a n d stands h i g h i n t h e E m p e r o r ' s f a v o u r . H e covets D o r o t h e a , w i f e o f L o c r i n o , a prosperous a n d h o n o u r a b l e m e r c h a n t , w h o , w h e n Viaste a p ­ proaches h i m w i t h d i s h o n o u r a b l e proposals, lays the case before his w i f e . She, w h o seems t h e stronger s p i r i t , advises h i m t o f e i g n consent; she w i l l u n d e r t a k e t o preserve her o w n h o n o u r a n d his safety. I n a l o n g a n d a b l y r h e t o r i c a l a r g u m e n t w i t h Viaste she attempts t o change his purpose, b u t fails. Viaste t r u m p s u p a charge against L o c r i n o , a n d demands t h e death p e n a l t y . T h e E m p e r o r , t h o u g h c o n v i n c e d o f L o c r i n o ' s g u i l t (so s k i l f u l l y has the charge been f r a m e d ) , w i l l n o t g o b e y o n d the sentence o f i m p r i s o n m e n t . Viaste v a i n l y t e m p t s first his prisoner, t h e n t h e prisoner's w i f e , w i t h the m o n s t r o u s p r o p o s a l . F r o m this p o i n t o n w a r d s , the storydevelops i n t o a r o m a n c e o f a d v e n t u r e . L o c r i n o ' s p r i s o n is a fortress s u r r o u n d e d b y w a t e r . B u t i t seems t h a t the ladies o f C o n s t a n t i n o p l e were then notable swimmers; and D o r o t h e a swims n i g h t l y t o the fortress a n d talks w i t h her h u s b a n d at a g r a t i n g . O n e n i g h t t h e gaoler overhears t h e i r t a l k a n d , r e l e n t i n g (for he k n o w s his prisoner t o be i n n o c e n t ) , a d m i t s her f o r a short w h i l e . A f t e r several such visits he is persuaded t o c o n n i v e at L o c r i n o ' s escape; a n d D o r o t h e a c o n t r i v e s t h e i r f l i g h t f r o m C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . T h r e e years later, Viaste dies, confessing t h a t his accusation was false. C o n s t a n ­ t i n e sends w o r d t o recall the fugitives, a n d , after f u r t h e r a d v e n ­ tures a n d escapes, t h e y r e t u r n t o f a v o u r a n d p r o s p e r i t y . T h e s i x t h tale o f t h e same d a y is, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , b r o a d l y c o m i c i n t e m p e r . T h e emphasis falls o n the s t u r d y independence o f t h e husband a n d w i f e , a n d t h e c l e m e n c y a n d p l a c a b i l i t y o f the sovereign. A t a i l o r o f Ferrara is c o n v i c t e d o f theft a n d c o n d e m n e d t o death b y a j u d g e w h o h o l d s office u n d e r A l f o n s o I . H e begs f o r the c o m p a n y o f his w i f e Gratiosa i n p r i s o n . T h e j u d g e , w e l l versed i n l a w b u t a m a n o f v i c i o u s character, consents, p r o v i d e d she be D

34

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE'

w i l l i n g , a n d h i m s e l f i n t e r v i e w s her. She is a h a n d s o m e w o m a n , a n d tears b e c o m e her. T h e j u d g e suggests t h a t after the t a i l o r ' s death she m a y w e l l find a better husband. She replies t h a t she w a n t s n o better, a n d pleads t h a t d i r e necessity alone d r o v e her husband t o offend. T h e j u d g e makes his a b o m i n a b l e p r o p o s a l . Gratiosa forces a w a y t o the D u k e ' s presence a n d there pleads v i g o r o u s l y a n d effectually. H e conceals her a n d , sending f o r his officer o f j u s t i c e , questions h i m as t o the severity o f this p a r t i c u l a r sentence: h a d he n o t p o w e r t o t e m p e r the l a w i n these p i t i a b l e c i r ­ cumstances? T h e j u d g e has t o a d m i t t h a t the c i v i l code does n o t i m p o s e the death p e n a l t y f o r theft, b u t m a i n t a i n s t h a t the statutes o f the D u k e ' s o w n c i t y b i n d h i m t o severity. T h e D u k e r e j o i n s : ' W h a t a b o u t the tailor's w i f e ? ' — a n d produces her, v o l u b l e a n d accusing; a n d the j u d g e is d u m b f o u n d e d . T h e D u k e decrees that, i n recompense f o r his w i f e ' s m e r i t , t h e t a i l o r shall be p a r d o n e d , a n d w h a t he has stolen shall be m a d e g o o d o u t o f the j u d g e ' s p r o ­ p e r t y ; the j u d g e is t o lose his life. T h e j u d g e ' s friends appeal f o r m e r c y , p l e a d i n g his y o u t h a n d the w o m a n ' s b e a u t y ; b u t t h e D u k e retorts t h a t a magistrate s h o u l d be superior t o c o m m o n f r a i l t y . A y o u n g m a n o f his c o u r t ventures t h e pleasantry t h a t e v e n the o l d a n d w i s e are n o t always p r o o f against t e m p t a t i o n — h e h i m s e l f m i g h t have s u c c u m b e d i f he h a d seen her i n tears a n d n o t i n a t e m p e r . T h e D u k e relents, a n d t h e j u d g e ' s friends o b t a i n his pardon. Set t h e three tales I have s u m m a r i s e d — t h e y m a y f o r c o n v e n i ­ ence be called t h e tales o f E p i t i a , D o r o t h e a a n d Gratiosa—side b y side, a n d i t w i l l surely appear t h a t G i r a l d i was b e n t o n e n d i n g this s t o r y h a p p i l y , a n d v a r i e d t h e means i n a c c o r d w i t h c u r r e n t m o r a l s e n t i m e n t : w h e r e t h e w o m a n is u n m a r r i e d , a n y w r o n g d o n e her is r e p a i r e d b y m a r r i a g e ; w h e r e she is, as i n t r a d i t i o n a l versions, t h e w i f e o f t h e c o n d e m n e d m a n , means m u s t be devised f o r k e e p i n g her p e r s o n i n v i o l a t e . C o m p a r i s o n , m o r e o v e r , suggests another s i g ­ n i f i c a n t resemblance a m o n g s t t h e three: a v e r d i c t ( w h i c h varies f r o m flagrantly, unjust t o excessively severe) is w i s e l y a n d h a p p i l y o v e r r u l e d i n each b y h i g h e r a u t h o r i t y . G i r a l d i ' s ideal s o v e r e i g n is 1

Puritan moralists o f Shakespeare's age d i d not subscribe t o this opinion. See, for example, the context o f this story i n Thomas Beard's Theatre of God's Judge­ ments. 1

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE'

35

o n e w h o conceives i t w i t h i n his p o w e r a n d his d u t y t o t e m p e r t h e l a w w i t h m e r c y ; a n d , even w i t h due a l l o w a n c e f o r the o b v i o u s use­ fulness o f such a personage i n t r a g i - c o m e d y , a n d the l i k e l i h o o d o f flattery w h e n he appears i n tales dedicated t o m e m b e r s o f a r u l i n g house, this f i g u r e s t i l l l o o k s t o m e e m b l e m a t i c a l . H e is t o be seen also i n o t h e r tales o f the f i f t h d a y , a n d o f this same g r o u p : t h e f o u r t h , i n w h i c h a w o m a n rescues her h u s b a n d f r o m p r i s o n b y c h a n g i n g clothes w i t h h i m , is c o n d e m n e d t o suffer i n his stead, a n d , w h e n he gives h i m s e l f up, t o suffer w i t h h i m ; a n d the f i f t h , i n w h i c h again a w i f e rescues her h u s b a n d f r o m p r i s o n b y a stratagem i n v o l v i n g change o f dress, a n d sentence o f death is d e l i v e r e d b y the magistrate i n charge. I n b o t h , this magistrate's sentence is o v e r ­ r u l e d b y Francis o f S a v o y : i n one, friends o f the i m p e r i l l e d c o u p l e h o l d u p the e x e c u t i o n u n t i l a n appeal can reach the k i n g ; i n t h e other, the t w o l i e p e r d u u n t i l t h e i r p a r d o n is o b t a i n e d f r o m h i m , a n d the magistrate p u t o u t o f office. T h i s idea o f r o y a l c l e m e n c y is e x e m p l i f i e d i n another and g r a v e r tale, a n d there associated w i t h one o f G i r a l d i ' s f a v o u r i t e themes: generosity t o a fallen e n e m y . I n the s i x t h tale o f the s i x t h d a y , L i v i a , a w i d o w d e v o t e d t o a n o n l y son, h e r o i c a l l y pleads f o r t h e l i f e o f the m a n w h o has k i l l e d t h a t son i n a b r a w l a n d u n w i t t i n g l y t a k e n refuge i n her house. T h e j u d g e , represented as a stickler f o r t h e l a w , w i l l n o t be m o v e d ; b u t she addresses herself to t h e highest a u t h o r i t y o f all, because 'la D i v i n a B o n t a ha data a v o i a u t [ t ] o r i t a sopra le l e g g i , & a r b i t r i d i m i t i g a r l'asprezza l o r o ' . T o her, as t o E p i t i a , the t h i n g she asks is g r a n t e d , i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f her m a g ­ n a n i m i t y : ' V i n c a D o n n a la t u a cortesia la severa a u t t o r i t a delle leggi'. Surely a n y o n e g l a n c i n g t h r o u g h t h e Hecatommithi a n d r e a d i n g these a m o n g o t h e r tales w o u l d receive certain impressions: first, t h a t this s t o r y was capable o f b e i n g b r o u g h t , b y a v a r i e t y o f means, t o the h a p p y e n d i n g p r o p e r t o t r a g i - c o m e d y ; a c o n c l u s i o n , t h a t is, i n w h i c h i t appears t h a t n o irreparable w r o n g has been d o n e o r suffered. W i t h this, t w o c o m p l e m e n t a r y ideas o f m e r c y w o u l d r e m a i n i n t h e reader's m i n d : o f the i n c l i n a t i o n t o p a r d o n w h i c h is to be l o o k e d f o r i n the m a n o f highest a u t h o r i t y ; o f the capacity t o f o r g i v e w h i c h m a y be called f o r t h , e v e n i n one m u c h i n j u r e d , b y 1

1

Ideas as to w h a t sort o f w r o n g is irreparable w i l l vary w i t h time and place.

36

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY ^MEASURE FOR MEASURE*

reversal o f f o r t u n e , the abject helplessness o f a f o r m e r e n e m y a n d oppressor. A r e w e t o suppose Shakespeare such a reader? G i v e n a single assumption—and i t is one v e r y c o m m o n l y h e l d — t h i s is at least a l i k e l y s u p p o s i t i o n : f a i l i n g the d i s c o v e r y o f a separate p u b l i ­ c a t i o n ( i n a n y language) o f the s t o r y o f D e s d e m o n a a n d the M o o r , w h i c h is G i r a l d i ' s seventh tale f o r the t h i r d day, w e m u s t assume t h a t Shakespeare f o u n d i t i n t h e Hecatommithi—and he w o u l d be a d u l l s p i r i t w h o , h a v i n g read one o f these tales, s h o u l d read n o f u r t h e r . M a y w e n o t t h e n suppose t h a t ( i n the course, perhaps, o f a year w h i c h saw the first p e r f o r m a n c e o f Measure for Measure a n d Othello) he f o u n d i n this same b o o k the tale o f E p i t i a , a n d those tales o f the f i f t h d a y w h i c h seem t o be variations o n that v e r y theme? O f Shakespeare's r e a d i n g i n b o o k s k n o w n t o have been favourites w i t h h i m , Professor F. P. W i l s o n says: ' T h e evidence suggests t h a t w h e n a t h e m e t o o k possession o f his m i n d , especially a t h e m e w i t h a l o n g t r a d i t i o n b e h i n d i t , he read w i d e l y — n o t l a b o r i o u s l y , b u t w i t h a d a r t i n g intelligence, w h i c h q u i c k e n e d his i n v e n t i o n . ' T h e r e is, I believe, n o t h i n g i n h e r e n t l y i m p r o b a b l e i n t h e n o t i o n o f Shakespeare r a n g i n g , w i t h easier, m o r e c u r s o r y a t t e n t i o n , t h r o u g h t h e Hecatommithi. A s w e reach Siuqila, i n this i n t e r r o g a t i o n ofMeasure for Measure's p r i n c i p a l antecedents, even the faint l i g h t o f p r o b a b i l i t y flickers. T h e s t o r y itself, b e l o n g i n g t o t h a t t r a d i t i o n f r o m w h i c h G i r a l d i , W h e t s t o n e a n d Shakespeare a l i k e depart, has l i t t l e t o connect i t w i t h a n y o f t h e i r versions—unless w e a l l o w that the c i r c u m s t a n t i a l c o n t r i v a n c e , o u t o f the j u d g e ' s o w n means o f security, o f the e v i ­ dence b y w h i c h he is destroyed m a y have q u i c k e n e d Shakespeare's interest i n the p r a c t i c a l p r o b l e m o f f u r n i s h i n g stage proofs. B u t i t is the story's c o n t e x t f o r w h i c h I c l a i m a t t e n t i o n : t h a t g r o u p o f n e i g h b o u r i n g tales w h o s e central f i g u r e is an i n d e f a t i g a b l y i n q u i s i ­ t i v e r u l e r . H e r e L u p t o n , t a k i n g t h a t creature o f p o p u l a r i m a g i n a ­ t i o n , the p r i n c e w h o b e n e v o l e n t l y intermeddles i n p r i v a t e lives, develops a busy c o n c e r n w i t h the various sorts o f subterfuge p r o p e r t o the p a r t . T h u s i n A i l g n a , w h e r e the s t o r y i t s e l f is set, the b u r d e n o f p r o o f falls o n the v i c t i m o f oppression; b u t i n M a u q s u n , the setting o f m a n y n e i g h b o u r i n g tales, a u t h o r i t y takes measures t o ascertain the t r u t h i n g o o d t i m e , t o t h w a r t the oppressor—and 1

1

'Shakespeare's Reading' (Shakespeare Survey, 3,1950), p . 18.

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE'

37

p u n i s h h i m f o r w h a t he w o u l d have done. I f Siuqila indeed l i n g e r e d i n Shakespeare's i m a g i n a t i o n , i t m u s t have o w e d its presence there t o t h a t strangely r e t e n t i v e force o f disgust, w h i c h w o u l d n o t release F i e l d i n g u n t i l he h a d g i v e n his o w n v e r s i o n o f Pamela's history. W i t h Belleforest, t h e l i g h t goes o u t ; f o r , t h o u g h Shakespeare m a y w e l l have k n o w n a n d used certain o f the Histoires Tragiques elsewhere, he w o u l d have f o u n d these i n earlier v o l u m e s t h a n t h a t o f 1583. T h e r e seems n o t h i n g t o connect h i m w i t h those three tales i n the second p a r t o f the 1583 v o l u m e w h i c h are distinguished as Belleforest's o w n . I propose therefore t o r e g a r d Belleforest's v e r s i o n o f the s t o r y as a m e r e analogue, w o r t h r e m e m b e r i n g f o r the sake o f the significant contrast w h i c h i t here and there affords w i t h the versions o f G i r a l d i , W h e t s t o n e a n d Shakespeare. I f these relationships w h i c h I have characterized as p r o b a b l e s h o u l d ever be f o u n d susceptible o f p r o o f ; o r i f the s u m o f m y c o n ­ jectures s h o u l d i n the m e a n w h i l e be accepted as a w o r k i n g h y p o ­ thesis—what s h o u l d w e stand t o gain? T h e a u t h o r i t y r e q u i r e d t o l a y a ghost, a w h i s p e r i n g spirit, always ready t o insinuate t h a t Shakespeare, w h e n he w r o t e Measure for Measure, was h a n d l i n g carelessly a s t o r y u n f i t f o r his art; that, u n d e r some pressure ( p r o ­ b a b l y discreditable), he t h r u s t u p o n this u g l y tale an i n c o n g r u o u s h a p p y e n d i n g — s a v i n g h i m s e l f t h e t r o u b l e o f fresh i n v e n t i o n b y f o r c e d l e v y u p o n a worthless o l d p l a y . I t m a y seem t o those w h o share the recent v e n e r a t i o n f o r Measure for Measure t h a t this is a l l a n o l d story, better f o r g o t t e n . N o t h i n g so s t r o n g l y felt as this has been felt is effaced m e r e l y b y another m o d e o f feeling. Its dismissal m a y n o t be final: I believe t h a t u n t i l w e g i v e i t the w h o l e benefit o f the d o u b t , stating i t afresh i n o u r o w n best terms, w e shall never o b t a i n t h a t c o m m a n d b y w h i c h alone a house is r i d o f such visitants. L e t m e b e g i n w i t h t h e m o d e r a t e v i e w , the v i e w o f temperate people w h o are ready t o e n j o y w h a t t h e y find enjoyable i n the p l a y — b u t are n o t prepared t o face a l l the issues raised b y t h e i r p a r t i a l acceptance o f its i m p l i c a t i o n s . Shakespeare, t h e y t e l l us, Belleforest's versions o f Bandello have been canvassed as sources for Much Ado and Twelfth Night; o f Saxo Grammaticus, for Hamlet. 1 have mentioned a resemblance between the captain's treatment o f the hus­ band and Iago's treatment o f Cassio—a particular i n which Othello diverges f r o m Giraldi's story; but it is too tenuous to bear the weight o f argument. 1

2

1

2

38

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY ^MEASURE FOR MEASURE'

t o o k a harsh tale a n d softened i t . B u t h o w ? B y p r e s e r v i n g t h e w o m a n f r o m v i o l a t i o n — t h a t is, he f o u n d someone t o suffer i n her place. A n d i f this s h o u l d seem h a r d l y sufficient w e m a y be assured that, since h e r substitute is already b e t r o t h e d t o the j u d g e , a n d b e t r o t h a l h a d t h e n a legal v a l i d i t y w h o s e force w e have n o w f o r ­ g o t t e n , a l l is i n d e e d w e l l . T h i s c o n t e n t i o n has already been m e t b y the o b j e c t i o n t h a t the l a w alone w o u l d be appeased b y this s o l u t i o n o f the d i f f i c u l t y , r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f a n d m o r a l sentiment r e ­ m a i n i n g unsatisfied. W h e n w e r e m e m b e r w h a t C l a u d i o , as w e l l as his sister, has t o say o n t h e a n t i c i p a t i o n o f m a r r i a g e b y a b e t r o t h e d c o u p l e , i t c e r t a i n l y seems t h a t here is a n a n o m a l y ; a n d , w h e r e m o r a l s e n t i m e n t a n d l a w are at variance, the d r a m a t i s t w h o s h o u l d prefer t o satisfy t h e l a w w o u l d , e v e n n o w , be c h o o s i n g strangely; w h i l e , i n t h a t age at least, r e l i g i o n h a d t o be r e c k o n e d w i t h . A s t o t h a t o t h e r 'softening'—a m o r e sparing use o f the p r o p e r t y head t h a n was t o be l o o k e d f o r i n t h a t r e m o t e , t e r r i b l e E l i z a b e t h a n t h e a t r e — h o w w o u l d i t affect the audience f o r w h o m the p l a y was intended? D i d t h e y i n d e e d react t o feigned death as w e do? I f t h e y r e a l l y cared t h a t Isabel s h o u l d n o t see, o n o r o f f the stage, the head w h i c h she is t o suppose her b r o t h e r ' s , w h y d i d n o t Shakespeare spare I m o g e n a n e q u a l l y h o r r i b l e experience? T h e faked e x e c u ­ tions i n p o p u l a r n a r r a t i v e o f t h a t age w e r e witnessed b y charac­ ters n e a r l y c o n c e r n e d ; o t h e r w i s e t h e y w o u l d have been pointless, t h e d e c e p t i o n b e i n g designed f o r these v e r y people. I t m a y be w o r t h w h i l e t o f o l l o w t o t h e i r l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this p r o p o s i t i o n — t h a t a harsh tale m a y be softened b y the s u b s t i t u t i o n o f a less i n t e r e s t i n g v i c t i m f o r one i n w h o s e sufferings w e have c o m e t o feel c o n c e r n . Shakespeare ( i t w i l l t h e n appear) used this device three t i m e s : o n b e h a l f o f C l a u d i o , Isabel a n d B a r n a r d i n e — a n d o n l y the first o f these h a d been suggested b y his k n o w n source. P u r s u i n g this p a t h , w e find ourselves c o n ­ f r o n t e d w i t h a d r a m a t i s t o f u n f l a g g i n g professional c o m p e t e n c e , w h o has been u r g e d t o repeat his recent success i n r o m a n t i c c o m e d y , 1

2

3

I t was first advanced b y W . W . Lawrence, i n Shakespeare's Problem Comedies (Chapter i i i ) ; and, as to the validity o f Elizabethan betrothal i n the eyes o f the law, has been fully substantiated and accepted. See D . P. Harding, 'Elizabethan Betrothals and Measure for Measure* (Journal of English and Germanic Philology, A p r i l 1950). This argument w i l l be considered i n the analysis o f the play; see pp. 119-20 below. E.g. in Sidney's Arcadia. 1

2

3

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE*

39

a n d is n o w engaged i n t u r n i n g o v e r i n his m i n d , w i t h enforced patience, the possibilities o f this f a m i l i a r tale—already fashioned, b y W h e t s t o n e ' s g o o d nature, i n t o s o m e t h i n g t h a t m i g h t once have passed f o r t r a g i - c o m e d y , b u t was n o t y e t fit f o r the taste o f t h e n e w c o u r t . U n c o n c e r n e d l y he observes that, b y d o u b l i n g t h a t o l d s u b s t i t u t i o n t r i c k — t h e v e r y staple o f r o m a n c e , w h e t h e r p o p u l a r o r c o u r t l y — h e w i l l be able t o m e e t the u t m o s t d e m a n d t h a t can be m a d e o n h i m . T h e b r o t h e r has already been saved f r o m the p e r i l t h a t threatened h i m ; w h y n o t t h e sister, a n d b y s i m i l a r means? L e t a substitute f o r h e r t o o be i n v e n t e d ; and, i n the v e r y act o f c a l l i n g this o t h e r w o m a n i n t o b e i n g , the harassed d r a m a t i s t finds h i m s e l f r e l i e v e d o f the d u t y o f p r o v i d i n g f o r h e r : she w i l l o f course m a r r y t h e j u d g e . A n d here he m a y be supposed t o feel weariness, a n d d i s ­ gust itself, e v a p o r a t i n g i n t h e v e r y g l o w o f success, o r at least i n t h e exercise o f his o w n i n g e n u i t y ; a n d , w a r m i n g t o his w o r k , w i l l ask h i m s e l f : ' B u t w h y stop here? Is n o p r o v i s i o n t o be m a d e f o r t h a t .other h u m b l e , serviceable character—the prisoner w h o s e head the k i n d l y gaoler t o o k the l i b e r t y o f r e m o v i n g , f o r the benefit o f the c o n d e m n e d man? W h y n o t y e t another substitute, f o r his benefit? A thoughtless audience c a n n o t have t o o m u c h o f a h a p p y e n d i n g . ' — T h e r e , i n p l a i n terms, h o w e v e r l u d i c r o u s l y f r a m e d , is Raleigh's p r o p o s i t i o n (less t h a n h a l f j e s t ) : t h a t i f Shakespeare h a d been asked for a c o m e d y w h e n he was i n n o m o o d f o r w r i t i n g one, he w o u l d n o t have answered, ' C a n ' t y o u see t h a t I a m i n m y t r a g i c p e r i o d ? ' —he w o u l d have d e l i v e r e d Measure for Measure. A n d there is the l o g i c a l o u t c o m e o f supposing t h a t Shakespeare h a d n o m o r e t o d o i n this business t h a n t o find his w a y b y the smoothest possible pas­ sage t o the happiest possible e n d i n g . Nevertheless, the l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n is n o t always the r i g h t p o i n t f r o m w h i c h t o e x a m i n e a s u p p o s i t i o n ; fairness sometimes requires t h a t w e s h o u l d g o b a c k a n d frame the a r g u m e n t afresh i n terms f o r w h i c h w e are prepared t o accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . T h u s , i f i t w e r e g r a n t e d t h a t the p r e v a i l i n g t o n e o f Measure for Measure is r o m a n t i c , i t m i g h t be a r g u e d t h a t r o m a n c e obeys one sole l a w — t o please; t h a t a n y k i n d o f art w h i c h serves n o o t h e r e n d t h a n this is d o o m e d to exhaust i t s e l f i n a n effort t o o u t d o itself, a n d sooner o r later 'dies i n his o w n t o o m u c h ' . M o r e p a r t i c u l a r l y , i t m i g h t be u r g e d 1

1

W a l t e r Raleigh, Shakespeare (1907), p. 131.

40

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE'

t h a t r o m a n c e is c o m p e l l e d t o r i p e n , a n d r o t , i n a c e r t a i n m a n n e r , w h i c h m a y be thus p r e d i c t e d : whereas m o s t stories are stories o f a choice t o be m a d e a n d its o u t c o m e , the simplest sort o f r o m a n t i c s t o r y presents a choice b e t w e e n g o o d a n d b a d ; its h e r o takes at t h e outset t h e b a d w a y — o t h e r w i s e there w o u l d have been n o s t o r y — b u t i t is p l a i n l y t o be u n d e r s t o o d t h a t he is i m p e l l e d t o take i t b y s o m e t h i n g f o r w h i c h he w i l l n o t u l t i m a t e l y be h e l d t o a c c o u n t . T h e w o r l d o f this k i n d o f r o m a n c e obeys a r u l e o f i d e a l e q u i t y , a n d , w h e r e a m a n is n o t ( a c c o r d i n g t o its c o n v e n t i o n s ) t o b l a m e for w h a t he has d o n e , w e m a y be sure t h a t some f a v o u r a b l e chance w i l l i n t e r v e n e b e t w e e n t h e act a n d its n a t u r a l consequence. T h i s s i m p l e species is b o u n d b y the l a w o f its o w n n a t u r e presently t o g i v e place t o one less s i m p l e . Contrasts are h e i g h t e n e d : o n the o n e h a n d the act a n d t h e expected consequence w o r s e n ; o n the o t h e r , w e are asked t o rate ever h i g h e r t h e w o r t h o f the m a n w h o p e r ­ f o r m s the act, a n d t o d e l i g h t ever m o r e i n the f e l i c i t y at w h i c h he s o m e h o w o r o t h e r arrives. S o o n , r o m a n c e finds i t s e l f o b l i g e d t o i n v a d e t h e r e a l m o f t r a g e d y : the i n i t i a l choice affords n o g o o d prospect, o n l y alternatives o f i l l ; the i n t e r v e n t i o n b y w h i c h s y m ­ pathetic characters are rescued f r o m the p r o p e r consequences o f t h e i r o w n decisions calls f o r b o l d disregard o f p r o b a b i l i t y ; there is a general agreement t o f o r g e t the g i v e n c o n d i t i o n s o f the o r i g i n a l s i t u a t i o n a n d accept a close w h i c h , as i t becomes m o r e assured, assumes a n air o f u n c o m p r o m i s i n g f o r m a l i t y . Is this i n d e e d t h e phase, i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f r o m a n t i c d r a m a , t o w h i c h Measure for Measure belongs? D i d t h e taste o f t h e a u d i ­ ence, at t h e C h r i s t m a s revels o f the n e w c o u r t , d e m a n d o f the d r a m a t i s t t h a t he s h o u l d f r a m e a s i t u a t i o n f r o m w h i c h a t r a g i c issue was t o be expected, a n d t h e n e x p l o i t his p o w e r i n b e n d i n g the course o f the p l a y a w a y f r o m tragedy? W e r e the c o n v e n t i o n a l improbabilities o f romantic comedy no longer g o o d enough for them? Questions o f this sort used t o be asked c o n c e r n i n g Shake­ speare's last plays. F o r answer, critics p o i n t e d t o the ideas w i t h w h i c h he h a d charged these romances a n d f a i r y tales. Such a n answer, i f i t can be s u p p o r t e d , is sufficient. T h e p l a i n m a n i n t h e p i c t u r e g a l l e r y trudges s t u b b o r n l y past the f i g u r e o f H e r o d i a s ' d a u g h t e r h o l d i n g aloft t h e head o f J o h n the B a p t i s t , a n d has n o m i n d t o stand a n d gaze f o r so l o n g as t h e connoisseur can expatiate

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR M E A S U R E '

41

o n t h e excellence o f t h e w o r k m a n s h i p . N o r w i l l h e be placated w i t h t h e p r o m i s e t h a t , i n t h e n e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e subject t o m e e t his eyes, w h a t he dreads t o see w i l l be concealed f r o m v i e w . T e l l h i m t h a t i t is t o be softened—say,

b y disposal o f d r a p e r y — a n d

he m a y w e l l r e p l y t h a t this makes matters w o r s e . (Statement is indeed m o r e endurable t h a n suggestion enforced b y recollection.) Nevertheless, he s h o u l d i n fairness concede: ' I f y o u can m a k e m e u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i t means s o m e t h i n g , I w i l l l o o k afresh.' T h e b e l i e f t h a t Measure for Measure i t is c o m p a r a t i v e l y y o u n g

1

'means s o m e t h i n g ' , t h o u g h

(and t h e c l a i m t o esoteric m e a n i n g s t i l l

y o u n g e r ) , seems t o h a v e o u t g r o w n t h e need f o r defence. Since t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f Professor W i l s o n K n i g h t ' s The Wheel of Fire

2,

R. W . Measure',

Chambers's B

The Jacobean

Shakespeare

and

'Measure

and for

there h a v e b e e n m a n y t o agree (and w h o t h a t h e a r d h i m

w o u l d n o t w i s h t o agree w i t h R . W . Chambers?) i n r e a d i n g t h e p l a y as a C h r i s t i a n p a r a b l e .

4

i n s i n u a t i o n t h a t , i n Measure

H e r e , t h e n , is a u t h o r i t y t o refute t h e for Measure,

Shakespeare mis-spent

h i m s e l f i n saying something that amounts to n o t h i n g . W h y n o t accept t h e assurance t h a t n o charge o f t h e a t r i c a l o p p o r t u n i s m can l i e against this p l a y — a n d be content? U n h a p p i l y , I consider t h a t e v e r y o n e o f these e x p o s i t i o n s , h o w ­ ever persuasive, leaves s o m e t h i n g o u t o f t h e r e c k o n i n g ; a n d t h a t , i f Pater's interpretation, i n Fortnightly, 1874 (Appreciations, 1889), announces the theme. O x f o r d , 1930; L o n d o n , 1949. Originally delivered as the A n n u a l Shakespeare Lecture o f the British Academy for 1937. The influence o f this interpretation cannot be measured w i t h o u t taking into account passages o n the play i n many general studies o f Shakespeare, but represen­ tative articles devoted to i t may be cited: M . C . Bradbrook, ' A u t h o r i t y , T r u t h and Justice i n Measure for Measure* (Review of English Studies, October 1941). See also the same writer's 'Shakespeare and the Use o f Disguise i n Elizabethan Drama' (Essays in Criticism, A p r i l 1952). F. R. Leavis, ' T h e Greatness o f Measure for Mea­ sure' (Scrutiny, January 1942; and The Common Pursuit, 1952). D . A . Traversi, 'Measure for Measure' (Scrutiny, Summer 1942). W . M . T . Dodds, 'The Character o f Angelo i n Measure for Measure' (Modern Language Review, July 1946). R. W . Battenhouse, 'Measure for Measure and Christian Doctrine o f the Atonement' (Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, December 1946). J. C . M a x w e l l , Measure for Measure, A Footnote to Recent Criticism' (Downside Review, 1947). This b o d y o f criticism has left a deep impression o n recent p r o ­ ductions o f the play. A n attempt t o sum up recent argument has been made b y R. M . Smith ('Interpretations o f Measure for Measure', Shakespeare Quarterly, October 1950). 1

2

3

4

1

42

P O S I T I O N O C C U P I E D BY 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE*

w e l o o k i n the d i r e c t i o n o f the t h i n g o m i t t e d , w e shall presently discover a n u n r e s o l v e d d i f f i c u l t y . C a n w e afford, f o r e x a m p l e , t o d w e l l o n t h e C h r i s t i a n sanction f o r the forgiveness o f A n g e l o , w h i l e i g n o r i n g G i r a l d i ' s p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h this v e r y theme? H o w , i f w e find his t r e a t m e n t o f i t t o be g r o u n d e d elsewhere t h a n i n C h r i s t i a n i t y ? C a n a c l a i m o f such f a r - r e a c h i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s rest securely o n a n y p l e a — o r e v e n a n y n u m b e r o f p l e a s — l i m i t e d i n scope? Sooner o r later, i t w i l l surely ask t o be e x a m i n e d o n a scale b e y o n d the p r o p e r a i m o f lecture, article o r chapter. Y e a r after year I see the p l a i n m a n t r u d g e past, u n c o n c i l i a t e d . Defence t h a t does n o t satisfy w i l l b r i n g y o u t o a r e g i o n h a r d l y t o be d i s t i n ­ g u i s h e d f r o m t h a t t o w h i c h attack sends y o u — o r distinguishable f r o m i t o n l y b y the greater d e n s i t y o f its shadows. M r . E m p s o n , f o r e x a m p l e , seems t o be c r a m p e d b y t h e c o n ­ stricted space i n w h i c h he has chosen t o raise large issues, l i k e a p e r f o r m e r f o r c e d t o t u r n i n t o o s m a l l a circle. T h u s , passages i n w h i c h he p a t i e n t l y examines significant recurrence o f w o r d a n d phrase m u s t alternate w i t h others w h i c h appear t o d e p e n d o n i m ­ p a t i e n t l y reached conclusions, i f the s u m o f w h a t he w o u l d have t h e reader accept is t o be c o n v e y e d w i t h i n the l i m i t s o f a chapter. T h e progress t o w h i c h I w o u l d i n v i t e t h e reader w i l l be s l o w . W e m u s t be free t o t r a v e l alongside the p l a y , t a k i n g i t scene b y scene, passage b y passage, o r even l i n e b y l i n e , using, w h e n the d i a l o g u e seems i n t r i c a t e o r obscure, the leisurely device o f p a r a ­ phrase. W e m u s t have l i b e r t y f o r m a k e - b e l i e v e — o n w h i c h , i n ­ deed, c r i t i c i s m is m o r e dependent t h a n w e are usually w i l l i n g t o a d m i t : w e m u s t b r i n g i n t o use t h a t i d e a l theatre o f the i m a g i n a t i o n w h i c h w i l l a l l o w the pace o f a p e r f o r m a n c e t o be c o n t r o l l e d , v a r i e d even f r o m sentence t o sentence, a n d w h i c h f u r t h e r p e r m i t s the p r o d u c e r - a u d i t o r t o choose his o w n pauses, a n d perhaps t o c r y a h a l t w h i l e he l o o k s b a c k w a r d s o v e r the w a y he has c o m e . 1

2

W . Empson, The Structure of Complex Words (1951), Chapter x i i . See the recommendation o f D r . D o v e r W i l s o n i n The Fortunes of Falstajf (Cambridge, 1 9 4 5 ) ^ . 3 . 1

2

Ill THE PLAY CONSIDERED I . T H E CASE

' W h a t astonishes me is, Shakespeare: w h e n I l o o k i n t o h i m i t is n o t a B o o k , but People talking all r o u n d me.' (Edward Fitzgerald, Letter to M r s . C o well)

T

HE ascertainable circumstances o f Measure for Measure are f e w indeed. T h e first extant m e n t i o n is a n e n t r y i n t h e A c c o u n t B o o k o f the Revels Office, s h o w i n g t h a t i t was p e r f o r m e d at C o u r t o n 26 D e c e m b e r 1604, as one o f a series o f Christmas entertainments. Since the n e w sovereign w o u l d s o m e ­ times c o m m a n d performances o f plays w h i c h h a d n o t been t r i e d o u t i n the p u b l i c theatre, n o t h i n g forbids us t o suppose this its first appearance. I n default o f a n y evidence t o the c o n t r a r y , I shall refer t o this audience o f 1604 as the play's o r i g i n a l audience. ' T h e r e is n o o t h e r k n o w n m e n t i o n o f a p e r f o r m a n c e o f this p l a y before the R e s t o r a t i o n , ' a n d n o k n o w n p r i n t e d t e x t earlier t h a n the F o l i o . T h i s single t e x t o n w h i c h w e have t o r e l y has h a d m a n y h a r d t h i n g s said o f i t since J o h n s o n declared: ' T h e r e is perhaps n o t one o f Shakespeare's plays m o r e darkened t h a n this b y the peculiarities o f its A u t h o u r , a n d the unskilfulness o f its E d i t o r s , b y distortions o f phrase, o r negligence o f t r a n s c r i p t i o n . ' T h e r e are d i s q u i e t i n g s y m p t o m s ; b u t n o t , I believe, so m a n y n o r so g r a v e as w e have c o m e t o suppose: w e are, as w e sit d o w n t o i t , i n the p o s i t i o n o f a patient o n w h o m e v e r y successive d o c t o r has p r o n o u n c e d a fresh i n t e r d i c t : w e starve, because e v e r y t h i n g o n the table has been f o r ­ b i d d e n us. Some difficulties can be explained, a n d some e x p l a i n e d a w a y ; some, r i g h t l y considered, cancel one another o u t . W e m a y 1

2

1 2

N e w Cambridge Shakespeare, p . 160. Head-note to the play i n his edition.

44

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

e v e n t u a l l y find that i n d u b i t a b l e t e x t u a l c o r r u p t i o n can be c o n f i n e d t o p a r t i c u l a r passages, a n d there dealt w i t h piecemeal. Sir E d m u n d C h a m b e r s gives a b y n o means hopeless account o f the t e x t . Sir W a l t e r G r e g likens i t t o t h a t o f All's Well that Ends Well, w h i c h he believes t o be, t h o u g h f a u l t y , based o n t h e d r a m a ­ tist's o w n m a n u s c r i p t . H e p o i n t s o u t , i n Measure for Measure, t h e scanty stage directions, the traces o f cuts, a n d the c o n t r a d i c t o r y t i m e scheme, a n d concludes: 1

2

Careless composition has perhaps been made worse b y subsequent patching . . . I should imagine that a g o o d deal o f t i d y i n g up o f w h i c h w e k n o w n o t h i n g m a y have been done i n preparing the p r o m p t - b o o k . Scribal peculiarities p o i n t to a manuscript b y Crane, b u t I t h i n k i t must have been rather carelessly made f r o m foul papers that had been a g o o d deal altered. 3

H e r e is a sobering b u t n o t altogether d i s c o u r a g i n g prospect: i t is l i k e b e i n g offered h a r d w o r k w i t h the h o p e o f a l i v e l i h o o d . I shall r e q u i r e l i b e r t y t o challenge f r o m t i m e t o t i m e n o t o n l y stage directions b u t also act- a n d scene-division. Professor F. P. W i l s o n ( w h o first suggested Crane's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e c o p y o f Measure for Measure used i n the F o l i o ) observes that C r a n e was careful t o d i v i d e his transcripts i n t o acts a n d scenes w h e r e this was n o t already d o n e . I plead that i t was n o t d o n e t h r o u g h o u t the f o u l papers o n w h i c h he h a d here t o w o r k a n d t h a t the divisions, t h o u g h g e n e r a l l y systematic a n d consistent, l a c k a u t h o r i t y a n d deserve b r i e f n o t i c e n o w . Scene-division is used f o r either o f t w o purposes: t o indicate lapse o f t i m e o r change o f place, as i n m o d e r n usage; o r t o m a r k t h e p o i n t at w h i c h one set o f characters retires f r o m the stage a n d another takes its place. T h e first k i n d has, o f course, been accepted b y editors, b u t the second has n o t been so consistently treated. T h u s , i n A c t I , the F o l i o makes a scene-division w i t h i n w h a t n o w 4

William Shakespeare ( O x f o r d , 1930), i , 454-7. T o the particulars o f this account I shall, o f course, revert throughout this chapter. ' . . . an author's manuscript, but some o f the directions suggest expansion b y a literary editor. . . . T h e most likely explanation o f the state o f the text is perhaps that the author's foul papers were first annotated b y the book-keeper and then transcribed b y a rather careless literary copyist.' W . W . Greg, The Editorial Pro­ blem in Shakespeare ( O x f o r d , 1942), p . 146. Ibid., p . 146. F. P. W i l s o n , 'Ralph Crane, Scrivener to the King's Players' (The Library, September 1926), p p . 211,212. 1

2

3

4

T H E CASE

45

appears as Scene i i — t h a t is, at 1. 119 ( P o m p e y ' s e x i t ) . I n A c t I V , i t makes a scene-division w h i c h has ( w i t h n o m o r e reason) been accepted, g i v i n g us Scenes i i a n d i i i , a n d separating t h e w i t h ­ d r a w a l o f the D u k e a n d P r o v o s t f r o m t h e appearance o f P o m p e y . A t neither o f these p o i n t s , h o w e v e r , can I find a n y occasion t o suppose change o f place o r lapse o f t i m e . I n I . i i . , P o m p e y ' s a n ­ n o u n c e m e n t o f the persons w h o are t o succeed h i m o n the stage forbids the s u p p o s i t i o n . I n I V . i i — i i i , there is a n a t u r a l t r a n s i t i o n f r o m the D u k e ' s o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t d a w n is b r e a k i n g t o P o m p e y ' s e n t r y — o f w h i c h the m a i n purpose is t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the p r i s o n is w a k i n g t o another day. Consistency asks, therefore, t h a t neither o f these divisions s h o u l d be observed o n the stage, n o r i n a t e x t o t h e r ­ w i s e d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g t o m o d e r n usage. I n A c t I I I , o n the o t h e r h a n d , the F o l i o makes n o d i v i s i o n ; whereas m o d e r n editors m a r k one at 1. 280 (Isabel's e x i t ) . H e r e again the Folio's practice is consistent; the scribe a b i d i n g b y his o w n p r i n c i p l e s — f o r , t h o u g h some o f the persons are c h a n g e d , y e t t h e stage has n o t been vacated: t h e D u k e remains. H e r e , I see g o o d reason f o r accepting t h e F o l i o ' s i n t i m a t i o n o f c o n t i n u i t y ; o b s e r v i n g o n l y that, whereas t h e a c t i o n seems h i t h e r t o t o have fluctuated b e t w e e n i n n e r a n d o u t e r stage, t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e ­ m a i n d e r o f A c t I I I t h e o u t e r stage w i l l a p p a r e n t l y be i n constant use. So far, t h e n , the F o l i o ' s scene-division has been w o r k m a n l i k e , w h i l e its a c t - d i v i s i o n has raised n o difficulties. I n t h a t a w k w a r d passage f r o m A c t I V t o A c t V , h o w e v e r , b o t h m a y f a i r l y be called i n question. J o h n s o n w i s h e d t h a t the a c t - d i v i s i o n m i g h t f o l l o w u p o n the c o n c l u s i o n o f I V . i v , a n d c e r t a i n l y a n i g h t elapses b e ­ t w e e n the p a r t i n g here o f A n g e l o a n d Escalus, a n d t h e m e e t i n g o f Isabel a n d M a r i a n a w i t h Peter i n I V . v i . W h e r e , i f a n y w h e r e , t o p u t I V . v . w i t h its peculiar difficulties is a q u e s t i o n t h a t m a y never be answered. W h a t is clear is the u n b r o k e n c o n t i n u i t y f r o m the close o f this p e r p l e x i n g scene t o the e n d o f the p l a y : n o t i m e i n t e r v a l can separate Peter's a n n o u n c e m e n t ' T h e D u k e is e n t ' r i n g ' f r o m the 1

2

3

4

The N e w Cambridge Shakespeare indicates no change o f place, and appears t o keep the traditional scene division for convenience o f reference merely. Isabel withdraws; E l b o w , Pompey and Officers enter. See below, pp. 9 0 - 1 . Foot-note t o the end o f this scene, I V . x i i i n his edition. 1

2

3

4

46

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

D u k e ' s entrance. T h u s , t h e F o l i o ' s d i v i s i o n here can stand f o r n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n the c l e a r i n g o f the stage w h e n the w o m e n are h u r r i e d o f f . I t w i l l be seen therefore t h a t neither act- n o r scened i v i s i o n , as these have b e c o m e c u s t o m a r y i n m o d e r n editions, is t o be accepted unreservedly. T h e play's exposition occupies the first f i v e scenes, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e F o l i o d i v i s i o n ; the w h o l e o f the first act, alike i n t h a t a n d m o d e r n editions. B y the t i m e this passage has been p l a y e d o u t , w e have m a d e the acquaintance o f the p r i n c i p a l persons o f the t r a d i ­ t i o n a l story, besides some n e w - c o m e r s . M o r e o v e r , w e m a y be said t o k n o w o u r w a y a b o u t the fabulous ' V i e n n a ' t h e y i n h a b i t . I d o n o t f i n d i n this first act traces o f such disorder as t o argue the t h o r o u g h - g o i n g c o r r u p t i o n t h a t has been suspected; rather, a s p r i n k l i n g o f those faults t h a t are t o be m e t , i r r e g u l a r l y c o n c e n ­ trated, t h r o u g h o u t the w h o l e t e x t , t o g e t h e r w i t h some signs o f haste n o t difficult t o account f o r . I t is e v i d e n t f r o m the first t h a t the d r a m a t i s t is w o r k i n g o n a large scale, i f o n l y f o r this reason: his t h e m e is so c o n c e i v e d t h a t p a r t o f its i m p o r t m u s t be c o n v e y e d t o us t h r o u g h a representation o f the w o r l d i n w h i c h the s t o r y is set. W h e t h e r o r n o Vienna stands f o r L o n d o n , as W h e t s t o n e ' s J u l i o seems t o d o , i t is c e r t a i n l y n o m e r e u n m e a n i n g , c o n v e n t i o n a l b a c k ­ g r o u n d . I t m u s t be r e c k o n e d w i t h , as a place t h a t has its o w n climate. T h e atmosphere o f the tragi-comedies w h i c h intersperse the Hecatommithi h a d been, as n e a r l y as possible, constant: names o f cities m i g h t be m e n t i o n e d , b u t t h e y c a r r i e d n o associations b e y o n d w h a t the circumstances o f the several stories r e q u i r e d ; the persons s t o o d f o r t h w i t h the large d i g n i t y o f figures i n c o n t e m p o r a r y I t a l i a n p a i n t i n g , a n d against m u c h the same f o r m a l a n d i d e a l b a c k ­ g r o u n d . Belleforest, i n the ageless t r a d i t i o n o f the F r e n c h n o v e l , h a d g i v e n j u s t so m u c h atmosphere as was needed t o m a k e the s i t u a t i o n appear i n three dimensions; as t h o u g h a n y t h i n g m o r e w o u l d have been a source o f c o n f u s i o n . W h e t s t o n e , characteristic­ a l l y E n g l i s h , h a d n o t o n l y atmosphere, b u t w e a t h e r — t o o m u c h w e a t h e r f o r his l i m i t e d p o w e r s o f representation. I t is difficult t o 1

2

The implications o f these scene-divisions w i l l be considered as they are reached i n the analysis o f the play. See N e w Cambridge Shakespeare and N e w Temple Shakespeare. 1

2

47

THE CASE

see people o r things t h r o u g h t h e d r i v i n g r a i n a n d m i s t , the t u m b l i n g l i g h t s a n d shadows, w h i c h p l a y u p o n his landscape. Shakespeare's stage is s i m i l a r l y c r o w d e d w i t h p e o p l e w h o have lives o f t h e i r o w n , b u t his characters are presently subdued t o the c o m m o n c o n c e r n m e n t thrust u p o n t h e m b y the s i t u a t i o n . Such a c o m p o s i t i o n as this asks f o r the energetic e x p e n d i t u r e o f consider­ able resources; f o r r a p i d d e v e l o p m e n t , an i m p a t i e n c e b o t h o f p e t t y economies a n d niceties o f c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n . T h e first scene o f all d r a w s a l i t t l e apart f r o m the r e m a i n d e r o f the e x p o s i t i o n , a l m o s t as a p r o l o g u e m i g h t d o . L e t m e have leave to p l a y the p r o d u c e r a w h i l e , i n that i d e a l theatre o f the i m a g i n a ­ t i o n w h e r e a n y p r o p o s e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a p l a y m u s t be p u t t o the test. I n some m o d e r n p r o d u c t i o n s , the D u k e is discovered s i t t i n g i n state, w i t h c o u r t a n d c o u n c i l a b o u t h i m . T h e d i a l o g u e gives n o w a r r a n t f o r t h i s ; the F o l i o stage d i r e c t i o n , n o m o r e t h a n is i m p l i e d i n the m e n t i o n o f ' L o r d s ' , a n d even this is o p e n t o c h a l ­ lenge. Suppose the D u k e t o enter so o b v i o u s l y dressed f o r t r a v e l that i t is n o t u n n a t u r a l t o i m a g i n e the g r o o m w a l k i n g his horse u p a n d d o w n h a r d b y . L e t h i m c o m e attended b y Escalus, a n d f o l ­ l o w e d , at a discreet distance, b y some h u m b l e r personal attendant — t h e one w h o w i l l be needed t o fetch A n g e l o . Recall the a b r u p t v a l e d i c t o r y speech; the references t o a p l a n o f departure e v i d e n t l y k n o w n t o the i n t e r l o c u t o r s , the s w i f t s u m m o n i n g a n d e n t r y o f A n g e l o , as t h o u g h some business w e r e i n t r a i n a n d he, perhaps, already c o m m a n d e d t o be at h a n d . Surely a l l this takes place at the v e r y m o m e n t o f p a r t i n g , i n p r i v a c y , perhaps even i n secrecy? H e n c e the references t o haste, the suggestion o f i r r e g u l a r p r o ­ cedure, the d i s m a y o f Escalus a n d A n g e l o w h e n even their f u r t h e r attendance is f o r b i d d e n , a n d A n g e l o ' s subdued protest at the p r e ­ c i p i t a n c y o f his a p p o i n t m e n t . A t least i t m a y be c l a i m e d t h a t the o p e n i n g gains sensibly i n s p r i n g a n d i m p a c t , i f thus presented.—A d r o w s y , a f t e r n o o n session o f the p r i v y c o u n c i l , n o n e b u t Escalus m a k i n g a n y r e p l y t o the sovereign's o b s e r v a t i o n s — w h i c h i n c l u d e an i n q u i r y as t o A n g e l o ' s capacity, m o s t i m p r o p e r f o r the occasion — c o u l d there be a m o r e u n p r o p i t i o u s o p e n i n g f o r this, o r a n y 1

2

Cf. stage direction i n N e w Cambridge Shakespeare: 'The council-chamber i n the Duke's palace at Vienna. Escalus and other councillors seated at a table: the D u k e i n his chair o f state: t w o attendants w i t h partisans at the door.' 11.15,16. 1

2

4

8

THE PLAY C O N S I D E R E D

play? B u t a h u r r i e d transaction b e t w e e n the D u k e , speaking w i t h a s t r o n g u n d e r c u r r e n t o f e x c i t e m e n t , a n d the t w o m e n i n w h o m he professes t o repose confidence—this wakes e x p e c t a t i o n , a n d t u r n s i t i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n . T h e D u k e ' s business is t o delegate a u t h o r i t y , a n d he m u s t d o this i n such a w a y as t o release a c u r r e n t o f c u r i o s i t y . I n the absence o f witnesses, he delivers a w r i t t e n c o m m i s s i o n t o each o f his d e p u ­ t i e s — i n o d d l y c o n t r a s t i n g terms. Escalus is praised f o r sagacity, a n d f o r t h e k n o w l e d g e o f l a w , c u s t o m a n d h u m a n nature p r o p e r t o an experienced magistrate, a n d t h e n g i v e n , as i t w e r e , sealed orders— F r o m w h i c h , w e w o u l d n o t have y o u warpe. 1

2

3

A n g e l o is a d m o n i s h e d as one w h o s e qualities, unless t h e y be f o r c ­ i b l y p u t t o e m p l o y m e n t , m a y r e m a i n unused a n d u n k n o w n ; b u t t o h i m is d e l i v e r e d the D u k e ' s o w n p o w e r t o a m e n d the l a w he is t o administer—carte blanche. T h i s is surely e n i g m a t i c b e h a v i o u r . I n three several passages w i t h i n this one short scene, the peculiar scope o f A n g e l o ' s c o m m i s s i o n is m a d e clear. First, the D u k e i n ­ f o r m s Escalus o f its t e r m s : W e have w i t h speciall soule Elected h i m our absence to supply; Lent h i m our terror, drest h i m w i t h our love, A n d given his Deputation all the Organs O f our o w n e p o w r e . 4

T h i s is c o n f i r m e d a n d h e i g h t e n e d i n the a n n o u n c e m e n t t o A n g e l o himself: I n our remove, be t h o u at full, our selfe: Mortallitie and Mercie i n Vienna Live i n t h y tongue, and heart— 5

b u t n o t w i t h i n the competence o f Escalus. A n d w h e n A n g e l o , his I t explains, moreover, a curious allusion b y Lucio, at I I I . i i . 99. W h e n he and the Friar have been angling for one another's guesses, as to the absent Duke's whereabouts, he caps the exchange w i t h this comment: Tt was a m a d fantasticall tricke o f h i m to steale f r o m the State, and usurpe the beggerie hee was never borne to.' For a duke t o have taken leave i n this manner is mere beggary—that is, a con­ d i t i o n b e l o w that o f a private gentleman—in Lucio's estimation. These documents, w i t h the cryptic references to their contents, w o u l d surely be out o f place i n full council. 1 , i . 15. 1 , i . 18. 1 , i . 44. 1

2

3

4

5

the

case

49

entreaty f o r a p e r i o d o f p r o b a t i o n silenced, still pleads f o r t i m e , he is assured: Y o u r scope is as mine owne, So to inforce, or qualifie the Lawes As to y o u r soule seemes g o o d . 1

T h i s insistence o n the signal scope o f his p o w e r s w o u l d be l i k e l y t o c a r r y t o a c o n t e m p o r a r y audience a certain t r a i n o f associations. T h e y w o u l d be f a m i l i a r w i t h the idea t h a t i t is w i t h i n the c o m ­ petence o f the h i g h e r officers o f the l a w t o t e m p e r the r i g o u r o f t h a t v e r y penal code w h i c h t h e i r subordinates are b o u n d t o enforce. T h e n e x t p a r t o f the e x p o s i t i o n shows h o w V i e n n a at large reacts t o the n e w s i t u a t i o n — m u c h as the o p e n i n g o f Romeo and Juliet shows us h o w V e r o n a at large reacts t o a n y fresh crisis i n the f e u d b e t w e e n M o n t a g u e s a n d Capulets; and, as there so here, the general i m p r e s s i o n is presently b r o u g h t i n t o focus, that w e m a y see its relevance t o a p a r t i c u l a r case. T h e means t o this end, i n Measure for Measure, are the v i b r a t i o n s set u p b y a n e w p r o c l a m a ­ t i o n . W h e t s t o n e ' s p l a y h a d opened w i t h an affair o f this sort— P r o m o s c e r e m o n i o u s l y r e a d i n g o u t his n e w c o m m i s s i o n ; b u t Shakespeare, w i t h characteristic e c o n o m y , intimates that the p r o ­ visions o f A n g e l o ' s p r o c l a m a t i o n are generally k n o w n , a n d leaves us t o i n f e r t h e m , piecemeal, as need arises. Emphasis thus falls o n the t e r m proclamation, a n d t o understand this w e m u s t take i n t o account the associations i t h a d been g a t h e r i n g t h r o u g h o u t t w o reigns. U n d e r H e n r y V I I I , r o y a l p r o c l a m a t i o n s h a d f o r a w h i l e o b t a i n e d s t a t u t o r y force; u n d e r E l i z a b e t h , attempts at l e g i s l a t i o n b y t h e i r means c o m m o n l y p r o v o k e d protest. T h e question was t o 2

3

4

5

6

l. i . 65.

