If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for Measure PDF Free Download
1 / 16/16
100%
Anglophonia Caliban/Sigma
French Journal of English Studies
17 (34) | 2013
English Linguistics
If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for
Measure
Estelle Rivier and Anne-Marie Santin-Guettier
Electronic version
URL: https://journals.openedition.org/acs/12679
DOI: 10.4000/anglophonia.113
ISSN: 2802-2777
Publisher
Presses universitaires du Midi
Printed version
Date of publication: October 1, 2013
Number of pages: 88-103
ISBN: 978-2-8107-0286-2
ISSN: 1278-3331
Electronic reference
Estelle Rivier and Anne-Marie Santin-Guettier, “If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for
Measure”, Anglophonia Caliban/Sigma [Online], 17 (34)|2013, Online since 10 December 2013,
connection on 04 December 2024. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/acs/12679 ; DOI: https://
doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.113
The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported
les) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.
If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in
Measure for Measure
Estelle RIVIER et Anne-Marie SANTIN-GUETTIER1
RÉSUMÉ
Measure for Measure est une pièce éminemment “problématique” dans le
canon shakespearien, non seulement d’un point de vue éthique, mais aussi narratif
et performatif pour ne citer que quelques-uns de ses traits équivoques. Sur le dernier
aspect nommé, Stéphane Braunschweig, metteur en scène ayant dirigé l’œuvre en 1998
avec la Nottingham Playhouse, conait dans un récent entretien que le foisonnement
de « if », « what if » et « as if » donnerait lieu à une étude pertinente, notamment dans
le cadre du concours de l’agrégation où la pièce gure.2 Qu’à cela ne tienne, il fallait
le prendre au mot ! Combien existe-t-il d’occurrences hypothétiques dans la pièce ?
Quelle(s) incidence(s) ont-elles sur sa rhétorique, sur sa poésie, sur les rapports entre
personnages, sur les enjeux de la mise en scène ? La surabondance d’occurrences
est-elle courante dans les autres pièces de Shakespeare et à quelles ns ? Autant de
questions auxquelles seule l’étude littéraire ne pouvait répondre. Le lecteur ne sera
donc pas surpris de voir en cette étude un dialogue entre linguistique et littérature,
entre texte et scène, pour tenter de lever le voile (ou le rideau) sur quelques questions
laissées en suspens à l’égard de cette pièce.
Key words: Hypothesis, Measure, Unreliability, Balance, WHETHER...
OR…, IF X, Y, Inversion + ED, enunciator, endorsement.
“If a man will begin in certainties, he shall end in doubts;
But if he will be content to begin with doubts,
He shall end in certainties.”
Bacon, Advancement of Learning, I, 1605, p. 147.
As Francis Bacon’s acknowledgment quoted above implies, if things were
all clearly settled in advance, there would be no space for self-awareness or pardon.
This is particularly revealing in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, contemporary
to this quotation, where, from the beginning, nothing is obvious and considered at
face value. The Duke’s question to Escalus, while he is about to appoint Angelo as
the deputy of Vienna in his absence, “What think you of it?” (I.1.21), sets the tone,
showing that despite decisions made, doubts remain. In his answer, Escalus voices the
1 Université du Maine
2 Ref. entretien : Jean-Michel Déprats, Estelle Rivier et Stéphane Braunschweig, « Chez Shakespeare, il
y a toujours du monstre dans l’humain. », Sillages critiques. URL : http://sillagescritiques.revues.org/2782
ANGLOPHONIA / SIGMA 34 (2013)
90
rst hypothetic clause of the play: “If any in Vienna be of worth, (…) It is Angelo.”
(I.1.22-4).3 Present-Day English offers a fairly wide range of means in order to
express hypothesis, i.e.: WHETHER... OR... / IF X, Y / Inversion + ED. An enunciator
chooses WHETHER X OR Y when X and Y are balanced in his mind; X and Y weigh
the same weight. WHETHER stems from the combination of WH- and EITHER. The
operator IF leads him to hold X as true, should it be only for a few seconds. If the IF-
clause is true, the main clause Y holds true as well and the utterer can warrant it.4 In
this case, a modal such as WILL occurs in Y, proving that the enunciator endorses Y:
“If it is warm enough, (then) I will leave tomorrow morning.”
In such a light, we read Escalus’ lines (above quoted) as such: there is indeed
somebody in Vienna who can worthily replace the Duke for a while, and that is Angelo.
