Why is it that I love the universe of this "dark" comedy so much, and why does it strike me as not really being so "dark" after all? Could it be because it is presided over by a "god"--the young Duke--who is priggish, diffident and comically vain (when his reputation is attacked by Lucio), and yet is unfailingly just and honorably susceptible to the attractions of female goodness and beauty? Is it because the "villain"--Angelo--is so pathetic and small that one never seriously expects he will win? Or is it because this world is--in spite of all its lust and hypocrisy--an absurd, surprisingly malleable universe in which even a base rogue like Barnadine can simply refuse to be executed, and then be allowed to survive?

All of these contribute to my great love for the play, but above all, I admire the character of Isabella, who is virtuous and brave and filled with mercy even for the vile hypocrite who wronged her. She leaves me with the feeling that--grubby and fallen though it may be--this is a world worth living for.

I struggled with this, big time. But, when I read it for a second time I began to see how it all fit together. Then I went for a third attempt, and saw something else entirely. There are always different layers of meaning in Shakespeare’s work, and it’s always quite hard to make a solid interpretation. Someone out there will argue against what you are saying, and rightly so because who is to say where the true meaning of a piece of literature is? Not me, that’s for sure, all I can do is try to form my own lasting impression of a work.

And the impression this formed on me was quite solid, to my mind. The evidence resides in the title of the play and its origins. Measure for Measure implies that what you give, you take back. If you exact a judgement or a sense of justice then you, too, are susceptible to that same force. Indeed, this quote from the bible evidently inspired this remarkable play:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with that judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured unto you again." (Matthew Chapter 7: Verse2)



Angelo is given the Duke of Vienna’s political powers whilst he supposedly goes on holiday to Poland. He immediately attempts to restore order to the city. But, he becomes a hypocrite: he is too worthy of judgement.

n  n    Book Reviewn  n
3 out of 5 stars to Measure for Measure, written in 1603 by William Shakespeare. When I think of reasons why people find Shakespeare difficult to read or understand, this is the play that most comes to mind. It's a good play. But you won't get much from it on a single read. And if you're not a fan of classic literature, or easily able to understand language differences from 400 years ago, it will be even harder to digest this one. Part of me believes this isn't all that different from some of the popular ones, but because it's often less read, copied or produced on TV or Film, it's much less understood. The plot is clever: a man gives up his position of power to the next in command and watches from afar to see what happens. He's got personal reasons for abandoning his role, but he also doesn't quite leave it. You're left with a quandary both in plot and in persona, which makes it harder to easily grasp on the first round. I basically understood it but didn't find it all that appealing. On a second read, it was better. I may go for a third this summer. Who's in??? LOL

n  n    About Men  n
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.

A piece that, therefore, addresses the issues of justice, power, and relationships of domination. What is justice, and should it be applied strictly or not? Who has the right to render justice, the human being, what he is, that is, fallible? Who has the right to govern others? And why does the Duke put Angelo to the test not to go into generalities? But, at the same time, for all the city's inhabitants, why does he want to do justice to Mariana? Claudio is considered condemnable for having slept with his fiancée but not Mariana. She did the same thing (at the Duke's instigation, which is even better) when he broke his engagement. Why does Lucio, who certainly has something to blame himself for, alone bear the costs of the Duke's justice? And what is this way of spying on everyone, pretending not to exercise power anymore? Why does the Duke ask (if you can call it asking because it sounds more like an order) in marriage to one of the young women at the end? We could go on like this for hours.
The ambiguities of the play are also those of the characters. You have understood that the Duke was very suspicious. However, Angelo is a two-faced character who oddly finds his mirror in Isabella. Both fight against human nature and violently suppress their libido; Angelo will not stand the test. As for Isabella, who launches with aplomb to nail you on the spot, "Die my brother!" because she doesn't want to give in to Angelo to preserve her honor. She doesn't care much about Mariana's honor. Well, it should be Mariana who dishonors herself rather than herself! And to find dubious reasons, with the Duke's help(ah, that one!), Mariana is innocent of any sin and wrongdoing by law. And so on, because everyone is more or less suspicious in this room.
It's a shame that the construction of the whole thing is a bit shaky, as has been noted a lot, and in particular, the comic scenes are so heavy. It reminds me of American films, such as Your Majesty or Woody Allen's War and Love, combining downright intellectual winks and a heavy heaviness in a particular form of humor. In Measure for Measure, the comedy focuses on puns, most often hyper-salacious, intervening between more brutal scenes and during these same scenes. Well, let's say it's not my cup of tea.
Measure for Measure is a very ironic title since the Duke's shenanigans lead us to double standards of justice. This work is a play that does not look so much like social or political criticism. However, Shakespeare keeps a reasonable distance from his characters and never reveals a point of view or a moral that would belong to the author. Instead, he chose to show us, in a curious place, into an abyss, characters and a city in the grip of a political and judicial system that also preys on a morality (personal or collective) of extreme shyness and ambiguity. This work is probably not Shakespeare's most enjoyable play to read. How it was written is not necessarily as exciting as the questions it raises. However, it is undoubtedly an eminently problematic piece beyond its name of "problem comedy" in its strictest sense.