1

See, for example, L o d o w i c k Bryskett's Discourse of Civill Life (1606, but probably composed 1586), p. 249. Bryskett's Discourse reproduces part o f Giraldi's Dialoghi delta vita Civile, together w i t h other matter, original and derived. I. ii. The 'commission' itself is not i n the printed text, but a stage direction enjoins the reading aloud. Compare the avoidance o f any explicit statement as to the ground o f the quarrel i n the Temple Garden (1 Henry VI, I I . i v . ) noticed b y D r . Dover W i l s o n , Introduction to 3 Henry VI ( N e w Cambridge Shakespeare), p. x i i i . See A Bibliography of Royal Proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns, with an historical essay on their origin and use, b y Robert Steele, 1910; also G. W . Keeton, Shakespeare and his Legal Problems (1930). 2

3

4

5

6

e

the

50

play

considered

c o m e t o a head u n d e r James, i n the crisis o f 1610, w h e n C o k e a n d his f e l l o w justices declared t h a t 'the K i n g c o u l d n o t , b y p r o c l a m a ­ t i o n , create a n y n e w offence, o r alter the l a w o f the l a n d ; b u t he m i g h t d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o e x i s t i n g l a w , a n d i f a subject disobeyed, the fact t h a t he h a d i g n o r e d the p r o c l a m a t i o n m i g h t be a g r o u n d for increasing the p u n i s h m e n t ' . A f t e r this, the use o f r o y a l p r o ­ clamations abated f o r a w h i l e . T h u s , A n g e l o ' s first official act, o f w h i c h the r u m o u r runs t h r o u g h V i e n n a , w o u l d be d i r e c t l y associated w i t h vexatious r e c o l ­ lections—so vexatious, t h a t i t is surprising t o find t h e m recalled i n a c o u r t p l a y ; b u t , at that c o u r t o f 1604, t h e y m i g h t be t a k e n as r e f e r r i n g t o a f o r m e r dispensation: satire m i g h t be seen p o i n t i n g t o the successive endeavours u n d e r T u d o r r u l e t o devise legislation for the r e g u l a t i n g o f manners, a n d even appetites, b y e x h o r t a t i o n a n d threat. M o r e t h a n one o f Elizabeth's p r o c l a m a t i o n s , e n j o i n i n g some course o f b e h a v i o u r ' o n p a i n o f death'—a p e n a l t y n o t e n ­ f o r c e a b l e — m a y have occasioned a m o o d a b o u t e q u a l l y c o m ­ p o u n d e d o f i r r i t a b l e u n c e r t a i n t y a n d d i s m a y . A n d this I take t o be the m o o d o f V i e n n a w h e n news o f A n g e l o ' s p r o c l a m a t i o n gets abroad. 1

2

These 204 lines, t h e n , m a y be t a k e n as s h o w i n g the i m p a c t o f A n g e l o ' s r u l e u p o n V i e n n a . T h e editors o f the N e w C a m b r i d g e Shakespeare, h o w e v e r , find here such discrepancies as lead t h e m t o suspect the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f a b o t c h e r ; a n d this is a suspicion t h a t c a n n o t w a i t u p o n a general s u r v e y o f the t e x t b u t m u s t be c o n ­ sidered f o r t h w i t h . T h i s is h o w D r . D o v e r W i l s o n states his o b j e c t i o n : Dramatically (he says) I . i i . 1-111 falls i n t o three sections: (a) The sorry fooling between L u c i o and his t w o gentlemen, mostly t u r n i n g u p o n the unsavoury topic o f venereal disease (1-57). I n this section there is great confusion i n regard to the distribution o f parts.. . . (b) A b r i e f dialogue, i n m u c h the same style, between Mistress Overdone and the three m e n (58-79). I n the course o f this she tells t h e m that Claudio has been arrested Tor getting M a d a m Julietta w i t h child', and that he w i l l be beheaded w i t h i n three days, u p o n w h i c h the First Gentleman Keeton, op. cit., p . 34. The b o l d treatment o f the proclamation i n Henry VIII ( I . i i i . 17-48) suggests that, even so soon after the crisis o f 1610, the dramatist was safe, provided his aim appeared to be a characteristic piece o f T u d o r legislation. 1

2

THE

CASE

51

comments that her story agrees w e l l ' w i t h the proclamation', (c) T h e dialogue between Overdone and Pompey (80-111). Here w e f i n d n o t o n l y a different style . . . b u t [also the i n t i m a t i o n ] that, i n spite o f w h a t has gone before, Overdone is completely ignorant o f the cause o f Claudio's arrest and has never even heard o f the proclamation! Clearly section (c) does n o t belong to the same stratum o f the text as sections (a) and (b), and was presumably w r i t t e n o n a different occasion and possibly b y another h a n d . 1

A n d i n his notes o n the r e m a i n d e r o f the scene D r . D o v e r W i l s o n f u r t h e r contends t h a t there is a s i m i l a r discrepancy b e t w e e n L u c i o ' s ' i g n o r a n c e o f the circumstances o f C l a u d i o ' s arrest' a n d the o p p o r ­ t u n i t y he has h a d o f l e a r n i n g t h e m f r o m M r s . O v e r d o n e . T h i s seems a s t r o n g case; b u t its force is sensibly d i m i n i s h e d i f w e consider t h a t at its v e r y base lies a single a s s u m p t i o n : i t has been assumed t h a t w h e n P o m p e y tells M r s . O v e r d o n e Yonder m a n is carried to prison,

2

a n d hints at his offence, he refers t o C l a u d i o , a n d t h a t C l a u d i o is t h e n w i t h i n M r s . O v e r d o n e ' s range o f v i s i o n . N o w , this is b y n o means certain. A t i m e - d i s c r e p a n c y is at once apparent: i t is n o t u n t i l some w h i l e afterwards t h a t w e see C l a u d i o o n his l o n g d r a w n - o u t progress t o w a r d s the p r i s o n — t o w h i c h , o n this s h o w ­ i n g , he has already been c a r r i e d ; b u t i n d i c a t i o n s o f t i m e are n o t , i n this p l a y , so clear a n d exact t h a t a single disagreement a m o n g s t t h e m w i l l bear m u c h w e i g h t . I d o n o t , h o w e v e r , f i n d i t necessary t o suppose t h a t ' y o n d e r m a n ' is C l a u d i o : E l i z a b e t h a n d r a m a t i c t e c h n i q u e a l l o w s o f a m p l e i l l u s t r a t i o n , b y the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f p e r ­ sons u n k n o w n t o the s t o r y — w h e n W h e t s t o n e wishes t o illustrate c o n d i t i o n s i n J u l i o , he expends t w o scenes i n presenting the case o f six nameless prisoners, l e d a b o u t the streets t o t h e i r death . . . for breach o f lawes. For murder some, for theeverie some, and some for little cause.

3

Some such episode as this m a y have been p a r t o f Shakespeare's o r i g i n a l design, o r h o v e r e d i n his m i n d w h i l e t h a t design was N e w Cambridge Shakespeare, p . 99. I t h i n k i t m a y be assumed that, i f the major discrepancies are not proven, the argument f r o m faulty distribution o f parts, and f r o m J . D . W . ' s impression o f variations i n style, w i l l n o t stand; for the former is explicable i n foul papers, and the latter is matter o f opinion. 1 , i i . 87. 1 Promos and Cassandra, I I . i x . (should be v i i ) . See also the preceding scene. 1

2

3

fHE PLAY

5^

CONSIDERED

f o r m i n g ; i f he r e l i n q u i s h e d i t , he m u s t have f o r g o t t e n t o r e m o v e its traces. O n this s u p p o s i t i o n , the m a n o f w h o m M r s . O v e r d o n e hears, a n d the m a n o f w h o m she tells, b a d news are d i s t i n c t p e r ­ sons. S h o u l d t h e y be the same, h o w e v e r , she is n o t t o k n o w i t u n t i l C l a u d i o appears, f o r P o m p e y has o u t r u n t h a t sad l i t t l e procession a n d enters some t h i r t y lines ahead o f i t . O n either s u p p o s i t i o n , t h e episode makes g o o d e n o u g h stage sense. A s I read t h e m , t h e n , 11. I - I 19 r u n m u c h l i k e t h i s : 1-58. A m o n g s t such d w e l l e r s i n V i e n n a as L u c i o a n d the ' t w o o t h e r g e n t l e m e n ' , the instant r e t o r t t o danger is b r a v a d o . R u s t i n g i n peace, licentious at least i n speech, t h e y boast o f t h e i r f a m i l i a r ­ i t y w i t h the circumstances o f lechery, a n d its penalties. 5 9 - 8 2 . I n t o the m i d s t o f t h e i r allusive r i b a l d r y , a f o r m i d a b l e piece o f p a r t i c u l a r fact thrusts itself. L i k e the first clap o f t h u n d e r o n a s u l t r y d a y comes the r e p o r t , b r o u g h t b y M r s . O v e r d o n e , t h a t one o f t h e i r n u m b e r , C l a u d i o , is t o suffer f o r a breach o f the neglected l a w , u n d e r this v e r y head. T h e y depart i n search o f m o r e exact i n f o r m a t i o n ; f o r , h o w s h o u l d t h e y be content, i n a m a t t e r thus t o u c h i n g themselves, w i t h c o m m o n gossip a n d a general sense o f its p r o b a b i l i t y — t h a t agreement w i t h the n e w p r o c l a m a ­ t i o n w h i c h t h e y m e n t i o n one t o another as t h e y w i t h d r a w ? 82-119. M r s . O v e r d o n e c o m p l a i n s o f the decay o f c u s t o m — a l l e g i n g m a n y causes, b u t n o t the p r o c l a m a t i o n . T h e r e is surely n o d i f f i c u l t y here: the o n l y p r e v i o u s m e n t i o n o f i t has n o t been m a d e t o her, n o r (as I read i t ) i n her h e a r i n g : i t was s p o k e n b y one g e n t l e m a n t o his c o m p a n i o n s i n the act o f w i t h d r a w i n g , j u s t as she was a d v a n c i n g t o address the audience. O n her servant's appear­ a n c e — w h e t h e r o n the t a i l o f some nameless prisoner o r a l i t t l e i n advance o f C l a u d i o — s h e receives a n account o f the p r e d i c a m e n t o f one o f her customers, w h o s e i d e n t i t y , clear e n o u g h at the first p e r f o r m a n c e , m u s t n o w be a m a t t e r o f conjecture, a n d a w a r n i n g t h a t her business is i n w o r s e case t h a n she has suspected: a u t h o r i t y is p u t t i n g the l a w i n m o t i o n against her. A t the first g l i m p s e o f a u t h o r i t y ' s agents she is r e a d y t o m o v e off, a n d P o m p e y stays o n l y t o i n f o r m us w h o i t is t h a t the P r o v o s t has i n charge. 1

T h e F o l i o scene-division at P o m p e y ' s e x i t signifies n o m o r e t h a n the departure o f one set o f characters a n d appearance o n t h e stage 1

A commonplace o f Elizabethan social theory.

53

THE CASE

o f another. Particulars o f place b e i n g o f s m a l l consequence o n t h e u n l o c a h z e d E l i z a b e t h a n stage, w e need t o recognize o n l y t h i s : t h a t s o m e w h e r e , i n this enforced passage t h r o u g h V i e n n a , C l a u d i o encounters one o r m o r e o f t h a t l i t t l e c o m p a n y w h i c h h a d set o u t i n search o f h i m . Juliet's presence w i t h C l a u d i o , w h e n he appears escorted b y the P r o v o s t a n d his m e n , a n d a l i t t l e ahead o f L u c i o , is o p e n t o ques­ t i o n . T h a t she s h o u l d be p a r t o f the u n h a p p y t r a i n w h e n he asks W h y do'st t h o u show me thus to t h ' w o r l d ? 1

2

seems u n n a t u r a l . T h a t o n b o t h occasions w h e n ( a c c o r d i n g t o the stage directions) these t w o are t o g e t h e r before us, t h e y s h o u l d e x ­ change n o t so m u c h as a w o r d , surely asks some e x p l a n a t i o n . T h a t J u l i e t s h o u l d be present t h r o u g h o u t a scene i n w h i c h n o w o r d is addressed t o her, n o r does she u t t e r a n y w o r d — t h i s is v e r y u n ­ l i k e l y . T h a t she s h o u l d have t o hear C l a u d i o a n d L u c i o canvassing her share o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r C l a u d i o ' s p r e d i c a m e n t — t h i s is intolerable. If, h o w e v e r , J u l i e t is n o t present, t h e n w e have t w o references t o her presence t o e x p l a i n a w a y — P o m p e y ' s , a n d t h a t i n the stage d i r e c t i o n ; b u t the second m a y w e l l h a n g o n the first. B e f o r e d e p a r t i n g , P o m p e y has said: 3

Here comes Signior Claudio, led b y the Provost to prison: and there's M a d a m Juliet* D i d Shakespeare i n t e n d t o b r i n g J u l i e t o n , b u t change his m i n d a n d f o r g e t t o erase the tell-tale reference? O r , d i d he b r i n g her o n f o r a b r i e f scene o f f a r e w e l l , afterwards cut? I f he d i d either, t h e n the scribe, f o r his part, w o u l d be d o i n g n o m o r e t h a n his apparent d u t y i n m a k i n g sure t h a t her n a m e s t o o d i n the stage d i r e c t i o n . Such an e x p l a n a t i o n seems m o r e admissible t h a n t h a t w h i c h finds a botcher's h a n d t o have r e m o v e d Juliet's lines f r o m the passage o f d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n C l a u d i o a n d L u c i o ; its t e x t u r e is t o o close a n d firm. A producer w o u l d surely do w e l l to accept the Cambridge editors' suggestion that the reappearance here o f the t w o unnamed gentlemen is a mistake: the scrivener, intent o n consistency, may have remembered that three had set out together and, attributing the disappearance o f t w o to an oversight, have put t h e m into his stage direction; but they had been merely illustrative. I . i i . 120. She m a y f o l l o w rather than accompany the exemplary train; b u t i t is a cold distinction. Cf. V . i . 483. I . i i . 118. 1

2

3

4

THE PLAY

54

CONSIDERED

T h e c o n c l u d i n g p a r t o f this scene (11. 120-98) serves t w o p u r ­ poses. First, i t gives us C l a u d i o ' s r e a c t i o n t o the n e w s i t u a t i o n — a t L u c i o ' s insistence. ' I t is', objects D r . D o v e r W i l s o n , ' L u c i o ' s t u r n n o w t o appear i g n o r a n t o f the circumstances o f C l a u d i o ' s arrest, t h o u g h he has been f u l l y i n f o r m e d ' — a t o o favourable reference, surely, t o t h e t a l e w h i c h has p r o v o k e d his i m p a t i e n t ' A w a y : Let's g o e learne the t r u t h o f i t ' . I n a n y case, ' t o appear i g n o r a n t ' is the r i g h t t e r m f o r L u c i o ' s b e h a v i o u r t h r o u g h o u t his relentless i n t e r r o g a t i o n ; i f he w e r e r e a l l y u n k n o w i n g at the outset, his t o n e w o u l d change w h e n he receives a n answer, b u t there is n o such change discernible. T h e second purpose served b y this passage is t o b r i n g w i t h i n range o f o u r i m a g i n a t i o n another character, the last t o be i n t r o ­ d u c e d o f a l l the persons b e l o n g i n g t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s t o r y — a n d , i n t h a t s t o r y , t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t : the c o n d e m n e d man's sister. C o n s i d e r e d thus, these 198 lines o f I . i i m a y s h o w s o m e t h i n g o f i m p a t i e n t a n d even careless w o r k m a n s h i p , a n d perhaps o f altera­ tions m a d e c u r s o r i l y i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h some theatrical e x i g e n c y ; even (it m a y be) o f change o f i n t e n t i o n i n the v e r y course o f c o m ­ p o s i t i o n . W h a t t h e y d o n o t ( I believe) b e t r a y is such t e x t u a l c o r ­ r u p t i o n as s h o u l d f o r b i d us t o accept t h e m as an authentic p a r t o f t h e p l a y . M a r k s o f i m p a t i e n c e are c o m m o n i n the openings o f Shakespeare's plays; so are traces w h i c h , l i k e f o o t p r i n t s already half-effaced, s h o w r e c o l l e c t i o n o f his sources f a d i n g even as his o w n v i s i o n takes possession. T h u s , the K i n g o f H u n g a r y o f w h o m L u c i o speaks as a f o r m i d a b l e n e i g h b o u r l o o k s m u c h l i k e an elusive h a l f - m e m o r y o f C o r v i n u s K i n g o f H u n g a r y , t h e o v e r l o r d o f J u l i o i n W h e t s t o n e ' s p l a y . A m a n casting r o u n d absently f o r a n a m e t o serve some s l i g h t purpose, w h e t h e r i n l i e o r i n f i c t i o n , m a y w e l l f i n d one l u r k i n g i n his m e m o r y , y e t never guess h o w i t comes t o be there. T h e scene w h i c h f o l l o w s , t r u e t o Shakespearian usage a n d E l i z a b e t h a n stage practice, swings o v e r t o the place i n w h i c h t h e absent D u k e is t o be f o u n d : s o m e w h e r e outside the cognizance o f the o t h e r characters—that is a l l w e need t o k n o w o f its w h e r e ­ abouts. I t c o n f i r m s a n i m p r e s s i o n already f a i n t l y p r i n t e d o n o u r 1

2

T o encounter Claudio under guard is t o have an unwelcome suspicion c o n ­ firmed. I f Lucio is shrewd enough to seek further confirmation o f M r s . Overdone's tale, he is also shrewd enough to k n o w w h e n he has found i t . 1 , i i . 2. 1

2

THE

CASE

55

e x p e c t a t i o n b y the u r g e n c y o f the o p e n i n g scene. I n m o s t o f the earlier versions o f the s t o r y , the person w h o at the close redresses w r o n g is n o m o r e t h a n a s y m b o l o f j u s t i c e , a n d has h a r d l y been heard o f u n t i l he is called o n t o p e r f o r m t h a t f u n c t i o n . G i r a l d i i n d e e d presents h i m at the b e g i n n i n g , b u t is c o n t e n t t o offer the c o n v e n t i o n a l p o r t r a i t o f a n i d e a l r u l e r , as i t recurs t h r o u g h o u t the Hecatommithi. Belleforest's 'Messire Charles' is l i k e w i s e a p a t t e r n c o m m a n d e r ; each has delegated a u t h o r i t y i n the course o f a d m i n i s ­ t r a t i v e r o u t i n e . H e r e , h o w e v e r , is s o m e t h i n g different. T h i s r e p r e ­ sentative o f supreme a u t h o r i t y is far m o r e p r o m i n e n t t h a n his p r e ­ decessors—that was t o be expected, g i v e n the larger scale; b u t he is m u c h less easy t o understand. H e is m o r e v o l u b l e t h a n a n y o t h e r character i n the p l a y , b u t w h a t he utters is harder t o construe, f o r he j o i n s t o e n i g m a t i c b e h a v i o u r a m b i g u o u s c o m m e n t , a n d m u t u ­ a l l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y explanations o f his purpose. W h e r e a s t h e a b ­ sence o f the r u l e r i n f o r m e r versions h a d been e x p l a i n e d i n p r a c ­ t i c a l terms, o r passed o v e r as n o t w o r t h e x p l a i n i n g , the D u k e announces t h a t his w i t h d r a w a l is o f choice, a n d t h a t he has reasons f o r i t . Some o f these reasons he vouchsafes t o a c o n f i d a n t ; some he promises t o disclose i n g o o d t i m e . I n a c l o s i n g c o u p l e t w h i c h s h o u l d surely be d e l i v e r e d t o the audience, he hints at c u r i o s i t y as t o the effect o f p o w e r o n character. H i s c o n f i d a n t , i f less a c c o m m o ­ d a t i n g , m i g h t w e l l observe t h a t explanations so n u m e r o u s are apt t o j o s t l e one another. T h e i d e n t i t y o f this c o n f i d a n t has g i v e n rise t o doubts, o f l i t t l e consequence unless t h e y breed i n s e c u r i t y . T h e list o f dramatis personae i n the F o l i o gives: 1

Thomas. \ 2. Friers. Peter. J T h r i f t y persons have asked w h e t h e r i t was necessary t h a t there s h o u l d be t w o . Friar Peter, w h o plays an active p a r t at the close, is m e n t i o n e d b y n a m e i n the d i a l o g u e . T h i s other, appearing b u t i n one short scene, is n a m e d o n l y i n its o p e n i n g stage d i r e c t i o n . 'Peter' is so distinguished i n speech-headings—necessarily, since 'Frier L o d o w i c k ' is present at the same t i m e ; ' T h o m a s ' , i n speech2

3

See Appendix. I V . v i . 9. This name is not mentioned u n t i l necessity arises, w h e n Isabel cites h i m as witness: V . i . 125. 1

3

2

56

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

headings, is o n l y ' F r i . ' , b u t n o f u r t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n is needed here. A r e t h e y r e a l l y different people? I t h i n k there is some reason f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t Shakespeare i n t e n d e d a difference. T h e D u k e a d ­ dresses ' T h o m a s ' as ' h o l y Father', ' h o l y Sir', 'pious Sir', a n d uses h i m as a f r i e n d : N o n e better knowes then y o u H o w I have ever l o v ' d the life r e m o v e d .

1

'Peter', o n the o t h e r h a n d , is n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n an agent, t o be dispatched o n business w i t h o u t the s h o w either o f c e r e m o n y o r o f i n t i m a c y . I f the n a m e t o w h i c h the d i a l o g u e bears n o witness, T h o m a s , is o f the scrivener's p r o v i d i n g , his care m a y y e t reflect stage practice: the p l a y i n g o f the t w o as d i s t i n c t parts. A c c e p t i n g I . i i i , t h e n , as a scene i n w h i c h the D u k e discloses some p a r t o f his purpose t o an i n t e r l o c u t o r w h o m he holds w o r t h y o f confidence, w e g a i n this assurance: a l l that he says a n d does relates t o some design at least p a r t l y f r a m e d . A s t o its scope, w e k n o w e n o u g h i f w e recognize t h a t i t f o l l o w s one o f the oldest patterns o f m y t h , f o l k - t a l e a n d r o m a n c e , associated t i m e o u t o f m i n d w i t h a h a p p y e n d i n g : the s t o r y o f the g o o d p r i n c e w h o , unseen, w i l l see f o r himself, a n d set a l l t o r i g h t s . O n e phase o f the e x p o s i t i o n n o w remains: news o f C l a u d i o ' s p l i g h t has y e t t o reach his sister. I n the last scene o f A c t I w e are c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the w o m a n w h o has been the central f i g u r e i n a l l considerable versions o f this tale, h i t h e r t o : the c o u n t e r p a r t o f P h i l a n i r a , E p i t i a , Cassandra. W e have already l e a r n e d t h a t she is a n o v i c e o n the p o i n t o f t a k i n g v o w s ; t h a t she is y o u n g , and has the g i f t o f persuasive speech. I n thus e n d o w i n g her, the dramatist m a y have h a d i n m i n d n o t o n l y Epitia's r h e t o r i c b u t also the demands o f the s i t u a t i o n — f o r , w h a t c o u l d C o r d e l i a o r D e s d e m o n a have d o n e i n l i k e case? I n m a k i n g C l a u d i o allude t o her y o u t h he m a y l i k e w i s e have been c o n s i d e r i n g the subsequent course o f the p l a y : Isabel is t o p r o v e less experienced t h a n E p i t i a . B u t the c o n v e n t 2

3

1 , i i i . 7. I . i i . 182. Isabella i n the list o f dramatis personae, and i n almost all stage directions; Isabel w i t h t w o exceptions, throughout the dialogue: Francisca calls her Isabella; i n I V . i i i . 156, Lucio calls her Isabella, but presently changes to Isabel, the f o r m used wherever she is addressed or mentioned b y the D u k e , Escalus, Claudio or Mariana. Compare the alternatives Juliet, Julietta—a freedom convenient i n verse; also, Helen, Helena, i n All's Well 1

3

a

THE

CASE

57

asks present c o m m e n t . Its p r o m i n e n c e i n the design is clear. O u r a t t e n t i o n is d r a w n t o i t b y the b r i e f interchange b e t w e e n Isabel a n d Francisca: t h a t ( w e m a y say) is h o w i t l o o k s f r o m w i t h i n ; a n d b y L u c i o ' s m o d e o f a p p r o a c h : he s h o w i n g i t f r o m w i t h o u t . H e is represented as h a v i n g n o f o r m e r acquaintance w i t h Isabel. A l ­ t h o u g h , as Francisca has m a d e us understand, she can speak w i t h h i m face t o face, he does n o t k n o w t h a t this n o v i c e is the v e r y one he is seeking, b u t greets her as a stranger a n d asks her t o b r i n g h i m w h e r e he m a y find C l a u d i o ' s sister. Presently, i n answer t o h e r r e p r o o f o f his demeanour, he is p r o t e s t i n g : I w o u l d not, t h o u g h 'tis m y familiar sin, W i t h Maids to seeme the L a p w i n g , and to jest Tongue, far f r o m heart: play w i t h all Virgins so: I h o l d y o u as a thing en-skied, and sainted, B y y o u r renouncement, an i m m o r t a l l spirit A n d to be talk'd w i t h i n sincerity, As w i t h a Saint. Isa. Y o u doe blaspheme the good, i n m o c k i n g me. Luc. D o e n o t beleeve i t : fewnes, and t r u t h ; tis t h u s . . ,

1

T h a t is: t o n o n e o f y o u r profession w o u l d I use those subterfuges I practise w i t h o t h e r w o m e n , a n d so l e t us lose n o t i m e ; this is t h e m a t t e r . H e is n o t , as critics seem t o have assumed, o f f e r i n g her a personal t r i b u t e ; he is m a r k i n g the distance w h i c h separates the c o n v e n t f r o m the rest o f V i e n n a — a distance c l e a r l y p e r c e p t i b l e f r o m either side, a n d k e p t i n sight o f the audience b y Isabel's dress, w h i l e t o t h e i r m i n d s i t is recalled b y a s t r i k i n g reference at the c l i m a x o f her appeal t o A n g e l o . I f w e c o u l d c o m e t o understand this s t r o n g emphasis l a i d i n the o p e n i n g a n d sustained t h r o u g h m u c h o f the sequel o n a circumstance a p p a r e n t l y f o r g o t t e n at theclose, w e m i g h t h o p e a t l e a s t t o a p p r o a c h f r o m the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n the baffling scenes t h a t are t o f o l l o w . T h e s t o r y - t e l l e r w h o addresses h i m s e l f t o c h i l d r e n — o r t o m e n w h o have b y n o means o u t g r o w n t h e i r c h i l d i s h appetites—need o n l y r e c o u n t w h a t so-and-so d i d . B u t the s t o r y - t e l l e r w h o hopes 2

3

1

1 . i v . 31.

I I . i i . 151. Notice, also, the terms i n w h i c h other characters remark her c o m i n g and going. Isabel is, o f course, free t o relinquish her novitiate and m a r r y ; but her silent acquiescence i n the Duke's proposal seems strange. 2

3

58

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

t o h o l d the a t t e n t i o n o f g r o w n m e n m u s t m a k e us understand n o t o n l y w h a t so-and-so d i d , b u t also h o w he came t o d o i t — a n d even h o w i t was t h a t he very nearly did not do it. Indeed, i t is the n a r r o w ­ ness o f the m a r g i n b y w h i c h events fell o u t so a n d n o t o t h e r w i s e t h a t fascinates the curious i m a g i n a t i o n . A n d a r t — w h i c h can render transparent w h a t life keeps opaque—is at l i b e r t y t o s h o w us t h e t h i n g that m i g h t have been, u n d e r l y i n g the t h i n g that was. H e r e is s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n can be c o n v e y e d b y the single w o r d ' m o t i v e ' . F o r w e have n o t t o r e c k o n o n l y w i t h t h e p u s h a n d p u l l o f the p o w e r t h a t exerts i t s e l f i n m o v e m e n t ; there is, besides, t h a t p o w e r w h i c h manifests i t s e l f i n resistance t o p r e s s u r e — w h i c h is k n o w n t h r o u g h i m m o b i l i t y . A n d i t is the business o f d r a m a t o present such forces i n terms o f character a n d circumstance, a n d the i n t e r a c t i o n o f the t w o . O f these, circumstance seems t o have interested Shakespeare b u t f i t f u l l y : his c o n t r i v a n c e o f i t is, v e r y o f t e n , at once lavish a n d n e g l i g e n t . A n d , w h e n he is i n this m o o d , he does n o t b u i l d the sort o f nest i n w h i c h e v e r y f i b r e is n e a t l y a n d f i r m l y w o v e n i n t o its p r o p e r place, b u t rather the sort w h i c h (as w e descry d a y l i g h t t h r o u g h its interstices) appears a l m o s t amateurish e n o u g h f o r h u m a n handiwork—>and y e t stands u p t o gales f r o m e v e r y quarter u n t i l its purpose is a c c o m p l i s h e d . T h e circumstance w h i c h , at the outset, makes us understand w h y Isabel acted as she d i d , a n d n o t as E p i t i a a n d Cassandra h a d acted, is g i v e n i n these f e w b u t e m p h a t i c references t o her n o v i t i a t e . L i k e the r o o k ' s nest, o u r i m p r e s s i o n o f this circumstance lasts so l o n g as i t is needed. Shakespeare m a y h i m s e l f have chosen t o f o r g e t i t at the close —a close, t o a l l appearance, strangely c l o u d e d w i t h forgetfulness. I t m u s t be o u r endeavour, as w e w a t c h t h e p l a y u n f o l d , t o a n t i ­ cipate as l i t t l e as o u r inescapable consciousness o f the sequel w i l l a l l o w . W e m a y , h o w e v e r , occasionally pause a n d l o o k r o u n d . T h e close o f the t r i a l o f P o m p e y is such an occasion f o r c o n s i d e r i n g w h e r e w e stand a n d h o w w e have c o m e there. W h e n Escalus, h a v i n g disposed o f E l b o w a n d P o m p e y , t u r n s t o his f e l l o w Justice— 1

Like Francisca, and perhaps Thomas, this Justice seems to serve the l i m i t e d purpose for w h i c h he was called i n t o being, and thereafter vanish, leaving no trace. This may indeed be evidence o f cutting (as E . K . Chambers suggests, i n his William Shakespeare, I . 454), but i t is surely n o t unprecedented behaviour among Shakespearian characters. 1

THE

CASE

59

What's a clocke, thinke you? Eleven, Sir. I pray y o u home to dinner w i t h m e —

1

w e k n o w t h a t w e are i n a n e v e r y d a y w o r l d , h o w e v e r the strange, n e w a d m i n i s t r a t i v e course o f A n g e l o m a y i m p i n g e u p o n i t . W e k n o w , m o r e o v e r , h o w i t compares w i t h the w o r l d s o f the Heca­ tommithi a n d Promos and Cassandra. Penal l a w plays a p r o m i n e n t p a r t i n m a n y o f G i r a l d i ' s tales; a n d , w h i l e n o grave charge is b r o u g h t against its ministers, i t c a n n o t be said t o c l a i m o u r respect. I n a s t o r y a b o u t a f e u d b e t w e e n t w o o l d enemies, one, h a v i n g t h e o t h e r i n his p o w e r , scorns t o h a n d h i m o v e r t o the officers o f the l a w (under w h i c h his l i f e is f o r f e i t ) , t h o u g h he does n o t b l e n c h at t h e t h o u g h t o f p u t t i n g h i m t o death h i m s e l f . A n i m a g e m a y best serve t o c o n v e y the p r e v a i l i n g i m p r e s s i o n : the l a w appears as a p u r b l i n d d o t a r d , g u a r d i n g a n o r c h a r d ; h u m a n i t y , as c h i l d r e n a m o n g s t w h o m i t is a p o i n t o f h o n o u r t o r o b his trees. N o w a n d again he succeeds i n c a t c h i n g one o f these c h i l d r e n i n the act o f escaping, a n d makes the u n l u c k y l a g g a r d p a y f o r all—unless a benevolent p o w e r can be i n v o k e d i n t i m e t o t e m p e r his severity. T h i s is t h e l a w o f fairy-tale. 2

I n W h e t s t o n e ' s p l a y ( t h o u g h n o t i n his Heptameron), m a n is p r e ­ sented as c i t i z e n , w i t h some seriousness a n d circumstance: W h e t ­ stone, as a T u d o r E n g l i s h m a n o f o r d i n a r y capacity, b e i n g rather c r i t i c a l o f the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the l a w t h a n curious as t o u n d e r ­ l y i n g p r i n c i p l e . I f J u l i o is i n d e e d L o n d o n , t h e n the maintenance o f j u s t i c e i n the L o n d o n t o w h i c h Shakespeare came f r o m W a r w i c k ­ shire was—at least i n the eyes o f one zealous r e f o r m e r — v e r y f a u l t y . A considerable share i n the second p a r t o f the p l a y is g i v e n t o the exposure o f P r o m o s : i t is n o t o r i o u s that his m a n P h a l l a x directs his actions, a n d t h a t Phallax has his p r i c e . T h i s , a n d the c o n ­ d u c t o f his officers, are b r o u g h t t o l i g h t b y the k i n g ' s c o u n c i l l o r , Sir U l r i c o , w i t h such realism as W h e t s t o n e ' s p o o r resources a l l o w . O n the admission o f the k n a v e Rosco, a l l i n a u t h o r i t y have been guilty o f Usurie, brybrie, and barrating, Suborning, extorcion and boulstring. 3

4

1

3

I I . i . 290. M u c h o f Acts I I - V .

2

4

The sixth tale o f the first day. 2 Promos and Cassandra, I I . i v .

6o

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

T h e k i n g sums u p the case against P r o m o s , representing w h a t he has d o n e t o Cassandra as b u t the first instance t o c o m e t o l i g h t o f m a n y such miscarriages o f j u s t i c e — M a n y waies t h o u hast m y subjectes w r o n g d .

1

T o e v e r y charge, P r o m o s pleads g u i l t y , and, i n w h a t he believes t o be his d y i n g confession, gives an even blacker account o f h i m s e l f : W h e r e as I l o v ' d , their faultes, I w o u l d n o t see: Those I d i d hate, tenne tymes beyond there y l l I d i d persue, v y l e wretch, w i t h cruelty. 2

A n d a l l these e v i l practices are i l l u s t r a t e d i n such a w a y as t o s u g ­ gest t h a t this is the n o r m a l course o f things, unless a sovereign o f u n c o m m o n e n e r g y keeps n a r r o w w a t c h o v e r the c o n d u c t o f his subordinates. I f w e are t o l o o k i n Measure for Measure f o r the shadows o f d a r k t h o u g h t s o n h u m a n j u s t i c e , some o f t h e m w i l l surely c o r r e s p o n d w i t h those i n W h e t s t o n e ' s p i c t u r e . W e have been s h o w n the t w o m e n w h o h o l d the absent D u k e ' s c o m m i s s i o n exercising t h e i r a u t h o r i t y i n a n episode w h i c h , b e i n g m e r e l y i l l u s ­ t r a t i v e , m u s t be supposed t y p i c a l . I f one o f t h e m is t o p l a y t h e d r e a d f u l p a r t o f the unjust j u d g e , w h a t s h o u l d h i n d e r t h e o t h e r f r o m a b e t t i n g h i m , i f o n l y b y negligence o r folly? Escalus betrays neither; a n d he is, t o a l l appearance, a representative f i g u r e . I n a m o r e naturalistic m o d e t h a n this, i t m i g h t i n d e e d seem strange t h a t such a m a n , o r d a i n e d b y the D u k e t o h o l d a place e q u i v a l e n t t o t h a t o f L o r d C h i e f Justice, s h o u l d here be o c c u p i e d w i t h a case w i t h i n the competence o f Justice S h a l l o w ; b u t there is n o t h i n g i n this alien t o Shakespearian practice. A c o m m o n p l a c e case is r e ­ q u i r e d , t o illustrate the c o m m o n course o f things i n V i e n n a — t h a t variance b e t w e e n s t a t u t e - b o o k and p u b l i c c o n d u c t w h i c h the D u k e has described t o F r i a r T h o m a s ; a n d w h e r e such i l l u s t r a t i o n is called f o r a n y t o l e r a b l y a p p r o p r i a t e person m a y be e m p l o y e d . T h e p r e l u d e t o P o m p e y ' s case is a b r i e f b u t significant exchange b e t w e e n the t w o w h o n o w u p h o l d d u c a l a u t h o r i t y i n V i e n n a . E v e n as t h e y advance o n t o t h e stage, A n g e l o is o p p o s i n g t o 3

2 Promos and Cassandra, I I I . i i . Ibid.,V.iv. Davenant makes Escalus i n t o a t i m i d o l d man, w h o w o u l d connive at anything to save his o w n skin. 1 2

3

THE

61

CASE

Escalus' plea f o r m e r c y o n e o f those o d d l y s i m i l a r images f o r t h e l a w w h i c h are so d i v e r s e l y used b y a v a r i e t y o f characters.—For, w h a t reader can r e m e m b e r w i t h o u t effort w h i c h o f the t w o similes o f the despised o l d l i o n is L u c i o ' s , a n d w h i c h the D u k e ' s ? O r , t h a t i t is C l a u d i o w h o likens the neglected statutes t o r u s t y arms h a n g i n g b y , a n d the D u k e , t o the r o d l a i d aside b y an i n d u l ­ gent f a t h e r — w h i l e i t is A n g e l o w h o here uses t h e i m a g e o f the t o o f a m i l i a r scarecrow o n w h i c h the birds c o m e t o perch? Escalus is i n t e n t o n p l e a d i n g f o r a m i l d e r p e n a l t y , b u t e v i d e n t l y meets w i t h n o response; i n d e e d , this plea (like Isabel's f o r t i m e ) is never answered at a l l . H e takes, therefore, a courteous l i b e r t y , ask­ ing—as a n o l d e r m a n , a f r i e n d a n d one assured o f the other's u p r i g h t n e s s — ' H a v e n o t even y o u k n o w n w h a t i t was t o be rather t h a n k f u l t h a n p r o u d o f y o u r unstained record?' A n d A n g e l o , a n s w e r i n g (as he is o f t e n t o d o ) n o t the a r g u m e n t i t s e l f b u t its upshot, r o u n d s u p o n Escalus w i t h the assertion t h a t the l a w takes cognizance o f n o t h i n g b u t the p r o v e n a c t — c o n c l u d i n g : 1

2

3

4

5

6

W h e n I , that censure h i m , do so offend, Let mine owne Judgement patterne out m y death, A n d n o t h i n g come i n partiall. 7

I f a n y d o u b t has u n t i l n o w r e m a i n e d a m o n g the audience, as t o w h i c h o f these t w o i n h e r i t s the p a r t o f Juriste a n d P r o m o s , this e v i d e n t piece o f d r a m a t i c i r o n y m u s t r e m o v e i t . A n g e l o gives the P r o v o s t his orders f o r the h u r r y i n g f o r w a r d o f C l a u d i o ' s e x e c u t i o n —a b a d course. Escalus c o m m e n t s , i n a passage o f w h i c h the i m p o r t is clear e n o u g h , t h o u g h some o f the w o r d s are c e r t a i n l y at f a u l t , o n the inequalities o f h u m a n j u s t i c e ; a n d the case o f E l b o w versus P o m p e y comes o n . A n g e l o listens f o r a w h i l e i m p a t i e n t l y , a n d presently w i t h d r a w s , l e a v i n g Escalus t o m a k e w h a t he can o f 8

9

1 , i v . 64. I . i i i . 22. I . i i . 171. I.iii.23. I L L 1. I L L 17. Angelo's allusion, i n this speech, t o trial b y j u r y seems o d d ; n o t because i t is out o f place i n Vienna—a matter n o t likely to trouble Shakespeare—but because the story turns o n the Deputy's sole responsibility for judgement i n this very case. L o d o w i c k Bryskett enjoins delay as safeguard o f justice, recommending an interval between sentence and execution, i n w h i c h the j u d g e w i l l consider whether the l a w m a y safely be tempered. (Discourse of Civill Life, p. 249.) Escalus argues that one m a n pays the full penalty for a single offence, w h i l e another pays n o t h i n g at all for many—so m u c h is plain; b u t every line except the first seems t o need mending. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

62

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

the business—an E l i z a b e t h a n Justice o f the Peace i n his o w n stronghold. T h e w r i t e r s o f t h a t age, w h e n t h e y discuss this office, bear v e h e m e n t l y either t o the r i g h t h a n d o r the left: t h e y have n e i t h e r s k i l l n o r i n c l i n a t i o n f o r the casting u p o f a p r o f i t a n d loss account. F r o m t h e m w e receive either the i d e a l as i t was f r a m e d u n d e r H e n r y V I I a n d restated u n d e r his descendants; o r the m o s t e x ­ t r e m e examples o f its abuse. W h e t s t o n e h i m s e l f , w r i t i n g i n a n ­ o t h e r c o n t e x t t h a n t h a t o f his p l a y , a n d perhaps i n another m o o d , pays a h a n d s o m e t r i b u t e t o the holders o f this c o m m i s s i o n : 1

M r . Lambeard and others have w r i t t e n learnedly and largely o f the administration o f this office according to L a w , but m u c h (moreover) m a y be said, o f the administration thereof, according to Christian charitie and Justice— 2

especially i n c o m p o s i n g differences b e t w e e n n e i g h b o u r s , p a t c h i n g t h a t fabric o f society w h i c h has never p r o v e d equal t o the strain p u t u p o n i t b y h u m a n passions. H e r e , surely, i n Measure for Measure is a n authentic p i c t u r e o f t h a t m i d d l e state b e t w e e n i d e a l a n d abuse. B e f o r e the B e n c h stand, o n the one h a n d E l b o w , w i t h his u n ­ assailable c e r t a i n t y — ' I f these be g o o d people i n a C o m m o n - w e a l e , . . . I k n o w n o l a w ' — a n d his i n c a p a c i t y t o m a k e i t o p e r a t i v e ; o n t h e other, P o m p e y ; a sinner a n d a m a k e r o f sinners (he makes t h e m o u t o f such s t u f f as F r o t h ) , secure i n the interstices o f society's c l u m s y m a c h i n e r y f o r the maintenance o f order. Escalus m u s t d o his best w i t h w h a t he has at his disposal, and, w h e n this fails, r e l y o n the a u t h o r i t y t h a t is i n himself, the a u t h o r i t y o f experience. So — i n the endeavour t o ensure against recurrence o f w h a t he k n o w s , b u t cannot p r o v e , t o have t a k e n place—he aims at b r i n g i n g F r o t h a n d E l b o w t o a sense o f responsibility, one as a m a n o f substance, t h e o t h e r as a n officer o f the c r o w n ; a n d P o m p e y t o a sense o f shame, or, f a i l i n g this, o f danger. F o r such a purpose, his o p e n i n g m o d e s o f address are n i c e l y differentiated: ' F r i e n d ' t o F r o t h , ' O f f i c e r ' a n d ' M a s t e r Constable' t o E l b o w ; ' M r . Tapster' t o P o m p e y — a l t h o u g h he k n o w s , a n d P o m p e y k n o w s t h a t he k n o w s , this a p p e l l a t i o n t o be f l a t t e r y . T r u e , he is n o t n o t a b l y successful; 3

See C. A . Beard, The Office of Justice of the Peace in England in its Origin and Development ( N e w Y o r k , 1904), especially p p . 134-5 (eulogy), and p . 145 (indict­ ment). The English Myrror, p. 230. I I . i . 41. 1

2

3

THE

CASE

63

b u t the D u k e h i m s e l f enjoys n o better success i n a s i m i l a r a t t e m p t ; n o r a n y success at a l l , w h e n he tries t o b r i n g B a r n a r d i n e t o a sense o f w h a t i t means t o o w n an i m m o r t a l soul. T h e latter p a r t o f this scene the N e w C a m b r i d g e editors relegate t o a reviser, as u n w o r t h y o f Shakespeare. B u t , accepting the first t w o - t h i r d s , t h e y leave Shakespeare responsible f o r the i n v e n t i o n o f P o m p e y ' s case, f r o m w h i c h the c o l o u r o f the scene derives. ' W e stop short', D r . D o v e r W i l s o n says, i n a t t e m p t i n g t o r i d the passage o f un-Shakespearian m a t t e r , 'at I . 1 8 7 i n 2.1 because, t o o u r t h i n k i n g at least, there is a f a l l i n g o f f i n t o n e later, a n d because, as i t happens, this p o i n t makes a c o n v e n i e n t close t o the scene'; a n d adds, i n a n o t e o n I.180: ' T h e f u n i n the rest o f the scene seems v e r y tame.' 1

2

3

Is this c u r t a i l m e n t so convenient? I t leaves a l l three disputants i n the air: F r o t h a n d P o m p e y u n a d m o n i s h e d , and E l b o w s t i l l i n office. T r u e , this latter circumstance agrees w i t h the constable's r e ­ appearance i n I I I . i i , a n d the continuance i n office w h i c h t h a t i m ­ plies; b u t this, w h i c h c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d o n the score o f a d m i n i s ­ t r a t i v e usage, I a t t r i b u t e t o d r a m a t i c e c o n o m y . 4

A s t o the un-Shakespearian q u a l i t y o f this passage, I c a n n o t dis­ c o v e r i t i n the b e h a v i o u r o f c u l p r i t s o r constable, n o r i n Escalus' h a n d l i n g o f t h e m — b u t this m u s t r e m a i n a m a t t e r o f o p i n i o n . A s t o the ' f u n ' — b u t h o w dispute o f this at all? J o h n s o n f o u n d 'the l i g h t o r c o m i c k p a r t ' o f this p l a y ' v e r y n a t u r a l a n d p l e a s i n g ' ; a n d J o h n s o n was n o t afraid t o be caught l o o k i n g grave w h e n others w e r e amused. Nevertheless, i t has g r i e v e d c a n d i d readers. W i t h those w h o c a n n o t b r i n g themselves t o d w e l l u p o n i t , I can s y m p a ­ t h i z e — p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e y d o n o t excuse i n a t t e n t i o n b y c l a i m i n g t h a t i t is aimlessly offensive. W i t h those w h o , r e g a r d i n g i t a t t e n ­ t i v e l y , find the t r u e strain o f Shakespearian c o m e d y here, y e t w i s h t h a t i t h a d never flushed such m u d d y channels, I a m fain t o agree. A n d yet, i f art is t o preserve such c o m p o n e n t s o f life, let i t be d o n e b y n o o t h e r process t h a n this p i c k l i n g i n t h e b r i n e o f c o m e d y . 5

1 . 2 0 1 i n Globe Shakespeare.

1

I I I . i i . 20.

3

N e w Cambridge Shakespeare, p . 111. Keeton, Shakespeare and his Legal Problems, p. 48. Concluding note to the play.

4 5

2

I I . THE DISPUTANTS 'Assuredly,' said Saddletree . . . 'The crime is rather a favourite o f the law, this species o f murther being one o f its ain creation.' 'Then, i f the l a w makes murders,' said M r s . Saddletree, 'the l a w should be hanged for t h e m ; or i f they w a d hang a lawyer instead, the country w a d find nae faut.' (Scott, The Heart of Mid-Lothian) T H E n e x t phase o f the play's d e v e l o p m e n t is t o be regarded as a l o n g - d r a w n - o u t contest b e t w e e n A n g e l o a n d I s a b e l — b r o k e n for us b y t h e D u k e ' s v i s i t t o J u l i e t i n p r i s o n , b u t , for them, despite the lapse o f a n i g h t , a single, u n r e m i t t i n g t r i a l o f strength, sus­ p e n d e d a n d r e n e w e d , b u t never r e l i n q u i s h e d . T h e tension i n w h i c h A n g e l o is h e l d w e are s h o w n ; t h a t w h i c h holds Isabel, w e are left t o i m a g i n e . N o character i n t h e p l a y serves as c o n f i d a n t t o her: she is n o t s h o w n v i s i t i n g J u l i e t , n o r r e t u r n i n g t o Francisca. 1

H o w this i n h e r i t o r o f the task o f E p i t i a a n d Cassandra w i l l f o r m i t w e m a y n o t guess b e f o r e h a n d . W h e n L u c i o h a d m a d e understand t h a t C l a u d i o ' s p e r i l c o u l d n o t be averted as she supposed, she was aghast at the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y flung u p o n her, t o his encouragement, r e j o i n e d w i t h o u t hesitation 2

He see w h a t I can doe—

per­ her first but,

3

p r o m i s i n g t o set a b o u t i t f o r t h w i t h , a n d send w o r d o f the o u t ­ c o m e . N o w , h o w e v e r , i n her o p e n i n g w o r d s t o A n g e l o an i n c a l ­ culable factor is disclosed: There is a vice that most I doe abhorre, A n d most desire should meet the b l o w o f Justice; For w h i c h I w o u l d n o t plead, b u t that I must, For w h i c h I must n o t plead, but that I a m A t warre, t w i x t w i l l , and w i l l n o t . 4

T h u s she stands alone, isolated f r o m t h e c o m m o n t h o u g h t a n d feeling o f V i e n n a , f o r b i d d e n t o use t h a t plea w h i c h n o t o n l y L u c i o 1 3

I I . i i , i i i and i v . I.iv.84.

2

' O ! let h i m marry her.' (I. i v . 49.) I I . i i . 29. 4

THE

and Pompey recalled: He All To

DISPUTANTS

b u t Escalus h i m s e l f has used, a n d the

65 Provost

hath but as offended i n a dreame, Sects, all Ages smack o f this vice, and he die f o r ' t ? 1

She m a y n o t plead, as E p i t i a h a d d o n e a n d Cassandra after her, t h a t this offence s h o u l d n o t be j u d g e d absolutely, b u t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i n j u r y i n f l i c t e d , t h e w i l l i n g n e s s a n d capacity t o m a k e repara­ t i o n . She is f o r b i d d e n t o use G i r a l d i ' s a r g u m e n t — t h a t m o r a l sen­ s i b i l i t y is the t r u e i n s t r u m e n t o f j u d g e m e n t , d i s c r i m i n a t i n g a m o n g s t offences w h i c h the l a w c o n f o u n d s . I f w e measure the distance t h a t separates her f r o m E p i t i a a n d Cassandra, w e shall find i t n o less than that between H a m l e t and H i e r o n y m o . T h e i m p e d i m e n t t o effective a c t i o n is n o l o n g e r t o be r e c k o n e d i n p r a c t i c a l terms, a disadvantage o f s i t u a t i o n m e r e l y ; i t lies i n the p e r p l e x e d m i n d a n d n u m b e d w i l l . A s so o f t e n i n Shakespearian practice, the reference t o circumstance—here, Isabel's novitiate—has been designed t o prepare us f o r acceptance o f a factor essential t o o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the springs o f a c t i o n i n a character. I t is clear t h a t Isabel sets o u t w i t h n o t h o u g h t o f c a l l i n g the l a w i n question. Indeed, she a n d A n g e l o are at first o f the same w a y o f t h i n k i n g a b o u t i t , a n d never so far apart b u t t h a t one can see the other's p o s i t i o n . I n t h e i r several situations, each has professed a stricter adherence t o the p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h a l l V i e n n a a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a n is c u s t o m a r y i n V i e n n a . A n d , i t s h o u l d be observed, V i e n n a does n o t question the g o o d f a i t h o f either. T h u s , t h e y are t o dispute a m a t t e r f r o m a shared standpoint. T h i s is rare i n art, w h e t h e r o f d r a m a o r n o v e l ; one reason, perhaps, w h y f e w fictitious debates stir such a t u m u l t o f response as this has done. F o r n e i t h e r o f t w o disputants h o l d i n g opposed c o n v i c t i o n s is l i k e l y t o penetrate v e r y far i n t o the depths o f the other's, n o r find the f o u n d a t i o n s o f his o w n beliefs bared t o his startled gaze. T h e s i n g u l a r i t y o f this dis­ p u t e b e t w e e n A n g e l o a n d Isabel m a y be expressed i n terms o f its 2

3

I I . i i . 4. For a consideration o f the apparent inconsistency o f Isabel's first (and only) reference to Juliet w i t h the tenor o f all she says to Angelo, see below, p . 150. The opening to this very tale, i n the Hecatommithi, had been the wish ex­ pressed b y the narrator (Fulvia) that ingratitude m i g h t be more severely punished than many acts w h i c h the l a w recognizes as crimes. 1

2

3

F

66

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

unlikeness t o t h a t b e t w e e n P o r t i a a n d S h y l o c k : n e i t h e r o f those t w o can be disconcerted b y a g l i m p s e o f the other's p o s i t i o n — s t i l l less, disquieted b y d i s c o v e r y o f his, o r her, o w n . T h e i r contest is as u n r e a l as a w a r f a r e o f creatures c o n f i n e d t o separate elements. A n d so w e never discern b e h i n d i t the s h a d o w o f w h a t m i g h t have been, l e n d i n g substance t o the actual event. Isabel presents herself i n some place w h e r e A n g e l o is accessible t o suitors. T h a t , o n the u n l o c a l i z e d E l i z a b e t h a n stage, is a l l t h a t matters; a n d t h e t i m e - h o n o u r e d c u s t o m o f Shakespearian editors, b y w h i c h t h e bare scene-division, entrances a n d exits o f the F o l i o are elaborated i n t o particulars o f p l a c e — ' A H a l l i n A n g e l o ' s H o u s e ' , A n o t h e r R o o m i n the Same'—this has l o n g been a dissi­ p a t i o n o f the reader's precious a t t e n t i o n . A n g e l o is attended b y the P r o v o s t ; Isabel, a c c o m p a n i e d b y L u c i o . T h e presence o f b o t h these I take t o be c o n v e n i e n t i f n o t necessary. B o t h speak the c o m m o n t h o u g h t o f V i e n n a o n the case, b u t i n different tones, a n d w i t h difference o f emphasis: L u c i o , abashed i n n o c o m p a n y , can be the m o r e v o l u b l e a n d e x p l i c i t . T h a t Isabel is f r o m t i m e t o t i m e conscious o f the t o n e o f L u c i o ' s interjections ( w h e t h e r w a r n i n g o r e n c o u r a g i n g h e r ) is e v i d e n t ; b u t some m a y be d e l i v e r e d as m e r e c o n v e n t i o n a l 'asides', l i k e those o f the P r o v o s t , w h i l e o f n o n e does she recognize the f u l l i m p l i c a t i o n s . T h i s c o m m o n o p i n i o n o f V i e n n a A n g e l o is w e l l p r i m e d t o answer—so w e l l p r i m e d t h a t he counters i t even w h e r e i t has n o t been u t t e r e d . H e r e i n , a n d i n his c o n c e p t i o n o f himself, lies his weakness, the weakness o f assurance. I t is Isabel, h o w e v e r , w h o seems t o stand at a disadvantage so severe t h a t n o a r g u m e n t w i l l a v a i l — n o t h i n g b u t the tempests o f tears a n d entreaties w h i c h L u c i o expects, a n d w h i c h she does n o t k n o w h o w t o use. Since she m a y n o t c o n d o n e w h a t C l a u d i o has done, her o p e n i n g is l i t t l e better t h a n a q u i b b l e : the l a w , she pleads, can c o n d e m n the offence w h i l e p a r d o n i n g the offender. A n d w h e n A n g e l o retorts that the l a w ' s f u n c t i o n w o u l d t h e n be n o m o r e t h a n t o register a protest, her prepared p o s i t i o n is t a k e n , and, r e c o g n i z i n g her case as i n d e f e n ­ sible, she makes t o w i t h d r a w . B u t t o L u c i o i t seems that her p a r t is n o t y e t b e g u n ; a n d , t h o u g h i t is u n l i k e l y that she understands w h a t he requires o f her, she returns t o the a t t e m p t , w i t h a fresh a r g u ­ m e n t . N o w she questions n o t the l a w b u t the j u d g e ' s r e l a t i o n t o i t .

THE

6

DISPUTANTS

7

A n d w h o b u t A n g e l o has stirred this question? F r o m the first, i n t h a t earlier assertion w h i c h silenced Escalus, he h a d i d e n t i f i e d the t w o : there d w e l l i n g o n his o w n r e c t i t u d e , here o n his a u t h o r i t y — M i n e were the verie Cipher o f a F u n c t i o n . . H e r e is the flaw i n the i n t e g r i t y o f his t h o u g h t ; a n d always Isabel, p e n e t r a t i n g l i k e frost i n t o a crack, w i d e n s i t — b u t rather as a f u g i ­ t i v e seeking ingress t h a n as an assured adversary p u r s u i n g an a d ­ vantage. W h a t , she demands, is the n a t u r e o f his p o w e r ? ' M o r t a l l i t i e a n d M e r c i e ' , w e r e m e m b e r the D u k e saying, ' l i v e i n t h y t o n g u e a n d heart'. B u t A n g e l o answers Looke w h a t I w i l l not, that I cannot doe.

2

She presses h i m h a r d : suppose his w i l l w e r e t o w a r d s m e r c y ? H e takes refuge i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f h i m s e l f w i t h the officially p u b ­ lished w o r d : 3

Hee's sentenc'd, tis too late.