A sentence such as Had I known, I would have told you provides a structure
devoid of IF or WHETHER; yet an hypothetical value prevails. Indeed, the regular order
“noun group + verbal operator” has been inverted, which results in a restructuration of
the main items in the sentence. Such a restructuration is due to the utterer’s reinforced
presence in his/her utterance. As he/she is the one who builds up his/her sentence, such
a “reshufed” strsucture testies to the fact that he/she is a real puppet master in the
way he collocates his words. All in all, the set WHETHER... OR... / IF... / inversion +
ED illustrates the enunciator’s growing interference in his speech.
Early Modern English had its own logic and the various ways of expressing
hypothesis could differ in contemporary English. Firstly, in the third person singular,
verbs in the present tense never ended with -th in IF-clauses. This does not invalidate
our analysis of IF-clauses, but the regular occurrence of the verbal base means that
validating the predicative relation itself remained hypothetical. It follows that such
occurrences in Shakespeare’s works necessarily seem more ctional. Secondly,
AND could introduce conditional or concessive clauses in Early Modern English,
but this and was less common than in Middle English. It was particularly favoured
by dramatists, and often combined with it (an’t); this implies that it was regarded
as a colloquial feature. The accepted spelling an (while regarded as vulgar with the
copulative conjunction and) is probably due to an attempt to mark the conditional/
concessive use as separate from the simple copulative one. “An’t be any way, it must
be with valour.” (Shakespeare Twelfth Night, III.ii.; the folio edition reads and’t). “He
shall go without his and (= even if) he were my brother.”((HC) Udall I.ii)5
3 All the quotations are taken from William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, J. W. Lever (ed.), London:
The Arden Shakespeare, 2005 (1965).
4 J. Chuquet, p. 49 : « Il s’agit ici d’un jeu sur l’assertion dans la mesure où l’énonciateur, par le biais d’une
hypothèse, place la proposition P (et la validation de la relation prédicative qu’elle contient) sur un plan
« imaginaire » […]. Le fait de poser cette « situation à un moment donné » (pour reprendre la dénition du
Robert) permet de comprendre que l’énonciateur a besoin, pour énoncer Q, de se poser non plus en tant
qu’énonciateur « actuel », à l’origine des repérages effectués pour poser la relation prédicative dans P comme
validée, mais en tant qu’énonciateur FICTIF, sur un autre plan, dont il pose lui-même les coordonnées. »
5 The Cambridge History of the English Language.
If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for Measure 91
Through Escalus’ words, the plot, built on the Duke’s project, is immediately,
though implicitly, presented as unsure or “problematic”. Problems and unanswered
questions knowingly lie at the heart of Measure for Measure. Shakespeare exemplies
the vicissitude embedded in life where everything changes so fast that men have
to adapt themselves constantly. No determinism governs their choices but the
protagonists of the play are often overwhelmed by misunderstandings and by events
they can hardly control, and as pilgrims looking for God’s illuminating teaching,
they travel towards edication. The accumulation of “ifs”, “what ifs” and “as ifs”
is another way of highlighting man’s wandering and hesitation. Such clauses offer
alternative situations and invite us to weigh, or “measure”, the truth and its opposite,
the pros and the cons of a given situation. As the Folio version of the play is the main
authority on which we can base our analysis, we can provide a rather fair assessment
of the hypothetic forms used there, namely:
Number of occurrences
6
If whether
108 5
Our intent is however not to mention and analyse all the hypothetic forms
used in the play for some of them have neither linguistic nor literary relevance (for
example polite formulations such as “if it like your honour”, Provost II.1.33, or
“If it please your honour”, Elbow II.1.47). We shall rather focus our attention on
key literary and linguistic occurrences, ranging over three thematic approaches: the
structural hypotheses involving comic relief, plot-variations and prolepsis. What is the
value of repeated IF-clauses in II.1 for instance in the confrontation between Pompey
and Escalus? From another respect, what does the Duke’s inverted clause in I.3.53-54
(“Hence shall we see,/If power change purpose, what our seemers be”) reveal of the
risky situation he has engaged his realm in when naming Angelo as the new deputy?
And by extension, how has the playwright built the whole scenario on expectancy and
experimentation? Furthermore, hypotheses always lead us to consider the two scales
of the balance, and to account for confronting values and opposite points of view. This
is particularly true during the two scenes in Act II where Isabella and Angelo are face
to face. Not surprisingly there, “ifs” accumulate, showing the characters’ discord, and
endangering the beneting evolution of their situation. Yet, as Measure for Measure
is denitely an edifying comedy, more moralistic hypotheses also permeate the text
of the play. They invite us to question our own behaviour, either from a religious
perspective or simply from a social and human one.
