William Shakespeare 's The Duke

Through the 8th Juror’s characteristic of a brave individual, it is evident that the play is symbolising him as a ‘hero’. From the beginning, he puts himself

Bastard, a child born out of wedlock, an illegitimate descendant that "deserves to be slapped." Don John, coined as “Shakespeare’s most passive villain” is plagued by the society of Messina that rejected him from the very moment of birth. Looking through the idea of predetermined roles in life, we can come to realize the roots of Don John’s agitation arises from his illegitimacy, stacking him at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Here he feels obliged to act the part of the villain, delegated by his very own blood.

Of course, one may just as easily argue that the Duke's newfound 'morality' is a direct result of the realisation that he, like the "rod" of the law, is perhaps "more mocked than feared" (I.iii.28). This interpretation is given credence when we consider the possibility that Lucio's remarks regarding the Duke may to some degree be representative of a general spirit of disdain rather than just a humorous product of his bawdy and irreverent nature. Neither must we forget the Duke's own avowal which is couched in very negative (and martial) terms:

At the beginning of the The Duchess of Malfi, Antonio presents a terrible prophecy to his friend Delio, telling him that “a prince’s court/Is like a common fountain whence should flow/Pure silver drops in general; but if’t chance/Some cursed example poison’t near the head,/Death and disease through the whole land spread” (Webster 1.1.11-15). Death certainly spreads throughout the play, with the majority of the characters dying by the time curtain drops, but what “poison” engenders this doom? Initially, the audience might view the Duchess’ deception as the poison in the plot. After all, her secret marriage is the catalyst for her brother’s murderous actions. However, in reality, the poison that flows through the fountain is Ferdinand and

important to note as the play was set at a time of monarchical struggle and the

This direct contradiction from his caring spirit toward Gilda in Act II to his apathetic tone in Act I reveals a huge shift in the tone. The Duke makes a huge generalization about an entire gender instead of

Compare Act I, where the Duke declares that “this woman or that is the same as the many others [he] see around [him]” (I.1) with Act II where the Duke exclaims, “She was stolen from me”(II, 89).

Therefore, we beg to question what is true? What is true in the play is in the thickening of the plot and the characters itself. The characters in Measure for Measure have chosen to challenge culture, law, and standing before God in an effort to experience temptation. The state, the family, and the individual are at odds with each other. Isabella and her group believe in letting people decide how they want to live, whereas the government under Angelo’s new reign; believe in freedoms that need to be regulated. The law pertains to justice, mercy, and significance of title. Is there a significance of title for what is legal and illegal for the characters in the play? Is Angelo allowed to freely have premarital relations and not a commoner like Claudio and Juliet? The hope for mercy is at question here for what is deemed to be true. The questioning of truth in Measure for Measure relies on the path that the characters have chosen to challenge politics. Claudio and Juliet have challenged the law. Angelo is at depths with temptation and the act of redemption on Claudio’s behalf. In Act II Scene 4 Angelo

Although not a true Friar, the while disguised as a Franciscan, the Duke in Measure for Measure shares the role of councilor while hearing confessions. In act 2 scene 3, Juliet comes to confess to the Friar Duke. She confesses that she and Claudio had consensual sex and that he should not be blamed in the matter. He brings he comfort and offers her repentance. Then, when the Duke speaks to Isabella and Claudio in Act 3.1, he praises Isabella for her virtue in resisting Angelo, and hears their problem.

The Duke can enforce any of the laws in Vienna but chooses to enforce the law surrounding chastity. By restoring laws on virginity the Duke is synonymously enforces patriarchy. The habitus in the world of play forces the characters to abide the laws surrounding sex and marriage. If citizens disobey laws and have sexual intercourse before marriage then there will be heavy consequences such as public shame, prison and ultimately death. The Duke holds the most power in Measure for Measure because of his cultural, social and symbolic forms of capital.

And he's setting up a public forum where anyone can air their grievances with Angelo's rule. So that scenario is where Isabella and Mariana tear him a new one. First, Isabella calls him a "virgin-violator." Then, Mariana mentions his dishonor from breaking off their past relationship. She also admits that she slept with him in place of Isabella. Angelo, confused by the situation, ask to speak with the friar who gave Mariana permission. But then, the Duke reveals that he, in disguise as a friar, orchestrated the whole thing. So he exposes Angelo as a hypocrite for committing the same crime as Claudio. And to make amends, the Duke orders Angelo to marry Mariana. But then after a second thought, he wants Angelo to die instead. Nonetheless, Isabella intervenes and convinces the Duke to spare him. And in response to her generosity, the Duke retrieves Claudio, revealing he's alive. Then, in the rush of joy and revelation, the play ends with the Duke proposing to Isabella. So the story was heading in a promising direction only to finish with a head-scratcher. After all, it sets up marriage as the only possible endpoint for the two female characters. And in Isabella's case, it comes straight out of left field. Moreover, the ending puts the Duke's motivation as a character in a cynical light. He was only helping Isabella to impress her. And he expects marriage in return? How entitled of him. The play should've ended with Isabella and

Barnardine’s character demonstrates the change in the Duke’s severity through his years as a ruler by highlighting how clueless the Duke actually is regarding Barnardine’s situation. In the first scene of act one, the Duke is portrayed as the embodiment of responsibility. As he leaves for his fake vacation, he makes certain to leave someone to fill his position in his absence. Moreover, Angelo seems like the right choice. The Duke’s praises, Angelo’s gracefulness, even his angelic name, provide the reader with a sense of trust. Although the Duke is

The citizens of Vienna having lived under relaxed laws have grown accustomed to breaking them, and Escalus, an old lord with experience in government, warned Angelo (in vain) of the consequences of harsh action; however, Angelo would not be deterred. An excellent insight to Angelo's style of law enforcement comes from the convicted brother of Isabella, Claudio. While in prison and given to many thoughts, Claudio speculates on the motives of Angelo:

Angelo doesn't want to be married and neither does Lucio. Therefore the Duke uses marriage as a punishment instead of death. He commands Angelo with the imperative 'look that you love your wife' and tells the provost to 'proclaim it? around the city'- that any woman disvalued by Lucio should come forward.

Shakespeare emphasizes gender barriers, yet also challenges them to show their inconsistencies. In court, the Duke articulates the common assumption that men represent the educated and professional members of society. As he anticipates the arrival of the "young learned doctor" (IV i143), he asks, "Where is he?" (IVi 144). The Duke has not yet