4

T h i s does n o t satisfy Isabel; e v e r y h u m a n b e i n g , she persists, r e ­ mains master o f the w o r d he has u t t e r e d u n t i l i t has been trans­ lated i n t o act, a n d , the m o r e p o w e r f u l the speaker a n d p o t e n t t h e w o r d , the m o r e gracious i t is t o take advantage o f this o p p o r t u n i t y t o relent. So she is l e d t o speak o f the m e r c y she w o u l d s h o w w e r e t h e i r positions b u t reversed— I w o u l d tell w h a t 'twere to be a Judge, A n d w h a t a prisoner— 5

— w o r d s as h e a v i l y charged w i t h a n t i c i p a t i o n o f a f u t u r e b e y o n d h e r guess as A n g e l o ' s f o r m e r v a u n t t o Escalus— Let mine owne Judgement patterne out m y death.

6

A n g e l o , b r u s h i n g aside this fanciful t a l k o f a fantastic c o n t i n g e n c y , assures her t h a t C l a u d i o has i n effect sentenced h i m s e l f : b y b r e a k ­ i n g the l a w he has set i n m o t i o n a process w h i c h c a n n o t be stayed. B u t this is t o g i v e t o h u m a n l a w a sanction b e y o n d w h a t h u m a n a u t h o r i t y can confer: the force o f t h a t N a t u r a l L a w w h i c h s i x M i . i i . 39. 3

I I . i i . 52.

2

I accept the question m a r k w i t h w h i c h the Folio punctuates her sentence as

signifying i n q u i r y , and not (as often) emphasis. 4

I I . i i . 55.

5

I I . i i . 69.

6

I I . i . 30.

68

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

t e e n t h - c e n t u r y jurists accepted as b e i n g u l t i m a t e l y o f d i v i n e o r i g i n , revealed i n p a r t t h r o u g h the M o s a i c dispensation. I t is this c o n t e x t o f t h o u g h t , a n d the t e r m forfeit, w h i c h leads Isabel, b y a clear t r a i n o f association, t o differentiate b e t w e e n the b u r d e n o f irredeemable debt u n d e r the o l d dispensation, a n d the p r o m i s e o f r e d e m p t i o n u n d e r the n e w : W h y all the soules that were, were forfeit once, A n d he that m i g h t the vantage best have tooke, Found out the remedie. 1

A n g e l o h i m s e l f is b u t one o f those souls t h a t m u s t else have been forfeit. H e retires b e h i n d the assurance t h a t i t is m e r e l y as an i n s t r u ­ m e n t o f the l a w t h a t he acts—and w o u l d still be o b l i g e d so t o act, w e r e his o w n affections i n r e v o l t against the sentence; a n d he attempts t o b r i n g the i n t e r v i e w t o a s u m m a r y close: C l a u d i o ' m u s t die t o m o r r o w ' . I t is n o t easy t o guess w h a t answer he w o u l d have f o u n d , i f Isabel h a d pressed her o b j e c t i o n t o this p r e c i p i t a n c y . B u t she is n o t o k e n f i g u r e i n a f o r m a l d i s p u t a t i o n ; she is a l i v i n g i n d i ­ v i d u a l , w i t h a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s prepossessions, a n d the t h o u g h t o f C l a u d i o ' s u n p r e p a r e d state does n o t p r i m a r i l y suggest t o her the e x p e d i e n c y o f c h a l l e n g i n g her adversary o n a p o i n t o f l a w . I t opens i n her t h e v e i n o f a n a r c h y w h i c h runs t h r o u g h m o s t o f us w h o h a b i t u a l l y abide b y the l a w s , unsuspected unless a u t h o r i t y t o u c h some p a r t i c u l a r person. She proceeds t o call the v e r y opera­ t i o n o f the l a w i n q u e s t i o n : W h o is i t that hath d i ' d for this offence? There's m a n y have c o m m i t t e d i t . 2

T h i s is A n g e l o ' s o p p o r t u n i t y . T a k i n g her w o r d s t o refer t o f o r m e r l a x i t y , he retorts t h a t severity is the truest m e r c y : f o r m e r severity w o u l d have saved those m a n y f r o m o f f e n d i n g ; present severity w i l l , t h o u g h belatedly, p r e v e n t such offences f r o m c o m i n g i n t o existence a n d b r e e d i n g others o f the same sort. T h u s , b y m a i n t a i n ­ i n g this v e r y r i g o u r , I pittie those I doe n o t k n o w — 3

offenders t h a t m i g h t have been. T h i s is w i t h i n the bounds o f I I . i i . 73. Given the context, there seems no warrant for Warburton's emenda­ t i o n (were to are). I I . i i . 88. I I . i i . 101. 1

2

3

THE

DISPUTANTS

6

9

o r t h o d o x t h e o r y , p r o v i d e d a c t i o n be deliberate; b u t the personal p r o n o u n has u n e x p e c t e d repercussions: 1

So y o u must be y first that gives this sentence, A n d hee, that suffers. e

2

T h e p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n pleases L u c i o ; b u t his w o r d s , i f t h e y reach Isabel's ears, c o n v e y n o m o r e t h a n general a p p r o v a l o f the a r g u m e n t t h a t is n o w shaping i n her m i n d , c o n c e r n i n g the general s i t u a t i o n o f w h i c h A n g e l o is n o m o r e t h a n a p a r t i c u l a r i l l u s t r a t i o n . H e r t h o u g h t is t u r n e d t o w a r d s h u m a n a u t h o r i t y a n d the p o w e r w h i c h makes i t operative, a n d man's m i s c o n c e p t i o n o f b o t h : a u t h o r i t y can o n l y be delegated, p o w e r o n l y l e n t , t o the creature, b u t m a n , invested w i t h either, supposes i t his o w n . F o r her, this t h e m e o f delegated a u t h o r i t y has n o peculiar aptness t o A n g e l o ' s case, f o r i t is e v e r y man's p r e d i c a m e n t . She passes o n , unconscious o f the effect o f her w o r d s , t o the inequalities o f h u m a n j u s t i c e i n e v e r y d a y transactions, t h e variable degree o f licence p e r m i t t e d a c c o r d i n g t o the offender's s t a t i o n ; w h i l e L u c i o , the easy-going c y n i c — m o v e d b y the consonance o f her a r g u m e n t w i t h his o w n e s t i m a t i o n o f persons i n a u t h o r i t y , o r b y w h a t he sees i n A n g e l o ' s face, o r b o t h — h a l l o o s her o n ; u n t i l A n g e l o , w i t h defences d o w n a n d face aghast, finds h i m s e l f a s k i n g : 3

W h y doe y o u p u t these sayings u p o n me?

4

She has n o t d o n e so—consciously: i t is the c u r r e n t o f d r a m a t i c i r o n y , r u n n i n g l i k e a n electrical charge t h r o u g h this passage, w h i c h makes her w o r d s d r e a d f u l l y applicable, i n a p a r t i c u l a r sense o f w h i c h she is u n a w a r e ; a n d she can r e p l y w i t h o u t hesitation t h a t she has addressed h i m s i m p l y as a p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y — w h i c h is w h a t he has t a c i t l y c l a i m e d t o be, t h r o u g h o u t t h e i r dispute—and w o u l d n o w ask w h e t h e r the f a u l t y s t u f f o f h u m a n nature w i l l stand the strain o f a n office w h i c h assumes perfect rectitude. She is d r i v i n g h o m e a p o i n t w h i c h Escalus, o l d a n d w i s e a n d t o l e r a n t , h a d k e p t i n sheath: l e t h i m consider o f w h a t he is made, and, w h e n called u p o n t o j u d g e others, recognize h i m s e l f f o r t h e i r f e l l o w See, for example, Elyot's The Boke named the Governour (1531), B o o k I I , Chapter i x . I I . i i . 106. For a suggested interpretation o f the succession o f images i n lines 107, 108 and 110-23, see m y note i n the Review of English Studies, A p r i l 1951. I I . i i . 133. 1

2

3

4

70

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

sinner. A n g e l o alone c o u l d t e l l h o w this goes h o m e . Isabel, c o n ­ f i d e n t t h a t she has f o u n d her t r u e plea—so near, y e t so d i s t i n c t f r o m the plea o f a l l V i e n n a — w i t h l i g h t e n e d heart offers the ' b r i b e ' w h i c h t o her has b u t one m e a n i n g ; and, c h a l l e n g e d , proceeds, i n a passage w h o s e r h e t o r i c is almost t h a t o f pleasantry, t o assure A n g e l o t h a t he need n o t fear f r o m her the c o m m o n i m p l i c a t i o n o f the t e r m . W h a t he does fear, has n o t entered her m i n d . T h u s , w h e n she is hustled a w a y b y L u c i o , i n e v i d e n t a n x i e t y as t o w h a t she m a y say n e x t , she has observed n o t h i n g w h i c h m i g h t prepare her f o r w h a t is t o c o m e ; b u t we have seen e n o u g h t o rate at its t r u e force the o u t b r e a k o f that passion w h i c h A n g e l o has been s m o t h e r i n g , a n d his appalled d i s c o v e r y o f his u n k n o w n self. A n d so there is n o need f o r a n y such c l u m s y device as t h a t b y w h i c h P r o m o s discloses his o w n state t o a c o n f i d a n t , a n d comes t o terms w i t h temptation. O f the r e a l i t y o f A n g e l o ' s h o r r o r at w h a t he finds o n l o o k i n g i n w a r d s , I t h i n k there can be n o d o u b t . I f w e a l l o w ourselves t o be antagonized b y his recollections o f his o w n h i t h e r t o flawless i n ­ t e g r i t y ; b y his references t o h i m s e l f (here, a n d i n the s o l i l o q u y t h a t opens I I . i v ) as saint a n d ( p u n n i n g l y ) angel; b y e v e r y i n t i m a t i o n t h a t he holds h i m s e l f apart f r o m o t h e r m e n i n the v e r y act o f sur­ render t o c o m m o n t e m p t a t i o n — t h e n w e shall mistake the d r a m a ­ tist's i n t e n t i o n , t h r o u g h disregard o f his c u s t o m a r y t e c h n i q u e i n such soliloquies. T h e scene w h i c h f o l l o w s , b e t w e e n the D u k e a n d J u l i e t — t h e o n l y scene i n w h i c h she i n d u b i t a b l y appears—is v e r y h a p p i l y p l a c e d ; a n d y e t i t m a y be n o p a r t o f the o r i g i n a l design. I t w o r k s a needed change u p o n the l o n g - d r a w n - o u t dispute b e t w e e n A n g e l o a n d Isabel, s e r v i n g a purpose n o t u n l i k e t h a t o f sleep i n o u r lives: i t changes i n t r i c a t e p r e o c c u p a t i o n i n t o s i m p l e sense o f i m p e n d i n g disaster. M o r e o v e r , i t relieves p h y s i c a l l y , even as sleep relieves, 1

2

3

She may be aware o f Lucio's perturbation; but Angelo's exclamation w o u l d be sufficient w a r n i n g . II. iii. This removal to another group o f persons is a frequent Shakespearian device for m a r k i n g a significant interval. I f w e choose t o interest ourselves i n c i r c u m ­ stance, then w e may say that this scene takes place on the second day o f the dispute between Angelo and Isabel: the D u k e tells Juliet that he is o n his w a y t o visit Claudio (II. i i i . 38) and, arrived at this destination, encounters Isabel, n e w l y come f r o m her second interview w i t h Angelo. 1

2

3

THE

DISPUTANTS

71

y i e l d i n g a sensation as o f coolness a n d freshness: the D u k e tests Juliet, a n d is satisfied—here is n o m e r e seeming. She expresses—for herself, a n d perhaps f o r C l a u d i o , w h o s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f expres­ sion are c o n s t r i c t e d — a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f m u t u a l i n j u r y a n d m u t u a l forgiveness. T h e D u k e ' s 'There rest* dismisses her t o a r e g i o n n e i g h b o u r i n g t h a t i n w h i c h C l a u d i o finds h i m s e l f after r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h Isabel, w h e r e , w i t h d r a w n f r o m the m a i n stream o f the p l a y , she w i l l a w a i t recall at its close. N o w , this m a y m e a n recall t o o u r consciousness b u t n o t t o o u r v i e w ; f o r t h e dialogue—the o n l y witness w e m a y unreservedly trust—offers n o evidence o f her appearance i n the fifth act. Juliet's p a r t i n the p l a y is p e r p l e x i n g . T h e N e w C a m b r i d g e editors suggest t h a t i t m a y once have been b i g g e r : that she is, as i t w e r e , seen i n process o f r e m o v a l . I t is sometimes v e r y difficult t o be sure, i n w a t c h i n g a f i g u r e i n m o t i o n at a distance, w h e t h e r i t is c o m i n g o r g o i n g . I i n c l i n e t o t h i n k that J u l i e t is coming. I t m a y be that the dispute b e t w e e n A n g e l o a n d Isabel g r e w i n the m a k i n g — i t impresses m e as a passage w h i c h has engaged the w r i t e r even b e y o n d his e x p e c t a t i o n ; and, w i t h such g r o w t h , the need f o r a n interval m i g h t w e l l become evident; and to Juliet ( w h o m , per­ haps, the d r a m a t i s t h a d n o t at first i n t e n d e d t o present o n the stage) m a y have been g i v e n the task o f m a r k i n g i t . I f this s h o u l d be so, t h e n there w o u l d emerge t w o possibilities, t o be t a k e n i n t o consideration. First, i n a n y subsequent r e v i s i o n , Juliet's p a r t m i g h t w e l l have been enlarged. (Does the i n d i c a t i o n o f her presence at 1

2

3

4

I n talk b o t h w i t h Lucio and the D u k e , he is preoccupied w i t h his sentence. W h e n the D u k e assures Escalus that Claudio n o w accepts this sentence (III. i i . 257), w e must understand that he is released f r o m this preoccupation. The Provost's reference to 'the most gentle Claudio' ( I V . i i . 75) indicates h o w he should bear himself i n his later appearances. Cf. the Duke's ' H o l d y o u there' (III. i . 175) w h e n Claudio proposes to seek this reconciliation. ' I n Juliet w e seem to have a character w h i c h has got considerably out o f focus t h r o u g h abridgment or revision' (p. 97). 'Her " p a r t " . . . was probably drastically cut d o w n i n the abridgment.' (p. 130.) The part, thus reduced, could (it is sug­ gested) have been taken b y the b o y w h o played Mariana and Francisca; but, i f w e have really to reckon w i t h such stringency, surely the b o y w h o sings to Mariana could have been pressed i n t o service. 1 do not mean a mere time-interval; b o t h Giraldi and Whetstone give this, but they occupy i t w i t h the affairs o f the disputants: w i t h an interview between brother and sister (in their t w o tales), disclosure o f the judge's m o o d to a con­ fidant (in Whetstone's play). 1

2

3

4

THE PLAY

72

CONSIDERED

I . i i . 119 represent a n a f t e r t h o u g h t , a n o t i o n n o t p u t i n t o effect-—at least, i n the extant text?) Secondly, even i f the d r a m a t i s t enter­ tained n o such i n t e n t i o n , i t is possible t h a t the players, b e w i l d e r e d b y her sudden flowering a n d as sudden f a d i n g , m a y have a t ­ t e m p t e d t o r e m e d y this apparent inconsistency i n Juliet's p a r t b y insisting o n her silent presence o n t w o occasions: n o t o n l y at I . i i . 119, w h e r e the d i a l o g u e invites i t , b u t also at the d i s c o v e r y a n d forgiveness o f C l a u d i o ( V . i . 4 9 4 ) — w h e r e there is n o h i n t o f i t at a l l . A n g e l o ' s o p e n i n g s o l i l o q u y ( I I . i v . 1-31) shows the advantage w h i c h t e m p t a t i o n , l i k e a m o r t a l sickness, has o b t a i n e d i n the n i g h t . T h e n o t i o n that appalled h i m , w h e n i t first entered his conscious­ ness, has b e c o m e p a r t o f himself. T h e h o r r o r o f i t has n o t lessened, b u t his reluctance t o a c k n o w l e d g e his n e w - f o u n d self encounters an e q u a l l y s t r o n g c e r t a i n t y that t o his o l d self there is n o r e t u r n . I t was f o r m e r l y Isabel w h o f o u n d herself'at w a r ' t w i x t w i l l a n d w i l l n o t ' . N o w i t is A n g e l o — b u t the w i l l , i n h i m , is the 'infected w i l l ' o f fallen m a n w h o tastes, a n d loathes, a n d still eats, exasperated b u t n o t deterred b y l o a t h i n g . 1

A n g e l o ' s c a p i t u l a t i o n has been called i n question. O b j e c t i o n s have, i n t h e m a i n , f o l l o w e d these lines: he is a c o n f i r m e d a n d c u n ­ n i n g h y p o c r i t e — o r else, a m a n o f h i t h e r t o strict c o n d u c t , u n c o m ­ m o n l y i g n o r a n t o f h u m a n nature, m o s t i g n o r a n t o f his o w n ; and, i n either case, c o n c e p t i o n a n d representation are f o r c e d a n d u n ­ n a t u r a l . A c c o r d i n g t o H a z l i t t , h y p o c r i s y is A n g e l o ' s r u l i n g pas­ s i o n . B u t b e t w e e n H a z l i t t a n d Shakespeare s t o o d some o f the greatest E n g l i s h novelists—and there t h e y stand f o r us also; t i m e , h o w e v e r , s h o u l d h a v e t a u g h t us t o r e c k o n w i t h this i m p e d i m e n t 2

The 'improvers' o f a later generation often indicate b y their additions to a play their estimate o f w h a t i t signally lacks. Direct representation o f relationships as to w h i c h Shakespeare remains silent is officiously supplied, b y Davenant i n a scene between Juliet and Isabel, The Law against Lovers, pp. 173 . . . , b y G i l d o n i n a scene between Claudio and Juliet, Measure for Measure, or Beauty the Best Advocate, p p . 34 . . . . B o t h manifestly a i m at g i v i n g Juliet a more active share. 'The o n l y passion w h i c h influences the story is that o f Angelo; and yet he seems to have a m u c h greater passion for hypocrisy than for his mistress.' (Charac­ ters of Shakespeare's Plays, 1817.) Bagehot similarly argues that Angelo is a picture o f a 'natural hypocrite', d r a w n b y Shakespeare w i t h malicious relish. (Literary Studies, ed. R. H . H u t t o n , 1879,1. 126.) B o t h seem to take for granted a satiric approach to the theme o f hypocrisy. 1

2

THE

DISPUTANTS

73

i n o u r l i n e o f v i s i o n . N o w , the t r a d i t i o n o f the E n g l i s h n o v e l is p r e ­ d o m i n a n t l y c o m i c — w h e t h e r o f c o m e d y c l o u d e d b y satire, o r shaded b y r u e f u l s e l f - m o c k e r y , o r w i t h o u t a n y s h a d o w at a l l across its s m i l i n g countenance. I t is, m o r e o v e r , a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h carries some a l l o w a n c e f o r s h o w m a n s h i p , o n t h e novelist's p a r t . T h u s , w h e r e his t h e m e is the r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n being a n d seeming, he w i l l present t o y o u r v i e w n o w the mask a n d n o w the face, a n d never t r o u b l e t o keep his h a n d o u t o f sight. U n d e r the influence o f this t r a d i t i o n , w e are insensibly disposed t o r e g a r d the h y p o c r i t e i n f i c t i o n as a m a n i n w h o m the difference b e t w e e n goodness a n d a plausible i m i t a t i o n o f i t w i l l g i v e occasion f o r m e r r i m e n t — e v e n , at the last, t o the v i c t i m s o f h y p o c r i t i c a l d e a l i n g : since the p u p p e t master k n o w s , a n d the spectator k n o w s , the lineaments b e h i n d the mask, a n d the people o f the s t o r y w i l l presently k n o w a l l t h a t is r e q u i r e d t o ensure a h a p p y e n d i n g . ( I f w e w o u l d test the force o f this t r a d i t i o n , w e have b u t t o measure G e o r g e E l i o t ' s B u l s t r o d e against a n y o t h e r deceiver o f his fellows i n the y o u t h o r p r i m e o f the E n g l i s h n o v e l : t o set o v e r against o u r t r a d i t i o n a l s h o w m a n s h i p t h a t i n e x o r a b l e b u t compassionate disclosure o f the n a k e d q u i v e r ­ i n g self b e h i n d the p u b l i c f i g u r e ; t o contrast w i t h the h a b i t u a l m o o d o f c o m e d y t h a t p r o f o u n d h u m o u r w h i c h discerns the effect o f d o u b l e d e a l i n g o n personal relationships; t o observe h o w far f r o m happiness the s t o r y must end.) Set aside, t h e n , this f i g u r e o f the c o m i c h y p o c r i t e w h i c h w e are a l i t t l e t o o ready t o descry at t h e first r u m o u r o f d u p l i c i t y , a n d w h o appears? N o t such a deliberate i m p o s t o r as I a g o , w h o , flying t h e false c o l o u r s o f a single v i r t u e , 'honesty', c u n n i n g l y sets i t o f f w i t h an ostentation o f gracelessness — a n d is b y so m u c h the m o r e dangerous. T h a t A n g e l o ' s r e p u t a t i o n is n o such artifact as Iago's becomes p l a i n i n his v e r y d i s m a y w h e n he discovers the n e g l i g i b l e value o f all t h a t i t represents i n his life. A n d this d i s m a y is surely n o t i m p r o b a b l e , n o r is the w a n t o f selfk n o w l e d g e w h i c h i t betrays singular. W h a t A n g e l o experiences is a d i s c o v e r y always i n w a i t f o r the m a n c o n f i d e n t o f his a c c u m u ­ lated capital o f v i r t u e . H e w i l l soon l e a r n (like M a c b e t h ) t h a t t o v i o l a t e w h a t he holds m o s t sacred is t o lose at once e v e r y safeguard. (Second-line t r o o p s c a n n o t be expected t o stand w h e r e the f r o n t has g i v e n w a y . ) I t is n o t the substance o f this discovery, b u t w h a t occasions i t , t h a t outgoes c o m m o n experience.

74

THE

PLAY

CONSIDERED

A d m i t A n g e l o t o be neither deceiver n o r deceived i n u n c o m ­ m o n sort o r measure, a n d the objections t o this representation o f his d o w n f a l l m u s t be reconsidered—as t h e y have been, a t t e n t i v e l y , b y M i s s W . M . T . D o d d s , f o r w h o m A n g e l o 'bears the m a r k s o f h a v i n g been i m a g i n e d intensely i n a l l his c o m p l e x i t y a n d capacity for suffering, j u s t as Shakespeare's t r a g i c characters are i m a g i n e d , t h o u g h his suffering is n o t f u l l y b o d i e d f o r t h ' . T h i s , perhaps, m a y be pressing a c l a i m t o o far; y e t I believe t h a t M i s s D o d d s ' s plea shows the d i r e c t i o n i n w h i c h t r u t h s h o u l d be sought. I find n o gross i m p r o b a b i l i t y here, n o r a n y inconsistency—unless i n a n a l l u s i o n o f v e r y slight significance: whereas the terms i n w h i c h the D u k e h a d addressed A n g e l o , w h e n i n v e s t i n g h i m w i t h a u t h o r i t y , h a d seemed t o s h o w h i m f o r m e r l y a recluse, the terms i n w h i c h A n g e l o examines h i m s e l f w o u l d surely h i n t at l o n g c o n t i n u a n c e i n p u b l i c office: 1

2

The state whereon I studied Is like a g o o d thing, being often read G r o w n e feard, and tedious. 3

B u t this, i f the first t o appear, is the least o f m a n y a m b i g u i t i e s as t o t h e d u r a t i o n o f A n g e l o ' s r u l e , a n d m a y be considered t o g e t h e r w i t h others o f m o r e m o m e n t . Isabel presents herself, a n d i t appears t h a t A n g e l o is another and the same: t h a t c o r r u p t i o n is at w o r k i n the v e r y s t u f f o f the m a n w i t h w h o m w e have b e c o m e acquainted. S t i l l c l u t c h i n g a b o u t h i m t h e rags o f his p u b l i c character, as t h o u g h t h e y w e r e robes o f state, he assumes a n official posture, t o d a u n t her. H e k n o w s n o w w h e r e she stands: he w i l l lead her i n t o a p o s i t i o n f r o m w h i c h she m u s t p l e a d g u i l t y , a n d , i n v o l v e d i n m o r e insidious p e r p l e x i t y t h a n the ' w i l l a n d w i l l n o t ' o f her first e n t r y , a c k n o w l e d g e herself at his mercy. Isabel seems t o recognize at once t h a t her confidence at the close o f the f o r m e r i n t e r v i e w was groundless; she has n o t , after all, w o n C l a u d i o ' s life, n o r can h o p e t o w i n i t ; she returns t o d e v e l o p a f o r m e r plea, f o r a reprieve i n w h i c h he m a y be prepared f o r 'The Character o f Angelo i n Measure for Measure* (Modern Language Review; July 1946), p. 255I . i - 30-41. I I . i v . 7. H e appears here as a man l o n g accustomed to presentnig a composed face to the w o r l d . 1

2

3

THE

75

DISPUTANTS

death. ( I t is a p o i n t as t o w h i c h the D u k e is t o be scrupulous, even i n Barnardine's case.) A n g e l o , h o w e v e r , is concerned n o t w i t h Isabel's cause, b u t w i t h Isabel. L e a v i n g her entreaty unanswered, he attempts t o force her back i n t o t h e p o s i t i o n w h i c h h a d yester­ d a y p r o v e d so advantageous t o h i m s e l f : d o u b t as t o the lawfulness o f her plea f o r p a r d o n . H e suggests t h a t she is n o better t h a n one w h o pleads f o r the life o f a m u r d e r e r , a n d so startles her i n t o t h e assertion: 'Tis set d o w n e so i n heaven, but n o t i n earth. 1

A t last she shares the p o s i t i o n o f C l a u d i o ' s friends t h r o u g h o u t V i e n n a at l a r g e — o f Escalus, the P r o v o s t , even L u c i o . I t n o w appears w h y , even i f G i r a l d i a n d W h e t s t o n e h a d n o t p o i n t e d the w a y , Shakespeare was b o u n d t o d i v e r g e f r o m those t r a d i t i o n a l versions o f the s t o r y i n w h i c h the c o n d e m n e d m a n is g u i l t y o f h o m i c i d e . T h e r e are n o t m a n y p o i n t s at w h i c h g r a v e sin a n d the p e n a l code can be d i r e c t l y a n d s i m p l y related: w r a t h , issuing i n the act o f h o m i c i d e , a n d lust, i n some o f its effects, m a k e u p the m o s t p a r t o f the tale. N o w , whereas i t was possible f o r Belleforest t o c o n t r i v e a t r a i n o f circumstances i n w h i c h h o m i ­ cide m i g h t be extenuated, G i r a l d i , i n w h i c h i t m i g h t be p a r d o n e d even b y the n e x t o f k i n , i t c o u l d never be a m a t t e r o f general a n d p e r p l e x e d dispute, n o r be characterized i n the terms w h i c h a l l V i e n n a has used t o A n g e l o , a n d w h i c h he has at l e n g t h succeeded i n m a k i n g Isabel use. T h i s , surely, explains the c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f a t t e n t i o n , i n Measure for Measure, o n this one sin; this, rather t h a n t h e spectacular, even garish, p a t t e r n o f correspondence b e t w e e n the fault f o r w h i c h A n g e l o pronounces sentence, a n d the fault f o r w h i c h he is e v e n t u a l l y sentenced. T o Isabel's admission, o f a r i f t b e t w e e n p r i n c i p l e a n d usage, A n g e l o retorts e x u l t a n t l y : 2

3

Say y o u so: then I shall poze y o u q u i c k l y —

4

I I . i v . 50. I t seems more probable that Isabel should intend acquiescence i n the disparity between Elizabethan civil and ecclesiastical l a w regarding marriage, than denial o f Angelo's proposition that fornication and murder are o f equal sinfulness; b u t either w a y she is trapped. Puritan reformers were intent o n b r i n g i n g more o f these w i t h i n the cognizance o f the law. A favourite device is to represent the man as lured or precipitated i n t o a b r a w l . II.iv.5i. 1

2

3

4

7

6

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

a n d confronts her w i t h successive hints o f a h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h , m a k i n g a choice a m o n g e v i l courses, she m u s t defend the indefensible. I t is as t h o u g h , r e c o g n i z i n g her i n t e l l e c t u a l i n ­ t e g r i t y , he sees that she m u s t be baffled a n d w o r s t e d i n a r g u m e n t before her w i l l can be b r o k e n . Isabel, h o w e v e r , supposes m e r e l y t h a t some t o k e n o f constancy is asked o f her, a n d offers, first, t o shoulder r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a p a r d o n o f w h i c h the lawfulness m a y be i n q u e s t i o n , t h e n , t o u n d e r g o a n y measure o f b o d i l y t o r m e n t . T o the o m i n o u s charge ( w h i c h has r u n g against her n a m e ever since)— W e r e n o t y o u then as cruell as the Sentence, T h a t y o u have slander'd so? — 1

2

she reacts, n o t , as A n g e l o h a d i n t e n d e d , i n self-distrust o r fear, b u t w i t h s i m p l e a n d disinterested i n d i g n a t i o n . She finds his i m p l i e d c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n the forbearance she has i n v o k e d ( d i v i n e compassion) a n d the l e n i e n c y t o w a r d s w h i c h his suggestions t e n d (the m u t u a l l e n i e n c y o f those w h o c o n n i v e at u n l a w f u l traffic) a b o m i n a b l e , a n d says so o u t r i g h t : Ignomie i n ransome, and free pardon A r e o f t w o houses: lawfull mercie, Is n o t h i n g k i n t o f o w l e redemption. 3

I t is n o t this he has m o v e d f o r , a n d he brings her r o u n d sharply t o face t h e perilous i n s i n u a t i o n o f ' s l a n d e r i n g ' the l a w : m a k i n g l i g h t o f i t because (he n o w suggests) she t h i n k s l i g h t l y o f C l a u d i o ' s offence. A n d this t i m e the t a u n t goes h o m e . T h i s is one o f several passages i n w h i c h D r . D o v e r W i l s o n , find­ i n g the disputants m o m e n t a r i l y at cross purposes, w o u l d i n f e r t e x t u a l c o r r u p t i o n , ' T h e r e is', he says, ' n o utterance o f Isabella's, either i n this scene o r i n 2.2., w h i c h w o u l d j u s t i f y A n g e l o ' s accusa­ t i o n o r her self-excuse'; therefore b o t h m u s t refer t o a passage n o w lost. B u t t o argue thus is, surely, t o o v e r l o o k the v e r y g r a i n o f the d i a l o g u e . I n a set-piece o f r h e t o r i c a l d i s p u t a t i o n (such as D r y d e n , f o r e x a m p l e , delights i n ) , the disputants m a y m e e t one another squarely, s c o r i n g p o i n t s b y r u l e , as i n a g a m e o f s k i l l . B u t here is n o t h i n g o f a g a m e , o f its o r d e r a n d H m i t a t i o n . T h e t w o 4

A n offer w h i c h reverberates i n the close o f the play, w h e n she undertakes a like responsibility i n pleading for Angelo. I I . i v . 109. II. iv. i n . N e w Cambridge Shakespeare, p . 134. 1

2

3

4

THE

DISPUTANTS

77

have been l o c k e d i n a conflict as engrossing a n d desperate as t h o u g h t h e y w r e s t l e d o n the edge o f a cliff, the loser t o g o o v e r . A n d each, so extended, has m a d e strange discoveries, A n g e l o a b o u t himself, Isabel a b o u t the cause she is p l e a d i n g . F o r h i m , this has been a d r e a d f u l experience, a n d he wishes her t o u n d e r g o its e q u i v a l e n t a n d be f o r c e d t o a c k n o w l e d g e some i n n e r rottenness; w h i l e she has l e a r n t t o plead h u m a n f r a i l t y , a n d at l e n g t h t o f r a m e her plea i n terms t h a t w o u l d have startled her self o f yesterday; and, i n the i m p e t u o s i t y o f her p l e a d i n g , she has used u n f l a t t e r i n g language o f h u m a n j u s t i c e a n d its agents. I w i l l g o so far as t o say t h a t , whereas a lesser craftsman w o u l d have m a i n t a i n e d l o g i c a l equipoise, this v e r y departure f r o m l o g i c seems t o m e a n excellent reason f o r accepting the w h o l e as Shakespeare's h a n d i w o r k , neither r a t i o n a l i z e d n o r sophisticated b y a n y o t h e r h a n d . Isabel is n o w i n d e e d p e r p l e x e d ; A n g e l o has o u t - m a n o e u v r e d her. T h e a r g u m e n t f r o m h u m a n f r a i l t y , o n w h i c h she h a d yester­ d a y c o u n t e d t o extricate C l a u d i o , is t u r n e d against h e r : she is r e m i n d e d o f a l l she has u r g e d as t o the f l a w e d fabric o f h u m a n nature. W h a t business has such a b e i n g w i t h scruples? She is p r e ­ sented w i t h t h e m o n s t r o u s t e r m s o f r a n s o m , a n d left t o discover w h e r e she stands. I have traced the course o f this dispute m i n u t e l y , w i t h a p a r t i ­ cular object i n v i e w : t o s h o w i t as a clash a l i k e o f ideas, a n d p e r ­ sons; t o o b t a i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f the equal i m p o r t a n c e o f character, a n d f u n c t i o n , i n the disputants. T o the passage w h i c h f o l l o w s , the seventeen lines w i t h w h i c h Isabel concludes the scene, w e m u s t m a k e a fresh a p p r o a c h , n o t p r e j u d g i n g its significance as a measure o f character. I t has g i v e n v e r y general offence, a n d ( t h o u g h some o f the objections raised b e t r a y n e g l i g e n t o r w i l f u l r e a d i n g ) a persistent distress o f this k i n d is n o t t o be l i g h t l y a r g u e d a w a y : w o r d s a n d phrases are n o t repeatedly m i s - r e a d w i t h o u t some p r o m p t i n g o f i n c l i n a t i o n o r r e p u l s i o n , a n d w h e r e such p r o m p t i n g is general i t demands e x ­ p l a n a t i o n . Isabel's lines, here, m u s t be considered i n the large c o n ­ t e x t o f Shakespeare's h a b i t u a l t r e a t m e n t o f his w o m e n . T o n o n e o f t h e m does he assign a s o l i l o q u y , p r o p e r l y so called: n o passage, 1

Helena's opening o f her heart t o herself (All's m a y perhaps rank as an exception. 1

Well that Ends Well, I. i . 90)

THE PLAY

78

CONSIDERED

t h a t is, o f t h i n k i n g a l o u d a n d f o l l o w i n g , w i l l y - n i l l y , w h e r e t h o u g h t leads. A p o s t r o p h e s are g i v e n t h e m , r h e t o r i c a l o r p o e t i c a l — C o n ­ stance's o r Juliet's; confidences shared w i t h the audience, m o s t o f t e n delicately c o m i c , w h e t h e r the t o n e be s p r i g h t l y o r r u e f u l , Rosalind's o r V i o l a ' s ; confidences spoken i n the presence o f ser­ vants, t h o u g h d i r e c t e d askance—Portia's, w h i l e she w a i t s f o r n e w s f r o m the C a p i t o l ; explanations, some d e l i v e r e d w i t h an o u t s p o k e n plainness w h i c h has disconcerted t h e i r a d m i r e r s . B u t t h e y d o n o t w a l k w i t h themselves a n d t a l k w i t h themselves, as his m e n are sometimes p e r m i t t e d , sometimes c o m p e l l e d , t o d o . Such a passage o f s e l f - e x p l o r a t i o n as A n g e l o ' s , i n the close o f I I . i i , never awaits Isabel; she is never t o w a y l a y herself. T o this general r u l e , even L a d y M a c b e t h ' s s l e e p - w a l k i n g scene is n o t r u e e x c e p t i o n ; i t is b y p h a n t o m s t h a t she is ambushed. L a d y M a c b e t h , r e a d i n g her h u s ­ band's letter; J u l i e t , w a k i n g b y her husband's b o d y ; I m o g e n , b y the b o d y she supposes her husband's; a l l these m a y be said t o address someone, even t h o u g h he m u s t be i n v o k e d f r o m the dead, o r f r o m absence: t h e y are n o t forced u p o n t h e i r o w n society. I n s u m , the w o m e n o f Shakespeare's plays are u n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the i m p u l s e t o i n t r o s p e c t i o n , i n c u r i o u s a b o u t themselves. N o t , I believe, because he was i n c u r i o u s a b o u t t h e m , o r curious t o n o a v a i l : the dramatist w h o c o u l d be present i n i m a g i n a t i o n w i t h H e r m i o n e a m o n g her w o m e n c o u l d h a v e f o l l o w e d her i n t o s o l i ­ t u d e ; n o r , because he g r u d g e d t h e m range o f ideas o r c o m m a n d o f language: H e r m i o n e again, I m o g e n — e v e n C o r d e l i a , supposedly t a c i t u r n — w o u l d d i s p r o v e that. I t is because o f the peculiar f u n c ­ t i o n he assigns t h e m that t h e y are r a r e l y i f ever explorers o f t h e i r o w n m i n d s . I f w e d i s c r i m i n a t e b r o a d l y , w e shall n o t find a m o n g t h e i r ranks a tragic character—unless i t w e r e Isabel; n o t a b l y , n o n e t h a t are t r a g i c as Phaedra is tragic. M a n y o f t h e m are sufferers b y t r a g i c c a l a m i t y ; o f t e n , t h e y are themselves the occasion o f t r a g e d y , b y reason o f this v e r y i n a b i l i t y o r d i s i n c l i n a t i o n f o r i n ­ t r o s p e c t i o n : a n u n c o n c e r n , o r incapacity, t o understand w h a t t h e y themselves are, o r w h a t t h e y seem t o others; t o guess w h a t c o n ­ s t r u c t i o n m a y be p u t u p o n t h e i r w o r d s o r actions. T h a t is, o f 1

Raleigh was troubled b y the employment o f Shakespeare's 'most cherished characters' i n 'the menial explanatory w o r k o f a chorus', and instanced Cordelia. (Shakespeare, p . 170.) 1

THE

DISPUTANTS

79

course, one e x p l a n a t i o n o f the f a v o u r w i t h w h i c h t h e y have been always a n d e v e r y w h e r e received; set aside the f e w w h o are d o w n ­ r i g h t bad, a n d w e m a y say o f a n y o r a l l w h a t Isabel says o f M a r i a n a : 1 have heard o f the L a d y , a n d g o o d w o r d s w e n t w i t h her n a m e . ' S i m p l i c i t y can h a r b o u r n o c o n f l i c t i n g t h o u g h t s : n o tragic decision is theirs t o take, n o r c o n f l i c t t o resolve. T h e possi­ b i l i t y o f r e g a r d i n g Isabel as an e x c e p t i o n t o this r u l e can be assessed o n l y w h e n her share i n t h e w h o l e p l a y is w i t h i n v i e w . M e a n w h i l e , i t has t o be a d m i t t e d that here is another, a n d n o t the last, o f those difficult transitions o n w h i c h the charge o f inconsis­ t e n c y b r o u g h t against this character is g r o u n d e d . F o r the present, i t m u s t be e n o u g h t o recognize t h a t these seventeen lines serve a purpose: t h e y crystallize the s i t u a t i o n (even f o r the s l o w e r w i t t e d i n t h a t m i x e d audience w i t h w h i c h a n E l i z a b e t h a n p l a y w r i g h t h a d t o r e c k o n ) . I t is w o r t h w h i l e t o c o m ­ pare t h e m w i t h a passage i n Romeo and Juliet A s i n Juliet's speech, w h e n she comes t o a r e c o g n i t i o n o f her o w n s i t u a t i o n , the first f e w lines are flung after the r e t r e a t i n g f i g u r e o f a n e w l y d i s ­ c o v e r e d adversary ( ' A n c i e n t d a m n a t i o n . . . ' — ' O perilous m o u t h e s . . . ' ) ; the r e m a i n d e r addressed t o the audience, i n d i r e c t explana­ t i o n o f the a p p r o a c h i n t e n d e d t o w a r d s another f r o m w h o m c o m ­ pensating s u p p o r t is expected ( T i l t o the f r i a r . . . ' — ' l i e t o m y b r o t h e r . . . ' ) — i n this instance, a disastrous approach, f o r i t as­ sumes an o b l i g a t i o n l y i n g w i t h equal w e i g h t u p o n b o t h , a c k n o w ­ l e d g e d o n b e h a l f o f b o t h w i t h a large i m p e r s o n a l certitude. ' H a d he t w e n t i e h e a d s . . . h e e ' l d y e e l d t h e m u p . . .' ' M o r e t h e n o u r B r o t h e r , is o u r Chastitie.' T h i s is n o t the t a k i n g o f a decision, b u t the p r o c l a m a t i o n o f a foregone c o n c l u s i o n . T h e r e remains, n o w , a single phase o f this struggle: Isabel's passage w i t h C l a u d i o , the o n l y p a r t o f the p l a y comparable, f o r intensity, w i t h the passages b e t w e e n Isabel a n d A n g e l o — a t least u n t i l the e n d is w i t h i n sight. I t does n o t f o r m a separate scene, b u t so sharp is the sense o f i n t e r r u p t i o n a n d change o f tension w h e r e i t begins a n d ends that those parts o f the scene w h i c h precede a n d 1

2

3

4

5

I I I . i . 219. I I . i v . 171-87. This surely holds good i n some degree even o f the audience at a court per­ formance. I t must be remembered that any audience o f that day w o u l d include some whose modern counterparts seek their pleasure elsewhere than i n the theatre. I I I . v . 23 5. For a consideration o f 11.184,185 o f this scene, see Appendix. 1

2

3

4

5

8o

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

f o l l o w i t appear b u t as p r o l o g u e a n d e p i l o g u e . T h u s , the p r o l o g u e w o u l d consist o f the discourse d e l i v e r e d b y the D u k e , i n his assumed character o f friar, t o t h e c o n d e m n e d m a n — C l a u d i o ' s silence h e i g h t e n i n g the sense o f expectancy. T h e D u k e ' s a d m o n i t i o n has t r o u b l e d some w h o s e v e r y p r e ­ j u d i c e s are w o r t h h e a r i n g . I t has been censured as b a d d i v i n i t y : C l a u d i o is i n v i t e d t o r e g a r d life as an u n w a n t e d g i f t , o f w h i c h a w e l l - j u d g i n g m a n w i l l g l a d l y disembarrass h i m s e l f — a n d m a y d o so, f o r g o o d a n d a l l , b y death. T h i s accords strangely w i t h t h e religious h a b i t w h i c h the D u k e has p u t o n . I t shocked J o h n s o n ; b u t there w e r e elements i n t h e c o n t e x t w i t h w h i c h he m a y n o t have r e c k o n e d . W e have o n l y l a t e l y learned h o w c u r i o u s a n a m a l g a m o f m o r a l precepts d r a w n f r o m ancient p h i l o s o p h y , the B i b l e a n d the w r i t i n g s o f the fathers, w o u l d be set before a t h i n k i n g , r e a d i n g b o y , i n a n E l i z a b e t h a n g r a m m a r s c h o o l ; a n d been s h o w n w h a t v e i n o f m e d i a e v a l t h o u g h t runs t h r o u g h E l i z a b e t h a n t r a g e d y . A d i f f i c u l t y nevertheless remains: death as the c u l m i n a t i o n i n this w o r l d o f the consequences o f A d a m ' s transgression h a d been r e c o m m e n d e d as a w h o l e s o m e subject o f m e d i t a t i o n , b u t n o t w i t h o u t c o m p l e m e n t a r y ideas o f a n o t h e r w o r l d ; a n d o f this o t h e r w o r l d t h e greatest E l i z a b e t h a n t r a g e d y has l i t t l e t o say. I t is i n t h e absence o f a n y such reference t h a t J o h n s o n descries the s h a d o w o f pagan t h o u g h t f a l l i n g across the D u k e ' s h o m i l y : 1

2

1 cannot w i t h o u t indignation find Shakespeare saying, that death is only sleep, lengthening out his exhortation b y a sentence w h i c h i n the Friar is impious, i n the reasoner is foolish, and i n the poet trite and vulgar. 3

T h e s i x t e e n t h - c e n t u r y moralists, h o w e v e r , w e r e sometimes c o n ­ t e n t t o accept f r o m ancient p h i l o s o p h y precepts p o i n t i n g towards c o n d u c t i n k e e p i n g w i t h C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e ; w h e t h e r these p o i n t e d a n y w h e r e else, b e y o n d o r beside the a p p r o v e d a i m , t h e y seem n o t t o have asked. T . W . Baldwin's William Shakspere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke (Univer­ sity o f Illinois Press, 1944). See especially Chapter xlviii. W i l l a r d Farnham, The Medieval Heritage of Elizabethan Tragedy (Berkeley, 1936). See especially the Conclusion. N o t e on I I I . i . (III. i . 17.) For a succinct account o f the vein o f Lucretian thought i n the Duke's homily, see L . C. M a r t i n , 'Shakespeare, Lucretius and the Commonplaces' (Review of English Studies, July 1945). 4

1

2

3

4

THE

DISPUTANTS

8l

I n another sort o f c o n t e x t , t h a t o f the p l a y , this passage is cer­ t a i n l y apposite; a n d y e t a d o u b t attends this v e r y aptness. T h e D u k e w a r n s C l a u d i o against setting a n i n o r d i n a t e v a l u e o n l i f e ; i n t e r m s w h i c h w o u l d n o t disconcert t h a t first audience, he i n v i t e s h i m t o ask h i m s e l f : ' A t w h a t rate s h o u l d I b u y such a c o m m o d i t y ? ' T h e question is v e r y m u c h t o the purpose—supposing o n l y t h a t the speaker k n o w s Isabel t o be c o m i n g , a n d o n w h a t e r r a n d she comes. B u t h o w s h o u l d the D u k e k n o w t h a t C l a u d i o is t o be g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y o f b u y i n g his life, at a price? T h i s is o n l y the first o f several occasions o n w h i c h w e are teased b y the q u e s t i o n : W h a t does the D u k e k n o w ? S o m e t h i n g m a y be gained b y f r a m i n g i t , even f r o m the outset, i n general terms. I n a n y r e l a t i o n o f i n c i d e n t , p a r t o f the p a t t e r n m u s t be f o r m e d b y the j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f those w h o k n o w , a n d those w h o d o n o t k n o w . O n e a m o n g the people o f the s t o r y k n o w s , another t h i n k s he k n o w s , a n d y e t another is a l l t o o w e l l aware t h a t he does n o t k n o w , w h o s e n a m e is w r i t t e n i n the w i l l , w h o was a d m i t t e d o n such a n i g h t — o r , w h a t e v e r m a y be i n d o u b t . A n d , w h e r e interest is corifined t o i n t r i g u e , a l l these p a r t i c u l a r circumstances m u s t be e x a c t l y defined; f o r i n t r i g u e is n o t h i n g i f n o t smart, n o r is s m a r t ­ ness attainable w i t h o u t neatness. B u t there is another sort o f k n o w ­ ledge a t t r i b u t a b l e t o characters i n f i c t i o n : posed b y the e n t i r e s t o r y , disclosed at least i n p a r t d u r i n g its course, r e v e r b e r a t i n g b e y o n d its l i m i t s . O f such k n o w l e d g e , a n d such characters, w e d o n o t ask: W i t h w h a t p a r t i c u l a r facts is he at this m o m e n t ac­ quainted?—any m o r e t h a n w e s h o u l d i n q u i r e h o w m a n y , a n d w h i c h , o f the circumstances o f Ophelia's death w e r e m a d e k n o w n t o H a m l e t , a n d w h e n , a n d w h e r e ; since i t m a y be said, i n brief, t h a t w e are concerned t o k n o w w h a t H a m l e t learns a b o u t death, rather t h a n w h a t he learns a b o u t t h e death o f O p h e l i a . T h u s the p r o b l e m resolves i t s e l f t o this single, s i m p l e b u t n o t s i m p l y answered, q u e s t i o n : W h a t sort o f character is the D u k e ? A n d this, l i k e the p r o b l e m o f Isabel's consistency, m u s t a w a i t f u r t h e r e v i ­ dence. H a r d u p o n the D u k e ' s assault f o l l o w s Isabel's. I t contrasts sharply w i t h the tenderness a n d m a g n a n i m i t y o f Epitia's b e a r i n g w h e n she yields t o V i c o ' s entreaties—even, w i t h Cassandra's less gracefully expressed c o m p l i a n c e — a n d i t has been censured a c c o r d G

82

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

i n g l y . R e a c t i n g against the vehemence o f such censure, R . W . C h a m b e r s a r g u e d t h a t Isabel takes t h e best possible w a y w i t h C l a u d i o — b u t t o m e this appears o n l y the generous extravagance o f one w h o means t o be satisfied. C h a r l o t t e L e n n o x , a n i n t r e p i d w o m a n , q u i t e w i t h o u t c r i t i c a l sense o r the self-distrust i t breeds, offered t o p o i n t o u t the w a y t h a t Isabel s h o u l d have t a k e n — a n d so m a n y readers have shared her dissatisfaction t h a t some m u s t surely have e n v i e d her courage. I n r e c o n s i d e r i n g the g r o u n d s o f this dissatisfaction, i t is necessary t o r e m e m b e r t h a t the persons o f a d r a m a have before t h e m the choice o f w a y s a l l o w e d t h e m b y t h e dramatist, neither less n o r m o r e . T h u s , C o r d e l i a has a choice b e t w e e n t h e w a y t h a t G o n e r i l a n d R e g a n have already t a k e n a n d the w a y she e v e n t u a l l y takes; a n d Isabel m a y f a i r l y be said t o have a choice b e t w e e n the w a y f o r m e r l y t a k e n b y E p i t i a a n d Cassandra, a n d the w a y she is n o w t o take. T h a t discreet, t a c t f u l m i d d l e w a y w h i c h w e can a l l p o i n t o u t t o fictitious characters i n such a p r e ­ d i c a m e n t is neither here n o r there; i t m a y exist i n life, b u t is n o t t o be r e c k o n e d w i t h i n art unless the artist has h i m s e l f chosen t o offer i t t o his creature. I t has, m o r e o v e r , n o place i n c r i t i c i s m unless t h e artist has failed t o o b t a i n o u r acceptance o f his f r a m i n g o f the d i l e m m a , f o r the people he has made, i n the p r e d i c a m e n t he has devised. I n the passage o f e x p l a n a t i o n w i t h w h i c h she c o n c l u d e d her last c o n f l i c t w i t h A n g e l o , Isabel has c l e a r l y c o n v e y e d t o us her sense o f the s i t u a t i o n : i n h e a r i n g her s t o r y , C l a u d i o is t o receive the assur­ ance t h a t he is ' y i e l d i n g u p his head' n o t m e r e l y because p u n i s h ­ m e n t is t o be i n f l i c t e d o n h i m , b u t because i t is his p a r t g a l l a n t l y t o sustain a refusal o f d i s h o n o u r a b l e t e r m s . B u t t o C l a u d i o her i n t i ­ m a t i o n is less e x p l i c i t — i t is i n d e e d w r a p p e d a n d m u f f l e d i n f o l d u p o n f o l d o f strange i m a g e r y . A n d he, i n the a g o n y o f b e w i l d e r e d suspense, m u s t reiterate his q u e s t i o n : t o w h a t c o n d i t i o n s does she d a r k l y a l l u d e ? — u n t i l at last he startles her i n t o a c k n o w l e d g e d d o u b t o f his steadfastness w i t h the i n t e n s i t y o f his d e m a n d : 1

2

Let me k n o w the p o i n t —

3

t h a t is: ' G i v e m e the facts, a n d let m e decide f o r m y s e l f this ques1

2

TheJacobean Shakespeare and 'Measurefor Measure*, pp. 41,42. Shakesp ear Illustrated, I . 3 3. I I I . i . 73. 3

THE D I S P U T A N T S

83

t i o n o f values at w h i c h y o u repeatedly h i n t / O b t a i n i n g f r o m h i m , i n answer t o her h i g h - p i t c h e d protest, brave assurance, she plunges again i n t o the tale that she can n e v e r q u i t e b r i n g h e r s e l f t o t e l l , b u t still, possessed w i t h the r e c o l l e c t i o n o f her e n c o u n t e r w i t h A n g e l o , l o o k s back rather t h a n f o r w a r d , a n d treats the issue always as a foregone c o n c l u s i o n . T o w h a t she is able t o disclose, C l a u d i o seems t o listen i n shocked i n c r e d u l i t y . B u t the r e s o l u t i o n t h a t accompanies i t is n o m o r e t h a n m o m e n t a r y . I t is f o l l o w e d b y a succession o f increasingly abstracted m u r m u r s o f assent t o her i n o p p o r t u n e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d c o n s o l a t i o n . B o t h disputants m o v e as w e seem t o m o v e i n a n i g h t m a r e , refusing t o a c k n o w ­ ledge w h a t is u p o n us. S u d d e n l y , a n d i n c o h e r e n t l y , the q u e s t i o n breaks f r o m C l a u d i o : ' C a n the transaction r e a l l y be u n p a r d o n a b l e , since i t is the w i s e A n g e l o w h o proposes it?'—as u n h a p p y an a p p r o a c h t o Isabel i n her anguish, as hers, t o h i m . A n d n o w the issue is o p e n at last b e t w e e n t h e m : i t is life i t s e l f that she has been k e e p i n g h i d d e n i n her figurative, allusive t a l k — h i s life, w h i c h she c o u l d g i v e h i m , a n d w i l l n o t . A n d , t h o u g h the D u k e ' s a r g u m e n t s m a y have stripped life o f splendour, nevertheless i t n o w appears t o C l a u d i o as the alternative t o a m o d e o f b e i n g w h o l l y i n t o l e r a b l e — b o d y a n d soul a l i k e suffering t o r m e n t s o f e v e r y sort t h a t h u m a n fear has t a u g h t m e n t o expect. H e n c e t h e t e r r o r w h i c h finds u t t e r ­ ance i n his entreaty, a n d the a n s w e r i n g t e r r o r w h i c h i m p e l s her r e p l y : an exchange w h i c h is the m o r e s h o c k i n g because w e see her i n a p o s i t i o n t o translate i n t o a c t i o n the c r u e l w o r d s t h a t fear p r o m p t s . F o r t h o u g h her d e n i a l is g r o u n d e d i n p r i n c i p l e , the e x ­ pression o f i t is f r a m e d b y passion—the d i s f i g u r i n g passion o f fear. 1

2

J o h n s o n w r o t e o f the m u r d e r o f D e s d e m o n a : ' I a m g l a d t h a t I h a v e ended m y revisal o f this d r e a d f u l scene. I t is n o t t o be e n ­ d u r e d . ' A s m u c h m i g h t be said o f this passage—more, indeed, i f t h e dramatist has failed t o o b t a i n o u r acquiescence i n his design: i f 3

His first reaction is obscured b y w h a t I take t o be a ghost-word—'prenzie* (1.94); w h i c h recurs, as a slip is apt to do, at 1.97. L . C . M a r t i n suggests that Claudio (in 11. 118-28) 'reflects, w i t h some exact­ ness, the mental state o f the man w h o , according t o Lucretius, has failed to banish care because he cannot use himself to the thought o f complete extinction'. ('Shakespeare, Lucretius and the Commonplaces' (Review of English Studies, J u l y 1945, p . 1 8 0 ) ) . T h e passage has also been canvassed b y E . M . Pope and T . W . B a l d w i n (Shakespeare Quarterly, July and October 1950). For a further suggestion, see Appendix. N o t e o n Othello, V . v i . ( V . i i . 83.) 1

2

3

84

THE

PLAY

CONSIDERED

w e m a y still object t o his l i m i t a t i o n o f the courses o p e n t o his characters as a r b i t r a r y , o r protest w i t h C h a r l o t t e L e n n o x t h a t w e can see n o t h i n g t o p r e v e n t t h e m t a k i n g another w a y . I t m a y be significant t h a t C h a r l o t t e L e n n o x herself has n o sooner o p e n e d this third door t h a n she finds herself i n q u i t e another p l a y : one i n w h i c h Isabel, after reasoning w i t h her b r o t h e r , is t o y i e l d t o his entreaties. I n her e s t i m a t i o n (that is) a n Isabel w h o was i n a c o n ­ d i t i o n t o argue the case w o u l d n o t be able t o sustain her refusal. ( T h e r e is v e r y o f t e n a core o f c o m m o n sense i n this lady's i n d e p e n ­ dent o p i n i o n s . ) T o canvas the might have beens o f those w h o have i n d e e d n o b e i n g , the persons o f a s t o r y — t h i s is rash at best, and, at w o r s t , futile. B u t thus far I w i l ] v e n t u r e : i f the p l a y h a d f o l l o w e d the course w h i c h C h a r l o t t e L e n n o x r e c o m m e n d s t o t h e c o n ­ c l u s i o n o f t h e m a t t e r as i t n o w stands—if Isabel h a d r e m a i n e d b o t h c o l l e c t e d a n d r e s o l u t e — w e s h o u l d find i t u n e n d u r a b l e . T h i s does n o t , h o w e v e r , exhaust the possibilities. Suppose a r g u m e n t t o be o u t o f the q u e s t i o n — w h a t s h o u l d h i n d e r Isabel f r o m the use o f t h a t ' p r o n e a n d speechlesse dialect' w h i c h C l a u d i o r e c k o n e d her m o s t precious talisman? T h a t there is a h i n d r a n c e i n w h i c h drama's reliance u p o n speech is b u t one c o m p o n e n t , I a m c o n ­ v i n c e d . C o m p a r i s o n w i t h another t r e a t m e n t o f this t h e m e m a y serve t o s h o w the conflict b e t w e e n Isabel a n d C l a u d i o as one i n w h i c h n e i t h e r — g i v e n w h a t the d r a m a t i s t gives, t h e characters, t h e s i t u a t i o n , t h e t r a i n o f events, a n d g i v e n n o m o r e a n d n o less— c o u l d have acted d i f f e r e n t l y . T h e p r e d i c a m e n t o f these t w o seems t o have h a u n t e d W a l t e r Scott. I n The Heart of Mid-Lothian w e m a y discern a parallel deliberately traced alongside Measure for Measure, w i t h chapterheadings f o r sign-posts. A s the crisis draws near, i n w h i c h Jeanie m u s t c o m m i t p e r j u r y o r w i t h h o l d f r o m her sister the h o p e o f a c q u i t t a l , a n u m b e r o f these chapter-headings are t a k e n f r o m a p p r o p r i a t e passages i n the p l a y ; w h i l e v e r b a l echoes are heard i n the narration—George Staunton, for example, w r i t i n g t o Baillie 1

2

3

* I . i i . 188. T h e f o l l o w i n g passage was w r i t t e n some years before D r . T i l l y a r d published his comment o n the parallel between play and novel, i n Shakespeare's Problem Plays (1950). I have allowed i t to stand unaltered. V o l . I I , Chapters v i , v i i i , x , x i i i , i n E d i n b u r g h edition o f 1818, f r o m w h i c h I quote throughout. 2

3

THE

DISPUTANTS

85

M i d d l e b u r g h o f 'a l a w so c r u e l , t h a t i t has h u n g b y the w a l l , l i k e unscoured a r m o u r , f o r t w e n t y years'. Scott has, indeed, been at pains t o emphasize the likeness o f s i t u a t i o n : t h e l a w b y w h i c h Efiie m u s t d i e — a n d w h i c h is o b n o x i o u s t o the g o o d people o f E d i n b u r g h as w e l l as t o t h e rogues—is t h e o u t c o m e o f f o r m e r l a x i t y a n d precipitate l e g i s l a t i o n . T h e r e is some adjustment o f balance: thus, Effie is n o t a s y m p a t h e t i c character, b u t the scales are w e i g h t e d i n her f a v o u r — i t is e n t i r e l y clear t h a t she has n o t k i l l e d her c h i l d . T h e r e is, m o r e o v e r , insistence o n her y o u t h , as there h a d been o n V i c o ' s ; whereas Isabel, t o j u d g e f r o m C l a u d i o ' s first m e n ­ t i o n o f her, w o u l d seem t o be the y o u n g e r o f these t w o . H e r plea is therefore d o u b l y strengthened, a n d the w o r d w h i c h Jeanie c a n ­ n o t speak o n her b e h a l f m a y f a i r l y be represented as substantially t r u e , since i t w i l l lead t o a t r u e v e r d i c t ; a n d Effie m a y r e g a r d Jeanie's scruple as o f n o m o r a l consequence—of force o n l y f o r a conscience w h i c h t o h e r appears excessively tender a n d exact. She extracts f r o m her sister t h e admission t h a t her life hangs o n this thread, a n d thence proceeds relentlessly: 1

* A n d he wanted y o u to say something to y o n folks, that w a d save m y y o u n g life?' ' H e wanted,' answered Jeanie, 'that I suld be mansworn.' ' A n d y o u tauld h i m , ' said Effie, 'that ye wadna hear o' c o m i n g be­ tween me and the death that I a m t o die, and me no aughteen year auld yet?' ' I t o l d h i m , ' replied Jeanie, w h o n o w trembled at the t u r n w h i c h her sister's reflections seemed about to take, 'that I dared na swear t o an untruth.' ' A n d w h a t d'ye ca' an untruth?' said E f f i e . . . Presently: ' O , i f it stude w i ' me to save ye w i ' risk o f my life!' said Jeanie. ' A y , lass,' said her sister, 'that's l i g h t l y said, b u t no sae l i g h t l y credited, frae ane that w i n n a ware a w o r d for m e . . . ' 2

T h u s , w i t h a c l a r i t y w h i c h the relationship b e t w e e n w o m e n makes possible, the s t u b b o r n p o i n t at issue is exposed: the one w h o m u s t d e n y a plea f o r life w o u l d w i l l i n g l y g i v e life itself, b u t c a n n o t f o r ­ sake p r i n c i p l e ; t h e one w h o pleads has at heart n o such r e g a r d f o r that p r i n c i p l e as w o u l d stand i n the w a y i f the other's life w e r e i n 1

V o l . I I , p . 138.