STRUCTURAL HYPOTHESES
As remarked above, in Early Modern English ways of expressing hypothesis
could differ from contemporary English just as other linguistic items could be used
6 Please, see further down in the conclusion an assessment of “Ifs” in other Shakespearean plays.
ANGLOPHONIA / SIGMA 34 (2013)
92
to serve other aims.7 In addition, we cannot assume for certain that Shakespeare used
IF-clauses, inversions and WHETHER….OR in a deliberate linguistic progression.
However it is rather puzzling to note that as early as the rst act, hypothetic clauses
reveal to what extent the plot is resting on risky foundations that will condition the
forthcoming peripeteia. For example, in the double hypothetic structure found in I.3.53-
54 (“Hence shall we see,/If power change purpose, what our seemers be”) in which an
inversion is immediately followed by IF+SP, the Duke who is confessing his intentions
to the friar, implies that the order in his realm will be restored if only Angelo is able
to have the law be respected (power/change purpose). Hence the welfare of Vienna is
submitted to the capacity of one man to restore justice. If he fails, the “seemers” won’t
be unmasked and disorder will prevail. If he succeeds, the “seemers” will be unveiled
and justice will be applied. The play’s action is thus conditioned by this alternative.
Depending on the scale of the balance that will weigh the most, the plot will vary. As
early as the rst act, the topicality of measurement is illustrated.
But what one may venture to call structural hypotheses are also, paradoxically,
a means by which we can anticipate what will occur next. In III.1, Isabella’s lines are
proleptic insofar as they foreshadow what will happen in the last act. In her line, “If ever
he (Vincentio) return and I can speak to him, I will open my lips in vain, or discover his
government” (191-193), although IF is followed by EVER that reinforces the dubious
validation of the predicative relation he/return, the modal WILL used in the apodosis
clearly implies that in the case it were validated, Isabella would not hesitate to “open
her lips in vain”, which will reveal to be true indeed. “Hear me! O here me, hear”, she
repeats in V.1.34. But even more strikingly does she use an inversion just after “but yet
most truly will I speak” (39) to denounce Angelo as “a forsworn”, “a murderer”, “an
adulterous thief, an hypocrite, a virgin-violator” (41; 42; 43). Thus we can retrospectively
assert that the inversion and IF-clause found in III.1 have indeed prepared our ears and
eyes to witness what occurs in V.1. Linguistic and lexical constructions are in harmony,
and hypotheses come true. Likewise the Duke’s answer to the aficted Isabella in III.1
― “I do make myself believe that you may most uprighteously […] do no stain to your
own gracious person; and much please the absent duke, if peradventure he shall ever
return to have hearing of this business.” (198; 201-204) ― pregures what will be
performed in Act V. The juxtaposition of two hypothetic items, the marker “IF” and
the adverb “peradventure”, make it particularly improbable that the two predicative
relations he/return and he/hear this business shall be validated. Yet, as we have pointed
out in the introduction, when the enunciator uses an “IF-clause” (If X, Y is/will be),
he holds X as true, even for a brief interval. In III.1, the Duke is still disguised as a
friar but Isabella is unaware of his stratagem. Through the Duke’s cue (lines 198-204),
Shakespeare sprinkles several aspects of the ending like the Duke’s proclaiming his
love for Isabella. Such an anticipated (yet implicit) revelation probably goes unnoticed
7 For example, AND could introduce conditional or concessive clauses in Early Modern English, but this
AND is less common than in Middle English. It is particularly favoured by dramatists, and often combined
with IT (AN’T); this implies that it was regarded as a colloquial feature.
If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for Measure 93
at that point in the play (although the actor’s performance might have already partly
unveiled the character’s feelings) and this is again the nal act which clearly validates
what has been partly disclosed in III.1, i.e. that Isabella will “much please the […]
duke”(202) and will consequently be offered his hand.
There are other numerous structural and “proleptic” hypotheses in the play.
They are not only uttered by the main and authoritarian characters such as Isabella
or the Duke, but also by the clowns, which may be analysed as another feature
showing that hypothesis is woven in the canvas of the play to enable the reader/
spectator to anticipate further events or at least to imagine the variations that will
be later displayed under his/her eyes. After the long discussion between the provost,
Pompey and Abhorson in IV.2 where hypotheses are mostly used as a means to value
the possibility of appointing Pompey as Abhorson’s helper, we attend a rather comic
interlude in Barnardine’s prison cell. The decision to hang the latter and present his
head to Angelo as a proof of Claudio’s death has been taken by the Duke and Provost.
In IV.3, the plan is changed due to Barnardine’s refusing to be executed.
IV.3.
Barnardine Not a word: if you have any
thing to say to me, come to
my ward; for thence will not
I to-day.
