Measure for Measure
As a Problem Play
Measure for Measure can also be seen as a “problem play” aimed at addressing
problems of sexual, religious, and civic morality. The term “problem plays” was coined in 1896
by F. S. Boas in his book, Shakespeare and his Predecessors. Because these plays can neither be
neatly classified as comedies or tragedies, Boas borrowed a term from the theater of his time
and classified them as “problem-plays.” Shakespeare’s audience would not have been
accustomed to this blending of genres into tragicomedy. Comedies were plays that ended
happily, usually in a marriage, in which a young couple must overcome obstacles to be
together, clowns and servants banter and entertain the audience, and there is often some
element of mistaken identity or deception. In the end, all is revealed and everyone ends
happily. Tragedies were plays that ended in death and usually conformed to Aristotle’s
concept of tragedy and the tragic hero, who was admirable but had a fatal flaw that led to his
downfall. Elizabethan history plays were a relatively new form, dramatizing actual historical
events that occurred years earlier. “Problem-plays” fit into none of these categories, and are
more similar to modern drama and “tragicomedies” than to the usual Elizabethan theater fare.
AR: Why Problem Play? Who is F.S Boas?
Measure for Measure itself might have been inspired by the ascendance of James I to
the English throne after the death of Queen Elizabeth I. The 1604 Canons enacted by James I
put harsh restrictions on those who wished to get divorced, pronouncing that no one could
remarry if their spouse was still living. This statute was meant to end the “‘epidemic’ of
‘disorderly marriages’ and divorces.” There are clear parallels between this statute and the
harsh law enacted by Angelo at the beginning of the play, also intended to clean up the morals
of Vienna. In fact, Shakespeare has never been to Vienna, and the city in Measure for Measure
is more likely a fictionalized version of London at his time, teeming with brothels and drunks.
By setting the play in fictionalized Vienna, Shakespeare could present it to James I in London
without fear of retaliation.
, AR: What’s the Historical Background?
In the years 1602-4, Shakespeare wrote three comedies which are often grouped
together under the title ‘problem plays’: All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and
Measure for Measure, that seem to be stylistically distinct from comedies, tragedies, and
histories. The three plays are sometimes labelled as tragicomedies. One of Shakespeare’s
contemporaries, John Fletcher, gave a rather superficial definition of this genre: ‘it wants
death which is enough to make it no tragedy, yet it brings some near to it which is enough to
make it no comedy’
AR: What’s the other problem plays? John Fletcher?
But the problem goes deeper. Critics have identified in these plays a strong sense of
cynicism, despair and even disgust at life. We see this, for example, in the Duke’s almost
nihilistic speech, ‘Be absolute for death...’ in Act III Scene 1, and in his contemptuous
reprimand to Pompey. Indeed, none of the characters (including those who would chastise
others, such as Angelo, Isabella and the Duke) is really likeable or possessed of a sympathetic
warmth. However, the cynicism of the play should not be exaggerated. For example, although
Lucio and the brothel-keepers are condemned there is also an element of amused indulgence
in their treatment, suggesting that their flaws and misdeeds are seen with a sense of humor.
Lucio may be a whoring, treacherous fellow, full of slanders, but the comic elements in his
speeches make our stern attitudes soften. The denouement also offers at least some hope.
Three marriages are arranged (the traditional number in Shakespearean comedy) and only
Lucio’s promises to be loveless. Above all, mercy is exercised by Mariana, Isabella and the
Duke, and this illustrates that human goodness can transcend whatever weakness we all
possess. The play is, to a great extent, a record of error and evil, but it does have positive
notes. Measure for Measure is neither wholly cynical nor wholly joyful but an unsettling
combination of both.
AR: Cynicism in the Play?
As a Problem Play
Measure for Measure can also be seen as a “problem play” aimed at addressing
problems of sexual, religious, and civic morality. The term “problem plays” was coined in 1896
by F. S. Boas in his book, Shakespeare and his Predecessors. Because these plays can neither be
neatly classified as comedies or tragedies, Boas borrowed a term from the theater of his time
and classified them as “problem-plays.” Shakespeare’s audience would not have been
accustomed to this blending of genres into tragicomedy. Comedies were plays that ended
happily, usually in a marriage, in which a young couple must overcome obstacles to be
together, clowns and servants banter and entertain the audience, and there is often some
element of mistaken identity or deception. In the end, all is revealed and everyone ends
happily. Tragedies were plays that ended in death and usually conformed to Aristotle’s
concept of tragedy and the tragic hero, who was admirable but had a fatal flaw that led to his
downfall. Elizabethan history plays were a relatively new form, dramatizing actual historical
events that occurred years earlier. “Problem-plays” fit into none of these categories, and are
more similar to modern drama and “tragicomedies” than to the usual Elizabethan theater fare.
AR: Why Problem Play? Who is F.S Boas?
Measure for Measure itself might have been inspired by the ascendance of James I to
the English throne after the death of Queen Elizabeth I. The 1604 Canons enacted by James I
put harsh restrictions on those who wished to get divorced, pronouncing that no one could
remarry if their spouse was still living. This statute was meant to end the “‘epidemic’ of
‘disorderly marriages’ and divorces.” There are clear parallels between this statute and the
harsh law enacted by Angelo at the beginning of the play, also intended to clean up the morals
of Vienna. In fact, Shakespeare has never been to Vienna, and the city in Measure for Measure
is more likely a fictionalized version of London at his time, teeming with brothels and drunks.
By setting the play in fictionalized Vienna, Shakespeare could present it to James I in London
without fear of retaliation.
, AR: What’s the Historical Background?
In the years 1602-4, Shakespeare wrote three comedies which are often grouped
together under the title ‘problem plays’: All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and
Measure for Measure, that seem to be stylistically distinct from comedies, tragedies, and
histories. The three plays are sometimes labelled as tragicomedies. One of Shakespeare’s
contemporaries, John Fletcher, gave a rather superficial definition of this genre: ‘it wants
death which is enough to make it no tragedy, yet it brings some near to it which is enough to
make it no comedy’
AR: What’s the other problem plays? John Fletcher?
But the problem goes deeper. Critics have identified in these plays a strong sense of
cynicism, despair and even disgust at life. We see this, for example, in the Duke’s almost
nihilistic speech, ‘Be absolute for death...’ in Act III Scene 1, and in his contemptuous
reprimand to Pompey. Indeed, none of the characters (including those who would chastise
others, such as Angelo, Isabella and the Duke) is really likeable or possessed of a sympathetic
warmth. However, the cynicism of the play should not be exaggerated. For example, although
Lucio and the brothel-keepers are condemned there is also an element of amused indulgence
in their treatment, suggesting that their flaws and misdeeds are seen with a sense of humor.
Lucio may be a whoring, treacherous fellow, full of slanders, but the comic elements in his
speeches make our stern attitudes soften. The denouement also offers at least some hope.
Three marriages are arranged (the traditional number in Shakespearean comedy) and only
Lucio’s promises to be loveless. Above all, mercy is exercised by Mariana, Isabella and the
Duke, and this illustrates that human goodness can transcend whatever weakness we all
possess. The play is, to a great extent, a record of error and evil, but it does have positive
notes. Measure for Measure is neither wholly cynical nor wholly joyful but an unsettling
combination of both.
AR: Cynicism in the Play?