2

V o l . I I , p p . 206-8.

86

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

danger. M o r e o v e r , Jeanie k n o w s o r t h i n k s she k n o w s t h a t e v e r y ­ one w h o s e o p i n i o n she values expects her t o surrender this p r i n ­ ciple f o r her sister's sake—the passage at cross purposes w i t h her father seeming t o range h i m w i t h the rest; a n d she has t i m e t o w e i g h this e x p e c t a t i o n a n d a l l i t i m p l i e s against her o w n c o n v i c ­ t i o n . H o w is i t , t h e n , t h a t l i t t l e o f the censure w h i c h falls o n Isabel has t o u c h e d her? O n e , perhaps the m o s t cogent, reason f o r this a m n e s t y is h e r steadfast gentleness i n her dealings w i t h her sister; a n d I t h i n k i t is sometimes f o r g o t t e n t h a t this is the gentleness w h i c h strength can g i v e . Jeanie k n o w s herself the p r o t e c t o r ; Isabel l o o k s t o C l a u d i o f o r p r o t e c t i o n and, f i n d i n g n o n e , reacts w i t h a v i o l e n c e r e s e m b l i n g t h e m o t i o n s o f one w h o has c l u t c h e d at a s u p p o r t o n l y t o f i n d i t c o m e a w a y i n his h a n d . A n o t h e r reason f o r the d i f f e r i n g response t o these t w o characters lies outside l i t e r a t u r e , a n d y e t i t o u g h t t o be m e n t i o n e d : w h e n J u l i e t exclaims against the l a w w h i c h grants her life a n d takes t h a t o f her l o v e r ; w h e n Isabel protests that she w o u l d g l a d l y g i v e her life t o save her b r o t h e r ' s ; t h e y w a k e d i s ­ q u i e t i n g reverberations i n a w o r l d w h e r e i t is t a c i t l y assumed t h a t , i n the o r d i n a r y course o f things, v i o l e n t death always stands nearer t o a n y m a n t h a n a n y w o m a n . T h u s , Jeanie's ' O , i f i t stude w i ' m e t o save y e w i ' risk o f my l i f e ' a n d Effie's u n f a i r b u t unanswerable r e t o r t — ' A y , lass, that's l i g h t l y said'—stir i n the reader an even m o r e p a i n f u l response w h e n the issue lies b e t w e e n a m a n a n d a woman. Y e t another reason f o r the contrasted reactions t o Isabel a n d Jeanie m a y s p r i n g f r o m the d e e p - l y i n g differences b e t w e e n E l i z a ­ b e t h a n d r a m a a n d n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y n o v e l . Scott, w o r k i n g w i t h ­ i n t h a t c o n v e n t i o n w h i c h a l l o w s t h e n o v e l i s t t o establish t a c i t u n d e r s t a n d i n g w i t h his readers, turns i t t o account f o r c o n v e y i n g t o us the r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n Jeanie's i n t e g r i t y a n d her s i m p l i c i t y . N o w , s i m p l i c i t y i n a character n o t p r e d o m i n a n t l y c o m i c , a n d i n respect o f grave concerns, is delicate s t u f f t o handle. I t c a n n o t be 1

2

3

4

5

Cf. Measurefor Measure, I I I . i . 104-6. I I . i i i . 40. I I I . i . 184. This disquiet sharpens perceptibly i n time o f war. Love, therefore, and tongue-tied simplicity I n least speak most, to m y capacity ( M . N . D . , V . i . 104). So Theseus says, and the sequel justifies his confidence. B u t this simplicity is comic, and the occasion m e r r y . 1 4

5

2

3

THE

DISPUTANTS

87

presented, as i t w e r e , i n a v a c u u m — u n s u p p o r t e d — s a v e w h e r e i t speaks t o us i n suffering rather t h a n i n a c t i o n ; o r , w h e r e i t is the stamp o f a m i n o r character ( m o s t o f t e n , v e r y y o u n g o r v e r y o l d ) ; o r , w h e r e i t is associated w i t h one o f transient i m p o r t a n c e , e n ­ d o w e d w i t h speech b u t f o r a significant m o m e n t — a J u l i e t o r a M a r i a n a . Jeanie's s i m p l i c i t y is n o t left u n s u p p o r t e d . I n the l o n g , still reaches o f the n o v e l , a n d i n his o w n a m p l e , u n h u r r i e d m a n n e r , Scott establishes c o m p l e m e n t a r y qualities, a n d devises a v a r i e t y o f occasions f o r e l i c i t i n g t h e m . H e presents i n several aspects a w o m a n w h o is i n a r t i c u l a t e a b o u t the things t h a t l i e near her heart, v o l u b l e a b o u t the concerns o f her capable, busy hands, and—this is a subtler t o u c h — r e a d y e n o u g h t o answer o n a p o i n t o f conscience w h e r e the f o r m rather t h a n the substance o f her f a i t h is called i n question. T h e l a w y e r i n Scott gave the d i s p u t a t i o n b e t w e e n Jeanie a n d the elder S t a u n t o n ; the s y m p a t h e t i c observer o f c o m m o n life gave t h a t t a l k o f p r a c t i c a l affairs w h i c h o v e r f l o w s w h e n once a n x i e t y is eased; the p o e t i n h i m gave the language o f her appeal t o the Q u e e n ; b u t i t was the story-teller's a r t w h i c h designed a l l these t o c o m p l e m e n t her b r o k e n phrases a n d silences, w h e n entreated b y Effie a n d G e o r g e S t a u n t o n . T h e contrast is broadened e v e n t u a l l y t o farce, f o r Scott's fine sense o f d i r e c t i o n d i d n o t always t e l l h i m w h e r e t o stop; b u t even at its broadest i t never violates the i n ­ t e g r i t y o f the character, a n d the a m p l i t u d e w h i c h a l l o w s i t is a necessary c o n d i t i o n o f that character's life. Scott's advantage is n o t , h o w e v e r , t o be r e c k o n e d o n l y i n t e r m s o f space a n d leisure. T h e r e is s o m e t h i n g else t o be t a k e n i n t o account, a n d i t is o f his o w n m a k i n g . W h e n he cites the C o v e n a n t ­ i n g conscience t o e x p l a i n Jeanie's scruples, he is n o t m e r e l y p r e ­ senting her t o a n easy-going E n g l a n d , o r a Scotland s e e m i n g l y f o r g e t f u l o f past r i g o u r s a n d splendours; he is p r e s u m i n g o n a w a r r a n t , f o r w h i c h he has h i m s e l f o b t a i n e d unquestionable v a l i d ­ i t y , t o t r a n s m i t matters w h o s e a u t h e n t i c i t y has been established b y h i s t o r y o r t r a d i t i o n . H i s sense o f the p a s t — w h i c h is a sense o f modes o f t h o u g h t a n d f e e l i n g c o m m o n t o a w h o l e people i n some f o r m e r age—and his i n c o m p a r a b l e p o w e r o f c o m m u n i c a t i n g this sense—which has altered the cast o f o u r i m a g i n a t i o n — e n a b l e h i m t o set certain springs o f a c t i o n , i n his characters, b e y o n d c a v i l a n d even b e y o n d question.

88

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

T h u s , a n E l i z a b e t h a n d r a m a t i s t (no m a t t e r h o w s t r o n g ) mayleave us i n d o u b t w h e r e t h e i n h e r i t o r o f Scott's estate ( h o w e v e r w e a k ) can be e x p l i c i t ; a l t h o u g h , since this l i t e r a r y k i n d o f i n h e r i ­ tance is n o t t h e w h o l e tale, i t is s t i l l possible t h a t a great h i s t o r i c a l n o v e l i s t — e v e n Scott h i m s e l f — m i g h t g i v e a clearer account o f Jeanie's scruples t h a n o f Isabel's. T h e r e is a singular r i g i d i t y i n h e r b e a r i n g , n o t t o be altogether e x p l a i n e d b y her separateness f r o m t h e rest o f V i e n n a ; b u t w h e t h e r i t conveys t h e dramatist's sense o f a character u n d e r strain, o r betrays the strain u n d e r w h i c h he sus­ tains t h a t character, w e shall n o t be i n a p o s i t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e u n t i l t h e e n d is reached. A n g e l o ' s case also requires suspended j u d g e m e n t . H e seems t o d e r i v e s o m e t h i n g f r o m Juriste: inexperience, w i t h a dangerous e x c i t e m e n t i n the exercise o f p o w e r ; s o m e t h i n g perhaps f r o m L u p t o n ' s j u d g e , w h o is w e l l a w a r e o f his o w n s h i n i n g r e p u t a t i o n . H e has n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n w i t h the m e r e scoundrels o f B e l l e forest a n d G o u l a r t ; n o t h i n g , so far, t o suggest P r o m o s a n d those characters o f the o l d e r a l l e g o r i c a l d r a m a i n t o w h o m e v i l enters a n d f r o m w h o m i t w i t h d r a w s at the i n s t i g a t i o n o f agents w h o are rather personifications t h a n persons. O f the lesser characters, those t h a t have so far appeared have declared themselves. A b o u t Escalus, w e p r o b a b l y shall n o t learn, n o r need t o learn, m u c h m o r e . O f C l a u d i o w e are t o see v e r y l i t t l e m o r e : the Provost's references seem t o i m p l y that, l i k e J u l i e t , he n o w awaits the final p a r d o n i n a sort o f r e t i r e m e n t f r o m the m a i n c u r r e n t o f the p l a y . 1

2

3

N. i. . E.g., I V . i i . 64 and 75. O f the little he has to say, i n this retirement, n o t h i n g is prosaic; his report o f Barnardine is disturbingly poetic, alike i n imagery and cadence. This may account for the deep impression he left o n Pater. 1

3

r

2

III. T H E ARBITER

'Nec deus intersit nisi vindice nodus incident.' (Horace, De Arte Poetica) T H E p a r t o f the p l a y w h i c h n o w f o l l o w s , e x t e n d i n g t o t h e eve o f t h e t r i a l , leaves a v e r y different i m p r e s s i o n f r o m t h e great scenes o f dispute, a n d asks a different h a n d l i n g , i n t h e analysis. I t is as t h o u g h a stream w h i c h has h i t h e r t o m a d e its o w n channel w e r e here f o r c e d t o seek o u t l e t , s e e m i n g l y i n v a i n ; b u t i t s h o u l d n o t be f o r g o t t e n t h a t t h e i m p e t u s f o r m e r l y felt m a y n o w be a c c u m u l a ­ t i n g , ready f o r the instant w h e n a n o u t l e t is f o u n d . T h e t e x t o f this p a r t o f the p l a y is i n m a n y passages o p e n t o sus­ p i c i o n , a n d i n some c e r t a i n l y at fault. I believe, nevertheless, t h a t the f a u l t y pieces m a y be distinguished a n d isolated: t h a t t h e y need n o t spread the c o n t a g i o n o f d o u b t t h r o u g h the rest. T h e y can be so isolated, h o w e v e r , o n l y i f p r o b l e m s w h i c h s h o w some likeness one w i t h another y i e l d t o explanations s i m i l a r l y related. I t w i l l n o t be e n o u g h , f o r e x a m p l e , t o e x p l a i n a w a y discordant time-references severally, n o r t o account one b y one f o r the succession o f enigmas w i t h w h i c h the D u k e i n his progress seems t o c o n f r o n t us. T h e d o m i n a n t question t o be considered is t h i s : does the w h o l e , or a substantial part, o f this stretch o f the p l a y m a k e stage sense} Does i t y i e l d a practicable a n d (once the p r o p e r m o d e o f presen­ t a t i o n is ascertained) i n t e l l i g i b l e stage performance? I have a l r e a d y offered a n o p i n i o n as t o the w a y i n w h i c h w e s h o u l d treat F o l i o stage directions a n d act- a n d scene-divisions. W h a t l i b e r y o f i n t e r ­ p r e t a t i o n w i l l be ours w h e n w e c o m e t o the v e r y fabric o f the t e x t — d i a l o g u e , w h i c h ( w e m a y h o p e ) is at w o r s t a f a u l t y transcript o f w h a t Shakespeare w r o t e ? T h i s : w e m a y f a i r l y recognize t h a t — even at the best—it c o n v e y e d s o m e t h i n g less t h a n his w h o l e i n t e n ­ t i o n : t h a t he was i n a p o s i t i o n t o fill i n the interstices t h a t a n y d i a ­ l o g u e m u s t leave g a p i n g w i t h instructions d e l i v e r e d b y w o r d o f 1

2

Pater interprets this impression i n terms o f 'flagging skill', a descent i n t o 'homely comedy' and loss o f the 'grander manner' o f the earlier part o f the play. (Appreciations, p . 178.) See pp. 44-6, above. 1

2

90

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

m o u t h a n d enforced w i t h a l l the a u t h o r i t y o f his p o s i t i o n i n t h e theatre. W e are therefore at l i b e r t y t o consider, w i t h d u e c a u t i o n , a n y presentation w h i c h the d i a l o g u e does n o t f o r b i d , n o r even d i s ­ courage, a n d w h i c h , f o r its p a r t , lends coherence t o t h e d i a l o g u e . T h u s , I m u s t ask leave t o p l a y the p r o d u c e r f o r a w h i l e , i n t h a t ideal t h e a t r e — b u i l t as near as m a y be t o the E l i z a b e t h a n p l a n — w h i c h e v e r y careful reader m u s t keep i n b e i n g , w i t h i n his i m a g i n ­ a t i o n . I have suggested t h a t A c t I I I s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d as a single, u n b r o k e n passage, as i t stands i n t h e F o l i o ; a n d I believe t h a t w e shall, b y so r e g a r d i n g i t , discern i n its d e v e l o p m e n t rather fluidity t h a n inconsequence. L e t m e , therefore, b e g i n w i t h its o p e n i n g , a n d a l l o w i t t o p l a y i t s e l f o u t i n m y theatre o f the i m a g i n a t i o n , c l a i m ­ i n g n o m o r e l i b e r t y t h a n is r e q u i r e d f o r frequent a m p l i f i c a t i o n , a n d occasional reconsideration, o f stage directions. I assume t h e use o f i n n e r a n d o u t e r stage, and, i f necessary, o f the b a l c o n y also. I f place i n d i c a t i o n s h e l p the reader, let the i n n e r stage stand f o r a cell, a f f o r d i n g some sort o f p r i v a c y ; the outer, f o r a n y o t h e r place w i t h i n the confines o f the p r i s o n ; the b a l c o n y , f o r one a f f o r d i n g some concealment, f r o m the v i e w o f those o n the stage. T h i s , t h e n , is w h a t I w o u l d have the audience see. T h e D u k e a n d C l a u d i o appear u p o n the i n n e r stage, already deep i n t h e i r subject: the P r o v o s t need n o t appear (despite the e n t r y w h i c h the F o l i o gives h i m i n the scene-heading) u n t i l Isabel's v o i c e w i t h o u t (at 1. 44) s u m m o n s h i m t o a c t i v i t y . U p o n her e n t r y , t h e y t w o exchange a w o r d o n the o u t e r stage, she m e n t i o n i n g her b u s i ­ ness, he g i v i n g her w e l c o m e — t h e D u k e a n d C l a u d i o m e a n w h i l e engaged i n p a r t i n g courtesies o n the i n n e r stage. Isabel j o i n s C l a u d i o here w h i l e the D u k e , d r a w i n g the P r o v o s t f o r w a r d , requests t h a t he m a y r e m a i n , unseen b y t h e m , a n d w i t h d r a w s t o some c o i g n o f vantage. I t is n o t necessary t h a t this s h o u l d be w i t h ­ i n o u r f i e l d o f v i s i o n — w e h a v e been a d m i t t e d t o the secret o f his presence; b u t i t m a y be c o n v e n i e n t t o keep us aware o f i t , f o r thus his separation f r o m the P r o v o s t w i l l be m a r k e d ; the P r o v o s t , w h o s e i g n o r a n c e o f w h a t is spoken o n this occasion f o r m s p a r t o f the design, m u s t n o w be supposed t o r e m o v e b e y o n d h e a r i n g . O n 1

2

I f he is present d u r i n g these first 44 lines, then i t is as an official and onlooker merely. The D u k e assumes i t w h e n , i n talk w i t h the Provost, he refers to Angelo's 1

2

THE

ARBITER

91

the i n n e r stage, Isabel a n d C l a u d i o engage, u n t i l the D u k e ' s i n t e r ­ v e n t i o n releases t h e m . B y a f e w w o r d s he ensures her stay (she r e m a i n i n g , ungracious b u t acquiescent, o n this i n n e r stage) a n d , d r a w i n g him f o r w a r d , tells h i m — f i r s t , t h a t he has been eaves­ d r o p p i n g (a tale he w i l l r e l i n q u i s h o n t u r n i n g t o Isabel), t h e n , t h a t A n g e l o was b u t p r o v i n g h e r — a n d this is a s t o r y w h i c h she m u s t o n n o account overhear, f o r she w o u l d c o n t r a d i c t i t o u t r i g h t ; besides, all her subsequent intercourse w i t h the D u k e shows her i g n o r a n t o f i t . H e n o w wishes C l a u d i o a w a y ; releasing h i m , therefore, t o j o i n his sister o n the i n n e r stage, he s u m m o n s the P r o v o s t w i t h raised v o i c e (thus m a r k i n g the i n d e p e n d e n t e n t r y o f one w h o m he w o u l d n o t a c k n o w l e d g e f o r a c o l l a b o r a t o r i n his design), a n d dispatches t h e m t o g e t h e r . H e thus secures the w h o l e o f Isabel's a t t e n t i o n , a n d the o p p o r t u n i t y t o o p e n a subject o f w h i c h n o n e b u t she m u s t hear. H e proceeds w i t h her i n g o o d o r d e r : first, a sen­ tentious b u t b r i e f address, b y w h i c h he r e c o m m e n d s h i m s e l f to her i n his assumed character o f s p i r i t u a l counsellor; t h e n , a r a p i d , succinct d e v e l o p m e n t o f his p r o p o s a l . Isabel at first mistakes his d r i f t , supposing t h a t the q u e s t i o n — w h a t she w i l l d o , t o ' c o n t e n t ' A n g e l o — i s b u t his terms o f r a n s o m o v e r a g a i n ; and, steadfast i n her d e n i a l , l o o k s o n l y f o r r e t r i b u t i o n . T h i s gives h i m an o p e n i n g for his first p o i n t : n o t even f r o m 'the g o o d D u k e ' can she h o p e f o r 1

2

integrity ( I V . i i . 82), and presently undertakes t o prove that i t has failed here ( I V . i i . 166). N o more is required t o prepare us for this than that the D u k e should appear alone o n the balcony. I t w i l l be seen that I have modified the Folio stage directions only b y g i v i n g the Provost an entrance. I have departed f r o m the stage directions o f m o d e r n editions i n these particulars: I have deferred Claudio's departure for six lines; for, w h i l e Isabel remains o n the stage, the conjunction o f ' L e t me ask m y sister pardon' w i t h exit makes poor sense; and I have delayed the Provost's entry u n t i l he is addressed b y name (that is, b y h a l f a line), and presently dispatched h i m and his charge together. This gives o p p o r t u n i t y for a b r i e f dumb-show o f reconciliation between brother and sister. T w o objects are gained b y these m i n o r re-arrange­ ments. First, the Duke's peremptory summons and dismissal o f the Provost n o w makes sense: his 'Leave me a w h i l e w i t h the M a i d ' means: 'Leave me alone w i t h her; take h i m away.' Secondly, the loose end o f Claudio's 'Let me ask m y sister pardon' becomes a connecting thread; and i t is n o t sentiment alone that demands some show o f reconciliation. True, the time afforded for exchanging forgiveness is very short; but, where words are unavailing, b r e v i t y is best: they are not t o measure out m u t u a l contrition. I f this seems t o conflict w i t h the suggestion o f a show o f reconciliation, i t should be remembered that they are reconciled o n these terms, tacitly. 1

2

92

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

redress, since she lacks a witness. T h i s is a factor i n t h e s i t u a t i o n w h i c h is t o be k e p t c o n s t a n t l y before u s ; the D u k e presents b u t one aspect o f i t t o Isabel w h e n he tells her t h a t A n g e l o w i l l c l a i m t o have ' m a d e t r i a l o f her o n l y ' . H i s o w n credence, he has already h i n t e d , rests o n some secret, a n d supposedly unchallengeable, source o f i n f o r m a t i o n : ' F o r t u n e h a t h c o n v a i d t o m y u n d e r s t a n d ­ i n g . . .' H e n o w completes the capture o f her a t t e n t i o n b y s u g ­ gesting t h a t a n effectual design exists, i n his o w n b r a i n , a n d p r o ­ ceeds t o u n f o l d i t w i t h notable e c o n o m y o f language. I n t h e seventy lines before her dismissal, Isabel is i n f o r m e d o f the past a n d present relations b e t w e e n A n g e l o a n d M a r i a n a , g i v e n sufficient o p p o r t u n i t y t o express recollection, assent a n d e v e n t u a l reliance o n the n a r r a t o r , a n d acquainted w i t h a p r o j e c t — o f w h i c h j u s t so m a n y details are suggested as w i l l c o n v i n c e the audience t h a t t h e y c a r r y i n t h e i r heads the w h o l e o f an i n t r i c a t e design. T h i s is n o t slack w r i t i n g . T h e prose, t h o u g h i t carries l i t t l e stamp o f i n d i v i d u ­ a l i t y , is w o r k m a n l i k e . T r u e , i t relaxes the e m o t i o n a l tension; b u t t h a t is r e q u i r e d t o m a r k the t r a n s i t i o n t o a n e w phase o f the p l a y , a n d so w e m a y n o t infer t h a t the tautness o f the dramatist's o w n m i n d was relaxed. I n s u m , I believe that a l l these 281 lines m a k e g o o d stage sense— n o t m e r e l y the first 150 o f t h e m ; a n d that w e s h o u l d be c h a r y o f rejecting a n y passage f o r w h i c h so m u c h as this can be c l a i m e d . H a r d u p o n Isabel's departure, o n her m i s s i o n o f feigned c o m ­ pliance, f o l l o w three successive episodes, a d r o i t l y connected. T h e o u t e r stage m a y n o w suggest t o o u r i m a g i n a t i o n the c o m m o n c o u r t o f the p r i s o n , t o w h i c h prisoners are b r o u g h t o n t h e i r w a y t o closer c o n f i n e m e n t . A s i n I V . i i i , i t i s — b y day—easy o f access t o all comers: Isabel a n d L u c i o m a k e t h e i r w a y i n a n d o u t w i t h s m a l l c e r e m o n y . H a v i n g dispatched Isabel u p o n her e r r a n d t o A n g e l o , the D u k e , I take i t , r e m a i n s — d r a w i n g a l i t t l e apart u n t i l he is observed a n d 1

2

3

Cf. the D u k e t o Lucio ( I I I . i i . 176), and the w h o l e treatment o f the p r o b l e m o f evidence i n the trial scene. I.e., the first 281 lines o f A c t I I I i n the Folio; i n modern editions, I I I . i . I t is true that he has promised to go f o r t h w i t h to St. Luke's; true also that his arrival there ( I V . i . ) w i l l seem belated. T h e dramatist, however, requires his presence here—and has not yet, I dare say, faced all o f the problems i n v o l v e d i n this intricate passage o f intrigue, nor devised means for dealing w i t h such o f t h e m as m i g h t perplex the audience. 1

2

3

THE

ARBITER

93

h a i l e d b y E l b o w . T o h i m enter v a r i o u s persons, succeeding o n e a n o t h e r i n g r o u p s o r s i n g l y : first, E l b o w a n d subordinates, w i t h P o m p e y i n charge. P o m p e y , i n t r a c t a b l e t o Escalus' w a r n i n g , is n o t l i k e l y t o heed t h e D u k e ' s : his confidence is i n his o w n p o w e r s o f i n g r a t i a t i o n a n d t h e a c c o m m o d a t i n g t e x t u r e o f society w h i c h has h i t h e r t o afforded h i m shelter. T h i s confidence is first c a l l e d i n question b y the next comer, L u c i o , o n whose particular c o u n t e n ­ ance he h a d r e c k o n e d ; a n d L u c i o ' s r e b u f f is t h e o p e n i n g o f a pass­ age charged w i t h i r o n i c i m p l i c a t i o n s . T a k i n g t h e D u k e at a d i s ­ advantage, i m p r i s o n e d w i t h i n his assumed character, he makes t h e m o s t o f his o p p o r t u n i t y a n d leaves his v i c t i m t o reflect o n c a l ­ u m n y , u n t i l the entrance, severally, o f Escalus, t h e P r o v o s t a n d M r s . O v e r d o n e . T h e D u k e has n o w t o c o n t e m p l a t e f u r t h e r e v i ­ dence o f A n g e l o ' s a c t i v i t y i n s t i r r i n g the m u d d y channels o f his c i t y ; a n d this leads n a t u r a l l y e n o u g h , as t h e lesser persons w i t h ­ d r a w , t o a passage o f general reflection addressed t o t h e audience. Since this p a s s a g e — t w e n t y - t w o lines i n a measure f o r w h i c h t h e rest o f the p l a y affords n o counterpart—has been called i n q u e s t i o n even b y conservative critics, I s h o u l d l i k e t o set i t aside, as ques­ t i o n a b l e , u n t i l I have analysed those successive episodes w h i c h d i v i d e i t f r o m t h e D u k e ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n b e t w e e n Isabel a n d C l a u d i o . N o t i c e , first o f a l l , t h a t one person alone remains present 1

2

3

4

5

Here, as i n Claudio's progress t o prison ( I . i i . 120), the Folio gives 'Officers'. I t is, o f course, the dramatist w h o is conscious o f the opportunity, not Lucio; but the audience w i l l n o t notice this. T h e Folio's 'Enter Escalus, Provost, and B a w d ' w o u l d , i f taken at the foot o f the letter, give an inappropriate escort for M r s . Overdone. M o d e r n editors assign her to the care o f such 'officers' as lately brought o n Pompey. I suggest that this is w h a t w e should see o n the stage: Escalus, whose business is w i t h the Provost, enters as the 'officers' are handing over to their superior their bedraggled charge; her struggles and clamour attract Escalus' attention, and he pauses to admonish her and to comment o n her case—and o n that evidence f r o m Lucio w h i c h has b r o u g h t i t t o official notice—before opening the matter about w h i c h he has come to i n f o r m the Provost: the failure o f yet another appeal o n Claudio's behalf. His reference t o preparation for death gives the Provost o p p o r t u n i t y to draw f o r w a r d the supposed Friar; the dramatist, to clear the character o f the 'absent' duke. Since the Provost must outstay M r s . Overdone, to effect a connection between Escalus and the supposed Friar, and since there is no occasion for a separate exit, he may stand aside t h r o u g h the 50 lines o f their conversation together, c o m i n g f o r w a r d at its conclusion to conduct Escalus towards the inner prison. M y removal o f the m o d e r n scene division between Isabel's departure and Elbow's entry w i t h Pompey has merely emphasized this, n o t b r o u g h t i t about. 1

2

3

4

6

THE PLAY

94

CONSIDERED

t h r o u g h o u t these c o m i n g s a n d g o i n g s , a n d t h a t this one is so s i t u ­ ated t h a t he can, a n d does, address the audience d i r e c t l y w h e n a n y transaction a m o n g the others requires c o m m e n t . T h e D u k e here occupies such a p o s i t i o n as Shakespeare occasionally assigns t o one o f his characters: a p o s i t i o n w h i c h he has n o t f o r m e r l y h e l d , b u t w h i c h he assumed, d i r e c t l y a n d u n m i s t a k a b l y , u p o n his e n t r y t o Isabel a n d C l a u d i o ( I I I . i . 151). A t t h a t instant w h e n he i n t e r v e n e d b e t w e e n t h e m , the play's centre o f g r a v i t y was p a l p a b l y shifted: the b u r d e n was transferred—a transference m a r k e d b y the s i m u l ­ taneous change f r o m verse t o prose. W h e n the D u k e tells C l a u d i o t h a t A n g e l o has never m e a n t t o c o r r u p t Isabel—'onely he h a t h m a d e an assay o f her v e r t u e , t o practise his j u d g e m e n t w i t h t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f natures'; a n d w h e n he goes o n t o e x h o r t h i m : ' D o n o t satisfie y o u r r e s o l u t i o n w i t h hopes that are fallible, t o m o r r o w y o u m u s t d i e ' , he is saying s o m e t h i n g w h i c h , i f spoken b y an actual person, c o u l d n o t be called a n y t h i n g b u t a l i e ; b u t , spoken b y a fictitious person o f a p a r t i c u l a r sort, m a y f a i r l y bear another t i t l e . H e deliberately misinforms his hearer inside the p l a y , present­ i n g h i m w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h o n his o w n r e c k o n i n g is false — f o r he has n o d o u b t w h a t e v e r as t o A n g e l o ' s p u r p o s e , a n d e v e r y i n t e n t i o n o f p r e v e n t i n g i t . Nevertheless, he is informing us, his hearers outside the p l a y — p r e s e n t i n g us w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h , o n his o w n c o m p u t a t i o n , s h o u l d e v e n t u a l l y p r o v e t r u e ; f o r his w o r d s c a r r y a n i n t i m a t i o n o f w h a t he means t o fashion o u t o f the situation—even, i n some sort, w h a t he has already m a d e o f i t . I n his design (as i t is here foreshadowed a n d b e g i n n i n g t o assume sub­ stance) this is h o w those characters w h o have h i t h e r t o carried the play's b u r d e n are n o w situated: whereas A n g e l o has insisted, Isabel has t a c i t l y a d m i t t e d , a n d C l a u d i o has believed t h a t i t is i n her h a n d t h a t his life lies, t o g i v e o r t o w i t h h o l d , i t n o w becomes p l a i n t h a t his h o p e o f escaping death m u s t l i e elsewhere. N o t h i n g remains f o r Isabel t o keep o r t o surrender; n o decision n o w rests w i t h her— t h a t b u r d e n has been l i f t e d f r o m her. I n the place once o c c u p i e d b y 1

2

3

4

This change has n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n w i t h the unaccountable verse-prose alternation o f I V . i . I I I . i . 162 and 170. Even the falsehood m i g h t be defended as salutary; i t was hope w h i c h had undone Claudio. N o t o n l y w h a t he says to Isabel, but also his w h o l e course o f action makes this clear. 1

2

3

4

THE

ARBITER

95

a n i m p u l s i v e l y compassionate gaoler n o w stands a figure f o r w h i c h f o r m e r versions offer n o precedent; one i n w h o s e hands the P r o ­ v o s t h i m s e l f w i l l be an agent m e r e l y . Isabel w i l l , i t is t r u e , still have a p a r t t o p l a y ; b u t so w i l l e v e r y o t h e r character—except J u l i e t i n her r e t i r e m e n t , a n d the c l o w n s ( P o m p e y , E l b o w , A b h o r s o n ) i n t h e i r c o m i c unconsciousness o f the v e r y element i n w h i c h t h e y have t h e i r b e i n g . A l l the rest w i l l be cast f o r one p a r t o r another i n the D u k e ' s m o r a l i n t e r l u d e . T h a t he s h o u l d stand fast, w h i l e others c o m e a n d g o , n o w begins t o appear significant. H e m a y be l i k e n e d t o the p r o d u c e r o f a p l a y w h o s e h u m o u r i t is t h a t the players s h o u l d k n o w n o m o r e t h a n t h e i r o w n parts—and w h o m u s t therefore stand b y t o d i r e c t a n y concerted a c t i o n ; o r the strategist w h o m u s t be at h a n d t o c o n ­ t r o l d e v e l o p m e n t s — f o r , since the s t u f f i n w h i c h he is w o r k i n g is (supposedly) life itself, he m a y find h i m s e l f fast i n the v e r y w e b he is w e a v i n g . T h i s at least is c e r t a i n : he, r e m a i n i n g i m m o b i l e , s h o u l d engage o u r steady a t t e n t i o n ; i t is his r e a c t i o n t o these comers a n d goers t h a t m u s t m a k e t h e i r significance p l a i n t o us. P o m p e y a n d M r s . Overdone—separated b y t h e i r client, L u c i o , a n d so d e p l o y e d as t o appear representative—impress u p o n the D u k e the security o f t h a t traffic w h i c h the exercise o f c o n s t i t u t e d a u t h o r i t y i n V i e n n a has failed t o p u t d o w n . L u c i o ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o this i m p r e s s i o n , a l t h o u g h i t m a y appear as s i m p l e as theirs, is i n d e e d c o m p o s i t e . O n the surface i t expresses the sort o f c o m i c i n s i g h t w h i c h i n f o r m s p o p u l a r proverbs, s h r e w d a n d o f t e n spiteful: eavesdroppers hear n o g o o d o f themselves; one w h o has placed h i m s e l f i n the D u k e ' s p r e d i c a m e n t m u s t c o n t i n u e t o listen, w h e t h e r he w i l l o r n o , a n d is l i k e l y t o learn t h a t he is generally r e c k o n e d ineffectual abroad and, i f all w e r e k n o w n , n o better t h a n he s h o u l d be at h o m e . A l i t t l e b e l o w this, another v e i n o f c o m e d y appears, still b r o a d : t h e tables t u r n e d y e t again. L u c i o , h a v i n g extracted f r o m P o m p e y the admission t h a t he is o n his w a y t o p r i s o n , exclaims e x u l t a n t l y : ' W h y 'tis n o t amisse Pompey: f a r e w e l l : goe say I sent thee t h e t h e r . ' I n such r i g m a r o l e as his, n o u n s u p p o r t e d assertion need signify m u c h ; b u t this one does n o t stand alone. Presently M r s . O v e r d o n e is t o m e n t i o n h i m i n terms w h i c h bear o u t its i m p l i c a ­ tions. A p p e a l i n g against her o w n arrest, she says: ' T h i s is one 1

1

I I I . i i . 65.

9

6

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

Lucio's i n f o r m a t i o n against m e . ' I n the i n t e r i m , L u c i o has been o f f e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n against t h e absent D u k e — n o t , i t is t r u e , i n a quarter w h e r e r e w a r d w i l l be f o r t h c o m i n g , b u t he heightens his charges a n d piles u p circumstance l i k e one rehearsing a tale o f w h i c h he means t o m a k e use. N o w , i t is p a r t o f W h e t s t o n e ' s satiric purpose t o s h o w i n f o r m e r s m u l t i p l y i n g u n d e r P r o m o s ' r u l e : i n one o f the l o o s e l y i l l u s t r a t i v e episodes t h a t he uses f o r represent­ i n g t h e state o f J u l i o , a c l o w n i s h f e l l o w is b l a c k m a i l e d b y P h a l l a x a n d his bullies, w h o persuade h i m t h a t he has i n c u r r e d t h e severity o f the n e w l a w b y kissing the maidservant i n his father's house. R i g o u r has b r e d dishonesty, e n c o u r a g i n g clever rogues t o fish i n t r o u b l e d waters, a n d simpletons t o b u y t h e m o f f rather t h a n face a u t h o r i t y . L u p t o n sees the m a t t e r d i f f e r e n t l y : i n M a u q s u n , e v e r y c i t i z e n is a p o t e n t i a l i n f o r m e r , a n d p r o u d o f i t ; a n d W h e t s t o n e ' s p a m p h l e t s suggest t h a t he h i m s e l f came t o r e g a r d this practice as a city's o n l y safeguard. B u t Shakespeare's audience is n o t l i k e l y t o have been o f this o p i n i o n , a n d w i t h e v e r y proffer o f i n f o r m a t i o n b y L u c i o , here a n d at t h e final t r i a l , t h e i r pleasurable e x p e c t a t i o n o f his d i s c o m f i t u r e m u s t surely have been h e i g h t e n e d . 1

2

3

T h e D u k e ' s final i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f Escalus serves m o r e t h a n one purpose: lest L u c i o ' s w o r d s s h o u l d have b r e d d o u b t , i t reassures us as t o the e s t i m a t i o n i n w h i c h his reputable subjects h o l d the D u k e , a n d i t sustains his quest o f t h a t elusive d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n b e i n g a n d seeming, o f the l i n e t h a t separates w h a t a m a n is, a n d w h a t his f e l l o w s suppose h i m . I t sustains also o u r interest i n this quest, a n d i n its o u t c o m e . I t is surely b e c o m i n g e v i d e n t t h a t the k n o w l e d g e w h i c h the D u k e is n o w engaged i n p u r s u i n g is o f a different sort f r o m t h a t w h i c h m a y be measured i n terms o f its v a l u e t o t h e i n t r i g u e . ( T h u s , w e are p r o b a b l y l i t t l e the p o o r e r f o r w a n t o f answers t o such questions as t h e s t o r y i t s e l f p r o m p t s : H o w s o o n was he acquainted w i t h A n g e l o ' s questionable t r e a t m e n t o f M a r i a n a ? A n d , w i t h w h a t particulars was he p r i m e d w h e n he visited C l a u d i o i n prison?) T h i s k n o w l e d g e , t h e n , is s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n i n f o r m ­ a t i o n ; a n d y e t I believe t h a t w e s h o u l d n o t call i t experience: i t has n o t e n o u g h i n c o m m o n w i t h the k n o w l e d g e t o w h i c h Shake1 3

I I I . i i . 210. 2 Promos and Cassandra, I I I . i i . A Mir our for Magestrates of Cyties (1584). 2

THE

ARBITER

97

speare's t r a g i c heroes w i n , b y d o i n g a n d suffering, f o r the D u k e h i m s e l f does n o t engage o u r c o n c e r n b y w h a t he does, o r suffers. H o w , w e m a y f a i r l y ask, does h e — o r s h o u l d he—engage it? C r i t i c i s m has f o r some w h i l e i n c l i n e d t o w a r d s the o p i n i o n t h a t here is one o f those persons i n Shakespearian d r a m a w h o s h o u l d be regarded as i m p o r t a n t i n respect rather o f f u n c t i o n t h a n o f c h a r ­ acter, and are t o be i n t e r p r e t e d as w e s h o u l d i n t e r p r e t the p r i n c i p a l persons i n a l l e g o r y . N o w , the language o f a l l e g o r y is at least a p p r o x i m a t e l y translatable. These persons, therefore, m u s t stand f o r s o m e t h i n g that can be expressed i n o t h e r t h a n allegorical terms, a n d the concept f o r w h i c h the D u k e stands be capable o f f o r m u l a ­ t i o n i n such terms as c r i t i c i s m m a y e m p l o y . W h a t is this concept? T h i s is n o t an easy question t o answer, n o r are the answers so far p r o p o s e d easy t o discuss. Since those t h a t suggest a r e l i g i o u s a l l e g o r y , a n d h i n t at a d i v i n e a n a l o g y , are s h o c k i n g t o m e , a n d c a n n o t be a n y t h i n g o f the sort t o those w h o have f r a m e d t h e m , i t m u s t f o l l o w t h a t m y objections are a l l t o o l i k e l y t o shock i n t h e i r t u r n . T h i s offence is apt t o be m u t u a l ; f o r , w h e r e reverence is c o n ­ cerned, there is even less h o p e o f reaching agreement b y a r g u ­ m e n t t h a n i n matters o f taste. I w o u l d n o t w i l l i n g l y offend; b u t there is n o t r o o m f o r c o m p r o m i s e . L e t m e recall the b u r d e n o f the p o p u l a r tale o f the m o n s t r o u s r a n s o m : the s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h the w o m a n , the j u d g e a n d the r u l e r c o n f r o n t e d one another signified p o w e r , exerted t o its f u l l capacity against weakness, a n d weakness (reduced t o u t t e r m o s t m i s e r y ) g a t h e r i n g i t s e l f u p t o appeal b e y o n d p o w e r t o a u t h o r i t y . E x ­ pressed thus, i n s i m p l e a n d general terms, i t seems i n d e e d a n a l o ­ gous w i t h t h a t a l l e g o r y o f d i v i n e m i g h t i n v o k e d t o redress abuse o f h u m a n i n e q u a l i t y w h i c h is s h a d o w e d i n B r o w n i n g ' s Instans Tyrannus. B u t i t s h o u l d be r e m e m b e r e d t h a t such s i m p l i f i c a t i o n obliterates one p a r t i c u l a r w h i c h , i f f a i r l y r e c k o n e d w i t h , m i g h t f o r b i d r e l i g i o u s a n a l o g y : i n t h e o l d tale, the r u l e r was distant, ignorant, b r o u g h t t o intervene o n l y b y u n c o m m o n exertion o n the p a r t o f those w h o m his absence h a d exposed t o oppression; a n d n o n e o f the a m p l i f i c a t i o n s designed t o m a k e t h e tale m o r e 1

2

This o p i n i o n is shared b y those w h o find i n the play an explicitly Christian meaning. See p. 4 1 , above. For this absence, a reason is usually given—seemingly, t o forestall censure. 1

2

H

98

THE

PLAY

CONSIDERED

acceptable h a d d o n e a n y t h i n g t o shift o r reduce this u n t o w a r d circumstance. I n d e e d , b y m a g n i f y i n g the w h o l e , t h e y m a d e the part more obvious. L u p t o n ' s Siuqila b e y o n d the rest develops t h a t element i n the s t o r y w h i c h d r a w s us t o t h i n k a b o u t the maintenance o f j u s t i c e , n o t m e r e l y i n the v e r s i o n i t gives o f this tale b u t also i n the s i m i l a r tales s u r r o u n d i n g i t . A n d i t is notable that, whereas this one tale is t o l d b y t h e w r e t c h e d S i u q i l a t o s h o w that even i n his o w n c o u n t r y one w h o has n o l o n g e r a n y t h i n g t o lose w i l l t e l l a l l a n d thus b r i n g a b o u t r e t r i b u t i o n , O m e n ' s tales are t o l d t o illustrate the happier state o f M a u q s u n . T h e t h e m e o f three o f t h e m is the success o f the g o o d r u l e r w h o goes a b o u t his d o m a i n incognito t o discover a n d redress w r o n g . I n one, a j u d g e w h o w a y l a y s a n d interrogates suitors is able t o rescue a w o m a n f r o m oppression. I n b o t h o f the others, the k i n g h i m s e l f is s h o w n u s i n g disguise a n d s i m i l a r subter­ fuge, n o t o n l y t o o b t a i n t r u t h b u t also t o m a k e i t p u b l i c l y appar­ ent. I n o n e , he learns b y means o f his ' p r i v i e Espials', w h o r i d e a b o u t the c o u n t r y at his c o m m a n d i n the character o f p r i v a t e g e n t l e m e n , t h e p l i g h t o f a w o m a n w h o has been i l l used b y her stepson. H e hides her at c o u r t a n d lets i t be r u m o u r e d t h a t she is dead; and, after m u c h h a n d l i n g o f witnesses, confronts t h e offender w i t h his v i c t i m , a n d delivers sentence. T h e o t h e r tells h o w he 'changed his apparell, m a k i n g himselfe l i k e a S e r v i n g m a , a n d w e n t o u t at a p r i v i e Posterngate, a n d so e n q u i r e d i n the prisons, w h a t prisoners w e r e there', a n d was able t o confute the c u n n i n g oppressor b y b r i n g i n g h i m face t o face w i t h the oppressed. N o w , i n a l l these variations o n a single t h e m e , the a c t i v i t y o f some magistrate o r r u l e r — g o i n g a b o u t o r sending o u t his agents, i n disguise—assists i n b r i n g i n g s m o t h e r e d t r u t h t o l i g h t . Reflecting o n o p p o r t u n e i n t e r v e n t i o n i n one, Siuqila sums u p the m o r a l o f all: I t was o n l y the L o r d s w o r k i n g , that p u t t e i t i n t o his heart' t o speak w i t h the w o m a n w h o was secretly oppressed, a n d i n t o hers t o t e l l this stranger w h a t she has h i t h e r t o f o r b o r n e t o u t t e r ; f o r ' G o d w o r k s a l this b y m a r v e l l o u s means, i f w e w o u l d consider i t , for the h e l p i n g o f the i n n o c e n t a n d g o d l y ' . E v e n u n d e r an ideal 1

2

3

4

5

6

1 3 5

Seep. 23, above. R. i i . . to T . i i . . The story o f the ill-used stepmother. v

r

2 4 6

T . i i i . . to X . i . . Y . i i i . . to Z . i i . . R.iv. . v

v

v

r

r

THE

ARBITER

99

system o f j u s t i c e , t h a t is, the d i s c o v e r y o f w r o n g m i g h t w e l l be impossible w e r e i t n o t f o r the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e , w h i c h , o n some p a r t i c u l a r occasion, puts i t i n t o the heart o f this o r t h a t h u m a n agent t o m a k e a p e r t i n e n t i n q u i r y . N o w , this is i n k e e p i n g w i t h p o p u l a r t h o u g h t , w h i c h comes v e r y near t o sup­ p o s i n g an element o f caprice i n d i v i n e g o v e r n m e n t , because i t does n o t l o o k ahead, b u t c o m p l a c e n t l y descries pieces o f p a t t e r n i n p a r t i c u l a r events, w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g the u g l y unreason o f the t o t a l design w h i c h such parts m u s t compose. B u t , h o w fearfully t h e distance b e t w e e n this false start a n d its l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n diminishes, i f the r u l e r is regarded n o t as agent b u t as e m b l e m o f d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e ! I t is difficult t o believe t h a t those w h o w o u l d h a v e us i n t e r p r e t the D u k e ' s p a r t so can have f o l l o w e d the i m p l i e d t r a i n o f t h o u g h t a l l the w a y . T h e centre o f g r a v i t y f o r this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is the passage i n w h i c h A n g e l o capitulates t o the alliance o f k n o w l e d g e a n d p o w e r i n the reinstated D u k e : 1

O h , m y dread L o r d , I should be guiltier then m y guiltinesse, T o thinke I can be undiscerneable, W h e n I perceive y o u r grace, like p o w r e divine, H a t h l o o k ' d upon m y passes. 2

O n this Professor W i l s o n K n i g h t c o m m e n t s : L i k e Prospero, the D u k e tends t o assume proportions evidently divine. Once he is actually compared to the Supreme Power. 3

So t o argue is surely t o misunderstand the nature a n d usage o f i m a g e r y — w h i c h does n o t l i k e n a t h i n g t o itself. Y e t this a r g u m e n t has been w i d e l y accepted; i f n o t unreservedly, y e t w i t h reserva­ tions w h i c h d o n o t reach the real d i f f i c u l t y . T o suggest t h a t the c o m p a r i s o n m a y have been m a d e 'unconsciously' b y Shakespeare, a n d t o , a d m i t t h a t ' b o t h the D u k e i n Measure for Measure, a n d Prospero, are e n d o w e d w i t h characteristics w h i c h m a k e i t i m p o s ­ sible f o r us t o r e g a r d t h e m as d i r e c t representatives o f the D e i t y , such as w e find i n the m i r a c l e p l a y s . . . Prospero, at least, [ h a v i n g ] This is w e l l exemplified b y the speech o f Whetstone's compassionate gaoler, after he has released A n d r u g i o ( i Promos and Cassandra, I V . v . ) . V . i . 371. The Wheel of Fire (1949), p- 791

2

3

100

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

h u m a n i m p e r f e c t i o n s ' — t h i s is n o t e n o u g h . T h e r e w i l l , o f course, be h u m a n i m p e r f e c t i o n s i n a n y h u m a n representation, m o s t p l e n t i ­ f u l w h e r e least desired, f o r w h a t w e ourselves are is m o s t e v i d e n t w h e n w e declare w h a t w e w o u l d be, i n the endeavour t o represent ideal beings. B u t observe w h e r e the p r i m e fault occurs, i n the character o f this r u l e r : he is t o b l a m e i n respect o f the p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h a t v e r y f u n c t i o n i n v i r t u e o f w h i c h he is supposedly t o be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h D i v i n e P r o v i d e n c e . Read the sentence 1

. . . I perceive y o u r grace, like p o w r e divine, H a t h l o o k ' d u p o n m y passes as the f i g u r a t i v e expression w h i c h its syntax p r o c l a i m s i t — t h a t is, as a c o m p a r i s o n p r o p o s e d b e t w e e n distinct, even diverse, subjects i n respect o f a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t o f resemblance—and i t yields n o ­ t h i n g at odds w i t h the accepted idea o f a r u l e r w h o , despite t h e u t m o s t e x e r t i o n o f h u m a n g o o d w i l l , m u s t still be i n d e b t e d t o a p o w e r b e y o n d his o w n f o r a n y success i n p e r f o r m a n c e o f that d u t y w h i c h is entailed o n h i m as God's vice-regent, a n d w h o , w h e n such success visits his endeavours, w i l l t r a n s i e n t l y e x e m p l i f y the s i g n i f i ­ cance o f t h a t vice-regency. B u t , exact f r o m t h a t same sentence m o r e t h a n f i g u r a t i v e expression has t o g i v e , a n d y o u are c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the n o t i o n o f a d i v i n e b e i n g w h o arrives (like a c o m i c p o l i c e m a n ) at the scene o f the disaster b y an outside chance, a n d o n l y j u s t i n t i m e . T r e a t the w h o l e s t o r y as f a i r y - t a l e , a n d y o u are n o t o b l i g e d t o challenge a n y o f its suppositions. T r e a t i t as m o r a l a p o l o g u e , e x ­ pressed i n t e r m s p r o p e r t o its age, a n d i t w i l l answer such c h a l ­ lenge as m a y f a i r l y be offered. T h e D u k e ' s expedients w i l l t h e n serve t o illustrate the e n e r g y a n d resources o f a h u m a n agent. B u t , suppose h i m o t h e r t h a n h u m a n , a n d the w a y leads inescapably t o t h a t c o n c l u s i o n w h i c h Sir E d m u n d C h a m b e r s reaches, w h e n he 2

S. L . Bethell, Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition (1944), pp. 106-7. See also Leavis, 'The Greatness of Measure for Measure', and Traversi, 'Measure for Measure' (Scrutiny, January and Summer 1942). V . K . Whitaker ('Philosophy and Romance i n Shakespeare's "Problem" Comedies' i n The Seventeenth Century b y R. F. Jones and Others, Stanford U.P., 1951, p . 353) suggests that this passage approaches as nearly to a reference to G o d 'as Shakespeare could come under the law o f 1605 against stage profanity'—an explanation w h i c h raises many more questions than it answers. For the extreme f o r m o f this supposition, see Battenhouse, 'Measure for Measure and Christian Doctrine o f the Atonement' (Publications of the Modem Language Association of America, December 1946). 1

2

THE ARBITER

101

reflects o n this p l a y : ' S u r e l y the t r e a t m e n t o f P r o v i d e n c e is i r o n i ­ c a l . ' Unless Measure for Measure is t o be accepted, a n d dismissed, as simple f a i r y - t a l e — a n d w h a t fairy-tale ever t r o u b l e d so the i m a g i n a t i o n ? — t h e clue t o this central a n d e n i g m a t i c f i g u r e m u s t be sought i n representations o f the g o o d r u l e r as subjects o f a T u d o r sovereign conceived h i m ; above a l l , i n those i l l u s t r a t i v e anecdotes w h i c h w r i t e r s ( p o p u l a r a n d learned alike) w e r e g l a d t o e m p l o y , a n d c o n t e n t t o d r a w f r o m c o m m o n sources. A n u m b e r o f these are t o be f o u n d associated w i t h the n a m e a n d r e p u t a t i o n o f the E m p e r o r A l e x a n d e r Severus. D e v e l o p i n g o n a course s i m i l a r t o t h a t t a k e n b y Guevara's M a r c u s A u r e l i u s r o m a n c e , this curious l e g e n d was f o r a spell p o p u l a r i n E n g l a n d . Its fullest, m o s t c i r c u m s t a n t i a l a n d m o s t i n f l u e n t i a l e x e m p l a r I take t o be Sir T h o m a s E l y o t ' s Image of Governance. H e r e the salient features o f the i d e a l p o r t r a i t are these: i n h e r i t i n g a legacy o f d i s ­ o r d e r a n d c o r r u p t i o n , the g o o d e m p e r o r is zealous i n the r e f o r m o f manners b y means o f social legislation a n d the careful a p p o i n t m e n t a n d assiduous supervision o f his ministers o f j u s t i c e . T o ensure a j u s t o u t c o m e he w i l l i n t e r v e n e i n a case b y subterfuge, n o t m e r e l y e m p l o y i n g spies b u t a c t i n g i n that capacity himself, and, w h e n he has detected w r o n g - d o i n g , n o t c o n t e n t m e r e l y t o b r i n g the accused t o t r i a l , he w i l l handle the witnesses, cause false i n f o r m a ­ t i o n t o be p u t about, a n d t r i c k t h e c u l p r i t i n t o p r o n o u n c i n g his o w n sentence. O n e after another, T u d o r a n d Stuart sovereigns w e r e addressed o b l i q u e l y t h r o u g h anecdotes o f A l e x a n d e r Severus, c o n g r a t u l a t e d o n resemblance t o h i m i n respect o f those v i r t u e s w h i c h the w r i t e r m o s t desired i n a ruler, a n d delicately i n v i t e d t o p u t t o o p p o r t u n e e m p l o y m e n t those p o w e r s a n d qualities o f w h i c h the c o u n t r y s t o o d i n n e e d . These pseudo-historical anec1

2

3

4

5

Shakespeare: a Survey (1925), p. 215. For an account o f this legend, its development i n England and range o f application, see m y article: 'Sir Thomas Elyot and the Legend o f Alexander Severus' (Review of English Studies, October 1951). The Image of Governance Compiled of the Actes and Sentences notable, of the moste noble Emperour Alexander Severus (1541). This purports to be a translation from a Greek w o r k by the Emperor's secretary, supplemented from other sources. See particularly Chapters v i i i to xix, x x i v , x x x v i i i and x x x i x . For an illustration o f the adaptability o f Elyot's anecdotes, see Whetstone's Mirourfor Magestrates of Cyties, apparently a free version o f those that Whetstone found congenial to his o w n times, and temper. 1

2

3

4 5

102

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

dotes, o f w h i c h m o r e t h a n one bears a resemblance t o those i n L u p t o n ' s Siuqila, are m a n y o f t h e m c o m m o n p l a c e s o f p o p u l a r f i c t i o n ; b u t , used b y w r i t e r s w h o s e m a i n i n t e n t i o n was n o t t o t e l l a s t o r y (either h i s t o r i c a l o r f i c t i t i o u s ) , t h e y illustrate an idea o f t h e business o f g o v e r n m e n t w h i c h c o u l d t h e n be seriously canvassed b y m e n i n v o l v e d i n t h a t v e r y business, o r eager t o advise those so i n v o l v e d . T h e y chart the tides a n d currents t h a t a w r i t e r f o r a n E l i z a b e t h a n audience m u s t have r e c k o n e d w i t h , a n d r e m i n d us h o w far t h e d i r e c t i o n o f these h a b i t u a l sympathies a n d antipathies has since altered: thus r e m o v i n g some o f t h e obstacles t o a fair estimate o f the D u k e ' s c o n d u c t . A n o t h e r p a r t o f time's o b s t r u c t i o n m a y be loosened b y a close c o m p a r i s o n at p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t s o f Measure for Measure w i t h M i d d l e t o n ' s Phoenix. T h i s again is a disguise-story. N o w , the m a n present i n disguise is the m a n left o u t o f the r e c k o n i n g b y e v e r y o n e else. T h e s i t u a t i o n his presence creates is charged w i t h t h a t sort o f i r o n y w h i c h the stage can use t o fullest effect. M o r e o v e r , t h e difference b e t w e e n w h a t he k n o w s a n d m a y c o m m u n i c a t e t o us, a n d w h a t the rest o f the p e o p l e i n t h e p l a y suppose, can be b r o a d c o m e d y f o r t h e s i m p l e r p a r t o f the audience, y e t take o n a finer edge f o r q u i c k a n d reflective m i n d s . W h e n P h o e n i x proposes t o find o u t t h e t r u e state o f affairs u n d e r his father's r u l e , he obtains leave t o depart w i t h o u t cere­ m o n y , attended o n l y b y a chosen f r i e n d : For that's the benefit a private gentleman Enjoys beyond our state, w h e n he notes all, H i m s e l f un-noted. E v i l can evade a prince's s c r u t i n y : . . . i f I appear a sun, T h e y ' l l r u n i n t o the shade w i t h their i l l deeds, A n d so prevent m e . 1

A l o n e w i t h the c o m p a n i o n o f his travels, F i d e l i o , he explains t h a t he h o l d s i t best, . . . since m y father is near his setting, and I u p o n the eastern h i l l to take m y rise, to l o o k into the heart and bowels o f this dukedom, and, i n dis­ guise, m a r k all abuses ready for reformation or punishment. 2

1

1 , i . 59 and 66.