61-62
Provost Here in the prison, father,
There died this morning of a
cruel fever/
One Ragozine, a most
notorious pirate,/
A man of Claudio’s years; his
beard and head/
Just of his colour. What if we
do omit/
This reprobate till he were
well inclined;/
And satisfy the deputy with
the visage/
Of Ragozine, more like to
Claudio?
68-75
This shall be done, good
father, presently./
But Barnardine must die this
afternoon;/
And how shall we continue
Claudio,/
To save me from the danger
that might come/
If he were known alive?
82-85
ANGLOPHONIA / SIGMA 34 (2013)
94
The Duke The tongue of Isabel. She’s
come to know/
If yet her brother’s pardon be
come hither;/
But I will keep her ignorant of
her good,/
To make her heavenly
comforts of despair,/
When it is least expected.
106-110
[to Isabella] If you can, pace
your wisdom/
In that good path that I would
wish it go,/
And you shall have your
bosom on this wretch,/
Grace of the duke, revenges
to your heart,/
And general honour. (…)
132-136
Command these fretting
waters from your eyes/
With a light heart; trust not
my holy order,/
If I pervert your course.—
Who’s here?
146-148
These quotations taken from IV.3 highlight two issues: rst death cannot be
controlled and administered arbitrarily. Even if it is treated with irony here (Barnardine,
who is drunk and wants to sleep it off, is told that death will provide him for a deeper
and better sleep), death escapes human scheduling.8 Only Providence decides. Hence,
Ragozine’s death, serving as a subterfuge, will indeed be considered as a divine grace
by the Duke who immediately claims: “O, ‘tis an accident that heaven provides”
(76). Thus the provost’s suggestion in WHAT IF line 72 may already hint at the
validation of the two predicative relations We/Omit this reprobate (72) and We/satisfy
the deputy with the visage of Ragozine (74) that will prove to be true in Act V by
the physical presence of Claudio who has evidently been spared (Provost “This is
another prisoner that I sav’d”, 485). If Barnardine’s incongruous intervention is rst
and foremost meant to provoke laughter, it is also a device that will inuence future
events and make the ending more rejoicing.
The second issue revealed through the hypotheses in this scene can be read
in the Duke’s intention not to tell the truth to Isabella but to make her believe that her
brother has been hanged. In “She’s come to know/If yet her brother’s pardon be come
hither” (106-107), the predicative relation her brother’s pardon/ be come hither is
as much possible as it is improbable. Isabella is totally ignorant about her brother’s
fate and rightly fears that Angelo has not respected his word. The Duke will take
advantage of her ignorance and will leave the two scales of the balance at equal level,
thus creating suspense until the nal Act where Isabella will be revealed the truth.9 The
nal revelation of Claudio’s survival will sound even more miraculous. Because the
public is informed of the friar-Duke’s plan and can easily understand the hypothesis as
a theatrical trick (almost a rhetorical question), the scene is not pathetic, even though
Isabella cries. Besides the latter unhesitatingly consents to follow the Duke’s advice
formulated in the next two hypotheses and so she will “pace her wisdom” (132) and
“trust his holy order” (147).
8 Pompey “(…) he that drinks all night, and is hanged betimes in the morning, may sleep the sounder all
the next day”, IV. 3.44-46.
9 It must be reminded here that the dramatic illusion and the audience’s “suspension of disbelief” are part of
the trick as the audience knows what one of the play’s major characters (i.e. Isabella) ignores.
If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for Measure 95
As this last remark implies, in hypotheses ― and particularly in a play
called Measure for Measure ― the protasis and the apodosis momentarily have equal
chance to be validated. Only circumstances will tip the balance on one side, and it is
particularly clear in the two key scenes opposing Angelo and Isabella in II.2 and II.4
where hypotheses permeate the lines. These hypotheses bear witness to the fragility
of the dramatic composition to the point that they may warp its genre. Indeed if the
darker stakes imagined by the characters come true, the play will be tragic; conversely,
if the happier hypothesis is validated, it will result in a comedy.
COUNTER-BALANCED HYPOTHESES
II.2.26-162
Speaker
and line
Quotations Tools for interpretation
If-clauses inversion
Lucio,
45-47
if you should need a pin, /
You could not with more tame
a tongue desire it.
If X Modal, X modal
Isabella, 51 But can you, if you would? Question X, if X Modal
Isabella,
53-55
But might you do’t, and do the world no wrong/
If so your heart were touch’d with that remorse/
As mine is to him?