Measure for Measure, William Shakespeare

Measure for Measure is a play by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written in 1603 or 1604.

The play's main themes include justice, "morality and mercy in Vienna," and the dichotomy between corruption and purity: "some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall." Mercy and virtue prevail, as the play does not end tragically, with virtues such as compassion and forgiveness being exercised at the end of the production. While the play focuses on justice overall, the final scene illustrates that Shakespeare intended for moral justice to temper strict civil justice: a number of the characters receive understanding and leniency, instead of the harsh punishment to which they, according to the law, could have been sentenced.

عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «چشم در مقابل چشم»؛ «حکم در برابر حکم»؛ «قیاس برای قیاس»؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز شانزدهم ماه سپتامبر سال2017میلادی

عنوان: چشم در مقابل چشم؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ موضوع: نمایشنامه های نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده17م

عنوان: حکم در برابر حکم (نمایشنامه)؛ ویلیام شکسپیر؛ مترجم: علیرضا مهدی‌پور؛ تهران: نشر چشمه، سال1385؛ در147ص؛ شابک9786002295149؛ موضوع: نمایشنامه های نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده17م

عنوان: ال‍ع‍ی‍ن‌ ب‍ال‍ع‍ی‍ن‌؛ ت‍ال‍ی‍ف‌ ول‍ی‍م‌ ش‍ک‍س‍پ‍ی‍ر؛ ت‍رج‍م‍ه‌ زاخ‍ر غ‍ب‍ری‍ال‌؛ م‍راج‍ع‍ه‌ ع‍ادل‌ س‍لام‍ه‌؛ ت‍ق‍دی‍م‌ ح‌.و ل‍ی‍ق‍ر؛ کویت، سال1350؛ در358ص؛

قیاس برای قیاس (حکم در برابر حکم) نمایشنامه‌ ای کمدی اثر «ویلیام شکسپیر» است؛ که در حدود سال‌های1603میلادی تا سال1604میلادی؛ نگاشته شده‌ است؛ مآخذ اصلی، که تغییرات فراوانی در آن داده شده، نمایشنامه «پروموس و کاساندرا» اثر «جرج وتستون»، و همچنین رمان کوتاه دیگری به نام «انحرافات اجتماعی» از همان نویسنده است؛ هر دوی این کتاب‌ها هم بر اساس داستانی از کلیات «هکاتومیتی» اثر «جرالدی سینتیو»، نویسنده ی ایتالیا است؛ تغییر اصلی در نمایشنامه «شکسپیر»، آفرینش نقش «ماریانا» است، که الگوهای موازی نمایشی ویژه‌ ای بنا می‌کند؛ و همچنین استفاده از عنصر «عروس جانشین» در نمایشنامه است، که در داستان‌های مردمی دوران «ملکه الیزابت» رسم بوده، و پیش از این توسط «شکسپیر» در نمایشنامه «هرچه عاقبتش خیر است، خوب است» نیز به کار گرفته شده‌ است

