Measure for Measure & Predjudice

Because the Duke and Friar Lodowick are in fact, the same person, this presents a unique echoing of characters. Both roles reflect a certain amount of power in their respective houses of law, and yet Lucio critiques both figures with the charge of manipulator. Shakespeare creates this trap for the Duke, he cannot act as a witness against this defamation because it would foil his plan. When the Friar stands up for the Duke, of course, he is defending his own name; the audience does not know what to believe; and they too are trapped. It is interesting that Lucio’s character is a soft whisper of the flawed Duke/Friar persona.

Because Lucio lies about his statements, it does however, complicate the notion of truth. If Shakespeare is proposing that Lucio is speaking the truth, he is likewise questioning at what means does it take to reveal the truth? Must there be some dishonesty in exposing the truth? Angelo also complicates the notion of truth when he says no one will believe Isabella over him. Likewise, the Friar Lodowick alludes that the Duke should be present to hear these claims against him, but then he begs the question to what it would prove? It would be one’s person’s word against another’s. Friar Lodowick dares Lucio to makes these allegations before the Duke. Lucio does not submit however to this charge. He does not argue to the Duke’s assertion of slander. Both past and present leaders have now asserted that their word would be held above the inferior party’s. This notion of one person’s word against another is raised multiple times throughout the text. In the first instance, Isabella tells Angelo that she will make known his blackmail. There seems to be a hierarchy in terms of when one person’s word is against another’s. Public figures that are recognized as having a higher moral or social status could possibly be perceived as possessing more honest traits. People could be likewise more lenient to figures that they are more familiar with. For example, when Lucio claims:

My lord, I know him: ‘tis a meddling friar,
I do not like the man. Had he been lay, my Lord,
For certain words he spake against your Grace In your retirement,
I had swinged him soundly. (V.i. 127-130)

The Duke is put in a position where he cannot challenge the claims because technically, he wasn’t there to witness these remarks against him. This brings forth the legal question of what happens when there are opposing testimonies, when both parties swear under oath they are telling, “The Whole Truth…” As the play ventures onward, again, the notion of one person’s word against another is raised when the Duke exits and comes forth as the Friar Lodowick. At this point, everyone believes that he is guilty of the crime Lucio has charged him with. This is an interesting development because at this point Escalus and Angelo have sided with Lucio. This is fascinating because the Friar is a man of the cloth, and it would seem that there might perhaps be a prejudice that he would not lie, despite this, there is still more faith invested in Lucio by both Escalus and Angelo:

Escalus. Slander to th’ state! Away with him to prison!
Angelo. What can you vouch against him, Signior Lucio?
Is this the man that you did tell us of? Lucio.
‘Tis he, my lord. (V.i. 324-327)

What does this do then, when there is preferential treatment of one individual over another? In legal terms, this challenges the very notion of justice, of fairness. Shakespeare here is presenting a very human condition where biases are often hard to break. Therefore rulers and judges must specifically refrain from creating a predisposition for any person. For this society however, it difficult for them to cease from doing this, as Angelo and Escalus prove. There is a prejudice in society that one person’s word might be higher than another’s.


-Vanessa Gomez, Wang Section 1A