Question = modal X Verb,/
If +SN+ hypothetic past
Isabella, 64 If he had been as you, and you
as he,/
You would have slipp’d like
him;
If X plu-perfect/comparison,/
Y + modal+past
Isabella,
76-77
How would you be,
If He, which is the top of
judgment, should/
But judge you as you are?
Question= Interrogative
pronoun +modal+X/
If God (inserted relative clause)
modal /identication
Biblical source for comparison
Angelo,
81-82
Were he my kinsman,
brother, or my son,/
It should be thus with
him.
hypothetic past X/
impersonal pronoun+modal
ANGLOPHONIA / SIGMA 34 (2013)
96
Angelo,
92-94
Those many had not dared to
do that evil,
If the rst that did the edict
infringe/
Had answer’d for his deed.
Assertion+plu-perfect/
If + universal subject+past
relative subordinate clause/
plu-perfect
Isabella,
111-112
Could great men
thunder/
As Jove himself does,
Jove would ne’er be
quiet,
Modal+inverted clause (having
an assertive value)/
Mythological reference
Isabella,
139
if it confess/
A natural guiltiness such as
is his,/
Let it not sound a thought upon
your tongue/
Against my brother’s life.
If + impersonal subject
(referent = “bosom”, l. 137)/
verb base
II.4.1-186
Speaker
and line
Quotations Tools for analysis
If-clauses inversion
Angelo, 4-5 Heaven in my mouth,/
As if I did but only chew
his name
As if+ S/P (hypothetic past)
Can-ED+I+ P monologue
Angelo, 11 Could I with boot
change for an idle
plume
Angelo, 35 Yet may he live a
while (…)
Modal+he (=Claudio) +BV
Isabella, 69-73 That I do beg his life, if it
be sin, /
Heaven let me bear it! you
granting of my suit,/
If that be sin, I’ll make it
my morn prayer/
To have it added to the faults
of mine,/
And nothing of your answer.
If + it + verb base
If + that + verb base
Isabella, 100 Were I under the
terms of death, (…)
Hypothetic past + I (=Isabella)
If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for Measure 97
Isabella, 121-23 Else let my brother die/
If not a feodary, but only he/
Owe and succeed thy
weakness.
If + not + SN (no verb)
Angelo, 134-137 Be that you are,
That is, a woman; if you be
more, you’re none./
If you be one, (…), show it
now (…)
If + you (Isabel)+ verb base
used twice + pun on none/
nun/one
Angelo, 143 He shall not, Isabel, if you
give me love.
If + you (Isabel) + BV-give
(simple present)
Let us rst point out that in this scene a majority of hypotheses with “IF” are
used by Isabella. Her speech could be divided into three parts showing the evolution
of her involvement in the process of persuasion: on a comparative mode, she rst
demands Angelo’s self-identication, encouraging his introspection. In questions
raised lines 53 and 55, “you” is repeated: Angelo is put face to himself and then
face to the fraternal pair in a triangular relationship that opposes him to Isabella and
Claudio (“You”, 54 vs “As mine is to him”, 55). Lots of modals are used (“can/would/
might”) in a crescendo which may rst translate Isabella’s hesitation and reserve.
Yet, surprisingly enough, in the occurrence line 51, “But can you, if you would?”,
the modal “can” is used while one would expect the phrasing “But could you, if you
would?” The clause “if you would” should logically occur with another modal preterit
in the main clause in order to refer to the counterfactual plane. The use of the present
tense implies that despite the modal preterit, Isabella considers the IF-clause as real
enough to function with CAN in the present tense. Does it mean that intrinsically,
at that point already, Isabella is convinced that Angelo will be inuenced either by
her speech or by his own capacity for compassion? Isabella is described as being a
persuasive character. Even though she summons the heart as a trustful adviser (“If
so your heart were touch’d with that remorse”, 54), she shows she is able to think
cleverly: “She speaks, and ‘tis such sense, that my sense breeds with it”, Angelo
remarks lines 142-143. Hence the use of CAN would be a rhetorical item indicating
her persuasion scheme.