چکیده: (در زمان حکومت «دوک وینچنتو»، در شهر «وین» به دلیل اهمال در اجرای قانون، بی نظمی در همه جا رخنه می‌کند؛ پس از آنکه اوضاع بیشتر دچار هرج و مرج می‌شود، دوک حاکم مهربان و نرمدل تصمیم می‌گیرد، مدتی شهر را ترک کند، و به قصر ییلاقی خویش در «لهستان» برود، و زمام امور را در دست دو تن از مردان بزرگ خود بگذارد: یکی قائم مقام خود، «آنجلو»، که دارای نامی بی‌خدشه و به سختگیری نام آور است؛ و دیگری «اسکالوس» که قانوندانی خردمند است؛ به این امید که این دو بتوانند اصلاحات اخلاقی و اجتماعی لازم را به تثبیت برسانند؛

نخستین قانونی که قائم مقام دوک با مشورت و صحه ی «اسکالوس» خردمند، برای اصلاحات ا��لاقی و اجتماعی تعیین می‌کند، قانون مجازات اعدام برای زنا و فسق و فجور است؛ اولین قربانی نیز، که برای نمونه متهم و دستگیر می‌شود، «کلادیو» است؛ نجیب‌زاده‌ ای جوان، و از خانواده ی سرشناس شهر، که با «قراردادی واقعی» با دختری به نام «ژولیت» همبستر شده، و او را بچه‌ دار کرده بود؛ شایع می‌شود که «کلادیو» و «ژولیت» عاشق و معشوق هم بوده‌ اند، و طفلک‌ها قصد داشته‌ اند، با هم ازدواج کنند؛ فقط خانواده‌ هایشان دربارهٔ برخی از مسائل جهیزیه و غیره مذاکرات و تصمیم‌ گیری می‌کردند؛ در این گیرودار شخص دوک نیز که به نحوه ی کار دولت و وضع زندگی مردم علاقمند است به جای مسافرت به «لهستان»، در واقع پنهانی و با لباس مبدل در شهر مانده‌ است، تا بر قانون‌گذاری و مدیریت قائم مقام خود نظارت کند…؛

این نمایش در پنج پرده تدوین شده و دارای هجده شخصیت، و تعدادی سیاهی لشکر است؛ شخصیت‌های اصلی عبارت اند از: «وینچنتو: دوک مهربان و مثلاً فیلسوف منش وین، نجیب‌زاده‌ای برای تمام فصول»؛ «آنجلو: لرد نیابت مقام حکومت در غیاب دوک وینچنتو، مقدس نمای خشک؛ نقطه مقابل و جلوه دهنده وینچنتو»؛ «کلادیو: نجیب‌زاده‌ای جوان اهل وین»؛ «ایزابلا: خواهر زیبای کلادیو و در آرزوی ورود به دیر راهبان»؛ «ماریانا: تکه زمینی آسیب دیده؛ نامزد رهاشده و رقت‌انگیز آنجلو (وقتی جهیزیه‌اش رفت، شوهرش رفت)»؛ «ژولیت: نامزد کلادیو، افتادن در مسیر پر از خطاهای جوانی کارنامه حیثیت زندگی او را خدشه‌دار کرده بود»؛ «اسکالوس: مشاوری عاقل و سالخورده»؛ «واریوس»؛ «رئیس زندان شهر وین»؛ «البو»؛ «سینیوریتا اوردان»؛ «دلقکی به نام پومپی»؛ «لوسیو»؛ «فراث»؛ «توماس»؛ «پیتر»؛ «فرانچسکا»؛ «ابهورسون»؛ «لردها، افسران، قاضی، نگهبانان و خدمتکاران»)؛

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 27/03/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 30/01/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

What's mine is yours -
And what is yours, MINE!
Measure for Measure
Act V, Scene 1.
(The Duke to his ladylove, Isabelle near the close)

You shall all be dealt equal Measure for Measure. What you give, that you shall receive.
Matthew 7.