2

I . i . 99.

THE

ARBITER

103

T h e r e is thus b o t h likeness a n d difference b e t w e e n these t w o , the m a n left o u t o f the r e c k o n i n g i n either p l a y . T h e y are alike i n w h a t t h e y undertake. B u t , whereas the D u k e accepts r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e suspected e v i l b o t h seek t o u n c o v e r , P h o e n i x can a t t r i b u t e i t t o his father's enfeebled state a n d i n j u d i c i o u s l e n i t y . T h i s c e r t a i n l y smooths the w a y t o the h a p p y e n d i n g ; b u t i t m a y perhaps e x p l a i n w h y the a c q u i s i t i o n o f w i s d o m o n w h i c h his father congratulates h i m w h e n he finally abdicates i n his f a v o u r has t o be t a k e n o n trust. H i s sententious observations i n the course o f his discoveries have m a r k e d n o advance o n his o r i g i n a l confidences t o F i d e l i o . W h a t he has a c q u i r e d is i n fact m e r e l y i n f o r m a t i o n — w o r t h n o t a f a r t h i n g b e y o n d its value t o the i n t r i g u e . I t is i n this c o n t e x t , o f t r a d i t i o n a l a n d p o p u l a r stories w h i c h essay ( w i t h m o r e o r less seriousness) of government the properties to unfold, that w e h a v e t o understand the eleven couplets w h i c h the D u k e delivers t o the audience at the close o f A c t I I I : before t h a t scene at the m o a t e d grange, w h i c h alone relieves the succession o f p r i s o n episodes stretching f r o m the failure o f Isabel's appeal t o the eve o f the t r i a l . T h e substance o f these lines is a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e speaker a n d the occasion: the first f o u r are general a n d sententious, a d v a n c i n g a p r o p o s i t i o n w h i c h is u p h e l d elsewhere i n the p l a y — t h a t personal rectitude is the m o s t i m p o r t a n t q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r a magistrate; the n e x t t w o b r i n g this generalization t o bear o n A n g e l o ; o f the r e m a i n i n g five, the first t w o are obscure, >but— t a k e n i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h those t h a t f o l l o w — s u g g e s t that i l l designs m a y be t h w a r t e d b y c o r r e s p o n d i n g 'craft' directed t o g o o d ends; the last three particularize—the D u k e intends t o t u r n the tables o n A n g e l o , using the means w h i c h he has already m e n t i o n e d t o Isabel. T h e f o r m , h o w e v e r , o f these t w e n t y - t w o lines is o b v i o u s l y questionable. T h e y have been called octosyllabics, w h i c h is surely m i s l e a d i n g , a n d l i k e n e d t o the G o w e r choruses i n Pericles, f r o m w h i c h t h e y differ signally. Those, w h i l e t h e y sustain t h e i r i n i t i a l i m p u l s e , are a spirited i m i t a t i o n o f f o u r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y o c t o s y l ­ labic verse—as i t w e r e , a R o w l e y - p o e m before its t i m e ; these g o t o 1

2

E.g., at I V . i i . 82. Here, admittedly, the application is ironical, but there is no reason for supposing the proposition so. T h e y presently subside into lame decasyllabics. 1

2

104

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

another tune. T h e staple is a l i n e o f seven syllables, w h i c h proceeds w i t h a r o c k i n g m o t i o n f r o m a s t r o n g beat i n the o p e n i n g t o a s t r o n g beat i n the close—'Patterne i n himselfe t o k n o w ' . I t is capable o f easy expansion, i n a n y o f three w a y s : b y a l i g h t syllable at the end, g i v i n g a disyllabic r h y m e ( ' M o r e , n o r lesse t o others p a y i n g ' ) ; b y a l i g h t syllable at the b e g i n n i n g , g i v i n g a regular o c t o ­ syllabic l i n e ( ' T o weede m y v i c e , a n d let his g r o w ' ) ; b y a h e a v y syllable at the b e g i n n i n g , l e a d i n g t o a r i p p l e o f l i g h t syllables before the r h y t h m re-establishes i t s e l f ( ' C r a f t against v i c e , I m u s t applie'). N o w , the closest m e t r i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t t o these couplets, w i t h i n t h e compass o f Shakespeare's plays, is the e p i l o g u e t o The Tempest, spoken b y P r o s p e r o ; a n d the o n l y place w h e r e verse o f this sort w o u l d be p r o p e r is p r o l o g u e o r e p i l o g u e — o r , w h e r e its substance f o r b i d s either supposition, as i t does here, a f o r m a l pause m i d w a y . F o r a p l a y i n t e n acts, such as W h e t s t o n e ' s , i t w o u l d i n d e e d be necessary, as p r o l o g u e t o the second p a r t ; w e cannot, h o w e v e r , suppose i t a s u r v i v a l f r o m a lost p l a y closely m o d e l l e d o n W h e t ­ stone's, because i t requires a n active r u l e r , a feigned submission b y the w o m a n , a n d another e n d t h a n his i n v i e w . O n e conjecture remains permissible; at some p e r f o r m a n c e , Shakespeare's p l a y was g i v e n i n t w o parts, a pause i n t e r v e n i n g , a n d o n this occasion i t was j u d g e d p r u d e n t t o r e m i n d the audience, o n r e n e w a l o f the p e r f o r m a n c e , o f the t h e m e a n d s i t u a t i o n . F o r such a pause, this, the r e s o l u t i o n o f a t r a i n o f episodes i n w h i c h the D u k e has h a d o p p o r ­ t u n i t y t o assess his u n d e r t a k i n g , w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e e n o u g h . A c t I V opens w i t h a s o n g w h i c h m a y o r m a y n o t be Shake­ speare's. T h e evidence, t h o u g h o f t e n canvassed, remains insuffi­ cient, the a r g u m e n t i n c o n c l u s i v e . T h e single stanza w h i c h the b o y sings t o M a r i a n a m a y have been w r i t t e n b y Shakespeare, o r p r o ­ v i d e d b y a m a k e r o f songs f o r this p l a y o n the occasion o f some 1

2

3

4

I t is possible that more lines were once o f this sort, e.g.: W h o the sword o f heaven w o u l d bear Should be h o l y as severe. T h o u g h this has no light ending nor disyllabic rhyme, i t contains the other three types o f line, and fluctuates easily between seven and eight syllables. Probably, part o f some festival, at court or great house; perhaps, o n the o r i ­ ginal occasion, the Christmas revels o f 1604. Remind, not i n f o r m ; the manner is allusive. 1

2

3

4

THE

ARBITER

105

p e r f o r m a n c e ; o r i t m a y be one o f t w o stanzas w r i t t e n — w h e t h e r b y the dramatist o r a n o t h e r — f o r Fletcher's Bloody Brother. O n the first supposition, F l e t c h e r — o r someone concerned a b o u t his p l a y — t o o k the single stanza a n d added t o i t one o f his o w n . O n t h e second, someone, at some t i m e before the issue o f the First F o l i o , t o o k f r o m Fletcher's m a n u s c r i p t t h a t p a r t o f the song w h i c h c o u l d be sung o n a w o m a n ' s behalf. E v e n t h o u g h the song w e r e t o be c e r t a i n l y ascribed t o another t h a n Shakespeare, w e s h o u l d still be at a loss t o k n o w w h e t h e r i t replaced one o f his o r was inserted w h e r e n o n e h a d been. W h e r e the area o f d o u b t is so o v e r g r o w n , speculation is futile. A l l that can usefully be said is t h i s : o f the possi­ bilities w i t h w h i c h w e have t o r e c k o n , m o r e t h a n one i m p l i e s some disturbance o f the t e x t . I f a song has been added, so l i k e w i s e have the a c c o m p a n y i n g references t o i t ; i f i t replaces one lost, t h a t loss m a y n o t be l i m i t e d t o the song. T h e t e x t o f this scene is i n d e e d questionable o n m a n y counts. Mariana's o p e n i n g contains a curious time-reference: 1

2

Here comes a man o f comfort, whose advice H a t h often still'd m y b r a w l i n g discontent. 3

T h i s w o u l d suggest t h a t A n g e l o ' s r u l e h a d already lasted some w h i l e ; whereas the i m p r e s s i o n h i t h e r t o c o n v e y e d has been one o f precipitancy—events f o l l o w i n g i n q u i c k succession o n his assump­ t i o n o f p o w e r . T h e passage b e t w e e n the D u k e ' s e n t r y a n d his first w o r d s t o Isabel is a w k w a r d i n several respects. T h e change f r o m verse t o prose seems pointless a n d flat, the i n t r i g u e t h i c k a n d m u d d y . O b t a i n i n g a n assurance t h a t he is the first c o m e r ( t h o u g h he h a d t o l d Isabel t h a t he w o u l d be there before h e r ) , he forgoes his advantage, and, h u s t l i n g M a r i a n a o u t o f the w a y , gets f r o m Isabel t h a t v e r y i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h m u s t be c o m m u n i c a t e d t o M a r i a n a — w h o is o n l y t h e n recalled t o hear i t , i n d u m b s h o w . S i x lines' l e n g t h is a l l the t i m e a l l o w e d f o r a c c o m p a n i m e n t t o this latter transaction; a n d i n these six lines the D u k e harks b a c k i n c o n 4

First printed 1639, but, according to J. D . Jump, ' W r i t t e n — i n part, at least— either during or before 1625*. (See his edition, 1948.) W e do n o t k n o w nearly enough o f the provision o f songs i n Elizabethan plays. Cf. the p r o b l e m posed b y those i n the folio o f Lyly's. I V . i . 8. H e had promised to prepare Mariana ( I I I . i . 268 and I I I . i . 278), and en­ j o i n e d Isabel to 'call u p o n h i m ' at the moated grange (III. i . 278). 1

2

3

4

io6

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

sequently t o his f o r m e r t h e m e o f c a l u m n y . I c a n n o t believe t h a t w e have here w h a t t h e d r a m a t i s t i n t e n d e d . Johnson's c o m m e n t o n t h e conference b e t w e e n t h e w o m e n sets t h e p r o b l e m i n d a y ­ l i g h t , b u t i t does n o t solve i t . ' T h e r e w a s ' , he says, 'a necessity t o f i l l u p t h e t i m e i n w h i c h t h e ladies converse apart, a n d t h e y m u s t have q u i c k tongues a n d r e a d y apprehensions, i f t h e y u n d e r s t o o d each o t h e r w h i l e this speech was u t t e r e d . ' Such c o l l o q u i e s , t h a t is, a n d t h e i n d i f f e r e n t d i a l o g u e w h i c h m a r k s t h e i r d u r a t i o n , o b e y the laws n o t o f probability, b u t o f dramatic c o n v e n t i o n . T r u e , b u t i t is n o t a d r a m a t i c c o n v e n t i o n t h a t t h e persons c o n c e r n e d s h o u l d have been p l a y i n g hide-and-seek u n d e r o u r eyes i m m e d i ­ ately beforehand. 1

2

N o w , i f the p a r t o f this scene w h i c h runs f r o m the D u k e ' s g r e e t ­ i n g t o Isabel as far as his dismissal o f t h e t w o w o m e n u p o n t h e i r business is e x a m i n e d separately, i t is seen t o differ f r o m its c o n t e x t b y reason o f its t o u g h coherence. W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f a single r e n t — a n d t h a t n o t past m e n d i n g — i t is i n s t r o n g l y w o v e n verse, a n d t h e a r g u m e n t , designed t o i n f o r m us o f the m e c h a n i s m o f t h a t i n t r i g u e w h i c h t h e D u k e has already p r o j e c t e d , is w e l l k n i t . I f w e take the song a n d its i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t f o r a f t e r - t h o u g h t o r i n t r u ­ s i o n (a w o r k i n g h y p o t h e s i s ) , w e o b t a i n an o p e n i n g t o t h e scene m u c h l i k e t h i s : t h e D u k e , m e e t i n g Isabel at M a r i a n a ' s d o o r , greets h e r a n d i n q u i r e s h o w she has sped i n h e r e r r a n d t o A n g e l o ; she recalls one b y one the i n j u n c t i o n s w h i c h m u s t be observed b y t h e w o m a n w h o keeps A n g e l o ' s a p p o i n t m e n t , a n d he—either t e l l i n g h e r h o w he has ' f r a m e d ' M a r i a n a , o r e x p l a i n i n g w h y he has n o t d o n e s o — k n o c k s at the d o o r . W h e n i t opens a n d M a r i a n a a d m i t s the t w o , w e m a y take i t ( i f w e w i s h t o be p a r t i c u l a r ) t h a t t h e y three n o w stand w i t h i n M a r i a n a ' s house. O n this s u p p o s i t i o n , w e have a n o t h e r disturbance o f the t e x t t o r e c k o n w i t h at t h e e n d o f this scene: t o c o r r e s p o n d w i t h the f o r m e r , i t s h o u l d i n v o l v e the loss, either o f some reference b y the D u k e t o past converse w i t h M a r i a n a o n his p r o p o s a l , o r o f present o p p o r t u n i t y f o r such a n e x c h a n g e — w h i c h , w e c a n n o t guess. O n e e m e n d a t i o n , h o w e v e r , 3

4

5

^ o t e o n I V . h i . (IV. i . 60). Notice that the colloquy between Brutus and Cassius (II. i . 100-11) is o f another sort: they are concluding an argument o f w h i c h w e have heard the beginning, and have been invited t o guess the middle. See Appendix. I I I . i . 255-72. That is, briefed. 2

3

4

6

THE

107

ARBITER

m a y f a i r l y be a t t e m p t e d here: t o m o v e the D u k e ' s six lines ( ' O h Place, a n d greatnes . . . i n t h e i r fancies') t o another p o s i t i o n , adja­ cent t o his o t h e r f o u r lines o n c a l u m n y ( ' N o m i g h t , n o r greatnesse . . . slanderous t o n g ' ) . T h i s was W a r b u r t o n ' s p r o p o s a l , b u t he d i d n o t suggest a n y a r r a n g e m e n t o f the c o m p o s i t e passage, and m o d e r n editors have preferred t o set ' O h Place, a n d g r e a t n e s . . .' after ' N o m i g h t , n o r greatnesse . . .', whereas the alternative o r d e r has s o m e t h i n g t o r e c o m m e n d i t : i f the six lines s h o u l d precede the f o u r , t h e y w o u l d t o g e t h e r compose such a passage as m a y , w i t h i n t h e c o n v e n t i o n o f the f o r m a l s o l i l o q u y , be d e l i v e r e d t o the a u d i ­ ence; apostrophe, t h e release o f p e n t - u p bitterness, is c a l m e d t o sententious o b s e r v a t i o n , a n d sentence c l i n c h e d w i t h a c o u p l e t . H o w these disturbances c o u l d have c o m e a b o u t , a n d t h e i r o u t ­ c o m e be the F o l i o t e x t , is another question, m y e v e r y conjecture d e p e n d i n g u p o n a tissue o f s u p p o s i t i o n w h o s e fabric has still t o be exarnined, and, so far as possible, tested, w h e n the e n d o f A c t I V is reached. T h e p a r t o f the p l a y w h i c h n o w lies i m m e d i a t e l y ahead poses its o w n p r o b l e m s , b u t t h e y are ( I believe) o f a different sort f r o m those b e l o n g i n g t o I V . i , n o t i n v o l v i n g the s u p p o s i t i o n o f i n t e r f e r ­ ence, m e r e l y t h a t o f i n d e c i s i o n o n t h e dramatist's o w n part, o r decision n o t c o m p l e t e l y i m p l e m e n t e d ; i n w h i c h case i t s h o u l d be possible t o trace the course o f his u n f o l d i n g design t h r o u g h the successive episodes w h i c h compose I V . i i a n d i i i . T h e i n i t i a l f o o l i n g o f P o m p e y w i t h the P r o v o s t s h o u l d c o n f i r m , i n m i n d s f a m i l i a r w i t h the usages o f Shakespearian c o m e d y , the surmise t h a t n o one is g o i n g t o die. I n Shakespearian t r a g e d y , t h e c l o w n m a y caper r o u n d the d o o m e d characters, m a y even be a m i n o r agent o f catastrophe, as i n Antony and Cleopatra; b u t the i r o n y w i t h w h i c h his presence charges the s i t u a t i o n is b o u n d u p w i t h his unconsciousness o f its t r a g i c i m p l i c a t i o n s : m o r t a l i t y is his t h e m e , b u t d y i n g a n d p u t t i n g t o death w e r e never f u r t h e r f r o m his t h o u g h t s . W h e n P o m p e y , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , o r P o s t h u m u s ' 1

2

3

I V . i . 60 . . . , and I I I . i i . 196 E.g., N e w Cambridge Shakespeare. A l l ten lines suit the instant o f Lucio's departure m u c h better than the midst o f Mariana's business; that is, the m o v e must take this direction. The difHculty remaining i n m y arrangement, the incomplete line ' A n d racke thee i n their fancies', m a y result f r o m the attempt to j o i n the shifted passage o f soliloquy t o the passage o f dialogue w h i c h n o w concludes the scene. 1

3

2

io8

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

gaoler, fingers p e n n y c o r d o r axe, a n d indulges i n such g r i m pleasantries as t h e taste o f the age encouraged, w e k n o w t h a t the h a n g m a n ' s r o p e is t o w , the headsman's axe, l a t h . T h r e e w o r d s o n l y are designed t o m a k e a n y sharp a n d p a r t i c u l a r i m p r e s s i o n : those i n w h i c h t h e P r o v o s t couples C l a u d i o ' s n a m e w i t h t h a t o f one, B a r n a r d i n e . T h i s o p e n i n g gives place t o an exchange b e t w e e n P o m p e y a n d A b h o r s o n w h i c h is m a n i f e s t l y i n c o m p l e t e : a r i d d l e is posed b u t n o t answered; an a l l u s i o n glances back t o a p r o p o s i t i o n w h i c h has n o t been u t t e r e d . B e t w e e n lines 50 a n d 51 a b r i e f passage is surely m i s s i n g ; n o t necessarily lost, f o r the w h o l e has the appearance o f a first draft, i n w h i c h w h a t is r e q u i r e d m a y be inserted presently. T h e q u i b b l i n g over, P o m p e y — h i s o l d i n g r a t i a t i n g , canine s e l f takes service w i t h his n e w master, a n d b o t h are dispatched t o s u m m o n C l a u d i o a n d B a r n a r d i n e , t h a t the t w o c o n d e m n e d m e n m a y hear each the t i m e fixed f o r his o w n e x e c u t i o n . L e f t alone f o r the space o f t w o lines, the P r o v o s t makes the o n l y m e n t i o n w h i c h the p l a y contains o f the offence w i t h w h i c h B a r n a r d i n e is charged: T h ' o n e has m y pitie; not a j o t the other, Being a Murtherer, t h o u g h he were m y brother. 1

2

T h e c o u p l e t is flat a n d harsh; b u t i t is the content, rather t h a n t h e f o r m , t h a t sets a l l the bells j a n g l i n g : f r o m this p o i n t o n w a r d s , B a r n a r d i n e is associated w i t h u n q u i e t overtones a n d discords never resolved. B e f o r e I b e g i n t o trace this curious d e v e l o p m e n t , let m e indicate one p r o b l e m w h i c h is ( i n m y j u d g e m e n t ) resolved b y Barnardine's course t h r o u g h the p l a y . I f the a u t h o r o f Measure for Measure s h o u l d ever c o m e t o l e a r n o f t h e t h e o r y t h a t he designed t o r e c o m ­ m e n d h i m s e l f t o t h e n e w sovereign b y presenting his d u k e as a flattering e m b l e m o f r o y a l w i s d o m a n d b e n i g n i t y , he w o u l d need t o call b u t one witness—Barnardine. I t is neither here n o r there that L u c i o attempts t o b r i n g the D u k e ' s n a m e i n disrepute, a n d achieves s o m e t h i n g — w e are t o understand that e v e r y p u b l i c n a m e is at t h e m e r c y o f i d l e c a l u m n y — n o r , that he is punished f o r i t . So l i k e w i s e P r o d i t o r speaks i l l o f P h o e n i x a n d the o l d D u k e his T h e time-references respecting the execution present a difficulty o f no great consequence. See Appendix. I V . i i . 64. 1

2

THE

109

ARBITER

father, a n d is punished. These reversals, c o m i c o r i r o n i c , are p r o p e r t o the i n t r i g u e ; t h e y are n o t felt b e y o n d i t . B u t the repercussions o f w h a t B a r n a r d i n e does t o the D u k e are felt, n o t m e r e l y t h r o u g h o u t t h e rest o f the p l a y , b u t b e y o n d . For, w h i l e L u c i o i m p i n g e s o n the D u k e b y w h a t he says, Barnardine's i m p a c t is charged w i t h the peculiar shock o f w h a t he is. B a r n a r d i n e is the o l d soldier b y t h e Scottish cross-roads; he is the poacher i n the s h a d o w o f an E n g l i s h spinney; the m a n w h o w i l l always, w i t h o u t effort o r apparent i n t e n t i o n , m a k e constituted a u t h o r i t y appear ridiculous—especially i n the person o f his i n t e r l o c u t o r . Escalus a n d E l b o w w o u l d have fared a l i k e w i t h h i m . T o express a sense o f the l u d i c r o u s change t h a t independence w o r k s i n the aspect o f a u t h o r i t y is b y n o means t o call a u t h o r i t y i n question; b u t t o represent t h a t i n c o n g r u i t y i n a conversation-piece, j u x t a p o s i n g a B a r n a r d i n e , o r an E d i e O c h i l ­ tree, w i t h a u t h o r i t y personified—this is t o p r o d u c e a p i c t u r e i n w h i c h one w o u l d n o t w i s h a r o y a l p a t r o n t o discover his o w n l i k e ­ ness. J u d g e d as flattery, such a representation c o u l d o n l y be i r o n i ­ c a l — o r u n c o m m o n l y o f f - h a n d . Favourable acceptance m i g h t be h o p e d f r o m a m a n v e r y dense, v e r y v a i n , reared i n the softest c i r ­ cumstances: w i t h o u t these three t o b l u n t discernment, the c h a r m w i l l never w o r k . T h e n e w l y c o m e k i n g was n o t such a m a n . A s t o the dramatist, his w e l l - w i s h e r s at c o u r t h a d never reason t o say o f him: I l o v e n o t t o see w r e t c h e d n e s s o ' e r c h a r g e d A n d d u t y i n his service p e r i s h i n g .

I t is surely t i m e that w e heard the last o f that supposed c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the D u k e ' s sagacity, a n d Basilikon Down; a n d w i t h i t t h e n o t i o n o f a dramatist deeply disquieted b y the c o r r u p t i n g influence o f p o w e r , y e t i n t e n t o n f l a t t e r i n g , i n the person o f his p a t r o n , the highest representative o f that p o w e r . I t is t i m e t o trace Barnardine's short, erratic b u t ineffaceable course. W h e n C l a u d i o enters, i n response t o the Provost's s u m ­ m o n s , the names o f the t w o m e n have been c o u p l e d a n d B a r n a r ­ dine's associated w i t h a c r i m e w h i c h sets h i m i n antithesis t o Claudio: condemned, n o t b y Angelo but b y c o m m o n opinion. 1

2

See L . Albrecht, Neue Untersuchungen zu Shakespeares Mass fur Mass. I find nothing i n James I's political writings to support the v i e w that Shakespeare i n ­ tended any echo o f the king's opinions to be recognized i n this play. I V . i i . 65. 1

2

THE PLAY

n o

CONSIDERED

C l a u d i o ' s first reference t o h i m , a n d the Provost's r e j o i n d e r , d e v e l o p the contrast i n a w a y w h i c h becomes f u l l y i n t e l l i g i b l e o n l y w h e n A n g e l o ' s letter is u n d e r discussion b e t w e e n t h e P r o v o s t a n d t h e D u k e . H i s n a m e h a v i n g here been j o i n e d , y e t again, w i t h C l a u d i o ' s , the D u k e ( w h o m A n g e l o ' s p r e c i p i t a n c y has c o m p e l l e d t o r e v i e w his o w n p l a n ) seizes u p o n i t a n d asks: ' W h a t is t h a t Barnardine, w h o is t o be executed i n t h ' afternoone?' H a v i n g l e a r n t s o m e t h i n g o f the case ( t h o u g h n o t h i n g o f the c r i m e ) , he continues, i n his assumed character: ' H a t h he b o r n e himselfe p e n i t e n t l y i n prison? H o w seemes he t o be t o u c h ' d ? ' — a n d gets this answer: ' A m a n t h a t apprehends death n o m o r e d r e a d f u l l y , b u t as a d r u n k e n sleepe, carelesse, wreaklesse, a n d fearlesse o f w h a t ' s past, present, o r t o c o m e : insensible o f m o r t a l i t y , a n d desperately m o r t a l l . ' E x c e p t f o r a n echo, w h i c h I m u s t suppose u n i n t e n d e d a n d u n ­ l u c k y , o f t h e D u k e ' s recent a t t e m p t t o persuade C l a u d i o t h a t sleep a n d death are one, this passage seems t o c o m p l e t e deliberately the i m p r e s s i o n w e are t o receive o f B a r n a r d i n e as C l a u d i o ' s o p p o s i t e : where Claudio thinks w i t h t o o v i v i d and particular imagination o n w h a t i t w i l l be l i k e t o be dead, B a r n a r d i n e is incapable o f i m a g i n i n g t h a t state at a l l . 'Conscience' makes a c o w a r d o f C l a u d i o ; t h e w a n t o f i t makes B a r n a r d i n e a b r u t e . T h u s , I find so far n o h i n t o f a f t e r - t h o u g h t o r i m p r o v i s a t i o n , n o p e r f u n c t o r y p r o ­ v i s i o n o f a n o n e n t i t y d e m a n d e d b y the exigencies o f a recalcitrant i n t r i g u e , b u t rather the f a s h i o n i n g o f a character w h o , even before his first appearance, is r e c o g n i z e d as i n t e g r a l t o the play's design. I t is i n d e e d w h e n B a r n a r d i n e appears t h a t the p e r p l e x i t y a b o u t h i m begins. T h e D u k e has o b t a i n e d t h a t ascendancy o v e r the P r o v o s t w h i c h t h e p l o t n o w requires, first b y the p r o f f e r o f stage proofs, t h e n b y the spell o f p o e t r y . O n the w i t h d r a w a l o f these t w o figures, the p r i s o n w a k e n s : the f o r m e r night-references g i v e place t o those o f d a w n . P o m p e y presents h i m s e l f i n a passage o f c o m m o n p l a c e f o o l i n g w i t h w h i c h a n y c l o w n m i g h t be furnished b y a n y d r a m a 1

2

3

4

nv.ii.^. I V . i i . 149. 'Tis n o w dead m i d n i g h t . . . ( I V . i i . 67). The best, and wholsomst spirits o f the n i g h t . . . ( I V . i i . 76). As neere the dawning . . . as i t i s . . . ( I V . i i . 97). Notice also the Provost's consternation at every knock, and the business o f 'calling u p ' the officer, to open the gate. Looke, th* unfolding Starre calles up the Shepheard ( I V . i i . 219). 2

3

4

THE ARBITER

III

tist, o r m i g h t even f u r n i s h h i m s e l f . Presently A b h o r s o n j o i n s h i m , a n d t h e y b e n d t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o the business o f B a r n a r d i n e ; so, i n d e e d , does e v e r y o n e i n the p r i s o n — t o l i t t l e apparent effect. I f B a r n a r d i n e was r e a l l y created f o r n o o t h e r purpose t h a n t o d o C l a u d i o a present and a dangerous courtesy, i t is surely o d d t h a t t h e w h o l e resources o f a u t h o r i t y i n the p r i s o n s h o u l d be engaged i n o b t a i n i n g his c o m p l i a n c e ; o d d e r s t i l l t h a t i t s h o u l d p r o v e u n o b ­ tainable, a n d t h a t a character called i n t o b e i n g o n l y t o die, s h o u l d survive. T h e situation captured Hazlitt's i m a g i n a t i o n . I t p r o m p t e d R a l e i g h t o tease d u l l readers w i t h the pleasant suggestion t h a t ' B a r n a r d i n e , a m e r e d e t a i l o f the m a c h i n e r y , comes alive, a n d so endears h i m s e l f t o his m a k e r , t h a t his e x e c u t i o n is felt t o be i m p o s ­ sible. E v e n the m u r d e r e r o f A n t i g o n u s has n o t the heart t o p u t Barnardine t o death.' N o w , this is very gracious fooling; b u t i t fails, o r perhaps refuses, t o take i n t o account one fact. W h e t s t o n e ' s compassionate gaoler h a d e x p l a i n e d , after dismissing A n d r u g i o t o refuge: 1

2

. . . See h o w G o d hath w r o u g h t for his safety? A dead mans head, that suffered th'other day, Makes h i m t h o u ' h t dead, t h r o u g h out the citie.

3

I t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t Shakespeare, w i t h this w a y o p e n before h i m , chose a r o u g h e r course—that o f m a k i n g the m a n destined t o suffer i n C l a u d i o ' s stead a l i v i n g character i n the p l a y — t h a t he proceeded some distance a l o n g i t , o n l y t o change his m i n d belatedly, a n d h u r r y back t o the r o a d W h e t s t o n e h a d taken, l e a v i n g at a veryloose e n d this n o w u n w a n t e d character. T h i s is so extravagant an hypothesis t h a t I t h i n k w e c o u l d h a r d l y d o w o r s e i f w e w e r e t o a p p r o a c h the p r o b l e m f r o m the opposite e n d . Suppose w e c o n ­ sider B a r n a r d i n e as created f o r s u r v i v a l . W o u l d n o t t h a t first audience, w h o knew their Shakespeare i n the d o u b l e sense i n w h i c h w e can never k n o w h i m , receive the f o o l i n g b e t w e e n P o m p e y a n d A b h o r s o n as a n assurance t h a t the h a p p y e n d i n g was t o be c o m ­ plete? E v e n i f t h e y w e r e m o m e n t a r i l y disconcerted b y the D u k e ' s H e recurs to Barnardine, even when w r i t i n g o n another play (The Tempest), Hazlitt permits himself an occasional critical escapade: Lucio, for tweaking a duke's nose, becomes very nearly a hero to h i m . Shakespeare, p. 148. See also R. W . Chambers, The Jacobean Shakespeare and 'Measurefor Measure', p. 55. 1 Promos and Cassandra, I V . v . 1

2

3

112

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

insistence t h a t B a r n a r d i n e is t o d i e as s o o n as he is f i t f o r death, t h e y m i g h t recollect that, n o sooner was the D u k e satisfied o f C l a u d i o ' s readiness f o r death, t h a n he began t o take measures f o r p r e s e r v i n g his life. T h e Provost's tale, o f h a v i n g t r i e d t o b r i n g B a r n a r d i n e t o a f i t state b y feigned preparations f o r his e x e c u t i o n , w o u l d t r o u b l e t h e m n o t at a l l . W h e n he beganne t o reigne, the people were abandoned to dissolute manners: for w h i c h cause he made some rigorous lawes, and other milde and p i t t i f u l l : but, w h e n he commaunded t h e m to be proclaimed openly, he gave advertisement unto his ministers, t o execute t h e m i n secrete. Consider n o t so m u c h w h a t I c o m m a u n d y o u , as the intent w h e r e w i t h I c o m m a u n d y o u , w h i c h is to weete, that rigorous lawes are not, b u t to terrifie: b u t lawes w h i c h are pitifull, to be executed, because w e make n o t lawes, to take away mennes lives, b u t t o roote and weede vices out o f our c o m m o n wealthes. 1

T h a t is a representative passage f r o m a l i f e ' o f A l e x a n d e r Severus, one o f some i m p o r t a n c e i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h a t l e g e n d t o w h i c h I have referred. I t reflects the c o n t e m p o r a r y idea o f t h e p e n a l code as ( i n one aspect at least) d i d a c t i c ; a n d i t r e m i n d s us t h a t Shakespeare's c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w e r e accustomed t o t h i n k i n e x ­ tremes: the e x t r e m e p e n a l t y , f o r e x a m p l e , o r else free p a r d o n . I t is surely p r o b a b l e t h a t his o r i g i n a l audience a w a i t e d c o n f i d e n t l y t h e emergence o f the real v i c t i m , a n d w e r e n o t surprised w h e n (true t o W h e t s t o n e ' s precedent, a n d the established customs o f t r a g i ­ c o m e d y ) he p r o v e d t o be m e r e l y a n a m e , w i t h o u t so m u c h as a b o d y t o excite s y m p a t h y . B u t t h e y m a y n o t have guessed, before the end, Shakespeare's purpose i n m a k i n g nature, n o t A n g e l o , p r o ­ n o u n c e sentence o n this bodiless R a g o z i n e . T o a l l this I see n o serious o b j e c t i o n , unless i t w e r e t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e c r i m e o n Barnardine's charge-sheet; a n d o f this w e have b u t t h e one i n d i c a t i o n — a single w o r d i n t h a t difficult a n d d o u b t ­ f u l c o u p l e t o f the P r o v o s t ' s : m u r d e r e r . I f this i n d e e d represents t h e dramatist's f i n a l i n t e n t i o n , i t is surely o d d t h a t t h e D u k e s h o u l d k n o w n o t h i n g o f i t ; odder, perhaps, t h a t he, w h o makes so m a n y i n q u i r i e s a b o u t B a r n a r d i n e ' s case, should—as the t e x t stands— A n t o n i o de Guevara, Decadas de las vidas de los x Cesares (Valladolid, 1539), translated b y E . Hellowes as A Chronicle, conteyning the lives of tenne Emperours of Rome (1577), p . 441. 1

THE

ARBITER

113

n o t ask f o r w h a t c r i m e he has been c o n d e m n e d . T h a t B a r n a r d i n e was never i n t e n d e d t o die i n the p l a y , I a m certain. B u t w h e t h e r t h e qualities t h a t have m a d e h i m deathless i n the i m a g i n a t i o n o f m a n y readers w e r e p a r t o f Shakespeare's design, o r came f r o m t h a t b o u n t y w h i c h he c o u l d h a r d l y d e n y a n y o f his creatures— here lies n o c e r t a i n t y , n o r the h o p e o f a n y . F o r a l l its j o i n s a n d patches, this episode has a d r a m a t i c life, a n d therefore i n t e g r i t y , w h i c h are w a n t i n g , o r b u t fitfully present, i n those t h a t f o l l o w . T h e mechanics o f the s u b s t i t u t i o n are r e a d i l y c o n t r i v e d , the P r o v o s t goes o u t t o fetch the p r o p e r t y head, a n d the D u k e confides t o us a n o d d l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l piece o f i n f o r m a t i o n : 1

2

N o w w i l I w r i t e Letters to Angelo, (The Provost he shal beare them) whose contents Shal witnesse t o h i m I a m neere at home: A n d that b y great Injunctions I a m b o u n d T o enter publikely: h i m He desire T o meet me at the consecrated Fount, A League below the Citie: and f r o m thence, B y cold gradation, and weale-ballanc'd forme, W e shal proceed w i t h Angelo. 3

W h a t are w e t o m a k e o f t h e discrepancies b e t w e e n this a n d w h a t is t o f o l l o w ? T h e editors o f the N e w C a m b r i d g e Shakespeare c o n ­ j e c t u r e t h a t the person s u m m o n e d t o this m e e t i n g is n o t A n g e l o b u t a ghost-character, w h o has disappeared i n r e v i s i o n , l e a v i n g n o trace—unless, i n t h a t m y s t e r i o u s n a m e , V a r r i u s . T h i s c o m m i t s us t o supposing that a v e r y considerable p a r t o f the t e x t is hereabouts m i s s i n g — a n d n o t here o n l y ; f o r o n this s h o w i n g t h e D u k e ' s g h o s t l y confederate was t o have p l a y e d a m a j o r p a r t i n the u n ­ r a v e l l i n g o f the play's k n o t . H o w came he t o leave so e m p h a t i c a m a r k here, a n d n o n e elsewhere? W i l l a n y lesser disturbance serve t o e x p l a i n w h a t is amiss? I f m y suggestion as t o the p r o p e r staging o f I . i was r i g h t , t h e n t h e D u k e a n d A n g e l o have p a r t e d , n o t i n the C o u n c i l - c h a m b e r , b u t at some secluded spot, perhaps outside the c i t y w a l l . N o w , i f 4

Readers rather than auditors. The audience too often sees h i m smothered i n farcical stage business. I.e., f r o m the first mention o f Barnardine at I V . i i . 8, to the Duke's contrivance for his reprieve at I V . i i i . 9 1 . I V . i i i . 97. See I V . v , and opening stage direction o f V . i . 1

2

3

4

I

114

THE

PLAY

CONSIDERED

w e accept the s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d a n d apparent m e a n i n g o f the D u k e ' s s o l i l o q u y , he proposes t h a t there, w h e r e p o w e r was delegated, i t shall be reassumed. A f o r m a l s u m m o n s , so f r a m e d , w i l l c a r r y o m i n o u s overtones t o a g u i l t y d e p u t y . B u t i t s o o n becomes clear t h a t n o such p l a n is t o be p u t i n t o effect. T h e D u k e , as friar, tells Isabel t h a t Escalus a n d A n g e l o have been s u m m o n e d t o m e e t the h o m e - c o m i n g d u k e at t h e gates a n d there g i v e u p t h e i r p o w e r , a n d this is c o n f i r m e d b y A n g e l o , i n conference w i t h Escalus. Presently, the o p e n i n g o f A c t V w i l l i n d i c a t e j u s t such a p u b l i c encounter. I d o u b t , h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r w e need assume m o r e t h a n change o f purpose, a n d negligence i n r e v i s i o n . Suppose, a l l this w h i l e , the c u l m i n a t i o n t o be f o r m i n g ever m o r e clearly i n the dramatist's m i n d . A s i t stands, the t r i a l scene shows the D u k e deliberately p u t t i n g A n g e l o o f f his g u a r d . I conjecture t h a t Shake­ speare sacrificed t h e g o o d , t o the better, d r a m a t i c effect: c u t o u t a p r i v a t e m e e t i n g b e t w e e n r u l e r a n d d e p u t y , i n o r d e r t o secure a m o r e a m b i g u o u s , a n d therefore engrossing, r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n these t w o , at t h e i r p u b l i c m e e t i n g . I t is possible t h a t he c o n t e n t e d himself, carelessly, w i t h references t o the p e r p l e x i n g t e n o r o f the D u k e ' s letters t o A n g e l o . Difficulties, h o w e v e r , s t i l l m u l t i p l y . T o the D u k e c o m e t w o persons i n succession. Isabel visits the p r i s o n t o assure h e r s e l f o f C l a u d i o ' s safety, a n d the D u k e lies t o her. T h i s , t h o u g h the m o s t disagreeable piece o f his 'craft', is n o t past e x p l a i n i n g : he has cast her f o r a p a r t i n his m o r a l i n t e r l u d e ; she is t o accuse A n g e l o o f an offence against her person o f w h i c h she k n o w s h i m t o be i n n o c e n t . I t is o n l y because w e k n o w her t o be c o n v i n c e d t h a t he is g u i l t y o f a g r a v e r c r i m e t h a t w e endure this subterfuge. T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n he c a n n o t g i v e , w i t h o u t i n j u r y t o the effect o f the final scene; a n d t h a t w i t h w h i c h he puts us o f f ( ' T o m a k e her h e a v e n l y c o m f o r t s o f dispaire, " W h e n i t is least expected') is as flat a n d t r i v i a l as the p r e ­ sent c o m f o r t w h i c h he offers h e r — a n d w h i c h is so u n a c c o u n t a b l y effectual. L u c i o ' s ' G o o d even', w h e n he j o i n s t h e m t o collect fresh scandal a n d t i g h t e n his h o l d u p o n the elusive friar, betrays disorder 1

2

3

4

U V . i i i . 132. IV.iv.6. —whether f r o m his manuscript, or f r o m the design i n his m i n d . I V . i i . 215, and I V . i v . 3. M y explanation o f I V . i i i . 96 to 104 assumes that the change T w i l l w r i t e ' . . . ' W e shall proceed w i t h A n g e l o ' suggests sovereignty re-assumed, not, as the N e w Cambridge editors suppose, a confederate. 2

3

4

THE

ARBITER

115

i n the t e x t , f o r the D u k e h a d b i d Isabel ' G o o d m o r n i n g * o n l y t h i r t y - e i g h t lines b e f o r e . O n e f u r t h e r episode sustains an appearance at least o f o r d e r . A n g e l o a n d Escalus disclose, even i n t h e i r hasty and b r i e f c o n f e r ­ ence, t h e i r d i f f e r i n g reactions t o the D u k e ' s letters: t o Escalus i t is n a t u r a l e n o u g h that the people o f V i e n n a s h o u l d have an o p p o r ­ t u n i t y o f p r e f e r r i n g c o m p l a i n t s , w h e t h e r against his o w n j u r i s ­ d i c t i o n o r A n g e l o ' s ; c o n v e n i e n t also, ' t o d e l i v e r us f r o m devices heereafter'. T o A n g e l o , this p r o v i s i o n wears another aspect: i n Escalus' presence he can relieve the pressure o f apprehension o n l y b y e x c l a i m i n g t h a t this is a m a d m a n ' s p r o j e c t ; left alone, he utters his real f o r e b o d i n g . N o w , i n I V . v the t e x t seems t o disintegrate. T h e D u k e ' s first five a n d a h a l f lines t o F r i a r Peter w i l l d o w e l l e n o u g h ; t h e y are clear as t o general d r i f t , e n i g m a t i c as t o particulars, thus i n f o r r n i n g us as t o the character o f the p a r t f o r w h i c h Peter is cast, b u t w i t h ­ h o l d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n as t o the w o r d s he is t o speak a n d l e a v i n g us expectant. A n d t h e n , suddenly, the a r g u m e n t is lost i n a r o l l - c a l l o f meaningless names; w o r s e s t i l l , one n a m e m o r e gathers t o i t s e l f a b o d y a n d bursts u p o n the stage. W h o is this Varrius? M r . R i d l e y ' s pleasantry, w h e n he suggests t h a t V a r r i u s m a y be the Provost's p r o p e r n a m e , p r o m p t s a n e n g a g i n g t r a i n o f conjecture; b u t this is dissipated b y the subsequent i n c l u s i o n o f V a r r i u s i n a scene w h e r e the P r o v o s t also appears a n d is called P r o v o s t . A c t I V has, so far, c o v e r e d m u c h o f t w o days, w i t h the i n t e r ­ v e n i n g n i g h t . I t was e v e n i n g w h e n the D u k e v i s i t e d M a r i a n a , n i g h t w h e n he reached the p r i s o n . I t is d a w n w h e n he returns t o i t , a n d 1

2

3

4

5

6

I V . i i i . 116 and I V . i i i . 154. Lucio's time-reference w o u l d be easily dismissed as a verbal blunder, i f i t were not apparently corroborated b y another: at the trial, he speaks o f an encounter between Isabel and Friar L o d o w i c k 'but yesternight' ( V . 1.134). I take his ' I ghesse not' for an answer to Angelo's suggestion that the D u k e may be mad, although a question has intervened; a few words may have been lost, and these displaced ( I V . i v . 8). True, there is a reference t o letters w h i c h promises something and comes t o nothing; but this probably signifies no more than change o f plan and neglect o f revision. New Temple Shakespeare. V . i . Varrius enters w i t h the D u k e ; but the Provost is given an entry at 1. 281, and named i n the dialogue. The hour fixed for Claudio's execution is still i m p e n d i n g ( I V . i i i . 82), t h o u g h Ragozine has died 'this m o r n i n g ' ( I V . i i i . 74). 1

2

8

4

5

6

Il6

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

s t i l l early w h e n Isabel comes t o ask c o n c e r n i n g C l a u d i o . I t w i l l be e v e n i n g w h e n Escalus a n d A n g e l o p a r t w i t h the w o r d s ' G o o d n i g h t ' a n d i n e x p e c t a t i o n o f the D u k e ' s e n t r y o n the m o r r o w ; n i g h t , w h e n the D u k e confers w i t h Peter. T h e scene b e t w e e n Isabel, M a r i a n a a n d Peter, w i t h its t e r m i n a l l i n e — 1

T h e D u k e is entring: Therefore hence away— w i l l b e l o n g t o the n e x t m o r n i n g ; a n d the separation o f this a n n o u n c e m e n t f r o m the D u k e ' s e n t r y cannot, as I have suggested, be m o r e t h a n f o r m a l . I n so f a u l t y a passage o f the t e x t , a m i s l e a d i n g a c t - d i v i s i o n need n o t surprise us; a n d w e m a y c o n c l u d e that, w i t h the departure o f the D u k e a n d V a r r i u s , A c t I V ends, as i t h a d begun, i n a haze'of uncertainty. N o w , A c t V is generally a c k n o w l e d g e d t o be a l m o s t clear o f b i g t e x t u a l difficulties. W e have c o m e t h r o u g h the w o r s t o f these, a n d so have a r r i v e d at a c o n v e n i e n t p o i n t o f vantage f r o m w h i c h t o s u r v e y t h a t p r o b l e m w h i c h the t e x t o f the p l a y poses. I n a p p r o a c h ­ i n g t h a t p a r t o f i t w h i c h , l i k e a channel v e x e d b y cross-currents, j o i n s t w o expanses o f navigable w a t e r , I suggested that, even here, the defects w e r e n o t so dispersed as t o d i s t u r b the w h o l e . Areas w h i c h c o m p e l distrust m a y be distinguished, a n d I have p o i n t e d t o t w o : one is l i k e l y t o b e g i n w i t h the D u k e ' s eleven couplets, w h i c h n o w c o n c l u d e A c t I I I , a n d t o c o n t i n u e , i n t e r m i t t e n t l y , as far as t h e departure f r o m t h e m o a t e d grange, w h i c h ends I V . i ; the other, b e g i n n i n g t o w a r d s the close o f I V . i i i , includes (again, w i t h f r a g ­ ments o f t r u s t w o r t h y t e x t f l o a t i n g i n i t ) a l l the rest o f A c t I V — supposing that t o e n d o n the n i g h t before the t r i a l . T o these, as the c r u x o f the p r o b l e m , I w i l l presently r e t u r n ; b u t there is m e a n ­ w h i l e an o b j e c t i o n t o be m e t . I t m a y w e l l be said: ' T h e acceptance o f the rest o f the p l a y , as r e c o m m e n d e d i n the f o r e g o i n g analysis, is s u p p o r t e d b y m a n y and various s u p p o s i t i o n s . ' — T o w h i c h m y answer w o u l d be: m a n y i n d e e d , b u t n o t so various as t h e y at first sight appear; t h e y have s o m e t h r n g i n c o m m o n . Those q u e s t i o n ­ able passages, i n w h i c h I have hesitated t o detect interference f r o m w i t h o u t , m a y g e n e r a l l y be a t t r i b u t e d t o such second t h o u g h t s as 2

1 2

H e had fixed this for 'to night', i n talk w i t h Isabel (IV. i i i . 145). See p. 46, above.

TH£

ARBITER

117

m i g h t o c c u r w h i l e s t o r y a n d presentation w e r e still m o l t e n i n t h e dramatist's m i n d , a n d be c o m m i t t e d t o paper i n t h a t v e r y sort o f m a n u s c r i p t w h i c h Sir W a l t e r G r e g describes: one consisting o f ' f o u l papers that h a d been a g o o d deal altered', a n d w e r e p r o b a b l y t o be ' t i d i e d u p ' i n the p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e p r o m p t - b o o k . M o r e o v e r , i n these alterations, a general t r e n d m a y ( I believe) be discerned: n o t a b l y as t h e e n d is neared t h e y seem t o be g o v e r n e d b y s t r o n g a n d ever m o r e d i s t i n c t apprehension, i n the dramatist's m i n d , o f w h a t t h a t e n d is t o be. T o this some lesser a n d i m m e d i a t e g a i n is n o w a n d t h e n s a c r i f i c e d — t h o u g h the sacrifice has n o t always been carried t o its l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n . A n d , i f these m i n o r obscurities a n d inconsistencies o f A c t I V are j o i n e d w i t h those t h a t v e x e d the earlier a n d ( i n m y v i e w ) less d i s t u r b e d p a r t o f the p l a y , w e shall still find n o t h i n g b e y o n d w h a t the d r a m a t i s t h i m s e l f m i g h t leave i n an i n c o m p l e t e l y revised d r a f t : one i n process o f condensation a n d s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , i n w h i c h superfluous expedients m a y be e l i m ­ i n a t e d b u t n o t y e t w h o l l y effaced. F o r a f t e r t h o u g h t begets i m p r o ­ v i s a t i o n , a n d i m p r o v i s a t i o n becomes i n its t u r n the parent o f neces­ sity, since an a l t e r a t i o n i n a design essayed w h i l e t h a t design is i n process o f e x e c u t i o n is l i k e l y t o t h r o w the parts o u t o f j u s t r e l a t i o n , a n d so m a k e further, uncalculated a n d incalculable, a l t e r a t i o n necessary. I f w e bear this l i k e l i h o o d i n m i n d , the suppositions o n w h i c h I account f o r these lesser disturbances agree w e l l e n o u g h w i t h one another. I t is t i m e t o r e t u r n t o the parts o f the p l a y w h i c h I have d i s t i n ­ guished as m o r e g r a v e l y at fault. H e r e , I believe, is s o m e t h i n g besides t h a t carelessness o f w h i c h Sir W a l t e r G r e g suspects t h e transcriber: some defect, i n the ' f o u l papers' o n w h i c h he was w o r k i n g , so e v i d e n t t h a t he felt h i m s e l f o b l i g e d t o t u r n elsewhere. H o w s h o u l d this be? I t is, I suppose, possible that, i n this draft o f t h e p l a y , the d r a m a t i s t b r o u g h t those parts t h a t engaged his i m a g i n a t i o n t o a state v e r y near c o m p l e t i o n , b u t left others, w h i c h w e a r i e d o r dissatisfied h i m , t o w a i t o n t h e v i s i t a t i o n o f his genius — o r , i f a c o m m a n d p e r f o r m a n c e i m p e n d e d , o n t h e spur o f necessity. P r o o f t h a t this happened, h o w e v e r , o r even firm g r o u n d f o r surmise, seems w a n t i n g . B u t i f , w h e n t h e m a t e r i a l f o r the first f o l i o was b e i n g gathered, a sole m a n u s c r i p t o f this p l a y s u r v i v e d , 1

2

1

The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare, p . 146.