The second stage of her speech in II.2 is to ask Angelo to identify himself to
Claudio. The perspective no longer involves a one-to-one relationship, it requires a
direct comparison between the judge and the convict. The hypothesis line 64, “If he
had been as you, and you as he,/ You would have slipp’d like him;[…]” juxtaposes
Angelo and Claudio. From a dramatic angle, roles can be swapped. From an ethical
one, compassion is stimulated. This new example shows how cunning Isabella’s
discourse is in that she is able to intermingle references (play-role and moral) and
resort to various faculties (heart and reason). The third stage of her defence (or plea
for Claudio’s release) resorts to a more religious vocabulary. In the hypotheses she
formulates (lines 76-77 and 111-112), Isabella refers to the Bible. First in the ‘IF-
ANGLOPHONIA / SIGMA 34 (2013)
98
clause’, she implies that God is in a position to judge Angelo just like Angelo judges
Claudio (II, 2 (76): “How would you be/ if He […] should but judge you as you
are ?[…]”). The dimension is twofold here: on the one hand, Isabella uses IF so
as to set down a postulate. On the other hand, however, this postulate is basically
contradictory: the predicative relation He/but judge you as you are cannot hold, hence
the occurrence of should. Indeed, God is mercy (II, 2 115: “Merciful heaven”) unlike
Angelo, so that Isabella cannot conceive of such a predicative relation although she
hopes she could (“O, think on that,/And mercy then will breathe within your lips/
[…]”, 78). Once again, SHOULD points to a highly unlikely context.
Yet, the novice’s moralizing language sounds more incisive. She seems to master the
art of rhetoric even more so as Lucio congratulates her. The density of her arguments
increases, reducing Angelo to utter only brief answers. The religious lexicon merges
into more subjective considerations, morphing the language into an act of seduction.
As Angelo is being more and more puzzled by Isabella’s words, she appeals to his
“bosom” (137), to his “heart” (138), even to his “tongue” (141) which is one of the
most erotic anatomic items but also the means by which one becomes rhetorically
powerful. Just as these words (‘bosom/heart/tongue’) are semantically connoted and
prove Isabella’s deep implication in the discourse, it is worth noticing retrospectively
that in the second biblical reference she uses (“Could great men thunder […]”, 111),
she proves to be increasingly involved. Indeed, as she places the subject after the
modal, she restructures the basic order S/Modal. This way of endorsing her utterance
makes the operator IF needless to advance the hypothesis. Let us remark that after
this tirade Angelo begins to yield and “relent” as Lucio states line 125. Up to that
point Angelo has had a more assertive mode of expression which has progressively
conned him to the state of a listener more than that of a speaker.
In the second exchange between Isabella and Angelo, the number of
hypotheses used by both characters is rather well-balanced, which is a linguistic clue
showing that in-between the two encounters, Angelo’s mind has changed. Now he
voices his thoughts and intentions more precisely. Of course as early as the end of
II.2, the audience is well aware of such a transformation confessed by Angelo himself
(“[…] this virtuous maid/Subdues me quite.” 185-186) but the narrative construction
is here, in II.4, another device proving this moral conversion. We could even go so far
as to state that the linguistic inversions Angelo uses in his monologue at the beginning
of the scene (l. 11 and 35), are iconic signs indicating the reverse situation in which
he, the would-be virtuous man, is now. Indeed he prepares himself to blackmail
a virgin for his guilty pleasure, which is an act he has previously condemned and
publicly sentenced. The dialogue between him and Isabella multiplies references to
religious considerations mingled with sexual innuendoes. On the one hand, Angelo is
failing to serve fairly the moral he advocates, and on the other hand, Isabella proves
her incorruptible uprightness. For example, the rst two hypotheses uttered by Angelo
(“Heaven in my mouth,/ As if I did but only chew his name” (4-5) and “Could I with
boot change for an idle plume” (11), obviously express his unt relation to the Divine.
In the comparison (AS IF), he clearly implies that heaven is absent from his own soul.
If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for Measure 99
He would like to pray but he is unable to do so when his thoughts are obstructed by
sinful prospects (“When I would pray and think, I think and pray/ To several subject:
heaven hath my empty words, […]” 1-2). Maybe it is worth drawing here a parallel
between this linguistic composition and another one taken from Hamlet. The situation
is similar: Claudius is unable to pray as he is also overwhelmed by his human and
consequently sinful condition.
Claudius
[…] Pray can I not.
Though inclination be as sharp as will,
My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent, […].
Hamlet, III.3.38-40.
Likewise, the character uses inversion and comparison in this introspective
passage where his unreliability is conrmed. As stated before, the inverted clause “Can
I” or “Could I” in Measure for Measure (11), proves the utterer’s deep implication
in the predicative relation. Angelo’s confession denitely categorizes him as an evil
protagonist whose name “Angel-o” will henceforth prove to be another linguistic twist
to highlight his intrinsic perversion, and the moral antagonistic agent he is compared
to the chaste Isabella.
MORALIZING HYPOTHESIS
Moral concerns permeate Isabella’s language. It is not surprising as she is
bound to become a nun and belongs to Saint Clare’s Order which is known to be strict
just as the name “the Poor Clares”, designating the white-habited nuns, also implies.