When I saw this play in Stratford, Ontario with a friend of our family, Caroline - in 1975 - I was dealt a Queen of Spades, together with a King of Hearts (and I'm sure you know their respective connotations).

I was dealt the Queen that summer. I was expected to play the King shortly after, as a planned equal and rewarding measure for me, as healing compensation for my bipolar run of murderous pratfalls.

The player who dealt me those cards was attempting his variety of Fifth Business (see my review of that book) which ended for me, by the grace of God, in a purgatorial cataclysm.

I am reading, btw, in a biography of John Updike written after his death (the best one to my mind), that this epochal writer - the mirror of his times - suffered the same ceaseless pratfalls and guilty fame (again, my own Measure for Measure with my bad luck, though lucky love in the nick of time) that I have.

That's where two similarly parallel lines diverge.

I have stuck to my true serendipitous ladylove and wife for 47 years! But we all know Updike's amorous reputation

"حكم مكنيد تا بر شما حكم نشود.زيرا بدان طريقى كه حكم كنيد بر شما نيز حكم خواهد شد وبدان پيمانه اى كه پيماييد براى شما خواهند پيمود وچون است كه خس را در چشم برادر خود مى بينى وچوبى را كه در چشم خود دارى نمى بينى؟"

قسمتى از انجيل متى كه شكسپير عنوان اين نمايشنامه را از آن گرفت و در آن به تفاوت كردار و گفتار انسان در مقام قاضى يا هر انسانى كه بر مسند قصاوت تكيه دارد اشاره دارد.
زمانى كه انسان پندارىْ با شهوت و نفس شيطانى دارد و گفتار واعمالى رياگونه و
و كردارى حيوانى ودور از شرافت

Shakespeare was pushing the boundaries with Measure for Measure.
A royal proclamation under Elizabeth 1st in 1559 strictly prohibited stage plays from dealing with matters of religion or current public issues of governance.
In the early years of the 1600's London was in a dilemma. The translation of the King James Version Bible had just begun yet lawlessness run rampant in London. Within sight of Shakespeare's own Globe Theater were houses of prostitution.
Mr.Shakespeare had an idea for a play but that ol proclamation was a problem. So to keep himself out of trouble he simply changed the setting of this play from London to Vienna.
There were no English proclamations about stage plays concerning Vienna Vice.

Within this story the majority of Vienna's residents have little or no respect for the law. Especially those laws concerning fornication. One reason for this is the Duke of Vienna's unwillingness to enforce these laws. He doesn't want citizens to think of him as an overbearing ruler. But the Duke does realize his citizens of sin need reining in. So he devises a plan: He informs those in authority under him that he must leave Vienna on a diplomatic mission. Then he instructs them that in his absence they are to enforce the city laws. Instead of actually leaving the city the Duke disguises himself under the cloak of friar in order to watch the interim authorities in action. Shakespeare did a great job here writing enough character hypocrisy to shock the reader and at other times using a very humorous dialogue.
By the plays conclusion the Duke is forced to man up, revealing himself from under disguise and issuing biblical justice.

So yes,Shakespeare knew very well that patrons attending this play had to pass by brothels in order to get there. William Shakespeare was a rebel.


Matthew 7 New King James Version 1)“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2) For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3) And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"

page 92
the Duke transfers power to Angelo
"So fare you well. To th'hopeful execution do I leave you
Of your commissions.
Your scope is as mine own
So to enforce or qualify the laws as to your soul seems good."

page 93
Lucio speaking with other Gentleman of the transfer of power and it's hypocrisy,
even Shakespeare picks on pirates
Lucio:"Thou conclud'st like the sanctimonious pirate that went to sea with the ten commandments, but scraped one out of the table."
1 Gentleman:"Thou shalt not steal?"
"There's not a soldier of us all that, in the thanksgiving before meat, do relish the petition well that prays for peace."