2

O p . cit., p . 146.

n8

THE

PLAY

CONSIDERED

o r was available, a n y p h y s i c a l i m p e r f e c t i o n i n this m a n u s c r i p t w o u l d leave its m a r k o n t h e F o l i o t e x t . I n j u r y a m o u n t i n g t o d e f a c e m e n t — f i r e o r w a t e r , m i c e o r candlegrease, the possibilities are p l e n t i f u l — m i g h t c o m p e l the transcriber t o t u r n t o t h e p l a y ­ house, perhaps t o some actor w h o s e r e c o l l e c t i o n o f a p e r f o r m a n c e i n w h i c h he h a d t a k e n p a r t , h o w e v e r i n d i s t i n c t , w o u l d g i v e a specious appearance o f c o n t i n u i t y . I t is at least permissible t o reflect o n w h a t c o u l d have happened i f this m a n u s c r i p t , d a m a g e d i n t w o places, was thereabouts p a t c h e d w i t h t h e s t u f f o f m e m o r y , o b t a i n e d f r o m the play-house; i f , at some p e r f o r m a n c e still r e m e m ­ bered, a n i n t e r v a l m i d - w a y h a d g i v e n occasion f o r the i n s e r t i o n o f those eleven c o u p l e t s ; i f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a song h a d e n ­ t a i l e d some disturbance o f t h e t e x t i n the o p e n i n g , a n d at t h e close, o f t h e scene at t h e m o a t e d grange; a n d i f the preparations for the p u b l i c exposure o f A n g e l o h a d been shortened a n d the actor t o w h o m t h e scribe h a d recourse was here at a loss. B y such t r i c k l i n g i n f i l t r a t i o n f r o m another source, a n d t h a t s h r u n k e n a n d m u d d y , w e m i g h t i n d e e d get a v e r s i o n o f the p l a y i n w h i c h t w o passages (the b u n g l i n g at the m o a t e d grange a n d the gibberish about Varrius) w o u l d defy interpretation: they do n o t m a k e stage sense; t h e y w i l l n o t even a l l o w i t t o be m a d e o f t h e m . W h e r e a s a p r o d u c e r , u s i n g his discretion, m a y solve ( f o r e x a m p l e ) the p r o b l e m o f J u l i e t , m e r e l y b y d i s r e g a r d i n g a stage d i r e c t i o n a b o u t her w h i c h he distrusts, he cannot, b y a n y measure o f l a w f u l f r e e d o m , so present the b e g i n n i n g a n d e n d o f A c t I V as t o persuade us t h a t the dramatist's wishes have been c a r r i e d o u t . T h e close o f such a passage, t h o u g h i t m a y g i v e us occasion f o r s u r v e y i n g the characters afresh, w i l l leave m a n y questions still u n ­ resolved. O n l y the D u k e seems m o r e substantial t h a n before. I f w e w i l l b u t take the pains t o see h i m as he m u s t have appeared t o a c o n t e m p o r a r y audience, w e shall f i n d l i t t l e i n his c o n d u c t t h a t w i l l n o t bear e x a m i n a t i o n . H e is the p a t t e r n r u l e r , a l i k e o f learned a n d popular i m a g i n a t i o n ; n o t the v i c t i m o f a melancholic h u m o u r , d r i v e n t o t o r m e n t h i m s e l f a n d others. I t is n o t the t e x t b u t t h e 1

2

This leaves us w i t h alternative explanations for their awkwardness: Shake­ speare w r o t e them, but, crowded onto an already full page, they were i n parts indecipherable; they were w r i t t e n b y a j o u r n e y m a n . H e may, as a boy, have taken the part o f Mariana's singer. 1

2

THE

ARBITER

119

c o m m e n t a r y t h a t is t r o u b l e s o m e . H i s w o r d s r e m a i n e n i g m a t i c . I t s h o u l d be r e m e m b e r e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t his actions are a l m o s t t o o p l a i n t o us w h o have the clue t o t h e m : t h e y are (as i t w e r e ) seen f r o m the u n g u a r d e d side; and, i f a n y air o f m y s t e r y is t o h a n g a b o u t h i m — a s i t m u s t , t o i n t i m a t e t h e aspect he wears f o r the o t h e r people o f the p l a y — h i s w o r d s alone m u s t s u p p o r t i t . H e n c e his d a r k sayings. T h e a l t e r a t i o n i n A n g e l o agrees w i t h ideas o f character t o be f o u n d i n Shakespearian t r a g e d y . F o r m e r l y he saw his o w n act f o r w h a t i t was; n o w he sees o n l y w h a t i t is l i k e l y t o cost. T h i s seems t o have been w h a t Shakespeare expected t o h a p p e n t o a m a n w h o s h o u l d v i o l a t e his o w n conscience. B u t h o w are w e t o understand Isabel's course f r o m the D u k e ' s i n t e r p o s i t i o n t o the eve o f the t r i a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n her relations w i t h Mariana? H e r readiness t o b r i n g M a r i a n a t o A n g e l o ' s garden-house has been e x h a u s t i v e l y c a n ­ vassed. T h e general censure o f this subterfuge has l a t e l y been answered o n t w o counts: i t was a c o m m o n and a p p r o v e d t r i c k o f f o l k - t a l e a n d r o m a n c e ; M a r i a n a was b e t r o t h e d t o A n g e l o , a n d E l i z a b e t h a n b e t r o t h a l gave the same r i g h t s as m a r r i a g e . T h a n k s t o patient i n v e s t i g a t i o n , w e d o i n d e e d k n o w m o r e t h a n h i t h e r t o b o t h a b o u t analogues o f this i n c i d e n t , a n d Elizabethan m a r r i a g e c u s t o m . Nevertheless, there is, as M r . H a r d i n g p o i n t s o u t , a still unresolved d i f f i c u l t y : sponsalia de praesenti ( b e t r o t h a l contract i n the present tense) w i t h o u t r e l i g i o u s c e r e m o n y m i g h t be e n o u g h f o r the l a w , b u t i t was n o t e n o u g h f o r the C h u r c h , a n d i t seems n o t t o have been e n o u g h f o r Shakespeare. Prospero's i n j u n c t i o n s w i l l be strict. A n d , t h o u g h the l a w w h i c h makes C l a u d i o ' s act d a n ­ gerous is a necessity o f the story, the v i e w w h i c h the considerable characters take o f that act is n o t enjoined u p o n Shakespeare either b y the story o r b y the w a y i n w h i c h his predecessors have t o l d i t . T h u s w e m a y h o l d i t significant t h a t A n g e l o is alone, n o t i n r e g a r d i n g i t as grave sin, b u t i n his insistence o n the u t m o s t p e n a l t y w h i c h the l a w a l l o w s . H o w t h e n d i d Isabel c o m e t o c o n d o n e Mariana's c o n s u m m a t i o n o f a m e r e l y legal c o n t r a c t w i t h A n g e l o ? M r . H a r d i n g w o u l d suggest t h a t Shakespeare t o o k advantage o f the general c o n f u s i o n o f t h o u g h t — o r at least a l l o w e d i t t o b l u r the 1

D . P. H a r d i n g , 'Elizabethan Betrothals and Measure for Measure' (Journal of English and Germanic Philology, A p r i l 1950). 1

120

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

inconsistency r e s u l t i n g f r o m his efforts t o soften the s t o r y o n w h i c h he was w o r k i n g . N o w , b o t h D a v e n a n t a n d G i l d o n a i m at w e e d i n g o u t inconsistencies. I t is therefore w o r t h n o t i c i n g t h a t D a v e n a n t makes A n g e l o ' s p r o p o s a l t o Isabel a m e r e test o f her v i r t u e , l e a d i n g e v e n t u a l l y t o m a r r i a g e — a n d so does a w a y w i t h M a r i a n a ; b u t G i l d o n , less drastic i n his remedies, has f o r t i f i e d the p o s i t i o n o f b o t h J u l i e t a n d M a r i a n a b y secret marriages; t i m e alone b e i n g needed t o recover stage p r o o f s o f the c i v i l a n d ecclesiastical r e g u ­ l a r i t y o f these contracts. T h i s Shakespeare c o u l d w e l l have d o n e : A n g e l o ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o be free o f his o b l i g a t i o n t o M a r i a n a h a d o n l y t o proceed t o t h e concealment o f evidence, as i t does i n G i l d o n ' s p l a y . B u t w h a t G i l d o n ' s p l a y shows is, t h a t t h e w o u n d is n o t healed b y this care: the p o i s o n still w o r k s i n i t ; Isabel is f u r t h e r ­ i n g a n o t h e r w o m a n ' s relationship w i t h a m a n w h o m she has d i s ­ c o v e r e d t o be licentious a n d c r u e l — a n d that, w h e n she is stagger­ i n g u n d e r the i m p a c t o f this d i s c o v e r y . I d o u b t w h e t h e r her act stands t o g a i n m u c h f r o m legal j u s t i f i c a t i o n . T h a t o t h e r a r g u m e n t — t h a t Shakespeare was u s i n g a device so generally accepted i n f i c t i o n t h a t i t w o u l d pass u n c h a l l e n g e d — m a y p r o v e a stronger l i n e o f defence, because i t refers t o the r e g i o n o f the i m a g i n a t i o n , w h i c h , n o t b e i n g subject t o reason, changes piecemeal, m o r e e r r a t i c a l l y a n d m o r e s l o w l y t h a n regions u n d e r the r u l e o f ideas w h i c h can be f o r m u l a t e d . ( T h a t art m a y c a r r y ideas o f g o o d a n d b a d c o n d u c t i n t o an age t o w h o s e t h e o r y a n d practice t h e y are r e p u g n a n t o r i r r e l e v a n t , the n o v e l w i l l bear w i t ­ ness.) T h u s , All's Well that Ends Well, even t h o u g h i t overloads, a n d strains, Boccaccio's graceful story, y e t preserves some f a i n t reflection o f the w o r l d t o w h i c h t h a t h a d b e l o n g e d : a w o r l d o f s t o r y - t e l l i n g sessions, i n w h i c h w o m e n m i g h t be ranged against m e n i n m i m i c w a r f a r e ; o v e r w h i c h presided the s p i r i t o f sportive c e r e m o n y ; b e h i n d w h i c h w e discern m u c h o l d e r story-patterns, o f lovers, separated b y the w a t e r o f forgetfulness a n d r e - u n i t e d i n f u l l f e l i c i t y as s o o n as the w o m a n has succeeded i n u n d o i n g its spell. T h e m o c k - w a r f a r e i m p l i c i t i n such debates, a n d e x p l i c i t i n some o f 1

2

There are traces o f this convention i n the Hecatommithi; i t is crudely and vigorously exploited i n Whetstone's Heptameron. See Janet Spens, An Essay on Shakespeare's Relation to Tradition (Oxford, 1916), p. 391

2

THE

ARBITER

121

the stories, remains f a i n t l y discernible i n Shakespearian c o m e d y : i n the ceremonious d u e l o f Loves Labour s Lost, the s p o r t i v e s k i r ­ mishes i n Much Ado a n d As You Like It; a n d i t is the h a r d e n i n g a n d sharpening, the crystallization, o f this sport i n t o a conspiracy o f w o m e n , i n All's Well, t h a t shocks. Nevertheless, i t is clear t h a t n o t o n l y Helena a n d D i a n a b u t a l l the F l o r e n t i n e w o m e n , a n d the Countess o f R o u s i l l o n herself, are i n a conspiracy together, a n d t h a t i t is f u r t h e r e d b y the reputable characters i n the p l a y , a n d designed f o r o u r a p p r o v a l . A l t h o u g h i t m a y w e l l be p r e s u m p t u o u s t o c o m p a r e a n y o t h e r age u n f a v o u r a b l y w i t h o u r o w n , y e t w e m a y f a i r l y say t h a t t h e representation i n art o f this o r t h a t subject has f r o m t i m e t o t i m e been simpler, even cruder, t h a n i t is n o w . F o r e x a m p l e , w h e n a sole g r o u p o r class o f people tells a l l the stories, o r decides w h a t sort o f s t o r y shall be t o l d , there w i l l be f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t this phase o f f i c t i o n a v e r y simple, r u l e - o f - t h u m b m o r a l i t y prescribed for e v e r y o t h e r class. I n an aristocratic phase o f s t o r y - t e l l i n g , the m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n s o f people i n h u m b l e station w i l l be s i m p l i f i e d ; i n a masculine phase o f s t o r y - t e l l i n g , the m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n s o f w o m e n , at least t o w a r d s o t h e r w o m e n , w i l l be reduced t o s o m e ­ t h i n g l i k e a f o r m u l a : the w h o l e d u t y o f w o m a n t o f e l l o w - w o m a n is f u l f i l l e d i n h e l p i n g her t o the husband she w a n t s . I t seems clear that, i n Measure for Measure, w e are m e a n t t o a p p r o v e n o t o n l y o f the D u k e ' s strategem, b u t o f M a r i a n a ' s , a n d even Isabel's, p a r t i n i t ; clear, also, t h a t f o r m e r censure o f such b e h a v i o u r — a n d o f the dramatist's p a r t i n it—has been i n t e m p e r ­ ate. B u t i t is a costly defence w h i c h can o b t a i n n o better t h a n the v e r d i c t that Shakespeare k n e w h o w t o t u r n t o account the c o n v e n ­ tions o f an art i n f e r i o r t o his o w n . O u r best h o p e m u s t be, t o dis­ c o v e r h o w the people o f this p a r t i c u l a r p l a y h a d c o m e t o o u t g r o w , b u t n o t t o r e l i n q u i s h , this p a r t i c u l a r c o n v e n t i o n . I f t h e y h a d n o t o u t g r o w n i t , w e s h o u l d be l i t t l e t r o u b l e d b y i t .

IV. T H E VERDICT Be collected: N o more amazement: tell y o u r piteous heart There's no h a r m done. (The Tempest) I S A B E L ' S i n t i m a t i o n , i n I V . v i , o f the course o f a c t i o n e n j o i n e d o n her b y t h e D u k e has prepared us f o r t h a t curious p a t t e r n o f q u i b b l e a n d subterfuge w h i c h mars f o r m o s t readers t h e theatrical b r i l l i a n c e t h e y a c k n o w l e d g e i n A c t V . T h e r e are certain considera­ t i o n s t o be b o r n e i n m i n d w h i l e this p a t t e r n is u n f o l d i n g . T h e first o f these relates t o this v e r y course designed f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f : the self-accusation w h i c h shocks us, b o t h as a l i e a n d as a slander o n her religious habit. Stage l a w , i t m u s t be r e m e m b e r e d , resembles the l a w o f n o c o u n t r y k n o w n t o h i s t o r y . I t is c o m p o s e d o f elements o r i g i n a t i n g i n s t o r y - c o n v e n t i o n a n d p o p u l a r p s y c h o l o g y ; elements w h i c h , l i k e the contents o f some f o r m e r sea-bottom, c o m e i n t i m e t o appear n o less s o l i d t h a n the d o w n s themselves. E v e n u n - r o m a n t i c c o m e d y , supposedly emancipated f r o m c o n v e n t i o n , obeys this f a n c i f u l code —obeys i t , m o r e o v e r , i n respect o f the l a w r e l a t i n g t o p r o p e r t y , surely the m o s t c o n f o r m a b l e o f a l l t o realistic representation. T h e article i n this code w i t h w h i c h w e have here t o r e c k o n runs: i f a n y witness can be b r o u g h t t o accuse himself, the case is as g o o d as w o n . Such an assumption is i m p l i c i t i n the s t o r y o f the m o n s t r o u s r a n s o m f r o m the b e g i n n i n g : w h e n the w o m a n is so far abased t h a t she w i l l n o t scruple t o p u b l i s h her o w n shame a n d accuse herself w i t h the magistrate, the case against h i m is t a k e n as p r o v e n . T h e same n o t i o n is t u r n e d t o account i n M i d d l e t o n ' s p l a y : w h e n P h o e n i x , i n his assumed character o f agent t o t h e evil-doers, accuses h i m s e l f o f h a v i n g u n d e r t a k e n t o c a r r y o u t t h e i r designs, t h e i r defence collapses. So m u c h f o r the means w h i c h the D u k e proposes. H i s e n d also m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d w i t h some reference t o p o p u l a r t h i n k i n g , b u t i t is deeper r o o t e d i n ideas. Superficially, the s t o r y o f the p r i n c e t a k i n g a c t i o n incognito w o u l d seem t o g r o w m e r e l y o u t o f a c o m -

THE

VERDICT

123

m o n p l a c e w i s h f o r r o y a l i n t e r v e n t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r affairs; b u t t h e r o o t s m a y r u n d o w n (as i n d e e d t h e y d o here) i n t o a p r o f o u n d sense o f the need f o r a u n i o n o f k n o w l e d g e a n d p o w e r . F i c t i o n can— a n d Elizabethan f i c t i o n usually does—assume t h a t the l a w f u l r u l e r c o m m a n d s , w i t h i n his o w n d o m a i n , p o w e r e n o u g h t o effect w h a t he w i l l s ; that, i f his w i l l is t o w a r d s e v i l , he w i l l seek t o g r a t i f y his o w n appetites; i f t o w a r d s g o o d , t o d o j u s t i c e — t h a t is, t o regulate w i t h even h a n d relationships a m o n g his subjects. T o this end, he m u s t engage i n an u n d e r t a k i n g w h i c h develops i n some such o r d e r as this. H e m u s t endeavour t o k n o w . ( I t is i n general v e r y h a n d ­ s o m e l y t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d that n o t h i n g hinders k n o w l e d g e except state; i f he w e r e able t o pass as a p r i v a t e g e n t l e m a n , a l l w o u l d be p l a i n t o h i m . ) H i s o w n a t t a i n m e n t o f k n o w l e d g e , h o w e v e r , is n o t e n o u g h ; he m u s t m a k e others k n o w l i k e w i s e . T h e y m u s t be b r o u g h t t o share his estimate o f m e r i t a n d d e m e r i t ; i t is n o t e n o u g h t h a t j u s t i c e s h o u l d be d o n e — w h a t is d o n e m u s t be a c k n o w l e d g e d j u s t . T h u s his f u n c t i o n is (at least i n p a r t ) d i d a c t i c : his sentence w i l l be e x e m p l a r y , d e m o n s t r a t i v e ; and, t o an age f a m i l i a r w i t h m o r e t h a n one k i n d o f didactic d r a m a , a d r a m a t i c e x p o s i t i o n o f his idea o f j u s t i c e w i l l n o t seem t o o difficult. T h e D u k e therefore brings i t a b o u t t h a t the t r i a l shall resemble a p l a y . I t has been c l a i m e d t h a t Measure for Measure corresponds i n several aspects w i t h t h e M o r a l i t i e s a n d M o r a l I n t e r l u d e s . I recognize such a c o r r e s p o n ­ dence o n l y i n respect o f this play within the play, b y w h i c h t h e D u k e conveys his i n t e n t i o n t o the people o f V i e n n a . B e t w e e n his e n t r y a n d the close, t r u t h , u n d e r his d i r e c t i o n , threads its w a y t h r o u g h a maze o f e r r o r , w h a t has been comes t o l i g h t , a n d w h a t should be becomes operative, despite all hindrances o f h u m a n i g n o r ­ ance, self-interest a n d s e l f - w i l l . These t w o (has been a n d should be) c o m p r i s e the different k i n d s o f k n o w l e d g e he has s o u g h t t o a t t a i n a n d n o w seeks t o c o m m u n i c a t e . T h e k n o w l e d g e w h i c h consists i n possession o f facts is e n o u g h f o r s i m p l e , p o p u l a r anecdote, w h o s e 1

2

3

T h e usurper seeks more power at home; the lawful ruler seeks to extend his power abroad, according t o Elizabethan theory. Alexander Severus is particularly commended for his practice o f forgoing state, and m a k i n g himself accessible, at all times and to all people. M . C . Bradbrook, ' A u t h o r i t y , T r u t h and Justice i n Measure for Measure* (Review of English Studies, October 1941), especially pp. 385-92. See also F. P. W i l s o n , Elizabethan and Jacobean ( O x f o r d , 1945), p . 118. Pater had pointed the way. 1

2

3

124

THE

PLAY

CONSIDERED

b u r d e n is n o m o r e t h a n t h i s : 'So the g o o d k i n g , h a v i n g seen f o r h i m s e l f h o w the p o o r m a n was abused . . . ' — b u t n o t e n o u g h f o r a n y representation w h i c h is t o bear the w e i g h t o f reflection; that requires the k n o w l e d g e w h i c h consists i n r i g h t j u d g e m e n t o f values. T o the D u k e ' s audience w i t h i n the p l a y , b o t h are necessary, and b o t h are n e w ; t o us, w h o have shared the advantage o f the D u k e ' s disguise a n d seen a l l that has been, o n l y the second has still t o be c o m m u n i c a t e d . T h u s w e are, so t o speak, a stride ahead; a n d the dramatist has t o solve the p r o b l e m o f h o l d i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n d u r i n g the e x p o s i t i o n o f w h a t w e already k n o w . Isabel's o p e n i n g o f her o w n case is designed b y the D u k e t o b r i n g t r u t h t o l i g h t i n a p a r t i c u l a r w a y : n o t o n l y t o r e c o u n t facts, b u t also t o s h o w h o w h a r d l y t h e y w i l l be believed. H e has c o n ­ v i n c e d her o f the i m p o r t a n c e , a n d the danger, o f her u n d e r t a k i n g : Vertue is bold, and goodnes never fearefull. I t lies m u c h i n y o u r h o l d i n g u p .

1

2

His w a r n i n g s w a k e an echo o f A n g e l o ' s threat: W h o w i l l beleeve thee Isabell? M y unsoild name, th'austeerenesse o f m y life, M y v o u c h against y o u , and m y place i ' t h State, W i l l so y o u r accusation over-weigh, T h a t y o u shall stifle i n y o u r owne report, A n d smell o f calumnie. 3

T h i s is i n d e e d her expectation, allayed o n l y b y the h o p e that, i f the advice o n w h i c h she acts has been w e l l f r a m e d , i t w i l l d o a w a y w i t h A n g e l o ' s m a n i f o l d advantages o v e r her: . . . that w h i c h I must speake M u s t either punish me, n o t being beleev'd, O r w r i n g redresse f r o m y o u . 4

I t is w e l l f r a m e d ; b u t n o t i n the w a y she h a d h o p e d . I t is designed, n o t t o c o n f o u n d A n g e l o at the outset, b u t t o p u t h i m o f f his g u a r d a n d so m a k e sure that he w i l l settle i n t o the t r a p . H e n c e the i n t r i ­ cate w e b o f t r u t h a n d seeming t r u t h : the w o r d s w h i c h are t o assure h i m , a n d w i t h h i m the audience w i t h i n the p l a y , t h a t t h e n i l . i.215. I I I . i . 276—that is, the success o f the enterprise depends u p o n the w a y i n w h i c h you support y o u r part. I I . i v . 154. V . i . 30. 2

3

4

THE

125

VERDICT

transaction b e t w e e n the t w o o f t h e m has been w h a t he believes i t t o have been—and w h a t he believes she w i l l never be able t o p r o v e . T o this e n d she m u s t i m p l y t h a t he has been g u i l t y o f the d o u b l e i n j u r y , against her b r o t h e r a n d herself; t h o u g h she evades a state­ m e n t o f the second o f these charges. T h i s e q u i v o c a t i o n is v e r y dis­ agreeable; b u t , u n l i k e that i n the m o c k q u a r r e l o v e r the rings at the e n d o f The Merchant of Venice, i t is s t r u c t u r a l l y necessary: w i t h ­ o u t i t , neither i n t r i g u e n o r t h e m e c o u l d advance t o w a r d s the proper conclusion. S t i l l b u s i l y f o r t i f y i n g , b y w o r d a n d act, A n g e l o ' s false security, the D u k e elicits a reference t o the pretended friar, as one w h o has abetted the plaintiff; a n d here L u c i o plays i n t o his hands, f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n he hastens t o l a y against this friar lulls A n g e l o ' s sus­ p i c i o n . I n obedience t o the same design, Friar Peter promises t h a t M a r i a n a , w h o m he n o w b r i n g s f o r w a r d , shall bear witness o n A n g e l o ' s behalf. I t is n o t u n t i l she is w e l l i n t o her r i d d l i n g tale t h a t he is disabused, a n d even t h e n he is sure o f his defence, f o r he believes t h a t here he is falsely accused; a n d so, s t i r r i n g at last, u n d e r ­ takes t o clear himself. . . . Let me have w a y , m y L o r d T o finde this practise o u t . 1

Friar Peter, w h o has represented h i m s e l f as ready t o v o u c h f o r Friar L o d o w i c k , n o w volunteers t h a t this indispensable witness m a y be f o u n d ; a n d s o — f o r m e r references t o v o w a n d sickness alike f o r g o t t e n — h e is dispatched t o fetch h i m , a n d a l l is set f o r t h e D u k e t o reappear, i n disguise, r e p u t e d t o be the agent o f the d i s ­ c r e d i t e d w o m e n , a n d a c k n o w l e d g i n g h i m s e l f the c r i t i c o f a u t h ­ o r i t y i n V i e n n a . Escalus turns, w i t h his usual u r b a n i t y , t o L u c i o — Signior Lucio, d i d n o t y o u say y o u k n e w that Frier Lodowick to be a dishonest person? 2

and A n g e l o draws breath. A l l this is very good theatre. A n d here the usefulness o f M i d d l e ton's analogue appears, f o r i t a l l o w s o f c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n Measure for Measure a n d a p l a y w i t h an a p p a r e n t l y s i m i l a r c o n ­ clusion—one w h i c h is t h e a t r i c a l l y effective, a n d n o t h i n g besides. M a r s t o n , b o t h i n The Malcontent a n d i n The Fawn, h a d used t h e 1

V.i.238.

2

V.i.26i.

126

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

device o f disclosure b y means o f a masque, b u t i n neither d o I f i n d a p i t c h o f e x p e c t a t i o n c o m p a r a b l e w i t h t h a t o f the c l i m a x i n M i d d l e t o n ' s Phoenix. M a r s t o n ' s spider ( M a l e v o l e o r Faunus) sits c o m p l a c e n t l y at the centre o f t h a t s y m m e t r i c a l w e b he has spun, a n d has n o t h i n g t o d o b u t w a t c h the f u t i l e m o t i o n s o f the flies entangled i n i t ; n o r is there m u c h r o o m f o r reaction, o n the flies' part, t o t h e realization o f entanglement. N o w , the t r i c k b y w h i c h P h o e n i x b r i n g s e v i l i n t e n t i o n s t o l i g h t sustains t h e tension o f t h e s i t u a t i o n u n t i l the c l i m a x . H a v i n g t a k e n service w i t h the c o n ­ spirators, he appears i n disguise before the o l d d u k e a n d the assembled c o u r t , a n d delivers i n t o the duke's hands a d o c u m e n t , p u r p o r t i n g t o be a n account o f his son's travels, b u t a c t u a l l y r e c o r d i n g the particulars o f the courtiers' conspiracy. A s the d u k e reads o u t , i t e m b y i t e m , this r e c o r d o f p l o t a n d plotters, P h o e n i x avouches t h a t he was i n every instance t h e h i r e d agent; the s t i l l undisclosed offenders, i n ostentatious zeal, s p r i n g f o r w a r d one after another t o arrest h i m , b u t as each advances his n a m e is f o u n d i n the i n d i c t m e n t a n d p r o c l a i m e d . T h e r e is a flicker o f c o m e d y — n o t u n l i k e t h a t w h i c h L u c i o introduces i n t o the t r i a l scene—when Falso, w h o has missed the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e affair a n d the s i g n i f i ­ cance o f the d o c u m e n t , is flattered at h e a r i n g h i m s e l f m e n t i o n e d i n i t . T h e c o n c l u s i o n o f the m a t t e r , h o w e v e r , is n o m o r e t h a n t h i s : the o l d d u k e recognizes his son as better fitted t h a n h i m s e l f t o r u l e , a n d abdicates i n his f a v o u r ; a n d the n e w d u k e s u m m a r i l y d i s t r i ­ butes rewards a n d p u n i s h m e n t s a m o n g those lesser evil-doers w h o s e injuries a n d sufferings i n t h e i r m u t u a l dealings he has t a k e n occasion t o investigate. T h e D u k e ' s appearance before A n g e l o a n d Escalus i n the charac­ ter o f Friar L o d o w i c k is charged w i t h m o r e significance t h a n this. I t makes i n t e l l i g i b l e the s y m b o l i s m o f the trial's o p e n i n g , b y o p p o s i n g its i m a g e reversed. O n his first appearance, i n state, a c c o m p a n i e d b y his deputies, the D u k e h a d been a s y m b o l o f p o w e r w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e ; n o w he reappears as k n o w l e d g e w i t h ­ o u t p o w e r . L u c i o is the touchstone: f o r m e r l y he was irrepressible, n o w he is dangerous. T h e D u k e , e n t h r o n e d b u t u n e n l i g h t e n e d , h a d been unable t o secure o r d e r ; i n disguise, he c a n n o t ensure even his o w n safety. S i t t i n g i n state, he h a d deliberately s h o w n h i m s e l f 1

1

Malcontent, V . i i i . Fawn, V . i . (Bullen's edition, vols, i and ii.)

THE

VERDICT

127

t o his audience w i t h i n the p l a y as one w h o , f o r w a n t o f better k n o w l e d g e , m u s t take the w o r d o f a seemer, o f the m a n n o t y e t f o u n d o u t — A n g e l o ' s w o r d ; n o w he j o i n s the s o r r y ranks o f those w h o are at the m e r c y o f the i n f o r m e r , the plausible, officious m a n — L u c i o ' s m e r c y . H e k n o w s n o w w h a t is b e h i n d the fair shows o f society: his d e s c r i p t i o n o f V i e n n a is rather a t o k e n o f this s h o c k i n g d i s c o v e r y t h a n a social d o c u m e n t t o be t a k e n at the f o o t o f t h e letter; he k n o w s , b u t he cannot m a k e his k n o w l e d g e effectual. H e can g i v e expression t o the d r e a d f u l i r o n y o f the situation, i n h e r e n t i n e v e r y v e r s i o n o f the s t o r y : t h e v i c t i m , t u r n i n g t o the source o f j u s t i c e f o r redress o f w r o n g , is c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e w r o n g - d o e r . H e can, that is, see a n d speak, b u t he c a n n o t a c t — u n t i l , w i t h the disclosure o f his i d e n t i t y , k n o w l e d g e a n d p o w e r are at last effec­ tually joined. T h e m i g h t o f false-seeming has been demonstrated a n d the seemer exposed. A n g e l o stands at the m e r c y o f his f o r m e r v i c t i m , a n d the last phase o f this I n t e r l u d e o f Justice is n o w t o be p l a y e d o u t . I t is here t h a t dissatisfaction w i t h t h e w h o l e p l a y has gathered a n d stagnated. T h i s dissatisfaction m a y h a r b o u r confusions a n d inconsistencies; i t m a y be o n l y h a l f articulate; b u t i t o u g h t t o be considered a n d answered: u p o n t h a t answer hangs another o f m o r e i m p o r t a n c e — a n answer t o the q u e s t i o n : W h a t sort o f p l a y was Shakespeare r e a l l y w r i t i n g ? A n g e l o ' s peculiar share i n the e n d i n g is a p r e c i p i t a n t o f the uneasy t h o u g h t s a n d feelings w h i c h have c l o u d e d response t o the i n t e n t i o n o f Measure for Measure. ' A l l difficulties', the D u k e says, 'are b u t easie w h e n t h e y are k n o w n e . ' A n d , w h i l e w h a t w e have here t o u n r a v e l c a n n o t be called easy, its d i f f i c u l t y w i l l be surely lessened i f w e a p p r o a c h i t steadily, a l l o w ­ i n g ourselves t i m e t o recognize the c o m p o n e n t parts a n d t h e i r relationship. T h e first a n d simplest relationship is that b e t w e e n the p a r d o n o f A n g e l o a n d the pardons ofJuriste a n d P r o m o s . T h e s t o r y o f E p i t i a is one o f a g r o u p o f tales w i t h i n the Hecatommithi, i n each o f w h i c h , w h e n the tables have been t u r n e d b e t w e e n a n i n j u r e d person a n d the one responsible f o r t h e i n j u r y , a n act o f signal m a g n a n i m i t y brings peace a n d g o o d w i l l . T h e terms o f Epitia's o w n plea are 1

2

1

2

V . i . 318. Contrast the tone o f his former description o f these disorders. I V . i i . 221.

128

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

significant: i t was, she argues, f o r t h e safeguarding o f her r e p u t a ­ t i o n t h a t the E m p e r o r o r d a i n e d the m a r r i a g e b e t w e e n h e r s e l f a n d Juriste; b u t w h a t r e p u t a t i o n w i l l attach t o the n a m e o f the w o m a n w h o s e act has caused the death o f her husband? T h e i m p e r i a l v e r ­ d i c t has g i v e n clear p r o o f o f j u s t i c e , i n sentencing h i m t o death; l e t i t s h o w as clear m e r c y , i n g r a n t i n g his life t o her as suppliant. She goes o n t o praise m e r c y i n a r u l e r , delicately i n t i m a t i n g that, b y a r e p u t a t i o n f o r m e r c i f u l d e a l i n g , M a x i m i a n w i l l enhance the lustre e v e n o f his o w n n a m e . H e is astonished at her goodness, a n d c o n ­ cedes w h a t she asks i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f her m e r i t . T h i s strain o f t h o u g h t is n o t , I believe, d i s t i n c t i v e l y C h r i s t i a n : w e are i n v i t e d t o accept the splendour o f a m a g n a n i m o u s act as f u l l a n d final satis­ f a c t i o n o f m o r a l i t y ' s d e m a n d — o f e v e r y conceivable d e m a n d ; there is n o r e c o g n i t i o n o f a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n forgiveness a n d i n ­ debtedness, n o idea o f m e r c y as a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f a debt t h a t can never be p a i d . W h e t s t o n e c a n n o t compass a n y a r g u m e n t o f c o m p a r a b l e scope. T h a t he was h i m s e l f a m a n capable o f compassion, several o f his w r i t i n g s s h o w , b u t t h e y u t t e r i t f i t f u l l y , a l m o s t as t h o u g h the feel­ i n g h a d s p r u n g d i r e c t l y f r o m his o w n experience a n d surprised h i m s e l f . H e represents his Cassandra as, i n d u t y b o u n d , p l e a d i n g f o r her c o m p e l l e d husband t o the u t m o s t o f her capacity, a n d cer­ t a i n l y she convinces the persons i n the p l a y t h a t her heart is i n the task; b u t she c a n n o t c o n v i n c e us. W e are g i v e n n o m o t i v e f o r her vehemence, n o r the means o f i n f e r r i n g any. W o o d e n figures s h o u l d n o t be called o n t o p e r f o r m u n l i k e l y actions. A n d n o cause is s h o w n w h y P r o m o s s h o u l d be p a r d o n e d , except t h a t she w o u l d be inconsolable i f he w e r e n o t . W h e t s t o n e ' s p l a n , i n v o l v i n g as i t does n o t o n l y the preservation o f A n d r u g i o ' s life b u t also an active part a l l o t t e d t o h i m , entails a m o r e elaborate c o n c l u s i o n t h a n G i r a l d i ' s : w e are, I t h i n k , m e a n t t o understand t h a t A n d r u g i o obtains p a r d o n i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f his m a g n a n i m i t y t o w a r d s his e n e m y P r o m o s . Shakespeare, h a v i n g b r o u g h t C l a u d i o t o acquiesce i n the j u s t i c e o f his sentence—'He 1

2

This is apparent not only i n the tone o f his references to the victims o f misrule i n Julio, b u t also i n passages i n his harsher pamphlets—for example, the account o f the English R o m a n Catholic refugees i n Rome, i n The English Myrror (1586), p. 143. Roilletus* Philanira had been likewise unaccountably inconsolable. 1

2

THE

129

VERDICT

professes t o have received n o sinister measure f r o m his J u d g e ' , t h e D u k e tells Escalus —thereafter sinks the question o f his a n t a g o n i s m t o A n g e l o , a n d restores h i m at the e n d o f the p l a y s i m p l y as one o f the f o u r r e q u i r i n g some sort o f p a r d o n f r o m the D u k e . N o w , t h e terms o f these f o u r pardons are s u b t l y differentiated, a n d t w o at least have p r o v e d liable t o m i s c o n s t r u c t i o n . O n a superficial r e a d ­ i n g , i t w o u l d appear t h a t B a r n a r d i n e is charged w i t h m u r d e r , a n d p a r d o n e d f o r f r e e - t h i n k i n g . I have already suggested t h a t t h e g r a v i t y o f t h a t charge i n the Provost's sole reference m a y be a n e r r o r ; i t outgoes i n r e p r o b a t i o n a l l o t h e r m e n t i o n o f B a r n a r ­ d i n e . I f I a m r i g h t i n this, t h e n w e m a y say t h a t his reprieve is c o n ­ v e r t e d , i n the general amnesty o f the close, i n t o a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p a r d o n f o r ' e a r t h l y faults' unspecified, c o u p l e d w i t h the r e c o m ­ m e n d a t i o n t h a t he s h o u l d , u n d e r i n s t r u c t i o n , seek t o understand s o m e t h i n g o f his o w n n a t u r e a n d s i t u a t i o n , as a h u m a n b e i n g charged w i t h a soul. ( T h e D u k e ' s a d m o n i t i o n illustrates the idea that the r u l e r has c o m e short unless he obtains a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f the j u s t i c e o f his v e r d i c t . ) L u c i o ' s offence is slander—that is, evil-speaking w h e t h e r t r u e o r false. H e has slandered the D u k e , t e l l i n g an e v i l tale o f h i m w h i c h (Escalus is there t o assure us) is altogether false; a n d f o r this he is c o n d e m n e d t o die. H e recognizes death as the a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t y — i n d e e d , he is the first t o u t t e r the t h o u g h t ; b u t , w i t h u n q u e n c h e d e f f r o n t e r y , suggests t h a t a l i g h t e r sentence w o u l d m e e t the case. B u t L u c i o has also slandered h i m s e l f — t h a t is, he has t o l d e v i l o f h i m s e l f , p r e s u m a b l y n o m o r e t h a n t r u t h ; a n d his i m p u d e n t suggestion o f a l i g h t e r sentence invites the D u k e t o p r o c l a i m t h a t he shall first p e r f o r m a n act o f r e s t i t u t i o n b y m a r r y i n g K a t e K e e p d o w n . L u c i o , still h o p e f u l o f d r i v i n g a bargain, insists t h a t this sentence i n i t s e l f a m o u n t s t o capital p u n i s h m e n t . T h e D u k e r e m i n d s h i m t h a t i t is o f this v e r y p u n i s h m e n t he stands i n danger ('Slandering a Prince deserves i t ' ) , b u t , h a v i n g s h o w n t h a t L u c i o is at his m e r c y , pardons the offence against himself. J o h n s o n , exasperated b y the w h o l e t e n o r o f the 1

2

3

I I I . i i . 257. See E . M . Pope, 'The Renaissance Background ofMeasurefor Measure* (Shake­ speare Survey 2, 1949). Here i t is closely argued that this indeed w o u l d be the sen­ tence for slandering a prince (p. 71), and that the original audience w o u l d expect no less (p. 79). This w o u l d cast a sinister shadow o n Lucio's attempts t o father his o w n words o n the Friar. V . i . 530. 1

2

3

K

130

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

play's c o n c l u s i o n , seems t o have been r e a d i n g this passage c u r s o r i l y w h e n he e x c l a i m e d : ' A f t e r the p a r d o n o f t w o m u r d e r e r s L u c i o m i g h t be treated b y the g o o d D u k e w i t h less harshness; b u t per­ haps the Poet i n t e n d e d t o s h o w , w h a t is t o o o f t e n seen, t h a t m e n easily f o r g i v e w r o n g s w h i c h are n o t c o m m i t t e d against themselves.' T h e p a r d o n o f C l a u d i o is a m a t t e r o f course, a n d t h a t m a y be w h y its terms are rhetorical—unless he is p a r d o n e d for the sake of Isabel's dead brother t o i n t i m a t e that, after the experience he has u n d e r g o n e , he is i n d e e d as one r e t u r n e d f r o m the dead. T h e refer­ ence t o the r e s t i t u t i o n he owes (marriage w i t h J u l i e t ) is l i k e w i s e m a t t e r o f course, a n d e v e n p e r f u n c t o r y . I t is difficult t o believe t h a t she can be present o n this occasion. N o w , the c o m p l e x i t y o f A n g e l o ' s case is t h r o w n i n t o r e l i e f b y the s i m p l i c i t y o f the rest. T h e y have o n l y t o o b t a i n m e r c y o f the D u k e . Those w h o m t h e y have w r o n g e d are—apart f r o m the D u k e h i m s e l f — h a r d l y m o r e t h a n shadows. A n g e l o ' s v i c t i m s have been at the v e r y heart o f o u r c o n c e r n m e n t t h r o u g h o u t the p l a y . S e t t i n g C l a u d i o aside, t h e intercession o f the t w o w o m e n is necessary, t o b e n d the D u k e ' s declared purpose r e g a r d i n g h i m ; a n d Isabel, w h o m n o w i f e l y d u t y constrains, m u s t be w o n t o intercede. W h e n M a r i a n a prevails w i t h her, t h e i r voices i n d e e d j o i n i n a m u s i c a l h a r m o n y ; b u t the m i n d , d w e l l i n g o n w h a t t h e y say, recognizes the need t o d i s t i n g u i s h . T h e b u r d e n o f one v o i c e is m e r c y ; o f the other, forgiveness; a n d these are distinct. T o be m e r c i f u l is t o f o r g o advantage; b u t forgiveness is n o t dependent u p o n advantage, f o r the v i c t i m m a y f o r g i v e the offender even w h i l e suffering the offence. M e r c y can be w h e r e there is n o t love—unless, l o v e o f m e r c y . B u t forgiveness is so b o u n d u p w i t h l o v e that, w h e r e l o v e is w a n t i n g , forgiveness c a n ­ n o t be c o m p l e t e ; and, w h e r e l o v e is c o m p l e t e ( b e t w e e n h u m a n beings), the one w h o forgives acknowledges n o indebtedness, c r y ­ i n g w i t h C o r d e l i a ' N o cause, n o cause.' M a r i a n a ' s plea f o r A n g e l o is s i m p l e a n d absolute; i t is u t t e r e d i n one l i n e : I crave no other, nor no better m a n . 1

2

I t is the plea o f l o v e . I t satisfies the i m a g i n a t i o n as Cassandra's c o u l d n o t , f o r its m o t i v e — a l o v e able t o f o r g i v e , because i t has 1

N o t e o n V . v i i i . ( V . i . 504.)

2

V . i. 431.

THE

VERDICT

131

s u r v i v e d , i n j u r i o u s treatment—has been f r o m t h e first, t o o u r k n o w l e d g e , a g i v e n factor i n the s i t u a t i o n . W h e n Isabel is d r a w n t o j o i n her v o i c e w i t h M a r i a n a ' s , her t h e m e is m e r c y , a n d her plea is so c o m p l e x , a n d so i n t r i c a t e l y related, t h a t its course m u s t be traced s l o w l y , a n d i n its w h o l e c o n t e x t . I t does n o t appear t o f o l ­ l o w f r o m her f o r m e r p l e a d i n g o n C l a u d i o ' s behalf—a c l a i m f o r forgiveness o n the p a r t o f those w h o w o u l d be f o r g i v e n . Perhaps f o r this reason, i t is o p e n t o m i s c o n s t r u c t i o n . J o h n s o n t u r n e d f r o m i t i n d i g n a n t l y ; and, i f his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the w o r d s t h a t offended h i m is j u s t , the passage is i n d e e d disgusting. Isabel's a r g u m e n t m u s t first be seen i n its i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t , o f the D u k e ' s a d m o n i t i o n s a n d M a r i a n a ' s entreaties. T h e crisis o f the sentence passed o n A n g e l o , a n d Isabel's plea f o r remission o f t h a t sentence, falls i n t o t w o parts: the D u k e ' s i n j u n c t i o n ( V . i . 405 t o 421,423 t o 430, a n d 438 t o 441), a n d Isabel's p l e a d i n g (444 t o 455), interspersed w i t h M a r i a n a ' s entreaties. I n the b r i e f absence o f A n g e l o a n d M a r i a n a , w h i c h signifies t h e i r m a r r i a g e , the D u k e has deliberately r e n e w e d i n Isabel the sense o f the w r o n g she believes d o n e t o her b r o t h e r ; n o w he takes u p his a r g u m e n t : Isabel m u s t f o r g i v e A n g e l o ' s i l l i n t e n t t o w a r d s herself T o r Marianas sake'— t h a t is, i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f M a r i a n a ' s service; b u t A n g e l o m u s t die u n d e r his o w n sentence. ( E p i t i a h a d feared the i l l - r e p u t e she w o u l d earn, as agent o f her husband's d o w n f a l l ; the D u k e ' s w o r d s e m ­ phasize w h a t the course o f the s t o r y has m a d e p l a i n , t h a t Isabel s h o u l d have n o such censure t o fear.) A n g e l o is t o die f o r that v e r y act w h i c h he j u d g e d a capital offence w h e n p e r f o r m e d b y C l a u d i o , a n d w h i c h he has aggravated i n the p e r f o r m a n c e b y a breach o f t r u s t ; the l a w , at its m o s t m e r c i f u l , is b o u n d t o c l a i m that, f o r a l i k e offence i n graver degree, n o less sentence t h a n the o r i g i n a l can be p r o n o u n c e d . W h e n M a r i a n a , h a v i n g failed t o m o v e h i m , turns t o Isabel f o r h e l p , he declares t h a t Isabel owes i t t o her b r o t h e r t o refuse i t . 1

2

The D u k e appears to say that Angelo has been guilty o f violation o f chastity and [violation] o f promise-breach. T h e reason w h y this latter phrase does not make sense may be either confused syntax resulting f r o m a change i n direction o f thought w h i l e the sentence was f o r m i n g , or a half-memory o f the double breach o f faith b y Juriste and Promos, each o f w h o m had promised marriage. This is surely a subtler f o r m o f K i n g Corvinus' proposition: I could forgive Promos, i f A n d r u g i o were alive. 1

2

132

THE

PLAY

CONSIDERED

T h e gist o f Isabel's plea is t h i s : the A n g e l o w h o c o m m i t t e d the fatal act ( o f p u t t i n g C l a u d i o t o death) acted i n g o o d f a i t h ; the A n g e l o w h o acted w i t h o u t g o o d f a i t h ( i n c o r r u p t i n g h e r ) c o m ­ m i t t e d , i n effect, n o act. T h i s is a q u i b b l e . W e need t o understand h o w Isabel reaches this p o s i t i o n . Cast back, she says, t o the t i m e w h e n C l a u d i o was alive, the b e g i n n i n g o f all this, a n d a d m i t t h a t A n g e l o was a c t i n g i n g o o d f a i t h , u n t i l assailed b y t e m p t a t i o n o n an u n g u a r d e d quarter. (She is feeling her w a y , i m p u l s i v e l y , f r o m sug­ gestion t o a s s u m p t i o n : ' I p a r t l y t h i n k e . . . Since i t is so . . . ' . ) A d m i t b u t this, and the arbiter w i l l f i n d t h a t he has erred i n s u p ­ p o s i n g the t w o cases equal: C l a u d i o c o m m i t t e d an act w h i c h b r o u g h t h i m u n d e r sentence o f l a w ; A n g e l o m e r e l y t r i e d t o c o m ­ m i t such a n act. T o treat the e v i l i n t e n t , o f w h i c h w e h a p p e n ( o n this occasion) t o be i n f o r m e d , as t h o u g h i t h a d been b o r n i n t o the w o r l d o f fact, even t h o u g h w e k n o w that i t r e m a i n e d i n its o w n r e a l m o f ' i n t e n t s ' w h i c h are ' m e r e l y t h o u g h t s ' ; t o proceed as t h o u g h i t w e r e subject t o j u r i s d i c t i o n — t h i s is t o trespass b e y o n d the p r o p e r b o u n d s o f l a w . A n g e l o h a d said: ' T h e l a w takes cognizance o n l y o f w h a t is susceptible o f p r o o f . ' Isabel says: ' T h e l a w s h o u l d take c o g ­ nizance o n l y o f the accomplished fact.' A s so often, t h e i r positions are close together; b u t t h e y are n o t l o o k i n g the same w a y . T h e D u k e t a c i t l y admits some degree o f v a l i d i t y i n this plea b y s h i f t i n g his g r o u n d — ' Y o u r suit cannot a v a i l , because I h a v e t h o u g h t o f a n o t h e r charge'—as he m u s t d o , i n o r d e r t o b r i n g a b o u t the final r e v o l u t i o n : the discovery w h i c h proves both o f A n g e l o ' s actions t o h a v e r e m a i n e d i n t h e r e a l m o f 'intents w h i c h perished b y the w a y ' . I n t o this plea f o r A n g e l o , as i n t o t h a t f o r C l a u d i o , Isabel has been p r e c i p i t a t e d b y the passion o f p i t y — s t i r r e d , n o w , b y M a r i ­ ana; a n d this, l i k e that, is a piece o f i m p r o v i s a t i o n : she is t h i n k i n g o u t her case as she speaks, seeking f o r a plea t h a t w i l l p r e v a i l . J o h n s o n was, i n this instance, w r o n g . T h e r e is n o c o q u e t r y i n her 1

2

3

T o L u p t o n , this w o u l d offer no objection: his ideal magsitrate punishes for intention. Miss Bradbrook supposes the D u k e to be taken aback b y Isabel's merciful act. ( ' A u t h o r i t y , T r u t h and Justice i n Measure for Measure , Review of English Studies, October 1941, p . 393.) I w o u l d say rather that Isabel has brought the argument fairly to its crisis: he can no longer u p h o l d the fiction o n w h i c h i t rests. N o t e o n V . i i . ( V . i . 450-2): ' I am afraid our Varlet Poet intended to inculcate, 1

2

1

3

THE

VERDICT

133

reference t o herself. M r . M a x w e l l observes t h a t Isabel's speech is a piece o f special p l e a d i n g , a gallant a t t e m p t t o c a r r y a w e a k case as far as i t w i l l g o : '. . . I n o t h e r w o r d s , she is d o i n g j u s t the same f o r A n g e l o as she h a d d o n e f o r C l a u d i o ' . B u t even this e x p l a n a t i o n falls short. Isabel is d o i n g as much f o r A n g e l o as she h a d d o n e f o r C l a u d i o ; she is n o t d o i n g the same. T h e reason becomes e v i d e n t w h e n w e c o m p a r e t h e i r offences. A n g e l o ' s h a d been t h r o u g h o u t inseparable f r o m c r u e l t y . I t has been o f t e n a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t Shakespeare's abhorrence o f c r u e l t y is absolute. Isabel is his crea­ t u r e . A l t h o u g h she m a y have t h o u g h t s w h i c h are n o t his t h o u g h t s , i t is impossible t h a t she s h o u l d c l a i m , i n respect o f this p r o h i b i t i o n : 1

'Tis set downe so i n heaven, b u t n o t i n earth. H e r t w o pleas are therefore l i k e , a n d u n l i k e , one another. I n b o t h , she urges m e r c y ; b u t this t i m e f o r such an offence t h a t t o use the f o r m e r terms w o u l d seem a m o c k e r y o f w h a t t h e y h a d i m p l i e d . I t is the benefit o f the l a w she n o w demands, the benefit o f d o u b t , even o f q u i b b l e , a n d the o n l y echo o f her first plea t o be h e a r d i n her second is the appeal f o r forbearance i n the exercise o f p o w e r . E v e n that is changed b y a reversal o f p o s i t i o n : she is still a sup­ p l i a n t , b u t p o w e r is n o w i n some sort hers; she has a c l a i m w h i c h she can press, o r forbear t o press. M e r c y forgoes advantage. I n a lawless age, i t forgoes the advantage o f s t r e n g t h ; i n a l a w - a b i d i n g age, i t refrains f r o m c l a i m i n g its l e g a l due. I n f o r b e a r i n g t o press her advantage o v e r A n g e l o , Isabel forgoes r o y a l p r o t e c t i o n , legal security a n d the s u p p o r t o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n ; t h a t is the force o f the Duke's words to Mariana: Against all sence y o u doe i m p o r t u n e her.