In the hypotheses she formulates in II.4 for instance, she almost permanently links
the factual to the religious. Linguistic analysis makes it even more obvious that her
arguments do not result merely from empathy and fraternal love, but from a deep
feeling that Angelo’s justice towards Claudio is unfair in the Christian world she
inhabits. Although Claudio is indeed guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, he does not
deserve death, which she tries to prove through well-thought syntax. Let us consider
II, 4, lines 69 and 71:
(a) If it be sin that I do beg his life, heaven let me bear it.
(b) If that be sin you granting of my suit, I’ll make it my morn-prayer to […]
In (a), the anaphoric neutral pronoun it occurs in the same utterance as the
‘subjunctive’, the mode of disconnection with the actual situation. In (b), the deictic
that is more deeply rooted in the concrete situation and occurs in the same utterance
as a modal which of course shows that Isabella endorses the predicative relation I/
make it my morn-prayer to […]. Thus in II, 4, 123, “Else let my brother die,/ If not a
feodary, but only he,/ Owe and succeed thy weakness”, the unlikely frame he/not (be)
a feodary justies the still more unlikely let my brother die.
Isabella is not the only wise and fair character of the tale. As his name proves
it, Escalus is also the voice of reason, although from a judicial angle more than from
ANGLOPHONIA / SIGMA 34 (2013)
100
a religious one. At the beginning of Act II, his words try to soften Angelo’s urge to
restore virtue and justice in Vienna. He calls for the deputy’s introspection, telling him:
Let but your honour know ― […]
That in the working of your own affections,
Had time coher’d with place, or place with wishing,
Or that the resolute acting of your blood
Could have attain’d th’effect of your own purpose,
Whether you had not sometime in your life
Err’d in this point, which now you censure him,
And pull’d the law upon you. (II.1.8/10-16)
Although there is no possibility for Angelo to change his mind about
Claudio’s fate, Escalus, in using WHETHER, restores the reverse choice. Indeed,
although it does not occur with OR in this case, WHETHER in itself (WH-+EITHER)
paves the way for some choice; linguistically speaking, WHETHER leads to an open
choice, all the more so as it also stems from a comparative form.10 Furthermore the
inverted clause line 11 indicates Escalus’ deep implication in the desire to see Angelo
follow his advice and evaluate the situation more deeply. Using OR repeatedly (11-
12), Escalus piles up arguments if only to nourish Angelo’s reection and show that
both scales of the balance must be taken into consideration. Just as his name, Escalus’
language is almost performative, at least it is proleptic: envisaging Angelo’s fall is
indeed a hypothesis that will soon be a reality.11
Finally the last act of the play is obviously the instant when the moral of the
tale is climactically revealed. There, because of his sententious language denouncing
everyone’s fault, the Duke creates a climate of discomfort. The ambivalence of the
scene is fuelled by oppositions and conicts that both set a tragic tone, apparently
leading the plot to a dark denouement. And yet, one should not take things for granted
as the very structure of the unique scene of the act shows: illusion, make-belief and
hypotheses prevail over a feeling of implacable justice or irreversibility. At the end,
the Duke appears as a benevolent character more than as a tyrannous prince if only
to value a Christian moral and mankind’s natural sympathy. Hypotheses accumulate
lines 443, 489, 504, and 433; questions nd no answers; silence is disconcerting.
However these uncertainties impel the audience’s imagination and reassert the
10 C. Delmas et alia, 1993; Skeat, 1978; A.-M.Santin-Guettier, 1996.
11 Indeed, in Act V, the audience witnesses Angelo’s confessing that he is a sinner :
“O my dread lord,
I should be guiltier than my guiltiness,
To think I can be undiscernible,
When I perceive your grace, like power divine,
Hath look’d upon my passes. Then, good prince,
No longer session hold upon my shame,
But let my trial be mine own confession:
Immediate sentence then and sequent death
Is all the grace I beg.” (V.1.364-372)
If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for Measure 101
theatrical illusion whereby what seems cannot be. Hence some assumptions are soon
contradicted. For example, Isabella harshly condemns Angelo at the beginning of the
scene but is able to forgive him some four hundred lines later: “[…] If he [Angelo] be
less, he’s nothing; but he’s more,/ Had I more name for badness.” (V.1.61-62); “Most
bounteous sir:/ Look, if it please you, on this man condemn’d/ As if my brother lived.