page 95/96
Mistress Overdone and Gentleman
Mistress Overdone: "Well, well; there's one yonder arrested and carried to prison was worth five thousand of you all."
Gentleman 1: 'Claudio to prison? Tis not so."
Mistress Overdone:'I saw him arrested, saw him carried away, and, which is more, within these three days his head to be chopped off !"
"I am sure of it: and it is for getting Madam Julietta with child."

page 125/126
narration
Angelo speaks his thoughts on his lust for Isabella
"What's this? What's this? Is this her fault, or mine? The tempter or the tempted, who sins most, ha?
Not she: nor doth she tempt: but it is I."
"Dost thou desire her foully, for those things that make her good? Most dangerous is that temptation that doth goad us on to sin..."
"Never could the strumpet with all her double vigour, art and nature, once stir my temper; but this virtuous maid subdues me quite."

page 135/136
Angelo blackmailing Isabella(novitiate training Nun), Claudio's sister
Angelo; "Plainly conceive, I love you."
Isabella: "My brother did love Juliet and you tell me that he shall die for't."
Angelo; "He shall not, if you give me love."
'Believe me on mine honour, my words express my purpose."
Isabella: "Ha! Little honour to be much believed ..."
"I will proclaim thee, Angelo, look for't. Sign me a present pardon for my brother, or with an outstretched throat I'll tell the world aloud what man thou art."
Angelo: "Who will believe thee, Isabel? My unsoiled name, th'austereness of my life, My vouch against you, and my place i'th'state ..."
"Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushes by yielding up thy body to my will, or else he must not only die the death but thy unkindness shall his death draw out ..."

page 147
"Nay, if there be no remedy for it we shall have all the world drink brown and white bastard."
This comment was really of no significance, I just wanted to know what Shakespeare meant.
I did have some idea due to I sometimes buy a Fat Bastard brand of wine for guest, because I like the name. I don't drink wine.
Shakespeare simply meant a brown or white sweet wine ... He liked the name as well.

page 196
The Duke of Vienna, no longer disguised as a friar, begins his claim for justice.
"The very mercy of the law cries out ... An Angelo for Claudio, death for death ... and measure still for measure."
"We do condemn thee to the very block where Claudio stooped to death,"

REVIEW (2025): [3 stars]
This is such a fucked up play and I have a million thoughts about it. Isabella will forever be THAT GIRL and I'll defend her 'til the day I die. The Duke and Angelo deserve to "die, perish".

REVIEW (2019): [5 stars]
This might be my new favorite Shakespeare play. It's nowhere near perfect but in all of Shakespeare's canon, I feel like this play (for its elaboration of misogyny and the abuse of power) is the most relevant out of the bunch. It is absolutely chilling to read some of the scenes in here, look at the reception history (especially what reviewers throughout the centuries have thought of the female characters in this play) and just shake your head at the cruelty of the human race.

Measure for Measure is a so-called "problem play", which means that Willy kind of fucked up writing a comedy and shit got way too dark way too quick. But no, for real, it means that this play features many of the characteristics that most of Willy's comedies have (witty banter, problems that get resolved without someone dying, a happy ending that usually involves some sort of marriage) but still, the themes are so dark that you cannot really call it a comedy.

In Measure for Measure Vincentio, the Duke of Vienna, decides to leave the government of the city in the hands of the strict judge, Angelo. Vincentio realised that in the 14 years that he has been in power, the city has fallen into crime and filth. Brothels are everywhere, criminals and prostitutes are everywhere ... and Vincentio thinks that a firmer hand than his is needed. But instead of letting Angelo do his thing, he decides to pose as a friar and keep him in check. Angelo takes his job very seriously and enforces a lot of strict laws, one of which punished men to death that have gotten women pregnant who aren't their wives. One of these men is Claudio, a young gentleman, who is in love with his (not-wife) Juliet. When Claudio is sentenced to death, his sister Isabella tries to move Angelo to refrain from punishing her brother.