2

B y c o m p a r i s o n , t h e D u k e ' s o w n share i n the p a r d o n o f A n g e l o appears strangely s i m p l e . I t h a r d l y requires t o be spoken: t h e sense o f i t first visits o u r ear as an o v e r t o n e t o the d i s c o v e r y a n d p a r d o n o f C l a u d i o , a n d the e x p l i c i t reference w h i c h f o l l o w s m e r e l y b r i n g s c o n f i r m a t i o n . B u t t h e n , the D u k e h i m s e l f has t a k e n such pains as that w o m e n t h i n k i l l o f n o t h i n g that raises the credit o f their o w n beauty, and are ready, however virtuous, to pardon any act w h i c h they think incited b y their o w n charms.' J. C. M a x w e l l , 'Measure for Measure. A footnote to Recent Criticism' (Downside Review, 1947). V . i.438. 1

2

THE PLAY

134

CONSIDERED

are n o t usually expected, o f j u d g e o r advocate, t o ensure t h a t the c r i m e shall r e m a i n w i t h i n t h e bounds o f t h e pardonable. I t s h o u l d be r e m e m b e r e d t h a t Escalus has already been p a r d o n e d f o r r o u g h w o r d s spoken t o his s o v e r e i g n , Isabel, f o r h a v i n g exacted service f r o m h i m . B o t h these w e r e matters o f course; y e t b o t h are necessary. I n t h e i r i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t , t h e y effect t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f that f i g u r e standing at the f o o t o f t h e t h r o n e i n t o the throne's r i g h t f u l occupant, arbiter o f life a n d death. ( I t is a c o m m o n p l a c e o f Shakespearian c r i t i c i s m , b u t still t o o l i t t l e r e ­ garded, that the w o r k o f the p l a y has t o be done b y w o r d s ; a great deal o f w o r k , sometimes, b y a k e y - w o r d , o r phrase: unknown sovereignty is a phrase o f a l m o s t m a g i c a l i m p o r t a n c e i n this passage o f t r a n s i t i o n f r o m friar t o d u k e . ) I n the larger c o n t e x t , also, o f t h e w h o l e c o n c l u s i o n , the D u k e ' s response t o i n n o c e n t m i s - d o i n g sets the m o o d f o r his 'apt remission' o f penalties due f o r culpable acts. W i t h the c o m p l e t i o n o f this i n t r i c a t e p a t t e r n o f pardons, the D u k e ' s I n t e r l u d e is p l a y e d o u t . T h e tension has been sustained, n o t o n l y f o r the people o f the p l a y , b u t also f o r that larger audience t o w h o m the disclosure o f w h a t has been comes as n o surprise. B u t , as e x c i t e m e n t subsides, the q u e s t i o n is sure t o stir: A r e w e e q u a l l y satisfied w i t h the D u k e ' s d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f w h a t should be} W h a t are w e t o understand, as t o the values i m p l i c i t i n his verdict? W h a t the s i m p l e r p a r t o f the o r i g i n a l audience w o u l d u n d e r ­ stand m a y , I believe, be stated as s i m p l y as t h i s : A n g e l o has l a i n w i t h his o w n w i f e , a n d signed the w a r r a n t f o r the e x e c u t i o n o f a dead m a n . T h i s w o u l d satisfy a crude a n d u n c r i t i c a l sense o f poetic j u s t i c e , a n d even afford some sort o f aesthetic satisfaction n o t c o n f i n e d t o those s i m p l e r auditors. I t w o u l d satisfy the general d e m a n d f o r a w e l l - k n i t story. T h e t r u e s t o r y - t e l l e r o f e v e r y age has p o w e r t o d r a w the people o f his s t o r y i n t o a c h a r m e d circle w i t h i n w h i c h , w h a t e v e r happens is o f consequence. Story-tellers, a n d t h e i r hearers, o f different ages, differ, n o t so m u c h i n t h e i r sense o f the necessity f o r this s t r o n g m a g i c as i n t h e i r r e c k o n i n g o f w h a t makes the centripetal spell b i n d i n g , and t h e i r w a y o f d i r e c t ­ i n g — a n d l e n d i n g — a t t e n t i o n t o the coherences b y w h i c h people 1

2

3

4

V . i . 366. V . i . 392. V . i . 392. This I take to be the reason for Ragozine's fever; no one has died b y Angelo's order. 1

4

2

3

THE

VERDICT

135

a n d events are k n i t . T h e s t o r y - t e l l e r o f Shakespeare's age, a n d his audience, f o u n d w h a t t h e y r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a l design, w h i c h opposed the parts o f a s t o r y — a b o v e a l l , act a n d consequence— s y m m e t r i c a l l y ; t h e y w e r e pleased w i t h the patent art b y w h i c h the event (the o u t c o m e o f the g i v e n s i t u a t i o n ) was p r o m i s e d , w i t h ­ h e l d , a n d at last vouchsafed. I t pleased as m e t r i c a l art pleases, b y finely c o n t r i v e d correspondences. I t was, o f course, n o t h i n g n e w . G i r a l d i is r e s p o n d i n g t o this d e m a n d w h e n he contrives such a correspondence b e t w e e n the act f o r w h i c h Epitia's b r o t h e r is j u d g e d , a n d the act o f w h i c h his j u d g e is g u i l t y . Shakespeare is b u t c a r r y i n g the same process f u r t h e r w h e n he underlines the corres­ pondence b e t w e e n C l a u d i o ' s p r e d i c a m e n t a n d A n g e l o ' s : the b e t r o t h a l , the i m p e d i m e n t o f the disputed, o r frustrated, m a r r i a g e settlement. N o w , this i n g e n i o u s l y f o r m a l p a t t e r n o f c o r r e s p o n ­ dence b e t w e e n the o u t c o m e o f A n g e l o ' s several actions w o u l d , I believe, once have g r a t i f i e d a taste n o w lost o r o u t g r o w n . W e d o n o t ask t h a t consequence i n s t o r y s h o u l d be f o r a w h i l e w i t h h e l d b y such dexterous a t t r a c t i o n a n d d i s t r a c t i o n o f a t t e n t i o n as makes a j u g g l e r ' s balls seem t o r e m a i n always i n the air, a n d at l e n g t h vouchsafed i n such a m a n n e r t h a t i t m a y a l m o s t be said t o rhyme w i t h cause. T h a t is surely because the n o v e l — a n d , above a l l , the art o f the great, s l o w novels t h a t span the n i n e t e e n t h century—has t a u g h t us t o l o o k f o r another sort o f satisfaction, a n d t o p r i d e o u r ­ selves o n a m o r e sensitive response t o subtler p r o m p t i n g s . T h i s n i c e t y , h o w e v e r , m a y p r o v e dear i f i t costs us the p o w e r o f e n j o y i n g t r a g i - c o m e d y . T h e art o f t r a g i - c o m e d y is s e l d o m prac­ tised i n g o o d earnest t o d a y ; the t i m e w h e n G i r a l d i c o u l d plead its cause i n the h i g h c o u r t o f c r i t i c i s m is n o w far off; a n d a n art o f w h i c h the practice has lapsed falls easily f r o m disesteem t o m i s c o n ­ s t r u c t i o n . I f i t is the assumptions o f t r a g i - c o m e d y that s h o u l d g o v e r n o u r response w h e n the D u k e demonstrates the n u l l i t y o f A n g e l o ' s e v e r y act, t h e n w e are less h a p p i l y placed f o r understand­ i n g the i m p o r t o f the d e m o n s t r a t i o n t h a n w e r e the m e m b e r s o f t h a t first audience, t o w h o m these assumptions w e r e deeply familiar. T r a g i - c o m e d y is n o t o r i o u s f o r its shifts: f o r the t r i c k o f balanc­ i n g its accounts b y d i s c o v e r i n g sixpence at the back o f the d r a w e r , o r b l o t t i n g a f i g u r e near the head o f a d e b i t c o l u m n w h o s e m a n y

136

THE

PLAY

CONSIDERED

particulars w i l l surely be forgotten b y the t i m e the foot is reached. Its operative f a c u l t y is favourable chance; t o this is c o n f i d e d the t u r n f r o m u n p r o p i t i o u s t o p r o p i t i o u s circumstance at the v e r y instant w h e n c a l a m i t y threatens t o b e c o m e i r r e t r i e v a b l e . A n d , so l o n g as circumstance alone is i n question, acquiescence is easy. E v e n w h e n t r a g i - c o m e d y takes s i m i l a r l i b e r t y w i t h character, w h e n o c c u r ­ rences within the persons o f the s t o r y are e q u a l l y o p p o r t u n e , the i m a g i n a t i o n is capable o f c o m p l y i n g . B u t there is a f u r t h e r r e g i o n o f make-believe, w h e r e character a n d circumstance i n c o n j u n c t i o n y i e l d t o the o p e r a t i o n o f this less-than-divine p r o v i d e n c e . T h e t u r n b y w h i c h disaster is averted i n All's Well that Ends Well, f o r e x ­ a m p l e , i n v o l v e s a d e v e l o p m e n t o f character o n t h e p a r t o f B e r ­ t r a m , c u r i o u s l y b o u n d u p w i t h the event. H e discovers the q u a l i t y o f a n act t o w h i c h his w i l l has c o m m i t t e d h i m ; discovers i t , h o w ­ ever, n o t , as i n tragedy, b y p e r f o r m i n g this act, b u t b y l e a r n i n g w h a t i t w o u l d have cost, i f he h a d n o t been t h w a r t e d i n the p e r ­ f o r m a n c e . S e e m i n g l y w e are t o understand that this q u a l i t y , this goodness o r badness o f the t h i n g done, can be learnt o n easier terms t h a n b y d o i n g i t . A n d i t is o n these easier terms t h a t A n g e l o m u s t be supposed t o have learnt t o k n o w himself. A l l e g o r i c a l representation has its o w n means o f separating the act w i l l e d a n d the act p e r f o r m e d : a sort o f f r a g m e n t a t i o n . C l o s e l y w r o u g h t n a r r a t i v e , u n h u r r i e d i n d e v e l o p m e n t , can s h o w the i n n e r m o t i o n t h a t is n o t t o issue i n a c t i o n . B u t Elizabethan d r a m a , w i t h its h a l f - m e m o r y o f allegorical modes n o l o n g e r viable, its n u m e r ­ ous persons a n d r a p i d d e v e l o p m e n t o f the event, m u s t externalize this d i s t i n c t i o n , translating one man's i m p u l s e i n t o act a n d m o v i n g another m a n i n t o p o s i t i o n t o n u l l i f y t h a t v e r y act. ' H e a v e n d o t h w i t h us, as w e , w i t h Torches doe', the D u k e has said. I n his v i c e ­ regal capacity, he has t a k e n u p o n h i m t o l i g h t this p a r t i c u l a r t o r c h ; a n d he w h o l i g h t s a t o r c h m a y be able t o q u e n c h i t before i t c o n ­ sumes itself. M o r e o v e r , an Elizabethan p l a y w h i c h ends well demands o f us a r o b u s t a t t i t u d e t o its people a n d t h e i r vicissitudes; a refusal t o l e t t h e m cheat us o f m o r e s y m p a t h y t h a n is due t o a w o r l d o f shades; an acceptance o f its tacit p r o m i s e that n o disquiet shall reverberate b e y o n d the end o f the p l a y . O u r i m a g i n a t i o n is n o t t o d w e l l o n the 1

THE

VERDICT

137

relationship o f b r o t h e r and. sister w h o s e m u t u a l trust has been d i s ­ t u r b e d ; a n d i t is the v e r y idleness o f c r i t i c i s m t o ask h o w these n e w m a r r i e d couples w i l l settle d o w n together. So far the c o n v e n t i o n s o f t r a g i - c o m e d y w i l l bear us; b u t , g r a n t all t h a t t h e y r e q u i r e , a n d Measure for Measure still opposes t o acceptance one i m m o v a b l e d i f f i c u l t y . H o w e v e r ineffectual w e a l l o w A n g e l o ' s act t o have been, there is n o d e n y i n g its p e r f o r m ­ ance. A c t i o n , a n d n o t i n t e n t i o n m e r e l y , is entailed w h e n he n e g o ­ tiates the purchase o f a h u m a n b e i n g ; a n d t h a t is w h a t his p r o p o s a l t o Isabel means. B r i b i n g a n d b e i n g b r i b e d , l i k e so m a n y h u m a n transactions, offers i t s e l f t o c o m i c o r tragic t r e a t m e n t , a n d there m a y be an u n c h a r t e d deep b e t w e e n the t w o ; b u t the c o m m o n sentiment o f h u m a n i t y distinguishes clearly e n o u g h b e t w e e n the m a n w h o bribes another b y offering s o m e t h i n g w h i c h w i l l sup­ posedly a d d t o his w e l l - b e i n g a n d the m a n w h o buys another i n the c u r r e n c y o f his need; a n d m u c h m o r e clearly b e t w e e n b o t h o f these a n d the m a n w h o obtains another's consent t o a n a b h o r r e d act b y means o f his abhorrence o f a n act equally bad. T h e c o i n d a n g l e d before a v e n a l official is p l a i n c o m e d y ; the bread offered t o a h u n g r y a n d i m p a t i e n t m a n m a y be t r a g i - c o m e d y ; there are n o n e b u t tragic i m p l i c a t i o n s i n the w a t e r h e l d w i t h i n reach o f the m a n w h o s e c h i l d is p e r i s h i n g o f t h i r s t . H u m a n sentiment c o n ­ demns o u t r i g h t the betrayer o f his k i n d w h o , s t r o n g i n the w e a k ­ ness o f his v i c t i m ' s s i t u a t i o n , contrives f o r h i m a n i n t o l e r a b l e d i l e m m a : either issue is a b o m i n a b l e , a n d y e t the w r e t c h m u s t p r o ­ ceed as t h o u g h he chose. I t is this s i m u l a c r u m o f choice t h a t A n g e l o has c o n t r i v e d f o r Isabel. T h e stratagem b y w h i c h Isabel is r e l i e v e d o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the o u t c o m e m a y r e d e e m A n g e l o i n the eyes o f Shakespeare's V i e n n a ; the deviser o f the stratagem m a y be exonerated b y the laws o f t h a t i m a g i n a r y w o r l d he was created t o i n h a b i t . B u t t o be satisfied w i t h t h e D u k e ' s p o s i t i o n is n o t the same t h i n g as b e i n g satisfied w i t h the dramatist's. T h e one is a p r o d u c t o f art, w h i c h is o b l i g e d t o c i r c u m s c r i b e l i f e : m o v i n g w i t h i n its confines, he m a y p r o p o u n d that, u n d e r his care, e v i l has never developed f r o m p o t e n t i a l t o actual; a n d w e m a y assent t o the p r o p o s i t i o n as one p r o p e r f o r h i m t o advance. B u t the o t h e r is o f l i k e nature w i t h ourselves; and, i f he leaves us w i t h the sense t h a t he has failed t o

138

THE PLAY

CONSIDERED

see, o r chosen t o i g n o r e , w h a t is patent t o us, w e shall suffer a deep a n d c o r r o d i n g discontent. M u s t w e i n d e e d t u r n a w a y f r o m Measure for Measure t o w a r d s another phase o f Shakespearian t r a g i - c o m e d y : t h a t i n w h i c h , b y a simpler, m o r e e x p l i c i t e m p l o y m e n t o f m a k e - b e l i e v e , m a g i c is i n v o k e d , n o t o n l y t o disperse e v i l b u t also t o w o r k u p o n o u r i g n o r a n c e o f the v e r y w o r l d we i n h a b i t , a n d suggest t h a t the fabric of this vision is i t s e l f n o m o r e substantial t h a n the pageant o f art? B e t w e e n the D u k e o n the h i t h e r shore, a n d Prospero o n his island, r u n those deep waters u p o n w h i c h N o voice divine the storm allay'd, N o l i g h t propitious shone; W h e n , snatch'd f r o m all effectual aid, W e perish'd, each alone. These are the waters o f Shakespearian t r a g e d y . W a s Shakespeare l o o k i n g t h a t w a y w h e n he w r o t e Measure for Measure}

IV C O N C L U S I O N

I n t e g r i t y w i t h o u t knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge w i t h o u t integrity is dangerous and dreadful.' (Johnson, Rassehs)

W

HAT sort o f p l a y was Shakespeare w r i t i n g ? T h r e e possi­ bilities emerge, l i k e islands d i m l y descried i n t h e f o g o f c o n t r o v e r s y . U n t i l w e can d i s t i n g u i s h t h e reefs w h i c h , o n t h a t i r o n coast, j o i n one w i t h another, t h e y m a y be d i f f e r e n ­ t i a t e d t h u s : he was w r i t i n g o f deliberate i n t e n t a p l a y t h a t m i g h t express, a n d perhaps relieve, a m a l i g n m o o d ; he was w r i t i n g , o f set purpose, a p l a y w h i c h s h o u l d e x p l i c i t l y a f f i r m a b e n i g n belief; he d i d n o t k n o w w h a t he was w r i t i n g — o r , he began t o fashion a p l a y o u t o f materials l y i n g t o his h a n d , a n d discovered t o o late o f w h a t they were composed. I f w e are t o find a n answer t o so strangely v e x e d a question, w e shall have t o p u t i n t o reverse the p r o c e d u r e h i t h e r t o f o l l o w e d : t o t u r n , i n one m o t i o n , f r o m p a r t i c u l a r t o general; f r o m piecemeal s c r u t i n y o f t h e parts t o simultaneous s u r v e y o f all t h a t makes u p t h e w h o l e ; f r o m analysis t o synthesis. T h e r e are difficulties t o be r e c k o n e d w i t h , besides t h e effort needed f o r a change o f d i r e c t i o n . I n a p p r o a c h i n g a dramatist o f t h e first m a g n i t u d e , c r i t i c i s m m u s t take account o f t h e t e m p t a t i o n t o use m e t h o d s t h a t have served elsewhere a n d rest satisfied w i t h its exertions. E v e n t u a l l y t h e y w i l l c o m e short. T h e d r a m a t i s t ( f o r e x a m p l e ) w h o s e c o m m a n d o f his m e d i u m is i n c o m p l e t e w i l l devise incidents t o c o n v e y his i n t e n t i o n : t h e i l l u s t r a t i v e episodes i n early d r a m a b e t r a y i m p e r f e c t r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e c a p a b i l i t y o f this s t i l l u n e x p l o r e d r e g i o n o f art; those o f later ages, failure t o realize w h a t f o r m e r e x p l o r a t i o n signifies, o r t o p r o f i t b y e x a m p l e . Such 1

1 hope the preceding analysis justifies m y assumption that i t was 'he* w h o w r o t e not 'they*. 1

140

CONCLUSION

episodes r e m a i n m e r e illustrations: t h e y t e l l us w h a t the dramatist is t r y i n g t o say; t h e y d o n o t say i t . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the m e a n i n g thus c o n v e y e d is easy t o f o r m u l a t e i n c r i t i c a l terms. A t t e n t i o n is therefore t e m p t e d t o d w e l l o n i t — a n d t o l o o k f o r a s i m i l a r l y e x ­ plicable m e a n i n g i n greater w o r k . W e s h o u l d distrust o u r j u d g e ­ m e n t i f i t leads us t o rate h i g h the i m p o r t a n c e o f these i l l u s t r a t i v e episodes i n the m a t u r e w o r k o f a great artist. W h e n y o u have analysed i n f e r i o r o r u n r i p e art, y o u have before y o u a l l , o r n e a r l y a l l , that i t comprises. N o t m u c h o f W h e t s t o n e ' s i n t e n t i o n , i n Promos and Cassandra, w i l l escape a j u d i c i o u s analysis. W h e n y o u have analysed Measure for Measure, y o u have m e r e l y m a d e a g o o d b e g i n n i n g — s u c h as t o ensure against missing w h a t is there, o r r e a d i n g i n t o i t w h a t is n o t there. Y o u have still t o u n d e r g o the experience o f surrender t o the t o t a l impression. A n o t h e r d i f f i c u l t y comes b y inheritance. I n the theatre, Measure for Measure m a y be said t o have h i b e r n a t e d . A n d , a m o n g readers a n d critics, the p l a y l o n g failed t o o b t a i n its share o f a t t e n t i o n . T h i s injustice has been, perhaps, t o o w e l l redressed. T h e elder critics expected that, i n a p l a y designed t o e n d h a p p i l y , t h e characters w h o m this e n d i n g was t o benefit should r e c o m m e n d themselves— t h e w o m e n b y graciousness, the m e n b y g a l l a n t r y , o f bearing. Isabel t r o u b l e d Johnson's i m a g i n a t i o n . C o l e r i d g e f o u n d her ' u n a m i a b l e ' , a n d C l a u d i o 'detestable'. F o r t h e i r successors, this c o n ­ d e m n a t i o n was n o t e x p l i c i t e n o u g h . T h e reaction was p r o p o r t i o n a b l y v e h e m e n t : a n e w generation came t o the p l a y l o o k i n g f o r darkness a n d f o u n d l i g h t ; f o r n e g a t i o n , a n d f o u n d a f f i r m a t i o n . T h e y p r o c l a i m e d the discovery, i n terms s t r o n g e n o u g h t o cause fresh disquiet a m o n g those w h o have n o t shared t h e i r experience. T h u s , a l t h o u g h w e c a n n o t say (as w e m i g h t o f All's Well that Ends Well) t h a t a c r i t i c a l t r a d i t i o n is w a n t i n g , y e t past c r i t i c i s m o f Measure for Measure has n o t t h a t s t a b i l i t y w e ask o f t r a d i t i o n . T h e p l a y is, besides, one w h i c h taxes t o its l i m i t o u r h i s t o r i c a l i m a g i n a t i o n . T h e D u k e ' s estimate o f the degree a n d k i n d o f a c t i v i t y w h i c h his h i g h office demands o f h i m — t h e o p i n i o n s h e l d b y a l l the considerable characters as t o g o o d a n d b a d c o n d u c t — 1

2

See 'The Stage-History o f Measure for Measure', b y H a r o l d C h i l d i n the N e w Cambridge edition o f the play, pp. 160-5. Lectures on Shakespeare, ed. Ashe (1884), p . 532. 1

2

CONCLUSION

I4i

these m u s t be seen i n t h e l i g h t o f c o n t e m p o r a r y t h e o r y a n d p r a c ­ tice. T h e people o f Davenant's a n d G i l d o n ' s versions o b e y c o n ­ v e n t i o n s as t o b e h a v i o u r w h i c h , l i k e stage m o n e y , are c u r r e n t o n l y i n the theatre. T h e people o f Measure for Measure o b e y , o r evade, o r defy a code w h i c h m i g h t be i n v o k e d i n the w o r l d t o w h i c h its first audience r e t u r n e d w h e n the p e r f o r m a n c e was over. A n d y e t , even f r o m o u r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f this o u t e r w o r l d o f Jacobean E n g l a n d , w e m u s t again t u r n b a c k t o Shakespeare's stage. A n experienced d r a m a t i s t w i l l k n o w w h e n he m a y r e l y o n v i s u a l i m ­ pression t o c o n v e y some p a r t o f his m e a n i n g , a n d w h e r e he is t o say t o his actors, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r emphasis: I t lies m u c h i n y o u r h o l d i n g u p . ' T h e spectacle w h i c h t h e y compose cannot b u t c o n ­ d i t i o n o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the p l a y . T h e t r i a l scene, f o r e x a m p l e , clearly holds m o r e m e a n i n g t h a n the d i a l o g u e alone can c a r r y . T o c o m m e n t o n i t as a p o p u l a r device i n the E l i z a b e t h a n theatre is n o t e n o u g h ; w e need t o k n o w w h a t , o n this occasion, i t signified. A n d for such k n o w l e d g e w e s h o u l d r e q u i r e n o t o n l y a r e c o r d o f t h a t p e r f o r m a n c e i n w h i c h Shakespeare h i m s e l f directed the holding up, b u t also h e l p i n c o n s t r u i n g i t . T h e labours o f scholarship have s h o w n t h a t E l i z a b e t h a n a c t i n g h a d its o w n i d i o m . Character, a n d its p o w e r t o t u r n the scale i n h u m a n affairs— these w e r e l o n g a c k n o w l e d g e d t o be Shakespeare's a b i d i n g c o n ­ cern. Nevertheless, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n terms o f character is n o t v e r y f a v o u r a b l y regarded i n the w o r l d o f Shakespearian c r i t i c i s m at present. W e have been f r i g h t e n e d a w a y f r o m i t . B r a d l e y ' s p e r ­ suasive c h a r m has m a d e i t seem h a r d l y less dangerous t h a n m a g i c . I t is dangerous. T o enter i m a g i n a t i v e l y i n t o others' experience m a y be one o f the m o r e a d m i r a b l e activities p e r m i t t e d t o h u m a n beings; t o d r a w the creatures o f another's i m a g i n a t i o n i n t o the o r b i t o f our o w n experience—this is n o t a d m i r a b l e at all. A n d o n l y a v e r y slender l i n e divides the t w o exertions. T h i s is a p i t y ; b u t i n fact the m a r g i n b e t w e e n g o o d a n d bad, e x h i l a r a t i n g a n d enervat­ i n g , i n t h e r e a l m o f the i m a g i n a t i o n , m u s t always be fine. W h a t ­ ever satisfaction m a y reasonably be s o u g h t there, the relaxed m i n d w i l l never find i t . Shakespeare's t r e a t m e n t o f character m a y w e l l need t o be e x a m i n e d afresh, w i t h due a l l o w a n c e f o r the bias w h i c h n o v e l - r e a d i n g has g i v e n t o o u r i m a g i n a t i o n s . W e m u s t sharpen o u r realization o f w h a t i t m e a n t t o fashion character w i t h i n t h e

142

CONCLUSION

f r a m e w o r k o f t r a d i t i o n a l stories. M r . M i d d l e t o n M u r r y ' s a d m o n i ­ t i o n is useful: T h e a x i o m , w h i c h has l o n g been current i n Shakespeare criticism, that the situation derives f r o m the character is, i n the main, a mistaken one. T h e reverse is nearer to the t r u t h ; for the situations are generally prior to the characters. B u t that does n o t mean, as some modern critics assert, that the reverse is the t r u t h , and that the characters derive f r o m the situations. T h e y do not. T h e y are largely epiphenomenal to the situations. . . . There is an element i n a Shakespeare character w h i c h derives f r o m the situation; b u t that element is relatively small compared to the element w h i c h floats as i t were free o f the situation. O n this element Shakespeare lavished himself, because here he was, w i t h i n limits, a free agent. 1

F o r a l l its disadvantages, h o w e v e r ; f o r a l l the perils o f m i s u n d e r ­ standing w i t h w h i c h i t is beset; the s t u d y o f the characters i n t h e i r relations w i t h one another—here, c o n d i t i o n e d b y the g i v e n story, there, d e v e l o p i n g free o f i t — r e m a i n s the r i g h t a p p r o a c h ; a n d its alternative, a p u r s u i t o f p h a n t o m s : o f i n n e r a n d i n n e r m o s t m e a n ­ ings d e r i v e d f r o m w o r d o r phrase t h a t has been isolated f r o m its c o n t e x t ; o f an i n t e n t i o n n o t d e m o n s t r a b l y the dramatist's. F r o m the outset o f Measure for Measure, w e observe the D u k e t o be charged w i t h a considerable share o f the play's b u r d e n o f m e a n ­ i n g . I n f o r m e r versions, the r u l e r h a d t a k e n l i t t l e p a r t u n t i l the e n d . G i r a l d i , i t is t r u e , i n t r o d u c e d h i m at the b e g i n n i n g , b u t thereafter w i t h h e l d h i m d u r i n g the p r i n c i p a l transaction. Shakespeare's D u k e p r o c l a i m s himself, i n the first scene, a focus o f suspense; i n the t h i r d , he hints at his design o f i n t e r v e n t i o n ; b y the o p e n i n g o f the t h i r d act, he has b e g u n t o i n t e r v e n e , a n d f r o m this p o i n t t o the e n d he is almost c o n t i n u o u s l y present. A f t e r this, i t is curious, a n d perhaps significant, t o find Shakespeare's successors a p p a r e n t l y i n t e n t o n r e d u c i n g this f i g u r e t o as inconsiderable a size as t h e i r acceptance o f his p l o t w i l l a l l o w . Davenant's D u k e is o l d a n d w e a r y ; i t is his A n g e l o w h o intends m e r c y , a n d marries Isabella. G i l d o n , o m i t t i n g the first scene, forfeits the representation o f the D u k e d i v e s t i n g h i m s e l f o f p o w e r , a n d takes n o pains t o e n d o w h i m w i t h a u t h o r i t y : w h e n the P r o v o s t is t o be c o n v i n c e d o f his 1

Shakespeare (1936), p. 209.

CONCLUSION

143

g o o d f a i t h , n o t h i n g less t h a n the c o n t r i v a n c e o f a special o p p o r ­ t u n i t y f o r eavesdropping w i l l serve. T h u s c u r t a i l e d , the p a r t b e ­ comes u n i n t e l l i g i b l e . I n neither v e r s i o n does he suffer danger; n o r , i n G i l d o n ' s , c a l u m n y . D a v e n a n t , i n d e e d , a l l o w s L u c i o t o slander h i m , b u t shows h i m t r e a t i n g the offence w i t h u n c o n c e r n , a n d f o r ­ g i v i n g the offender u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y . T h e absence, f r o m b o t h plays, o f ' a n y t h i n g that's l o w ' makes o f his visits t o the p r i s o n a v e r y genteel affair. W e m u s t surely assume that, w h a t e v e r Shake­ speare's i n t e n t i o n r e g a r d i n g this character, i t was b e y o n d the grasp o f his ' i m p r o v e r s ' . A n d yet, f o r a l l those i n t i m a t i o n s o f the D u k e ' s i m p o r t a n c e w h o s e presence i n Shakespeare's p l a y is m a d e m o r e conspicuous b y t h e i r absence elsewhere, he surely does n o t declare h i m s e l f i n the w a y w e have c o m e t o associate w i t h Shakespeare's h a n d l i n g o f his i m p o r t a n t characters. H i s utterance is nearer t o t h a t o f chorus t h a n o f dramatis persona. H i s 'ancient s k i l l ' bears n o discernible relationship t o personal experience; w e d o n o t care h o w he came by it. T h e strangeness o f the s i t u a t i o n is increased i f w e b r i n g i n t o c o m p a r i s o n All's Well that Ends Well. F o r the K i n g o f France, sustaining a smaller p a r t t h a n the D u k e ' s , i n a slighter p l a y — o n e , m o r e o v e r , w h i c h has n o t altogether lost the remoteness o f the o r i g i n a l fairy-tale—is nevertheless c o n c e i v e d i n an express r e l a ­ t i o n s h i p t o place, t i m e a n d people. H i s sickness precipitates i n c i ­ dents w h i c h f o r m the play's o p e n i n g — a n d so forestalls the m o s t t r o u b l e s o m e question t h a t the t r a n s l a t i o n o f n a r r a t i v e i n t o d r a m a can pose: ' W h y b e g i n hereV T h e D u k e , o n the o t h e r h a n d , seems t o have l e t things take t h e i r course f o r a n u m b e r o f years, a n d w e never learn w h y he chooses this instant f o r c a l l i n g a h a l t . Indeed, the mysterious u r g e n c y o f the o p e n i n g scene m a y w e l l be designed t o establish the fact a n d d i v e r t c u r i o s i t y f r o m the cause. T h e K i n g ' s sickness, m o r e o v e r , j o i n s the c h i e f persons o f the p l a y i n a c o m m o n c o n c e r n m e n t , o f w h i c h the degree is v e r y n a t u r a l l y v a r i e d , f r o m 1

H e comments o n Lucio's scandalous confidences i n the couplet: Virtue's defensive armour must be strong T o scape the merry, and malicious tongue, (p. 172.) His pardon is conveyed i n the lines: Y o u r slanders, Lucio, cannot do me harm. Be sorrowful and be forgiven, (p. 210.) 1

CONCLUSION

144

one t o another. A b r i e f allusion t o i t , l i k e a slip o f w i l l o w , r o o t s i t s e l f a n d stands f i r m : Second Lord. Y o u are l o v ' d , sir; T h e y that least lend i t y o u shall lack y o u first. King. I f i l l a place, I k n o w ' t . 1

T h e r e is a sense i n w h i c h w e m a y f a i r l y say t h a t the D u k e does n o t fill a place. T h e c o n t e x t o f personal relationships, i n All's Well that Ends Well, is o b t a i n e d b y t h a t s i m p l e b u t serviceable device, t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n one g e n e r a t i o n a n d another: the K i n g , l o o k i n g at B e r t r a m , searches his o w n past f o r the i m a g e o f the elder R o u s i l l o n ; he takes an o l d man's p r i v i l e g e i n his w e l c o m e o f H e l e n a ; he has a n o l d f r i e n d w h o , i n v i r t u e o f l o n g standing, m a y take l i b e r ­ ties w i t h h i m . B u t the D u k e is presented i n a sort o f v o i d : he is o f n o ascertainable g e n e r a t i o n ; i t is Escalus w h o remembers C l a u d i o ' s father. T h e K i n g , h o w e v e r , bears n o p a r t i n t h e i n t r i g u e b y w h i c h a l l is m a d e t o ' e n d w e l l ' . A n d w h e n he reappears, at the c o n c l u ­ sion o f this business, he is n o better i n f o r m e d t h a n a n y o n e else w i t h i n the p l a y , a n d is therefore tossed ( m u c h l i k e Escalus) f r o m one false a s s u m p t i o n t o another, s i g n i f y i n g his i g n o r a n c e b y erratic i n t e r v e n t i o n . I t is t o The Tempest t h a t w e m u s t l o o k f o r a character c o n t i n u ­ o u s l y c o m p a r a b l e w i t h the D u k e , a n d i t is w i t h Prospero t h a t the D u k e m u s t be e v e n t u a l l y c o m p a r e d . T h e y are a l i k e i n t h a t each is t h r o u g h o u t i n f o r m e d o f a l l t h a t happens; t h a t he shares so m u c h o f this i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h us as t o b r i n g us nearer t h e heart o f the affair t h a n are those concerned i n i t ; a n d that, b y means o f this k n o w l e d g e , he maintains c o n t r o l o f the issue. W h e r e such a p a t ­ t e r n recurs i n plays o f u n l i k e t e m p e r , w e are p r o m p t e d t o seek a reason f o r the resemblance. ' I t is impossible', J o h n s o n says, T o r a n y m a n t o r i d his m i n d o f his profession.' W e m i g h t guess, even i f the c o n t e x t d i d n o t p r o c l a i m i t , t h a t he is here t a l k i n g o f authors. W h e t h e r o r n o the w r i t e r ' s p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h his profession is e x c e p t i o n a l l y s t r o n g , he w o u l d seem t o have m o r e t h a n c o m m o n o p p o r t u n i t y o f expres2

3

1 , i i . 69. I n Boccaccio's tale he does not return to arbitrate, and the forsaken wife must obtain redress unaided, unless b y public opinion. N o t e o n The Winter's Tale, I V . i v . ( I V . i i i . 21.) 1

2

3

CONCLUSION

145

sing i t . I t is n o n e w suggestion that the s h a d o w o f Shakespeare's experience as dramatist m a y be perceived f a l l i n g across Prospero. T a k e n as a h a l f m e t a p h o r i c a l expression o f the impress o f The Tempest o n o u r i m a g i n a t i o n , this is w e l l e n o u g h . T a k e n further, i t requires i n v e s t i g a t i o n . T h e a c t i o n o f the p l a y , M a c k a i l avers, 'is t h r o u g h o u t , d o w n t o its smallest details, p l a n n e d a n d o r d e r e d b y Prospero. H e is the m a g i c i a n — o n e m i g h t a l m o s t g o f u r t h e r a n d say the p l a y w r i g h t — a n d the o t h e r figures are his puppets.' A n d again: Prospero is, as I have suggested, the p l a y w r i g h t ; controlling, e v o l v ­ ing, suspending, v a r y i n g , interrupting, or resuming the action; the other characters, t h o u g h alive w i t h the full Shakespearian vitality, being, so far as concerns their action, figures that m o v e at Prospero's manipula­ tion. T h e dramatist has projected himself b o d i l y i n t o the drama. For once, and for once only, he lets us see h i m actually at w o r k . 1

Does t h i s — w e m u s t a s k — i m p l y s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n the r e c o g ­ n i t i o n o f a s y m p a t h y b e t w e e n the dramatist a n d this p a r t i c u l a r character—even such a s y m p a t h y (able t o a w a k e h i t h e r t o u n ­ realized p o w e r s o f delineation) as has been discerned i n his treat­ m e n t o f R i c h a r d I I I as actor, o f B e r o w n e a n d M e r c u t i o as lords o f language? I f so, the p r o p o s i t i o n w i l l bear re-statement. I m a g i n a ­ t i v e h a l f - b e l i e f a n d stage c o n v e n t i o n , w e m a y say, together gave rise, i n the Elizabethan theatre, t o an e x p e c t a t i o n that the m a g i c i a n w h o appears as a character i n a p l a y shall present some such vanity of his art as Faustus a n d B a c o n h a d s h o w n , a n d as Prospero offers t o F e r d i n a n d a n d M i r a n d a . B y a n extension o f this assumption ( w h i c h , b e l o n g i n g t o the i m a g i n a t i o n , is i n f i n i t e l y supple), he is supposed t o exercise a peculiar c o m m a n d o v e r his f e l l o w beings w i t h i n the p l a y ; and, even as there is a n a l o g y b e t w e e n the m a g i ­ cian c o n t r o l l i n g spirits a n d the m a g i c i a n c o n d i t i o n i n g the v e r y t h o u g h t s o f h u m a n beings w h o c o m e w i t h i n reach o f his m a g i c , so there is a n a l o g y b e t w e e n Prospero s u m m o n i n g f r o m their confines spirits charged t o enact his fancies* a n d the dramatist c a l l i n g w i t h i n the c h a r m e d circle o f his art the people o f some t r a d i t i o n a l s t o r y . W i t h o u t pressing t o o h a r d the s l i p p e r y q u e s t i o n — h o w far Shake2

3

1

2 3

J. W . Mackail, The Approach to Shakespeare ( O x f o r d , 1930), pp. 104 and 106. E. K . Chambers, Shakespeare: A Survey, p . 19. G. D . W i l l c o c k , Shakespeare as Critic of Language, pp. 18,19. I V . i . 120. 4

L

146

CONCLUSION

speare consciously associated h i m s e l f w i t h P r o s p e r o — w e m a y f a i r l y l o o k f o r i n t i m a t i o n s t h a t he a l l o w e d his i m a g i n a t i o n t o d w e l l o n this a n a l o g y b e t w e e n m a g i c i a n a n d dramatist. W a n t i n g the c o n v e n t i o n o f stage m a g i c , Measure for Measure affords n o such o p p o r t u n i t y f o r references charged w i t h d o u b l e m e a n i n g . Nevertheless, i t surely appears t h a t the D u k e ' s a c t i v i t y i n presenting w h a t I have called his I n t e r l u d e o f Justice bears some a n a l o g y w i t h the a c t i v i t y o f a w r i t e r o f t r a g i - c o m e d y , w h e n he p r o p o u n d s a s i t u a t i o n f r o m w h i c h n o h a p p y issue seems possible, a n d t h e n deploys a p o w e r s t r o n g e n o u g h t o avert the expected i l l . So, indeed, does the p a r t f o r w h i c h he has cast himself, i n this I n t e r l u d e , w i t h his course t h r o u g h o u t the p l a y — a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i n g w i t h passive, i n each, a c c o r d i n g t o a preconceived p l a n . I t h i n k i t p r o b a b l e , therefore, t h a t — w h e t h e r b y a t r a i n o f t h o u g h t o r some swifter, i n t u i t i v e process—Shakespeare a c k n o w l e d g e d a corres­ pondence b e t w e e n the D u k e ' s u n d e r t a k i n g a n d his o w n , even as he was t o a c k n o w l e d g e , m o r e e x p l i c i t l y , his k i n s h i p w i t h Prospero. H o w , t h e n , does i t c o m e a b o u t t h a t almost e v e r y reader is c o l d l y d r a w n t o the D u k e , a n d some, even t o Prospero? I t m a y , o f course, be u r g e d t h a t the i n t r o s p e c t i v e a n d a n a l y t i c a l a t t i t u d e o f the w r i t e r t o w a r d s his o w n a r t is o f recent g r o w t h ; that, o f man's t w o m a i n creative activities, l o v e a n d art, l i t e r a r y c o n v e n t i o n — w h i l e i t l o n g p e r m i t t e d t o the p o e t the a s c r i p t i o n t o h i m s e l f o f the lover's p a r t — a l l o w e d h i m n o m o r e t h a n a reference t o h i m s e l f as artist, i n general o r i n d i r e c t t e r m s ; that, w h e n at l e n g t h the n o v e l i s t breaks this c o n v e n t i o n a n d makes a w r i t e r his h e r o , he remains, f o r a g e n e r a t i o n o r so, c o n t e n t t o s h o w h o w his w r i t i n g s f u r t h e r e d o r retarded the o t h e r concerns o f his l i f e ; a n d t h a t o n l y w i t h i n the last c e n t u r y has he t r i e d t o t e l l us w h a t the m a k i n g o f a n o v e l means f o r h i m . T h i s is t r u e , b u t i t is n o t the w h o l e t r u t h . I t is n o t because he is u n r e v e a l i n g t h a t the D u k e disappoints e x p e c t a t i o n , a n d Prospero h a r d l y satisfies a l l t h a t he has raised. I believe t h a t there is one characteristic w h i c h m a y be r e c k o n e d a constant a m o n g those persons w h o f i l l a n y considerable place i n a Shakespearian p l a y : this is t h a t characteristic i n v i r t u e o f w h i c h t h e y are d e e p l y engaged, a n d i t m a y be measured b y t h e i r capacity t o g r i e v e o r t o rejoice, t o h o p e o r t o f e a r — i n such a sort a n d degree as shall take o u r i m a g i n ­ a t i o n c a p t i v e . N o w , Prospero's degree o f engagement is m u c h

CONCLUSION

147

h i g h e r t h a n the D u k e ' s . B o t h are t o be i m a g i n e d as engaged b y fear: one, i n p e r i l f r o m the spirits he has called u p ; the other, f r o m the m a n he has established i n his o w n j u d g e m e n t - s e a t — i t is a c o l d i m a g i n a t i o n t h a t refuses its a i d t o m a k e - b e l i e v e o n the score t h a t the D u k e m a y resume his p o w e r w h e n he pleases. Personal fear, h o w e v e r , is the least p a r t o f Prospero's capacity t o suffer: as a l o v i n g father, he m u s t be supposed t o experience the p a n g o f k n o w i n g his c h i l d assailable b y m o r t a l i l l s ; b u t , w h e n w e have a l l o w e d so m u c h , w e have still n o t accounted f o r t h a t sentient core o f w h i c h w e are aware, i n this character. M i r a n d a ' s w o r d s — 1

2

O , I have suffer'd W i t h those that I saw s u f f e r . . . . . . the c r y d i d k n o c k Against m y v e r y heart— 3

these signify m o r e t h a n the response o f her o w n 'piteous heart' t o others' suffering. L i k e w i s e , t h a t feeling O f their afflictions

4

w h i c h Prospero discovers i n A r i e l tells us, surely, s o m e t h i n g a b o u t Prospero h i m s e l f . So r e m o t e f r o m c o m m o n experience is his rela­ t i o n t o these t w o : so m u c h m o r e p o w e r f u l l y does his p a t e r n i t y suggest the c r e a t i o n o f art t h a n the p r o c r e a t i o n o f nature, a n d his mastery o f his f a v o u r i t e spirit accord w i t h the poet's c o m m a n d o f i m a g i n a t i v e forces rather t h a n the magician's o f alien beings, that, i n the s u m t o t a l o f i m p r e s s i o n , the compassion s h o w n b y his creatures abides i n o u r t h o u g h t as Prospero's o w n a t t r i b u t e . N o such i m p r e s s i o n o f p i t y associates i t s e l f w i t h the D u k e ; a n d i t is the m o r e t o be missed as the occasion f o r i t is greater—his fellows w i t h i n the p l a y b e i n g subjected t o severer suffering t h a n The Tempest c o u l d p r o p e r l y c o n t a i n . W h a t , t h e n , are w e t o c o n ­ clude a b o u t this character? W e can, I believe, discern h o w he came i n t o b e i n g , as the g o o d r u l e r o f t r a d i t i o n , his goodness substan­ tiated b y accepted t h e o r y a n d p o p u l a r sentiment. W a s he t h e r e This is likely to be missed b y modern audience or readers, unfamiliar w i t h all that Faustus stood for. This surely explains the severity o f his warnings t o Ferdinand, grievous t o modern taste. I. i i . 5. V . i. 2 1 . 1

2

3

4

148

CONCLUSION

after shaped b y his creator's subconscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h cer­ t a i n p r o b l e m s o f his art? H i s f u n c t i o n i n the k n i t t i n g a n d r e s o l v i n g o f the i n t r i g u e is c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e ; indeed, i t is arguable t h a t this, his m o s t o b v i o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the p l a y , has been t o o easily r e m a r k e d , a n d its i m p o r t a n c e o v e r - r a t e d . M r . M i l t o n Crane's v e r d i c t — ' H e . . . manipulates his puppets w i t h the success o f a m a l a d r o i t p l a y w r i g h t ' — s u m s u p an estimate w h i c h leaves o u t o f c o u n t his c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the play's t h o u g h t . E v e n a less reflective character t h a n the D u k e m a y be the p r o d u c t o f reflection, a n d charged w i t h the c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f ideas. I t is t h r o u g h his a c t i v i t y as ' p l a y w r i g h t ' t h a t he c o m m u n i c a t e s t h e m — m o s t easily t o those already f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e i r c o n t e x t . W h a t he fails t o c o m m u n i c a t e is feeling: the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t he is deeply engaged. Isabel is the c h i e f o f those characters w h o are themselves e n ­ gaged, a n d engage us, b y the o p p o r t u n i t y a n d capacity t h e y are g i v e n f o r suffering; o f w h o s e sentient core w e are k e e n l y aware. A n d y e t o u r consciousness o f i t is n o t constant. F r o m the m o m e n t w h e n she presents herself before A n g e l o t o t h a t o f the D u k e ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n b e t w e e n her a n d C l a u d i o , she holds o u r i m a g i n a t i o n subject b y her alternations o f h o p e a n d fear. T h e n she seems t o abdicate. H e r r e a c t i o n t o the one subsequent event w h i c h s h o u l d reinstate her, the news o f C l a u d i o ' s death, is, as the t e x t stands, h a r d l y m o r e t h a n squirrel's chatter, 'anger i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y fierce'. F r o m the m o m e n t o f her submission t o t h e D u k e , u n t i l t h a t i n w h i c h she pleads f o r A n g e l o against his express i n j u n c t i o n , she is insignificant. W e m a y usefully recall, here, t h e c o m p a r i s o n afforded b y The Heart of Mid-Lothian: whereas Jeanie takes matters i n t o her o w n hands a n d , at severe cost t o herself, w i n s her sister's p a r d o n , Isabel appears t o r e l i n q u i s h i n i t i a t i v e and, u n d e r another's d i r e c t i o n , t o f o l l o w a course at once easier a n d less a d m i r a b l e . O u t o f her seeming subservience the o p i n i o n has arisen t h a t Shake­ speare w e a r i e d o f her; h a d never (perhaps) i n t e n d e d t h a t she s h o u l d fill so b i g a place, o r else, h a d designed her t o p e r f o r m a p a r t i c u l a r task a n d h a d n o w n o f u r t h e r use f o r her. A n d y e t , i n the e s t i m a t i o n o f m a n y , a f u l l t i d e o f significance flows b a c k i n t o her e v e n i n t h a t instant o f r e c o v e r e d independence. H e r e is a n e x t r e m e , i f n o t a 1

2

1 2

M . Crane, Shakespeare*s Prose (Chicago U . P . , 1951), p . 114. Failure o n l y i f measured b y the standard Shakespeare himself has set.

CONCLUSION

149

singular, instance o f a character fluctuating b e t w e e n t w o and three dimensions. I believe t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n m u s t be sought t h r o u g h s c r u t i n y o f a greater a n o m a l y , w i t h i n the character. Isabel's c h i e f a c t i v i t y i n the p l a y springs f r o m the passions generated b y a personal r e l a t i o n ­ ship—and y e t this source of all she does is v e r y strangely treated. T h e c o n v e n t i o n s o f poetic d r a m a bear h a r d o n m i n o r personal r e l a t i o n ­ ships; b u t this is o f m a j o r i m p o r t a n c e . I t is, besides, almost the o n l y such relationship e x p l i c i t i n the p l a y . Escalus' r e c o l l e c t i o n o f C l a u d i o ' s father h a r d l y alters this strangely un-familied w o r l d ; and, t h o u g h he is seen e n t e r i n g the p r i s o n , w e d o n o t see h i m w i t h the prisoner. A s f o r C l a u d i o a n d J u l i e t , the extant t e x t leaves m e i n d o u b t w h e t h e r t h e y are ever seen together. M o r e surprising still, C l a u d i o seems never t o speak o f Juliet, after t h a t single reference i n t a l k w i t h L u c i o . Shakespeare's improvers, m i n d f u l o f those p r o ­ prieties w h i c h are rather social t h a n l i t e r a r y , a t t e m p t a r e m e d y : D a v e n a n t m a k i n g C l a u d i o c o m m i t J u l i e t t o Isabella's care, a n d i n t r o d u c i n g a letter t o h i m f r o m J u l i e t ; G i l d o n a d d i n g a scene b e t w e e n these t w o . T h e i r officiousness is at least understandable: C l a u d i o ' s silence m u s t appear an oversight, unless w e suppose that Shakespeare was deliberately flattening this p a r t o f his c o m p o s i ­ t i o n i n o r d e r t o t h r o w i n t o r e l i e f another r e l a t i o n s h i p — a n d w h a t s h o u l d this be b u t the relationship b e t w e e n b r o t h e r a n d sister? I t is as C l a u d i o ' s sister t h a t Isabel comes i n t o t h e p l a y : as the w o m a n w h o is d r a w n b y a personal attachment i n t o a d i r e p r e d i c a m e n t . A n d y e t i n her p l e a d i n g o n his b e h a l f this personal relationship is f a i n t l y expressed. M a n y times, i n her m o s t m o v i n g passages, i t w o u l d be possible t o substitute ' n e i g h b o u r ' f o r ' b r o t h e r ' , a n d h a r d l y w a k e a r i p p l e . N o t that her p l e a d i n g is passionless—to sup­ pose so is t o f a l l i n t o L u c i o ' s e r r o r . T h e v e r y incandescence o f her f i e r y compassion transcends the personal occasion, c a r r y i n g her t o a h e i g h t at w h i c h , i f she w o u l d p l e a d f o r one m a n , she m u s t plead f o r a l l . B y contrast, t h e sense o f personal relationship is sharply, even i n t o l e r a b l y , e x p l i c i t i n the scene o f her conflict w i t h C l a u d i o 1

Juliet c o m m i t t e d to Isabella's care: Davenant, The Law against Lovers, p. 161; Gildon, Measure for Measure, or Beauty the Best Advocate, p. 24. Juliet's letter, Davenant, op. cit., p . 185; Gildon's scene between Claudio and Juliet, op. cit., pp. 34-6. 1

150

CONCLUSION

— t h e o n l y scene i n w h i c h t h e y speak together. I t puts an edge o n her anger a n d fear; a n d i t is i n terms o f t h e i r c o m m o n heritage, a n d w h a t i t entails o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n shame, t h a t she denounces h i m . T h u s this personal c o n n e c t i o n , w h i c h is the p i v o t o f the play's a c t i o n , is presented i n its f u l l significance o n l y at the instant o f its apparent d i s l o c a t i o n . Suppose w e s h o u l d find a single e x p l a n a t i o n v a l i d f o r these, a n d all those o t h e r apparent anomalies i n this character w h i c h have e m e r g e d f r o m the f o r e g o i n g e x a m i n a t i o n o f the p l a y : i t w o u l d surely be a master-key. L e t m e b r i e f l y recapitulate the perplexities t h a t have t o be t a k e n i n t o account. W h e n Isabel first hears o f C l a u d i o ' s p r e d i c a m e n t , her t h o u g h t f o l l o w s t h a t course t a k e n b y Epitia's a n d Cassandra's: ' O h , let h i m m a r r y h e r . ' B u t , w h e n she intercedes w i t h A n g e l o , she does n o t u r g e , as t h e y h a d done, a n d as a l l V i e n n a is ready t o d o , t h a t the l a w is at fault i f i t demands the life o f an offender w h o is able and w i l l i n g t o repair the w r o n g he has done. Nevertheless, w h e n the D u k e proposes t o her a course o f a c t i o n w h o s e j u s t i f i c a t i o n is, t h a t i t w i l l c o m m i t A n g e l o t o an act f o r w h i c h he m a y be c o m p e l l e d t o m a k e s i m i l a r r e p a r a t i o n , she acquiesces; a n d this, a l t h o u g h she has reiterated t o h i m her a b h o r ­ rence o f C l a u d i o ' s act. A n d , i f w e e x p l a i n this c o m p l i a n c e i n t e r m s o f her a n x i e t y o n her brother's behalf, w e are r e m i n d e d o f strange fluctuations i n her relationship w i t h t h a t v e r y b r o t h e r — a n d even, i n the density o f her o w n substance. T o understand w h a t has happened, w e m u s t take i n t o considera­ t i o n s o m e t h i n g t h a t emerges f r o m a c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n G i r a l d i ' s various developments o f this theme, o f a w o m a n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h an a b o m i n a b l e choice. W h e r e this w o m a n is sister t o the c o n ­ d e m n e d m a n a n d herself u n m a r r i e d , i t is assumed t h a t a n y w r o n g d o n e a n d suffered, i n her surrender t o his adversary, can be r e ­ p a i r e d b y m a r r i a g e . B u t the s i t u a t i o n t h a t this a s s u m p t i o n yields is f u n d a m e n t a l l y u n d r a m a t i c : there is n o real conflict b e t w e e n characters, n o r w i t h i n a n y character; m e r e l y such a s h o w o f o p p o ­ s i t i o n as suffices f o r a slight s t o r y . T h e sister has o n l y t o say o n h e r brother's behalf: 'Since he can, a n d w i l l , m a k e g o o d the w r o n g 1

2

3

See above, p . 65, and pp. 119-21. 1 , iv. 49. Whetstone, despite national and religious differences, is i n accord w i t h Giraldi here. 1

3

2

151

CONCLUSION

done, y o u r sentence is t o o severe.' A n d t o say this costs h e r n o t h i n g . L i k e w i s e , w h e n her o p p o n e n t — b e a r i n g d o w n this ac­ k n o w l e d g e d r i g h t b y m i g h t — t e m p t s her t o o b t a i n w h a t she asks b y consenting t o an offence the c o u n t e r p a r t o f her b r o t h e r ' s , the t w o o f t h e m agree t h a t she has b u t t o stipulate f o r the same r e p a r a t i o n , m a r r i a g e . T h u s , the w h o l e cause o f her distress is the advantage w h i c h strength takes o f weakness: the d o u b l e breach o f f a i t h b y a m a n w h o s e w i l l i s — f o r the t i m e b e i n g — l a w . I t is a piteous tale. I t does n o t y i e l d the s t u f f o f a p l a y . I n those o t h e r yersions o f this t h e m e , h o w e v e r , w h i c h m a k e the w o m a n w i f e t o the c o n d e m n e d m a n , d r a m a t i c tension is d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h her abhorrence o f the act r e q u i r e d o f her as i n j u r i o u s t o t h a t v e r y relationship b y force o f w h i c h she is b r o u g h t t o consent: she m u s t b u y his life at the p r i c e o f an i n f a m y i n w h i c h he is t o be sharer. T h i s is a d i l e m m a such as w e associate w i t h t r a g e d y , because i t presents a choice o f courses f r o m w h i c h there can be n o g o o d issue. (Hence, such versions as those o f R o i l l e t u s , L u p t o n a n d Belleforest.) N o w , i n G i r a l d i ' s variations o n this t h e m e , s t i l l i n his f a v o u r i t e m o o d o f t r a g i ­ c o m e d y , his tales o f D o r o t h e a a n d Gratiosa, r o m a n c e a n d c o m e d y are respectively i n v o k e d a n d g i v e n p o w e r t o c h a l ­ lenge the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a choice m u s t be m a d e b e t w e e n t w o b a d w a y s . A n d , i n b o t h , this favourable i n t e r v e n t i o n forestalls a n y possible distress, a n d so prevents p a i n f u l engagement o f o u r s y m ­ pathies: f o r , n o sooner is the w i c k e d p r o p o s a l m a d e t h a n s o m e ­ t h i n g p o i n t s t o the existence o f a t h i r d d o o r . Shakespeare accepted the v e r s i o n i n w h i c h the w o m a n is the c o n d e m n e d man's sister, a n d u n m a r r i e d . A s an experienced d r a m a ­ tist, h o w e v e r , he c o u l d n o t b u t recognize the d r a m a t i c insufficiency o f this s i t u a t i o n . I t offered h i m an u n h i t c h e d r o p e , one o f w h i c h the slack w o u l d never be t a k e n u p ; a n d the o n l y means o f m a k i n g i t t a u t was t o g i v e t o Isabel a m o t i v e f o r reluctance e q u i v a l e n t t o t h a t w h i c h forbade the w i f e ' s surrender. H e gave her the c o n v e n t . So m u c h m a y be c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e ; b u t , l i k e a t r o u b l e s o m e d e b t o r , I m u s t still ask m o r e patience o f the reader, before I can s h o w any r e t u r n o n w h a t I have already b o r r o w e d . I n m a k i n g this 1

2

See above, pp. 33-4. B y the same means, he fastens guilt u p o n Angelo's inclination, barring the w a y to love and marriage. 1

2

152

CONCLUSION

one a l t e r a t i o n , Shakespeare f o u n d h i m s e l f c o m m i t t e d t o a n u m b e r o f others. A s t o p l o t , he m u s t p r e v e n t the v i o l a t i o n o f her person; o r else a h a p p y e n d i n g w o u l d be r e p u g n a n t t o m o r a l sentiment. A s t o character, she is m a r k e d at the outset b y her sense o f separateness: she c a n n o t plead i n the terms others use; a n d n o s h a d o w o f c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n J u l i e t o r M a r i a n a a n d herself ever crosses h e r m i n d . W h a t , t h e n , has b e c o m e o f her i s o l a t i o n w h e n , w i t h n o apparent consciousness o f d o i n g a n y t h i n g questionable, she p u b ­ lishes her fictitious shame, a n d incurs suspicion o f w h i c h she c a n n o t c o u n t o n b e i n g cleared? I suggest t h a t t h e d r a m a t i c centre o f the p l a y , u n t i l the D u k e intervenes, is a n abhorrence o f unchastity w h i c h carries the force o f t h e o r i g i n a l s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h a w i f e faces a t r a g i c d i l e m m a . T h e f o r m is changed, Shakespeare h a v i n g t a k e n (deliberately o r n o ) t h a t one o f G i r a l d i ' s t w o channels f o r c a r r y i n g the s t o r y a w a y f r o m t r a g e d y w h i c h necessitates a change o f relationship b e t w e e n the w o m a n a n d the c o n d e m n e d m a n ; b u t i t is the o l d c u r r e n t w h i c h flows b e t w e e n these n e w banks. T h e pressure w h i c h w e feel comes, as i n a stream d a m m e d u p , f r o m such a reluctance o n t h e w o m a n ' s p a r t as neither E p i t i a n o r Cassandra h a d f u l l y k n o w n . B u t this d a m does n o t h o l d . O n c e the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c h o o s i n g has been l i f t e d f r o m Isabel's shoulders, the obstacle t o choice b e ­ gins t o lose its significance. I n the s i t u a t i o n as i t is refashioned b y the D u k e , i t is n o l o n g e r a factor. Presently i t vanishes f r o m r e c o l ­ l e c t i o n . I n a w o r l d r a p i d l y b e c o m i n g secular; o n a stage w h i c h was ( b y force o f tacit agreement as w e l l as censorship) the m o s t secular i n s t i t u t i o n i n t h a t w o r l d ; a n d i n the hands o f a d r a m a t i s t w h o i n matters o f conscience adhered to t w o rules, T o advise w i t h n o bigots, and jest w i t h no fools, i t d i d n o t offer i t s e l f t o free a n d f a m i l i a r expression. A n E l i z a b e t h a n dramatist o f far less t h a n Shakespeare's p o w e r c o u l d far m o r e easily have c o n v e y e d t o an Elizabethan audience, w i t h i n the c o n ­ ventions b o t h u n d e r s t o o d , the reluctance, say, o f Lucrece. W h e n a s t o r y - t e l l e r has t o devise an equivalent f o r s o m e t h i n g i n his story, as he o r i g i n a l l y k n e w o r conceived i t , w h i c h has p r o v e d intractable t o his purpose, this n e w constituent is liable t o r e m a i n i m p e r f e c t l y substantiated, perhaps because he unconsciously r e c k -

CONCLUSION

153

ons o n its r e t a i n i n g the p o t e n c y w h i c h his i m a g i n a t i o n still associ­ ates w i t h that w h i c h i t replaces. H e r e i t m a y signify a l l t h a t he requires, a n d there, d w i n d l e i n t o insignificance. A n echo o f this s t o r y as i t m a y first have v i s i t e d Shakespeare's i m a g i n a t i o n seems t o reverberate i n t h a t a n t a g o n i s m w h i c h develops b e t w e e n b r o t h e r a n d sister, w h e n she perceives t h a t he does n o t participate i n her sense o f the i n f a m y o f consent. B u t t h a t v e r y sense, a n d its j u s t i f i c a ­ t i o n , are so l i t t l e e v i d e n t i n the p a r t o f the p l a y w h i c h f o l l o w s t h a t Isabel's account o f herself as one ' i n p r o b a t i o n o f a S i s t e r h o o d ' , seems b u t a r e m i n d e r o f s o m e t h i n g lost b y t h e w a y . I t is o n l y w h e n she stands alone again, opposed even t o the D u k e , t h a t her f o r m e r separateness seems f o r an instant t o recover its i m ­ portance. T h e r e is one o t h e r character w h o seems t o fluctuate before the i m a g i n a t i o n : n o w , t o be deeply engaged, a n d n o w , w h e n p l u c k e d b a c k f r o m the t h r e s h o l d o f tragic experience, t o lose substance a n d relapse i n t o t w o dimensions: A n g e l o . I have said t h a t w e s h o u l d beware, here, o f l o o k i n g f o r the t r a d i t i o n a l c o m i c h y p o c r i t e . I f A n g e l o appears o t h e r t h a n he is, the process is n o t s i m p l y t h a t o f assuming p r o t e c t i v e c o l o u r i n g — e v e n t h a t subtlest sort o f p r o t e c ­ t i v e c o l o u r i n g t h a t distinguishes the h u m a n c h a m e l e o n . W h e r e a s o t h e r creatures a c c o m m o d a t e themselves t o the colours o f t h e i r n a t u r a l s u r r o u n d i n g s , w e take o n an ideal c o l o u r . T h e insect t u r n s green o n a leaf; the hare, w h i t e i n s n o w . B u t T a r t u f f e , i n a society conscious that its profession o u t r u n s its practice, assumes the c o l o u r o f w h a t his c o m p a n i o n s profess, and, against the c o l o u r o f w h a t t h e y practise, becomes ' d e v o t de place'. T h e k i n d o f m a n he w o u l d be t h o u g h t is alien, even r e p u g n a n t , t o the m a n he is, a n d i t is w i t h s o m e t h i n g l i k e r e l i e f that he p r o c l a i m s : 1

2

A h ! pour etre devot, j e n ' en suis pas moins h o m m e

3

T h e r e is n o t h i n g here a k i n t o A n g e l o ' s experience o f self-dis­ c o v e r y . W h a t A n g e l o discovers i n h i m s e l f is a badness w h i c h even g o o d things m a k e w o r s e , a n d w h i c h makes g o o d things b a d . I t is the c a r r i o n w h i c h the k i n d l y sun h i m s e l f b r i n g s t o f u r t h e r r o t t e n ­ ness; i t is the filth b y w h i c h the sanctuary is d e f i l e d . H i s expecta4

1 3

V . i . 72. III. iii.