What then ensues is one of the most frightening and most chilling scenes in all of Shakespeare's canon. The first time Isabella talks with Angelo, she is accompanied by other gentlemen, and Angelo tells her to come back later. Alone. When the two of them are alone, Angelo threatens Isabella by telling her that he will only release her brother, if she will sleep with him. Isabella, who is also a novice, is disgusted by Angelo's proposal and rejects him with very harsh words. When Angelo won't stop lusting after her, she threatens him by telling him that she will expose his disgusting behaviour to the world. Angelo's response is so realistic, and therefore so frightening. He tells her that no one would believe her, because his status and power is too big. He's a well respected citizen and his word weighs more than hers. Isabella is crushed but manages to get away from Angelo.

When she tells her brother about this, (brace yourself!) her brother demands of her that she should sleep with Angelo to save him. When I read that I actually couldn't believe my eyes. I don't know what type of coward and shit person you must be to demand of your sister that she lets herself be raped by your jailer ... but you do you, Claudio, you ain't worth shit. Isabella (who is literally the light of my life and the most interesting female character in Shakespeare's canon) stays strong in that situation and tells her brother that she is unable to save him and that she is disappointed in him. I found it so chilling to read that many reviewers of this play don't like Isabella as a character because they think she should've slept with Angelo. I'm just ... I cannot even. On top of that, I really hate the big deal that is made out of Isabella's virginity. As if Angelo's threat would've been more appropriate had the woman been already sexually active. It's just disgusting.

Measure for Measure is one of the only Shakespeare plays where I'll excuse the so-called bed trick. It's a plot device that I usually absolutely condemn because it's basically rape in disguise, as two characters plot to trick another character into believing they are sleeping with person A, when in fact they are sleeping with person B. It's disgusting and not a good look. Nonetheless, I found the bed trick to be a good plot device for this particular play because A) it was a good way to make Angelo taste a bit of his own medicine because Isabella and Angelo's would-be-wife Mariana (whom he left hanging after her dowry was lost) switch places so that Mariana actually sleeps with Angelo (something she wants to do to consummate their marriage), while also saving Isabella's brother and B) it reveals even more of Angelo's ugly character because after he slept with Mariana (whom he believed to be Isabella) he actually orders the execution of Claudio to proceed. So, even if Isabella had slept with him, she wouldn't have been able to save her brother. I absolutely love that Shakespeare put that in here because it overrides any argumentation in which Isabella "should have" slept with Angelo.

This whole plot makes me so angry. And that's why I love it so much at the same time. It's such a good illustration of what is still wrong in our society today; that people with a lot of power can basically get away with anything since status and money are the keys to the world. It's frustrating. It's infuriating.

Another thing that I found extremely interesting is that at the end of the play, after Mariana marries Angelo (the Duke actually wanted to execute him ... which I was all for tbh but alas, but since this is a "comedy" Mariana begged him for forgiveness because she "loves" Angelo ... I could write a whole essay about these angelic female characters in Shakespeare‘s plays and how so many women end up with rapists and shitty men and yet it's celebrated as a success and happy ending, whatever), the Duke actually proposes to Isabella of all people. And then the play just cuts off. Shakespeare didn't even bother with providing us with Isabella's reaction. He probably just assumed that it was implicated in the Duke's proposal that Isabella would say yes and that she would be overcome with joy. MY ASS. I cannot believe it. But since this is an open ending, I am free to come up with my own interpretation: Isabella would've 100% rejected his ass. She has never shown interest in marriage, she wants to become a member of the order, throughout the play she has seen the nasty side of the Duke's character. No way in hell would that woman have accepted his wonky ass proposal. Don't try to convince me otherwise.

So, at the end of this review, all there's left to say is: Isabella, I would die for you. You deserve so much better.

A comedy, even though when the Duke takes a powder(goes undercover), the fellow left in charge tends to be a hypocritical tyrant, things fall into place and once again order is restored. Not as ha ha laugh out loud funny but imagining it with an all male cast back in the day the theater group must have been rolling.
9-3-2024 Re-read. Listening to the play by the Marlowe Professional Players presented by Argo Classics (Audible) very enjoyable and well worth the revisit.

Measure for Measure, as the title suggests, is all about weighing out appropriate portions – of love, of mercy, of justice. The plot is simple enough. The Duke of Vienna, concerned that his people have thrown off restraint and have sunk too far into liberty, leaves the city in the hands of Angelo, a man notorious for his strictness and inhuman discipline. As Lucio observes in two instances (once to Isabella and again to the Duke):

“…Upon his place,
Governs Lord Angelo; a man whose blood
Is very snow-broth; one who never feels
The wanton stings and motions of the sense,
But doth rebate and blunt his natural edges
With profits of the mind, study, and fast.”

And

“Some report a sea-maid spawned him; some, that he was begot between two stock-fishes. But it is certain that when he makes water his urine is congealed ice; that I know to be true: and he is a motion generative; that’s infallible.” (Act 1, scene 4; Act 3, scene 2, respectively)

In the meantime, the Duke disguises himself as a humble friar to observe what transpires.

Angelo, true to form, imprisons and condemns Claudio for lechery – he has got with child his fiancée Julietta. Isabella, Claudio’s sister, a woman who plans to enter a nunnery, importunes Angelo for mercy. Angelo refuses unless she sleeps with him (and even then he plans to kill Claudio; as Angelo says: “He should have lived, / Save that his riotous youth, with dangerous sense, / Might in times to come have ta’en revenge, / By so receiving a dishonor’d life / With ransom of such shame”).

At this point, the Duke (in his guise as friar) steps in and devises a plan whereby Isabella will appear to submit, but in her stead will step Mariana, Angelo’s spurned fiancée, who still loves him (for some reason; you’re reminded of Helena’s inexplicable love for Bertram from All’s Well That Ends Well). The bed-trick succeeds and Angelo is hoist on his own petard. The Duke pardons him and Claudio, and both men marry their women. Lucio (in a subplot) is forced to marry a prostitute whom he got pregnant (in punishment for lese majesté), and the Duke proposes to Isabella:

“… Dear Isabel,
I have a motion which imports your good;
Whereto if you’ll a willing ear incline,
What’s mine is yours and what is yours is mine.” (Act 5, scene 1)

Isabella’s reply (wholly nonverbal) depends upon how the play is staged: Does she accept? Does she decline? Is she left standing in confusion, as some productions have played?

And, again paralleling All’s Well, it’s an open question as to what the future holds for these couples as only one is a mutual love match (maybe two, if you accept Isabella falling for the Duke).

Though he gets away with rape and sexual harassment, I think Angelo is the most interesting character in the play. His unswerving commitment to the abstract ideal of justice comes face to face with the reality of his own, human nature and he finds that it’s not so easy to be a paragon of the law:

“From thee, even from they virtue!
What’s this, what’s this? Is this her fault or mine?
The tempter or the tempted, who sins most?
Ha!
Not she: nor doth she tempt: but it is I
That, lying by the violet in the sun,
Do as the carrion does, not as the flower,
Corrupt with virtuous season. Can it be
That modesty may more betray our sense
Than woman’s lightness? Having waste ground enough,
Shall we desire to raze the sanctuary
And pitch our evils there? O, let her brother live!
Thieves for their robbery have authority
When judges steal themselves. What, do I love her,
That I desire to hear her speak again,
And feast upon her eyes? What is’t I dream on?
O cunning enemy, that, to catch a saint,
With saints dost bait thy hook! Most dangerous
Is that temptation that doth goad us on
To sin in loving virtue: never could the strumpet,
With all her double vigor, art and nature,
Once stir my temper; but this virtuous maid
Subdues me quite. Ever till now,
When men were fond, I smiled and wonder’d how.” (Act 2, scene 3)

حکم مکنید تا بر شما حکم نشود. زیرا بدان طریقی
که حکم کنید بر شما نیز حکم خواهد شد ...
انجیل متی
.