2

4

I.v. I I . i i . 165-72.

CONCLUSION

154

t i o n is T a r q u i n ' s , deepened b y experience: f o r h i m the g r a t i f i c a ­ t i o n a n d the remorse are one. Presently, this anguish yields t o fear; a n d fear is a p a i n w h i c h he can at least n u m b , b y t a k i n g p r e ­ cautions a n d persuading h i m s e l f t h a t he has destroyed i n C l a u d i o the o n l y witness he has t o r e c k o n w i t h . A r e w e t o take i t that he has n o w n o regret b u t f o r the cost a n d that, w h e n the D u k e makes h i m understand t h a t this is cancelled, suffering is o v e r f o r h i m ? T h i s is t o p u t a c o n s t r u c t i o n u p o n his silences i n the last act w h i c h the t e n o r o f that p a r t o f the p l a y does n o t seem t o j u s t i f y . T h e last act, b e i n g spectacular, m u s t c o n v e y some o f its m e a n i n g b y w a y o f visual impression, a n d l i e s m u c h i n the h o l d i n g u p . ' H o w s h o u l d A n g e l o c o n d u c t himself? T h e Elizabethan audience seems t o have d e l i g h t e d i n f i n a l scenes w h i c h offered t o the eye a p i c t o r i a l representation o f the satisfac­ t o r y k n i t t i n g u p o f the play's i n t r i g u e , an e m b l e m o f the h a p p y e n d i n g . T h i s f i n a l spectacle Shakespeare was w i l l i n g t o g i v e t h e m , again a n d again, w i t h m i n o r variations. I t p e r f o r m e d ( w e m u s t suppose) its p r o p e r f u n c t i o n w i t h such success t h a t t o d e m a n d , o r offer, an alternative w o u l d be c o u n t e d f r i v o l o u s . A f a v o u r i t e f o r m f o r this e m b l e m a t i c a l h a p p y e n d i n g m i g h t be called the device of the muffled stranger. F r o m the r e t u r n o f Ulysses u n t i l the last r o m a n c e , i t has h e l d the i m a g i n a t i o n fast. Its c l i m a x , v a r i o u s l y precipitated, is the discovery, i n a supposed stranger, o f a face at once strange a n d f a m i l i a r , the face o f one believed i r r e t r i e v a b l y lost: a d i s c o v e r y affecting those present a c c o r d i n g t o the courses i n t o w h i c h his absence has l e d t h e m . T h i s is the v e r y staple o f r o m a n t i c s t o r y o r p l a y , i n w h i c h the u n k n o w n is i n v o k e d t o redress the u n f a v o u r a b l e balance o f the k n o w n ; i n w h i c h , t h e r e ­ fore, t w o a n d t w o w i l l always m a k e five. I t has the safeguard o f l o n g - s t a n d i n g t r a d i t i o n : w e are n o t t o ask w h y the m a n left o u t o f the r e c k o n i n g has h e l d his h a n d u n t i l n o w . S o m e m e m o r y o f d i v i n e l y exercised c o m p u l s i o n hangs a b o u t i t : the D u k e ' s 1

2

I am combined b y a sacred V o w

3

is, l i k e m o s t o f his categorical statements, u n t r u e ; y e t these u n ­ t r u t h s v e r y o f t e n d i r e c t o u r t h o u g h t s t o w a r d s an aspect o f t r u t h , a n d this one m a y perhaps suggest that the a p p o i n t m e n t o f the 1

The Rape ofLucrece,

11.211-17.

2

I V . i v . 23-37.

3

I V . i i i . 149.

CONCLUSION

155

instant o f disclosure is m y s t e r i o u s , n o t t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d . S i m i ­ l a r l y , the c o n v e n t i o n s o f s t o r y - t e l l i n g a l l o w the disclosure t o s i g ­ n i f y instantaneous a n d c o m p l e t e i l l u m i n a t i o n f o r e v e r y o n e c o n ­ cerned. N o t o n l y does Shakespeare use this device i n m a n y plays; i n Measure for Measure he uses i t three times. First, M a r i a n a unveils before A n g e l o . H e h a d c o u n t e d o n seeing n o m o r e o f her. T h e d i s c o v e r y b r i n g s d i s t u r b i n g l y t o his m i n d t h e t h o u g h t o f some p o w e r at w o r k , 'some m o r e m i g h t i e r m e m b e r ' . H e does n o t at once recognize a l l the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this idea, b u t his silence a n d passivity, w h e n at his o w n request the D u k e leaves h i m t o c o n d u c t the t r i a l , indicate the n u m b i n g o f his faculties b y a n encounter w i t h one w h o s e reappearance his heart has l o n g feared: f r o m the D u k e ' s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h his request u n t i l the p o i n t ( n i n e t y lines later) at w h i c h i t occurs t o h i m t h a t Friar L o d o w i c k has d e l i v e r e d h i m s e l f i n t o his hands, he speaks n o w o r d , a n d his i n t e r v e n t i o n here takes t h e unprecedented f o r m o f an appeal t o L u c i o t o f u r n i s h p r o m i s e d i n f o r m a t i o n . N e x t , t h e D u k e is u n h o o d e d . T h i s , a disclosure o f the i d e n t i t y o f persons supposed d i s t i n c t , i m p l i e s f o r a l l those c o n ­ cerned a b r i n g i n g t o l i g h t o f t h e i r past selves: t h e y are shocked i n t o a s k i n g — ' W h a t have I d o n e , t h a t I s h o u l d not have done, h a d I k n o w n ? ' F o r some, t h e answer a m o u n t s t o n o m o r e t h a n Isabel's d i s m a y at a n e r r o r w h i c h is easily p a r d o n e d . U n l i k e Isabel a n d Escalus, A n g e l o has n o t been, t o o u r k n o w l e d g e , i n v o l v e d w i t h the D u k e ; b u t w e , conscious t h a t the D u k e is i n f o r m e d o f e v e r y ­ t h i n g t h a t has passed, accept the leap o f m i n d b y w h i c h A n g e l o h i m s e l f assumes t h a t his e v e r y act has been observed. So far as i t i m p l i e s d i s c o v e r y o f i m p o s t u r e , this episode is a k i n t o the u n m a s k ­ i n g w h i c h concludes a n d completes satiric c o m e d y — o r Volpone. B u t I d o u b t w h e t h e r this is indeed w h a t w e are t o understand b y i t . Is n o t A n g e l o t o be c o n c e i v e d as c o m i n g , here, t o c o m p l e t e selfk n o w l e d g e , c o n f r o n t e d , as i t w e r e , b y his secret self? T h e d i a l o g u e alone c a n n o t s h o w this f u l l y . B u t the t o n e o f his confession, w i t h its m e t a p h o r f r o m d i v i n e omniscience; his silence w h i l e the w o m e n 1

2

3

I t seems almost to be suggested that the D u k e could not have been disclosed w i t h o u t Lucio's uncomprehending but effectual interposition: T h o u art the first knave, that e'er madst a Duke. ( V . i . 361.) V.i.237. V.i.326. 1

2

3

CONCLUSION

156

plead f o r h i m ; a n d , w h e n t h e i r p l e a d i n g has o b t a i n e d a respite, his single expression o f self-loathing t o Escalus—these suggest t h a t he has i n d e e d g i v e n h i m s e l f o v e r : this is n o t m e r e l y the i m p o s t o r faced w i t h loss o f r e p u t a t i o n . Last, C l a u d i o is u n m u f f l e d before those w h o h a d , e v e r y one o f t h e m , feared t h a t t h e y w o u l d never see h i m again. T h i s , a c o n s u m m a t i o n s u p r e m e l y t o be desired, is a n e m b l e m o f happy ending as simple as a n y t r i c k b y w h i c h a c h i l d is first pleasurably f r i g h t e n e d , and t h e n reassured. Such a device as this is, t o subtler modes o f s t o r y - t e l l i n g , as r h e t o r i c is t o p o e t r y : i t can be f o r m u l a t e d ; i t can be t a u g h t , a n d learnt. W h y does Shakespeare resort t o such s i m p l i c i t y i n the c o n ­ c l u s i o n o f a p l a y b y n o means simple? I believe t h a t w e m a y understand his use o f this d e v i c e as an expression o f the u n c o m ­ p r o m i s i n g f i n a l i t y w i t h w h i c h a great i m a g i n a t i v e w r i t e r takes leave o f a w o r l d o f m a k e - b e l i e v e . T h e m e r e reader k n o w s s o m e ­ t h i n g o f the pang o f extrication; b u t the writer, whose i m a g i n a ­ t i o n m a d e t h a t w o r l d b y d w e l l i n g i n i t , has f u r t h e r t o c o m e . J o h n s o n notices s o m e t h i n g t h a t he takes f o r i m p a t i e n c e , i n the endings o f m a n y Shakespearian plays: 1

I t m a y be observed, that i n m a n y o f his plays the latter part is e v i ­ dently neglected. W h e n he found himself near the end o f his w o r k , and, i n v i e w o f his reward, he shortened the labour, to snatch the profit. H e therefore remits his efforts where he should most vigorously exert them, and his catastrophe is i m p r o b a b l y produced or imperfectly represented. 2

I suggest t h a t this i m p a t i e n c e has less t o d o w i t h eagerness f o r ' r e w a r d ' t h a n w i t h a desire t o shorten l e a v e - t a k i n g . T h e n o v e l i s t can express i t i n his o w n person: Come, children, let us shut up the b o x and the puppets, for our play is played o u t . 3

T h e dramatist has i n d e e d his e p i l o g u e ; b u t , i n Shakespearian c o m e d y , this is m o s t o f t e n used f o r transposing i n t o another k e y the relations o f actors a n d audience. E x c e p t i n The Tempest, 4

Variants o f it m a y be claimed for Much Ado about Nothing, The Merchant of Venice, As You Like It, All's Well that Ends Well, Twelfth Night, The Winter's Tale and Cymbeline. Preface, 1765, p. x x . Vanity Fair. For example, i n A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, AIVs Well that End's Well', and to these may be added Feste's song at the end o f Twelfth Night. 1

2

4

3

CONCLUSION

157

Shakespeare m a y be said t o u n b i n d his spell a n d take his leave w i t h i n the last scene; a n d , i n t r a g i - c o m e d y , he p e r f o r m s this cere­ m o n y w i t h marked formality. I t has been m y a r g u m e n t — i m p l i c i t t h r o u g h o u t the f o r e g o i n g pages, a n d f r o m t i m e t o t i m e e x p l i c i t w i t h reference t o some p r o ­ b l e m i n a g i t a t i o n — t h a t t r a g i - c o m e d y has suffered i n e s t i m a t i o n f r o m careless s t u d y a n d i n c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h e r e m e d y m u s t l i e i n a w o r k o f larger scope t h a n this. F o r the present, I shall a t t e m p t n o m o r e t h a n the b r i n g i n g t o bear o n p r o b l e m s I h a v e already i n d i c a t e d o f ideas w h i c h arise f r o m a consideration o f this one p l a y . T h e d i f f e r i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a p l a y that ends h a p p i l y a n d a p l a y that ends u n h a p p i l y seem so s i m p l e t h a t one o r t w o i t e m s i n the account have ( I t h i n k ) been o v e r l o o k e d a n d w i l l bear re-statement. F o r e x a m p l e , i n a t r a g e d y , b o t h g o o d a n d b a d characters are i n a certain sense responsible f o r the f i n a l c a l a m i t y . T h a t is, w e m a y say o f each a n d e v e r y considerable person i n the p l a y : ' I f he (or she) h a d n o t at some j u n c t u r e acted thus, this c o u l d n o t have h a p p e n e d ' . I n t r a g i - c o m e d y , t h e c o n c l u d i n g phase o f the a c t i o n is adjusted t o m e e t o u r desire that those w h o are—at least b y i n c l i n a t i o n a n d i n t e n t i o n — g o o d s h o u l d neither suffer irreparable w r o n g n o r be the cause o f i t t o others. Shakespeare interprets this saving clause w i t h peculiar l i b e r a l i t y . H e makes i t retrospective, a n d so includes those w h o profess a desire o f a m e n d m e n t — O l i v e r , I a c h i m o ; a n d even a character w h o is m o v e d b y n o such desire m a y e n j o y the benefit o f the event b y w h i c h his i l l designs have been frustrated: S h y l o c k , t h o u g h he does n o t share i n the f i n a l happiness, is (at least t o Elizabethan w a y s o f t h i n k i n g ) n o t i l l used. T o w i l l , a n d t o d o , h a r m are, a c c o r d i n g t o the l o g i c o f Shakespearian t r a g i - c o m e d y , distinct; m o r e o v e r , the doer o f a n i l l act f r o m w h i c h n o h a r m results m a y share i n the f i n a l amnesty. B u t t h o u g h the l o g i c o f t r a g i - c o m e d y m a y seem slack, i n that i t does n o t b i n d t h e d o e r t o b e c o m e 'the deed's creature', y e t at some p o i n t s there is a tightness w h i c h frets. T h e question is n o t o f t e n e n o u g h canvassed, w h y a n d h o w s t o r y pleases. Indeed, i n an age u n f a v o u r a b l e t o this art, i t is sometimes assumed that w e have n o business t o be pleased w i t h i t . S t o r y pleases b y l i b e r a t i n g 1

1

M i d d l e t o n , The Changeling, I I I . i v .

CONCLUSION

158

e n e r g y o f t h o u g h t a n d feeling. ('Else a great P r i n c e i n p r i s o n lies.') Its m o s t o b v i o u s p o w e r is exercised i n the r e g i o n o f o u r hopes a n d fears. H e n c e i t is distrusted as dangerous. I t is n o t , h o w e v e r , c o n ­ fined t o t h a t r e g i o n . I t is capable o f g r a t i f y i n g a n a t u r a l a n d p r o p e r desire t o r u m i n a t e modes o f h u m a n experience o t h e r t h a n o u r o w n . Nevertheless, h a v i n g endued t h o u g h t a n d feeling w i t h t h e f a c u l t y o f m o t i o n , i t tends at last t o call t h e m h o m e . E v e n the most unconventional story or play, contemptuous o f formal end­ i n g , m u s t s o m e w h e r e cease. T h e o l d e r c o n v e n t i o n s — t h e E l i z a ­ b e t h a n c o n v e n t i o n , f o r e x a m p l e , o f rhyming the e n d w i t h the beginning—these m e r e l y t h r o w the d i f f i c u l t y i n t o sharp relief. T h e s t o r y o f the m o n s t r o u s r a n s o m , as d e v e l o p e d b y G i r a l d i a n d W h e t s t o n e after h i m , ends b y c o n f i n i n g the v e r y t h o u g h t s i t has set i n m o t i o n . T h e d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e emphasis l a i d o n the final d i s ­ t r i b u t i o n o f rewards a n d punishments seems t o i m p l y t h a t here is t h e conclusive answer t o e v e r y q u e s t i o n the s t o r y has raised. T h e r e is, I t h i n k , o n l y one k i n d o f t r a g i - c o m e d y t h a t has a n y r i g h t t o offer its c o n c l u s i o n as an answer: t h a t w h i c h alleges t r u t h f r o m outside h u m a n experience, t r u t h revealed; o f w h i c h Everyman is a signal e x a m p l e . A n d w i t h this k i n d w e are n o t here concerned. O u r business is w i t h a dramatist w h o speaks o u t o f such experience as c a n n o t c l a i m a u t h o r i t y : c o m m o n experience, t h o u g h raised, i n h i m , t o the p o w e r o f genius. T h e k n o w l e d g e this w i l l y i e l d is l i k e l y t o c o n t a i n contrarieties, c o n f l i c t i n g elements such as the m i n d can n e i t h e r reconcile n o r r e l i n q u i s h : a tension such as t r a g e d y alone can f u l l y express. Shakespearian t r a g e d y , i n p a r t i ­ cular, is f i t t e d t o express this tension o f c o n t r a r i e t y ; f o r i t preserves, at its v e r y centre, a core o f m y s t e r y , s o m e t h i n g i n e x p l i c a b l e ; a n d i t ends w i t h t h e death o f t h e persons w h o s e experience w e have shared—an event b y w h i c h t h e y pass f r o m w h a t w e k n o w t o w h a t w e do not k n o w . 1

I t is n e a r l y t w e n t y years n o w since Professor Sisson d e l i v e r e d his w i t t y counterblast t o the c o m m o n o p i n i o n t h a t t r a g i c elements i n Shakespearian d r a m a reflect u n h a p p y experience o r pessimism i n ' N o w the imagination is the most extensive province o f pleasure and pain, as i t is the region o f our hopes and fears, and o f all our passions that are connected w i t h them.' Burke, A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful: Introduction. 1

CONCLUSION

159

the d r a m a t i s t . E v e n w i t h Troilus and Cressida, he m a i n t a i n e d , ' i t is i n the m a i n a question o f the artistic p r o b l e m s w h i c h Shakespeare set himself, n o t o f the p r o b l e m s w h i c h life set Shakespeare'. A n d , as t o his great tragedies, he d i d n o t 'degenerate' i n t o the art w h i c h p r o d u c e d t h e m ; he 'rose t o tragedy i n the v e r y h e i g h t a n d peak o f his p o w e r s , n o w h e r e else so s p l e n d i d l y d i s p l a y e d ' . 1 a m c o n v i n c e d that the t r a n s i t i o n f r o m t r a g i - c o m e d y t o tragedy, r i g h t l y i n t e r ­ preted, w i l l be f o u n d t o c o r r e s p o n d w i t h an aesthetic, n o t a p e r ­ sonal, crisis; one, m o r e o v e r , w h i c h m a r k s a n a t u r a l phase i n the progress o f the dramatist's art t o w a r d s m a t u r i t y . For, whereas a n art w h i c h shirks its o w n p r o p e r d e v e l o p m e n t m a y leave agent a n d recipient alike ostensibly satisfied—the one asking f o r m o r e o f the same a n d i n greater strength, the o t h e r ready t o g o o n m a n u f a c t u r ­ i n g i t ; art w h i c h ripens m a y leave b o t h discontented: the artist is unsatisfied, because he has c o m e t o ask o f the f o r m t h a t has h i t h e r t o pleased h i m an o p p o r t u n i t y i t c a n n o t afford; a n d those w h o m he once pleased are dissatisfied, because t h e y l o n g f o r the i m p o s s i b l e — t h a t he s h o u l d do it again for the first time. A m a n w h o s h o u l d c o m m i t h i m s e l f to the m a n u f a c t u r e o f t r a g i ­ c o m e d y f o r the m a r k e t need never desist; b u t a m a n w h o fills the vessel o f t r a g i - c o m e d y t o capacity w i t h t h o u g h t a n d feeling w i l l sooner o r later find t h e m spill o v e r . I t is this o v e r f l o w o f c o n ­ tent w h i c h seems t o m e t o characterize Measure for Measure: waste­ f u l perhaps, b u t n o t futile. I d o n o t find i n i t a n y i n t i m a t i o n s t h a t can be i n t e r p r e t e d as distrust o r d e n i a l o f life. I t requires some reso­ l u t i o n t o stand u p — e v e n u n d e r Raleigh's f r i e n d l y shade—and declare that Shakespeare's V i e n n a is n o t i r r e d e e m a b l y b a d ; b u t I a m b o u n d b y c o n v i c t i o n t o m a i n t a i n t h a t Shakespeare's connec­ t i o n w i t h its people is n o t the satirist's a t t a c h m e n t o f disgust, b u t t h a t q u i t e different c o n c e r n m e n t w h i c h attends the c r e a t i o n o r c o m e d y . T h e persons o f c o m e d y have lives o f t h e i r o w n , a n d a relish o f t h e m : i t is n o t a question o f w h e t h e r w e l i k e P o m p e y , b u t o f w h e t h e r P o m p e y likes h i m s e l f . T h e sources o f his g r a t i f i c a t i o n are another m a t t e r , a n d d e t e r m i n e d , surely, b y the design o f the p l a y . T h e same holds f o r L u c i o ; a n d he is a creature o f the occasion i n a d o u b l e sense. H e ministers t o the occasion, w h a t e v e r i t be: 1

2

3

C. J. Sisson, The Mythical Sorrows of Shakespeare (Annual Shakespeare Lecture o f the British Academy, 1934)O p . cit., p . 19. O p . cit., pp. 27-8. 1

2

3

i6o

CONCLUSION

messenger i n C l a u d i o ' s need, escort i n Isabel's; traducer a n d i n ­ f o r m e r w h e n the D u k e ' s s i t u a t i o n requires i t . I n a l l this he is l i k e the ' o l d V i c e ' . B u t , w i t h a b o u n t y b e y o n d the capacity o f m o r a l i n t e r l u d e , Shakespeare bestows o n h i m w h a t the occasion yields; once at least a v e i n o f irresistible d r o l l e r y : B y m y t r o t h lie go w i t h thee t o the lane's end: i f baudy talke offend y o u , w e ' e l have v e r y little o f i t : nay Friar, I a m a k i n d o f Burre, I shal sticke. 1

H e has, m o r e o v e r , a f u n c t i o n t o p e r f o r m — t h a t o f safety-valve. I m p a t i e n c e can escape t h r o u g h h i m : the i m p a t i e n c e , at the t r i a l , o f t h e audience outside the p l a y , w h i c h is asked t o f o r g o its advantage o f superior k n o w l e d g e a n d m o v e at the pace o f the audience inside the p l a y . W h a t the D u k e claims t o have f o u n d i n V i e n n a u n d e r A n g e l o ' s r u l e is scarcely c o n v e y e d t o us b y characters such as these, n o r even b y M r s . O v e r d o n e a n d her t r a i n . T h e passage has been t o o sharply separated f r o m its c o n t e x t , t o o o f t e n q u o t e d as t h o u g h i t w e r e a s u m m a r y a n d s w o r n account o f the w o r l d i n w h i c h the p l a y is set—even, o f the w h o l e w o r l d as i t appeared t o Shakespeare. M y a r g u m e n t d r a w s t o this p o i n t . Shakespeare's u n c o n f m e d t h o u g h t c o m m o n l y transcends the bounds o f the s t o r y he is u s i n g . T h a t m a r g i n w i t h i n w h i c h i t is free t o w o r k is s e l d o m w i d e e n o u g h f o r its m o t i o n . B u t the shock, the sense o f i m p a c t , w i t h w h i c h i t breaks o u t , varies. I t is p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r o n g i n this p l a y . T h e s t o r y he has here i n h a n d liberates t h o u g h t s i n t o l e r a n t o f c o n ­ f i n e m e n t — o n l y t o confine t h e m w i t h i n a close p a t t e r n o f events. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t w h i c h I have p o i n t e d o u t b y the w a y , there is the p a t t e r n o f ills a n d remedies w h i c h necessarily frames the fable o f the g o o d r u l e r a n d his design f o r r e f o r m o f c o r r u p t manners. A n d this above t h e rest appears t o p r o m i s e such a conclusive answer t o t h e question i t poses ( w h e t h e r j u s t i c e be the t r u e m e r c y , o r m e r c y the t r u e j u s t i c e ) as a r g u m e n t has never reached, a n d s t o r y is u n f i t t e d t o c o n v e y . H o w Shakespeare came t o u n d e r t a k e such a s t o r y w e c a n n o t even guess: the trains o f p o s s i b i l i t y are t o o n u m e r ­ ous a n d t o o i n t r i c a t e l y related. L e t m e set o u t one as i l l u s t r a t i o n . 2

3

I V . i i i . 187. V.i.3i8. T h e m a r g i n is most often represented b y that part o f a Shakespearian character w h i c h , i n M r . M u r r y ' s phrase, 'floats free o f the situation*. See above, p . 142. 1

3

2

161

CONCLUSION

H e was attracted t o W h e t s t o n e ' s p l a y , despite its e v i d e n t c r u d i t y , b y its p o w e r t o suggest a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l lives a n d the life o f the c o m m u n i t y ; b e t w e e n the fortunes a n d actions o f the people o f the s t o r y , a n d the c o n d u c t o f a u t h o r i t y , l a w a n d c u s t o m i n the w o r l d t o w h i c h t h e y b e l o n g . H e was acquainted w i t h c u r ­ r e n t ideas o n this subject, a n d w i t h the m o s t p o p u l a r o f the m o u l d s i n t o w h i c h t h e y h a d been cast. Chance, o r the g o o d offices o f a friend, t o o k h i m t o the Hecatommithi, in French o r I t a l i a n . H e f o u n d there the stories o f D e s d e m o n a a n d the M o o r , o f E p i t i a a n d Juriste, o f D o r o t h e a , o f Gratiosa—perhaps o f m a n y m o r e , a n d i n w h o k n o w s w h a t o r d e r . So far the succession o f events does n o t v e r y m u c h matter, n o r are w e v e x e d b y the question w h e t h e r post hoc, e v e n i f i t c o u l d be established, w o u l d mean propter hoc. B u t , as w e g o further, doubts o f this k i n d b e c o m e alike m o r e i m p o r t a n t a n d m o r e i n s o l u b l e : w e are p r o c e e d i n g f r o m such events as m a y have been k n o w n t o Shakespeare's friends i n the d i r e c t i o n o f e x ­ periences w h i c h w e r e never, perhaps, e n t i r e l y d is tin c t even i n his o w n r e c o l l e c t i o n . T h r o u g h those stories f r o m the Hecatommithi w h i c h I have c i t e d as illustrations, a n d t h r o u g h W h e t s t o n e ' s p l a y a n d s t o r y , r a n a c u r r e n t o f t h o u g h t : i n each, a m a n i n a u t h o r i t y finds his w i l l i n c l i n e d t o w a r d s m e r c y t o a w r o n g - d o e r b y the entreaty o f the offender's f o r m e r v i c t i m . W h e n , a n d h o w , d i d this question stir i n his m i n d : W i t h w h o m does the r i g h t t o p a r d o n such a n offence reside? W h e n , a n d h o w , d i d i t lead o n , a n d g i v e place, t o w i d e r a n d deeper speculations o n the n a t u r e a n d scope o f h u m a n a u t h o r i t y ? W a s i t s o m e t h i n g latent i n G ir a ld i' s ideal o f m a g n a n i m i t y , o r i n W h e t s t o n e ' s c o n c e r n w i t h c i v i c responsibility, t h a t y i e l d e d the great debate o f m e r c y a n d j u s t i c e — o r was i t t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e i r u n i o n ? D i d abhorrence o f L u p t o n ' s merciless m o r a l i t y d e t e r m i n e its d e v e l o p m e n t ? W h e r e a n d w h e n , i n this t r a i n o f events, was the p r o j e c t f o r m e d , o f e m p l o y i n g t h a t oldest, 1

2

' I n Measure for Measure as i n Troilus and Cressida, Shakespeare tried to make a philosophical (or theological) play b y loading philosophical analysis upon a simple source plot w h i c h he patched up i n the easygoing fashion o f the romantic come­ dies. The result was simply confusion.' V . K . W h i t a k e r , 'Philosophy and Romance i n Shakespeare's " P r o b l e m " Comedies' (The Seventeenth Century: Studies b y R. F.Jones and Others, Stanford U . P . , 1951, p . 354). I cannot f i n d this ' s i m ­ plicity' either i n Shakespeare's 'sources', or i n w h a t he made o f them. Mariana may i n one respect be regarded as Andrugio's counterpart: b y her forgiveness o f a personal injury she wakes the impulse to mercy i n another. 1

2

M

CONCLUSION

162

y e t m o s t y o u t h f u l , o f story-patterns, the v i s i t o f the disguised p r i n c e — a n d so harnessing t h e p o w e r o f h o p e t o m o v e the i m a ­ gination? W a s i t the c o n s u m m a t i o n o f this story, i n the u n i o n o f k n o w l e d g e a n d p o w e r , w h i c h b r o u g h t Shakespeare face t o face w i t h the question: What sort of knowledge? O n e sort, the s e l f - k n o w l e d g e w h i c h is t h e basis o f i n t e g r i t y , is g a i n e d t h r o u g h tragic experience b y A n g e l o a n d Isabel, a n d surely b y C l a u d i o also. W h a t happens t o h i m illustrates the subtle differ­ ence b e t w e e n t r u e a n d false t r a g i - c o m e d y . H i s courage, the v e r y a t t r i b u t e o n w h i c h such a m a n w o u l d p r i d e himself, breaks—like A n g e l o ' s s e l f - c o n t r o l — a n d he goes i n t o darkness. H e h a d n o p r e ­ decessors there: the p l e a d i n g o f V i c o a n d A n d r u g i o is m e r e l y the means t o a n e n d regarded as permissible. I t is, m o r e o v e r , s i g n i ­ ficant that he h a d n o successors either: Shakespeare's ' i m p r o v e r s ' t o o k care t o obliterate this p a i n f u l impression. S t r o n g i n the c o n ­ v e n t i o n a l assurance t h a t n o sympathetic character is ever afraid t o die, t h e y m a d e C l a u d i o protest t h a t a n y reluctance he m i g h t feel was o n Juliet's a c c o u n t . I n Measure for Measure alone w e are b r o u g h t t o recognize t h a t this fear is incalculable, a n d , c o m i n g attended b y h o p e , m a y p r o v e u n c o n t r o l l a b l e ; t h a t i t varies i n n o d i r e c t p r o p o r t i o n w i t h o t h e r c o m p o n e n t s o f character—not even w i t h courage. I t is n o t b y the difference b e t w e e n courage a n d the w a n t o f i t t h a t C l a u d i o a n d B a r n a r d i n e are d i v i d e d . C l a u d i o ' s d e v e l o p m e n t is t o be i n f e r r e d f r o m w h a t the P r o v o s t a n d the D u k e say o f h i m , a n d t h a t is n o t m u c h . Indeed, l i k e m o r e i m p o r t a n t matters, i t is left l a r g e l y t o the actor's a r t a n d the audience's i m a g i n a t i o n . T h i s i n c o m p l e t e synthesis has t r o u b l e d critics. M r . C l i f f o r d L e e c h finds the p l a y a tangle o f u n r e s o l v e d contrarieties. T h a t Measure for Measure w i l l c o n t i n u e t o p e r p l e x us is l i k e l y e n o u g h ; b u t o f one t h i n g I a m sure: t h r o u g h its course t h o u g h t a n d feeling r u n l i k e a s p r i n g t i d e i n t o a n estuary, w i t h such vehemence t h a t the filth a n d r u b b i s h , the cabbage stalks a n d dead cats w h i c h are a l l t h a t adverse c r i t i c i s m has r e m a r k e d i n i t , are washed u p a n d left b e h i n d as t h e ebb scours t h e channel a n d 1

2

B o t h are guilty o f falsification: they use the terrible and m o v i n g words o f Claudio's appeal, and the beginning o f Isabel's protest—only to explain them away as a misunderstanding. See Davenant, The Law against Lovers, pp. 160-2; Gildon, Measure for Measure, or Beauty the Best Advocate, pp. 23-4. 'The " M e a n i n g " ofMeasure forMeasure' (Shakespeare Survey, 3,1950). 1

2

CONCLUSION

163

the v o l u m e o f w a t e r makes t o w a r d s its o w n place. T h i s t i d a l refuse is a sign, n o t o f l a n g u i d a t t e n t i o n o n the dramatist's p a r t , b u t o f a force so t u r b u l e n t t h a t considerable i t e m s are o v e r l o o k e d a n d f o r g o t t e n as he presses o n t o his c o n s u m m a t i o n . T h e r e is, f o r e x a m p l e , Isabel's b e h a v i o u r i n f u r t h e r i n g — t o p u t t h e best c o n ­ s t r u c t i o n o n her act—Mariana's u n p r o p i t i o u s m a r r i a g e : b e h a v i o u r g o v e r n e d b y a code w h i c h t h e character has already o u t g r o w n before i t is called f o r . T h e r e is the D u k e ' s b e h a v i o u r i n p r o m o t i n g the affair; a n d this, t h o u g h i t obeys the c o n v e n t i o n w i t h i n w h i c h he was f r a m e d , suits i l l w i t h t h e p r e v a i l i n g i m p r e s s i o n o f his association, i n some phases o f his d e v e l o p m e n t , w i t h the d r a m a t i s t himself. These anomalies r e m a i n , as t h o u g h left b y i m p a t i e n c e o r negligence, i n the p o o l s a n d shallows o f the f o u r t h act. T h e y are neglected ( I believe) because the t h e m e o f the p l a y , w o r k i n g i n Shakespeare's i m a g i n a t i o n , g a i n e d p o w e r t o ' a w a k e n those ideas w h i c h s l u m b e r i n the h e a r t ' . A n d those ideas, l i b e r a t e d i n a n d b y the v e r y act o f c r e a t i o n , w e r e h u r r y i n g h i m o n — i m m e d i a t e l y t o the f i f t h act, w i t h its larger scope f o r expressing t h e m ; u l t i m a t e l y , b e y o n d the play's p r o p e r bounds. 1

L e t m e illustrate this u n l o o k e d - f o r l i b e r a t i o n . T h e i n i t i a l situa­ t i o n contains one particular—Isabel's r e l i g i o u s p r o f e s s i o n — w h i c h seems t o o r i g i n a t e i n d r a m a t i c expediency; t o have been devised m e r e l y t o p r o v i d e sufficient m o t i v e f o r her reluctance. B u t this circumstance, a f f o r d i n g o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the expression o f t h o u g h t s r a r e l y u t t e r e d o n Shakespeare's stage, liberates those t h a t l i e deep­ est o f a l l . W h y all the soules that were, were forfeit once, A n d he that m i g h t the vantage best have tooke, Found out the remedie. T h e p l a y leaves m a n y questions unanswered at the close. Y e t its f o r m suggests t h a t i t s h o u l d u n d e r t a k e t o answer its o w n ques­ tions, after its o w n fashion; f o r t r a g i - c o m e d y m a y be l i k e n e d t o a f o u n t a i n , w h o s e waters, c o n t r o l l e d b y secret m e c h a n i s m , f o l l o w a graceful course a n d r e t u r n s p a r k l i n g t o t h e s m o o t h basin f r o m w h i c h t h e y appear t o rise. Its p r o b l e m s c o n t a i n t h e i r p r o p e r s o l u ­ t i o n , a n d b o t h are c o n c e i v e d i n terms agreeable t o its peculiar 1

M*

Johnson, Lives of the Poets (ed. Birkbeck H i l l ,

1,459).

CONCLUSION

164

m o d e o f expression. B u t the m i n d , u n d e r pressure o f experience, conceives q u i t e o t h e r questions. O f these, some appear u n a n s w e r ­ able because w e have n o t the means o f m e a s u r i n g w h a t t h e y are a b o u t : c o n f l i c t i n g claims o r o b l i g a t i o n s , f o r e x a m p l e . O t h e r s f o r ­ b i d a n answer; such as t h e question asked o f the u n f o r g i v i n g ser­ v a n t . T h e experience o f artistic c r e a t i o n exerts its o w n pressure, m o v e s its o w n questions. N o t o n l y w i l l some o f these be l i k e w i s e unanswerable; t h e y m a y , even as questions, fail o f c o m p l e t e e x ­ pression w i t h i n the scope o f t h a t v e r y w o r k w h i c h has c o m p e l l e d t h e i r utterance. I t is surely n o t t o be w o n d e r e d at that a p l a y i n w h i c h questions o b t a i n p a r t i a l utterance a n d u n c e r t a i n answer s h o u l d fluctuate as t o t h e v o l u m e o f its p o w e r ; n o r t h a t a p l a y w h i c h so fluctuates s h o u l d be misconstrued. Indeed, a n y hasty i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Measure for Measure, o r a n y w h i c h hardens i n t o f o r m u l a , is l i k e l y t o a p p r o a c h m i s c o n s t r u c t i o n . B y n o t h i n g short o f resolutely sustained a t t e n t i o n can b o t h these besetting errors be w a r d e d off: that w h i c h w i l l m a k e o f e v e r y a n o m a l y t o be f o u n d i n i t a sort o f treachery o n the dramatist's p a r t , a n d t h a t w h i c h w i l l r e m o v e e v e r y such a n o m a l y o u t o f sight. N e i t h e r representation gives a t r u e p o r t r a i t o f this great, u n e v e n p l a y ; f o r neither a l l o w s us t o recognize that i n its v e r y c o m p l e x i t y is t o be f o u n d the p r o o f o f its i n t e g r i t y . 1

1

St. M a t t h e w x v i i i . 33.

A P P E N D I X

P . 55. Names of Characters T h e D u k e is called Vincentio i n t h e list o f dramatis personae, a n d n o w h e r e else; n o r does t h e n a m e o c c u r a m o n g t h e k n o w n sources a n d analogues o f the p l a y . J o h n s o n i n f e r r e d t h a t i t m u s t have strayed i n t o this list f r o m a lost v e r s i o n o f the story. T h e editors o f the N e w C a m ­ b r i d g e Shakespeare a t t r i b u t e t h i s , w i t h o t h e r discrepancies, t o 'a f o r m o f t h e p l a y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t w h i c h has c o m e d o w n t o u s / T h e F o l i o attaches lists o f A c t o r s ' (i.e., characters') n a m e s t o seven p l a y s . M r . C r o m p t o n R h o d e s supposes t h e m t o d e r i v e f r o m p a p e r s w h i c h s e r v e d s o m e u s e f u l p u r p o s e i n t h e t h e a t r e , as 'a r e m e m b r a n c e r f o r c a s t i n g , o r as a c a t a l o g u e t o a b u n d l e o f w r i t t e n p a r t s . ' (Shakespeare's First Folio, O x f o r d , 1923, p . 118.) T h i s s u p p o s i t i o n as t o t h e i r p r o v e n ­ ance does n o t necessarily c o n n e c t t h e m w i t h t h e d r a m a t i s t , a n d t h e l i s t f o r Measure for Measure c o n t a i n s o n e w o r d t o w h i c h t h e r e is n o S h a k e ­ spearian p a r a l l e l . L u c i o is c a l l e d 'a f a n t a s t i q u e ' — m e a n i n g , p r e s u m a b l y , a f o p . Shakespeare uses t h e a d j e c t i v e fantastic i n a c o r r e s p o n d i n g sense: ' T o b e fantastic m a y b e c o m e a y o u t h ' (Two Gentlemen, I I . v i i . 4 7 ) ; b u t his f o r m f o r t h e n o u n is f a n t a s t i c o : ' s u c h a n t i c , l i s p i n g , a f f e c t i n g fantasticoes' (Romeo and Juliet, I I . i v . 3 0 ) . I b e l i e v e t h a t w e s h o u l d n o t associate t h i s l i s t w i t h h i m , n o r b u i l d o n i t a n y s u r m i s e as t o t h e f o r m i n w h i c h h e f o u n d his p l o t , o r l e f t his p l a y .

P . 79. Informing the Audience T h e n Isabell l i v e chaste, and brother die; " M o r e then our B r o t h e r , is our Chastitie. ( I I . i v . 184, 5) T h e s e lines s e e m t o m a r k a c u r i o u s c h a n g e o f t o n e , a n d a n o b s e r v a t i o n b y R . W . C h a m b e r s o n a s i m i l a r l y i m p e r s o n a l couplet m a y be relevant: l e c t u r i n g o n King Lear, h e suggested t h a t C o r d e l i a ' s lines For thee, oppressed k i n g , a m I cast d o w n ; M y s e l f could else o u t - f r o w n false fortune's f r o w n — w e r e d e s i g n e d as a d i r e c t i n t i m a t i o n t o t h e a u d i e n c e t h a t Shakespeare intended to depart f r o m the w e l l - k n o w n traditional story, w h i c h had e n d e d w i t h C o r d e l i a ' s despair a n d s u i c i d e . ('King Lear, W . P . K e r M e m o r i a l L e c t u r e , G l a s g o w , 1939 ( i 9 4 o ) > p . 2 3 . ) S u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s h o u l d h o l d g o o d l i k e w i s e f o r Isabel's lines, p l a c e d at t h a t v e r y t u r n i n

i66

APPENDIX

the story w h i c h , i n former versions, had preceded the woman's sur­ render to the condemned man's entreaties. T h e couplet is surely deli­ vered to the audience; i t m a y be designed principally to enlighten t h e m as to the n e w course the story is to take. Likewise, the rhetorical emphasis o f Isabel's assertion to the disguised D u k e — ' I had rather m y brother die b y the L a w , then m y sonne should be unlawfullie borne' ( I I I . i . 1 9 3 ) — m a y serve as an i n t i m a t i o n that there is n o t to be, even after passion has abated, any capitulation. P. 8 3 . Claudio's Fears . . . to be worse then worst O f those, that lawlesse and incertaine thought, Imagine howling . . . (III. i . 126) T h e difficulty raised b y commentators—that Claudio's fear o f hell accords i l l w i t h the scepticism w h i c h they find i n uncertain and imagine— is cleared away i f w e assume that he refers to a forbidden superstition. I t is w e l l k n o w n that the denial o f p u r g a t o r y i n reformed doctrine entailed n e w teaching as to the nature o f apparitions: they m i g h t no longer be regarded as souls returned f r o m the dead. Such a w a r n i n g seems i m p l i c i t i n Harrison's version o f Hector Boethius w h e n he reports the sounds o f w a i l i n g heard about the dolorous mount o f Stirling: \ . . r i g h t lamentable noise & cries, as t h o u g h the same had beene o f some creatures that had bewailed their miserable cases: w h i c h u n doubtedlie was the crafty illusions o f w i c k e d spirits, to keepe mens minds still oppressed i n b l i n d errors and superstitious fancies.' (This is fuller and m o r e emphatic than the original, or Bellenden's translation.) Petrus Thyraeus the Jesuit, o n the other hand, mentions these v e r y haunters o f Stirling a m o n g spirits that m a y be either souls f r o m hell or purgatory, or else demons. (See Hector Boethius' Scotorum Historiae, B k . i v ; the Description o f Scotland i n Holinshed's Chronicle ( 1 5 8 6 ) ; Petrus Thyraeus, Loca Infesta (Cologne, 1598), I . i . See also D r . D o v e r Wilson's studies o n the ghost i n Hamlet, and his sources: Lavater, Scot, etc. Claudio is ( I believe) speaking o f sounds, supposedly supernatural, i n w h i c h he fears, b u t is forbidden, to hear the voices o f the unhappy dead. P. 106. Passage between the Duke and Isabel These lines ( I V . i . 2 6 - 5 0 ) w o u l d be satisfactory, i f i t were n o t for the disorder o f 11. 3 4 - 6 . There have I made m y promise, upon the Heavy midle o f the night, to call upon him. T h e Folio's line-division betrays disturbance.

APPENDIX

167

This part o f the passage, however, m i g h t rank w i t h the rest, i f i t were admitted that at least one w h o l e line and one incomplete line are missing between 1. 33 and 1. 3 4 . T h e sense demands this supposition: Isabel's tale proceeds f r o m the outer w a l l and the vineyard to the inner w a l l and the garden, and there halts. B u t , a garden i n the middle o f the night being an unlikely destination, w e m a y surely take i t that some­ thing is w a n t i n g and the lines should r u n more like this: W h i c h f r o m the V i n e y a r d t o the Garden leades, . . . (one o r m o r e lines m i s s i n g ) . . . [His garden-house] there have I made m y promise U p o n the heavy m i d l e o f the n i g h t , T o caUuponliim.

Mariana's reference, at V . i . 212, supports this surmise. P. 108. Time-references to Claudio s Execution (IV. ii) The Provost commands Abhorson to have ready axe and block b y 'to m o r r o w , foure a clocke' ( I V . i i . 56), and bids Claudio prepare h i m ­ self for death at eight ( I V . i i . 6 7 ) . T h e sequel to this is Angelo's urgent missive: Claudio is to be executed b y four, and his head delivered b y five ( I V . i i . 124). I take i t that 'eight' should stand i n the first, to correspond w i t h the second, reference, and that A n g e l o is p u t t i n g f o r w a r d the t i m e o f the execution, that he m a y be beforehand w i t h Isabel. A small and natural piece o f officiousness o n a transcriber's part w o u l d lead to the 'correc­ t i o n ' (eight to four) i n that one passage where a discrepancy w i t h Angelo's order had happened to catch his eye.

This page intentionally left blank

I N D E X i . GENERAL Albrecht, L . , Neue Untersuchungen zu Shakespeares 'Massfur Mass', 7, 32,109 Alexander Severus, legend of, 101,112,123 Augustine, St., De Sermone Domini in Monte, 6 Bagehot, W a l t e r , Literary Studies, 72 B a l d w i n , T . W . , William Shakspere's Small Latine andLesse Greeke, 80 B a l l , R. H . , 'Epitia and 'Measure for Measure , 7, 32 Battenhouse, R. W . , 'Measure for Measure and Christian D o c t r i n e o f the A t o n e ­ m e n t ' , 41,100 Beard, C . A . , The Office of Justice of the Peace in England, 62 Beard, Thomas, The Theatre of God'sJudgements, 25, 34 Belleforest, Francois de, Histoires Tragiques, 2 4 - 5 , 2 9 , 37,46, 55,75, 88,151 Besaucele, L . B . de, J-B. Giraldi, Etude sur 1'Evolution des Theories Litter aires en Italie au XVIe Siecle, 9 Bethell, S. L . , Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition, 100 Boccaccio, G i o v a n n i , Decameron, 9 , 1 6 , 1 2 0 , 1 4 4 B r a d b r o o k , M . C , ' A u t h o r i t y , T r u t h and Justice i n Measure for Measure', 4 1 , 123,132 — * Shakespeare and the Use o f Disguise i n Elizabethan D r a m a ' , 41 B r o w n i n g , Robert, Instans Tyrannus, 97 Bryskett, L o d o w i c k , A Discourse of CivillLife, 49,61 B u d d , F. E . , 'Rouillet's Philanira and Whetstone's Promos and Cassandra', 7, 8,16, 9

— 'Material for a Study o f the Sources o f Shakespeare's Measure for Measure', 7, 32 B u r k e , E d m u n d , A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, 158 Campbell, O . J., Shakespeare's Satire, 26 Chambers, E . K . , Shakespeare, A Survey, 100-1,145 — William Shakespeare, 44,58 Chambers, R. W . , The Jacobean Shakespeare and 'Measure for Measure', 4 1 , 82, i n , 165 Chappuys, Gabriel, Cent Excellentes Nouvelles (translation o f Hecatommithi), 12 C h i l d , F. J., English and Scottish Ballads, 4 C h i l d , H a r o l d , see N e w C a m b r i d g e edition o f Measurefor Measure C l a r k , G . N . , ' E d w a r d Grimeston', 25 C o g h i l l , N . , ' T h e Basis o f Shakespearian C o m e d y ' , 17

170

INDEX Coleridge, Samuel T a y l o r , 140 Collier, J. P., Shakespeare's Library, 15 Crane, Ralph, 44 Danett, Thomas, The Historie of Philip de Commines, 25 Davenant, W i l l i a m , The Law against Lovers, 27-8,60,72,120,141,142-3,149,162 D i v i s i o n i n t o acts and scenes, i n M.for M . , 44-6 Dodds, W . M . T . , ' T h e Character o f A n g e l o i n Measure for Measure ,41,74 D o n n e , J o h n , Bianthanatos, 6 Douce, Francis, Illustrations of Shakespeare, 6,7,21 Dramatis personae, list of, i n M.for M., 55-6,165 E l i o t , George, Middlemarch, 73 E l y o t , Thomas, The Boke named the Governour, 69 — The Image of Governance, 101 E m p s o n , W . , The Structure of Complex Words, 42 Estienne, H e n r i , Apologie pour Herodote, 25 Everyman, 158 Farmer, J S., Tudor Facsimile Texts, 13 Farnham, W . , Medieval Heritage of Elizabethan Tragedy, 80 — Shakespeare's Tragic Frontier, 6 Fielding, H e n r y , and Pamela, 37 Fletcher, J o h n , The Bloody Brother, 105 Freeburg, V . O . , Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama, 27 G i l d o n , Charles, Measure for Measure, or Beauty the Best Advocate, 27-8, 72, 120, 141,142-3,149,162 Giraldi, Celso, 13 G i r a l d i C i n t h i o , Giovanbattista, life, 9 — Dialoghi della vita Civile, 10,49 — Discorsi, 10 — Epitia, 12-13,17-18 — Hecatommithi, 9 - 1 2 , 1 9 , 2 9 , 3 2 - 6 , 4 2 , 4 6 , 55, 5 9 , 6 5 , 7 5 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 7 - 8 , 1 5 0 - 1 , 1 6 1 Goulart, Simon, Histoires Admirables et Memorables, 25,88 Greg, W . W . , The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare, 44,117 Grimeston, E d w a r d , Admirable and Memorable Histories, 25 Guevara, A n t o n i o de, 101,112 HalHweU-Phillipps, J. O . , Memoranda on Shakespeare s Comedy of Measure for Measure, 21 H a r d i n g , D . P., 'Elizabethan Betrothals and Measure for Measure', 38,119 Hazlitt, W i l l i a m , 26,72,111 H a z l i t t , W . C, Shakespeare's Library, 13,15 Holinshed, Raphael, Chronicles, 166 Izard, T . C , George Whetstone, 14,15 9

James 1,108-9

Johnson, Samuel, opinions o n Measure for Measure, 43,63, 80,106,129-33 — o n other subjects, 1,21, 83,144,156 Jones, L . C , Simon Goulart, 25 J u m p , J. D . , edition o f Fletcher's Bloody Brother, 105

171

INDEX

Justice o f the Peace, office of, 62 Keeton, G . W . , Shakespeare and his Legal Problems, 49,63 K n i g h t , G . W i l s o n , The Wheel of Fire, 41,99 Lawrence, W . W . , Shakespeare s Problem Comedies, 26, 38 Leavis, F. R., ' T h e Greatness ofMeasure for Measure ', 41,100 Leech, C , ' T h e " M e a n i n g " ofMeasure for Measure ,162 Lennox, Charlotte, Shakespear Illustrated, 12, 82, 84 L u p t o n , Thomas, Siuqila, Too good, to be true, 21 — The Second part... of the Boke entituled Too good to be true, 2 1 - 4 , 2 9 , 3 6 - 7 , 9 6 , 98,102,132,151,161 M a c k a i l , J. W . , The Approach to Shakespeare, 145 M a r s t o n j o h n , The Fawn, 26,125 — The Malcontent, 26,125 M a r t i n , L . C , * Shakespeare, Lucretius and the Commonplaces', 80,83 M a x w e l l , J. C , * Measure for Measure, A Footnote t o Recent C r i t i c i s m ' , 41,133 M i d d l e t o n , Thomas, The Changeling, 157 — Phoenix, 2 6 - 7 , 1 0 2 - 3 , » 125-6 M o l i e r e , Tartuffe, 153 M o r a l Interlude, i n M.for M., 95,123 M o r e , Thomas, Utopia, 22 M u r r y , J. M i d d l e t o n , Shakespeare, 142,160 N e w Cambridge Shakespeare, edition of Measure for Measure, 43, 45, 47, 5 0 - 1 , 53, 5 4 , 6 3 , 7 1 , 7 6 , 1 4 0 Nichols, J., Six Old Plays, 13 Paris, Gaston, 'Le Cycle de la Gageur', 4 Pater, W a l t e r , 'Measure for Measure ,41,88,89,123 Pope, E . M . , ' T h e Renaissance B a c k g r o u n d of Measure for Measure ,129 Q u i l l e r - C o u c h , A r t h u r , see N e w Cambridge edition of Measure for Measure Raleigh, W a l t e r , Shakespeare, 3 9 , 7 8 , 1 1 1 Rhodes, R. C r o m p t o n , Shakespeare's First Folio, 165 Ridley, M . R., edition o f Measure for Measure, N e w T e m p l e Shakespeare, 115 Roilletus, Claudius, Philanira, 8 - 9 , 1 6 , 2 1 , 2 9 , 1 2 8 , 1 5 1 — Varia Poemata, 8 R o y a l Proclamations, 49-50 Scott, W a l t e r , The Heart of Mid-Lothian, 84-8,148 Sidney, P h i l i p , Arcadia, 38 Sisson, C . J., The Mythical Sorrows of Shakespeare, 158-9 S m i t h , R. M . , 'Interpretations o f Measurefor Measure ,41 Spens, J., An Essay on Shakespeare's Relation to Tradition, 120 Thackeray, W i l l i a m Makepeace, Vanity Fair, 156 T i l l y a r d , E . M . W . , Shakespeare's Problem Plays, 84 Traversi, D . A . , 'Measure for Measure ,41,100 W a r b u r t o n , W i l l i a m , edition o f Shakespeare, 68,107 Whetstone, George, life, 14,15 — Amelia, 15 — The Censure of a Loyall Subject, 14 9

9

9

I 2 2

9

9

9

9

172 INDEX W h e t s t o n e , George (cont.), The English Myrror, 14,62,128 — An Heptameron, 1 5 - 1 6 , 1 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 6 1 — The Honorable Reputation of a Souldier, 14 — A Mir our for Magistrates of Cyties, 9 6 , 1 0 1 — Promos and Cassandra, 13-21,29, 32, 5 1 , 5 9 - 6 0 , 9 6 , 9 9 , 1 1 1 , 1 2 8 , 1 4 0 , 1 6 1 — The Rocke of Regard, 14 — A Touchstone for the Time, 14 W h i t a k e r , V . K . , 'Philosophy and Romance i n Shakespeare's " P r o b l e m " Comedies', 100,161 W i l l c o c k , G . D . , Shakespeare as Critic of Language, 31,145 W i l s o n , F. P., Elizabethan andJacobean, 123 — ' R a l p h Crane, Scrivener t o the K i n g ' s Players', 44 — 'Shakespeare's Reading', 30, 36 W i l s o n , J. D o v e r , The Fortunes ofFalstaff, 42 — e d i t i o n o f H e n r y V I , 49 — e d i t i o n ofMeasure for Measure, see N e w C a m b r i d g e Shakespeare W o l f f , S. L . , Greek Romances in Elizabethan Prose Fiction, 18

i i . REFERENCES TO POEMS AND PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE OTHER THAN 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE' Merchant of Venice,The,66,125,156,157 All's Well that Ends Well, 56, 7 7 , 1 2 0 Midsummer Night's Dream, A, 86,156 121,136,140,143-4,156 Much Ado about Nothing, 121,156 Antony and Cleopatra, 107 Othello, 2 4 , 3 6 , 3 7 , 7 3 , I 6 I As You Like It, 78,121,156,157 Pericles, 103 Cymbeline, 4, 3 8 , 7 8 , 1 0 7 , 1 5 6 , 1 5 7 Rape ofLucrece, The, 154 Hamlet, 65, 81 Richard I I I , 145 Henry VI, 49 Romeo and Juliet, 49,78, 7 9 , 1 4 5 , 165 Henry VIII, 50 Tempest, The, 104,138,144-7 Julius Caesar, 78,106 Troilus and Cressida, 159 King John, 78 Twelfth Night, 78,156 King Lear, 82,165 Two Gentlemen of Verona, The, 165 Love s Labour s Lost, 121,145 Winters Tale, The, 78,156 Macbeth, 73,78