I partly think/ A due sincerity govern’d his deeds,/ Till he did look on me.” (V.1.441-
445). In the second occurrence, the syntax clearly states that the S/P my brother/live is
pure ctional data: AS IF induces mock identication (from a metaoperational point
of view, the main value of AS is identication but IF antagonizes its validation). In
other words, AS shows my brother/live as a circumstance to be considered, while IF
hinders identication. From a moral point of view, these two hypotheses (mingled
with inverted syntactic constructions) are a means for the playwright to highlight
Isabella’s capacity for pardon and benevolent conversion. As she pities her female
counterpart, Mariana, who is pleading for her help, she quite unhesitatingly agrees
to change her mind regarding the dark ‘Angel-o’.12 It is further evidence showing
her Christian propensity for forgiveness as it may be here an echo to the Pater Noster
“And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”.
Two nal moral remarks come from the other “providential” gure of the tale,
that is, the Duke. They partly complete the hypotheses previously uttered by Isabella
and partly reect each other. Lines 488-489, the Duke says: “If he be like your
brother, for his sake Is he pardon’d; […]”, thus echoing Isabella’s words in II.2.64
(see our second part). But by using an inverted clause, he also subjectively includes
the notion of compassion which can lead to redemption. Unlike Claudio, Angelo shall
be spared and given a new chance to prove his honesty and Christian morality. The
Duke gets personally involved in this prospect. Then in 533, he adds: “Whereto if you
[Isabella]’ll a willing ear incline,/ What’s mine is yours and what is yours is mine.”
These words echo those of lines 489-490 “and, for your lovely sake,/ Give me your
hand and say you will be mine.” The hypothetic redemption he has granted Angelo
is immediately followed by the quasi certainty that the S/P Isabella/be mine will be
validated. Indeed, as the Duke does not even modalize the main clause, but uses the
present tense instead, he presents ction or mere eventuality as reality. Thus by a
rather unexpected and swift linguistic twist, such a construction subtly reinforces the
feeling that all’s well that ends well in the very last lines of the tale.
* * *
As Ernest Schanzer remarks in his introductive lines about Measure for
Measure, “[t]here is probably no other play by Shakespeare which has so much perplexed
critics as Measure for Measure, nor one which has aroused such violent, eccentric,
12 It is well-known that Angelo’s name is contradicting his own self as his deeds rather present him as
a devilish creature more than an angelic one. For a thorough analysis of the character, see for instance
Graham Nicholls, Measure for Measure: Text and Performance, Palgrave/Macmillan, 1986, p.16-21.
ANGLOPHONIA / SIGMA 34 (2013)
102
and mutually opposed responses.”13 These remarks are sustained by a detailed analysis
showing that the ve most important characters of the play ―Claudio, Lucio, Angelo,
Isabella and the Duke ― are so complex that neither stage history nor criticism has ever
agreed on the essence of their nature and on their private motivations, which inevitably
reverberates on the plot itself. But this complexity, which is a source of puzzlement, is
also highly motivating as Huston Diehl highlights in his own analysis. Diehl explains
that up until the end, when the Duke presents Claudio, the mysterious prisoner “as like
(almost) to Claudio as himself” (Provost, V.1.487, emphasis mine), he “withholds any
assurance of certainty, telling Isabella that ‘if he be like [her] brother, for his sake/ Is he
pardoned’ (V.1.488-89) […]”.14 This artice or “comic resolution” as Diehl names it,
“denies [Shakespeare]’s audiences the pleasure of believing, even for a moment, that
the image and the thing are one.”15 It is a reminder that the play cannot escape from its
own representation. As a consequence, the audience may be disappointed because the
truth they were expecting all through the performance is not given. To put it differently,
their questions nd no clear-cut answers. Diehl adds that “the trial scene arouses (their)
deepest desire for completion and revelation, direct knowledge and certainty” but it is
frustrated, which encourages them “to view both the world they inhabit and the ctional
world of the play as representations, which are inadequate, to be sure, but also potentially
signicant and powerful.”16 The dramatic illusion reasserts the fact that nothing can be
more realistic than reality itself. If a play is full of uncertainties and contradictions, which
hypothetic structures can best linguistically illustrate, it is but natural or quintessential.
It is up to the audience to “suspend their judgment” so as better to accept the right and
the wrong sides of these hypothetic situations. Hypothesis ― under the disguise of
inversions, unanswered questions, and IF-clauses ― enables us to see the black and the
white, the good and the evil, the measure and the non-measure of the story-line. Just as
Quiller-Couch who implies that the dispute opposing the critics’ analyses of the play’s
characters means that Shakespeare had “miss[ed] clearness in portraying [them]”, we
could state that the profusion of hypotheses leading to an approximate resolved ending
was part of the playwright’s strategy. Shakespeare questioned the major issues of his
time (illegal sexuality, chastity, justice, power and fraud, etc.) but left the public make
his/her own ‘identify-education’.17 One would have liked acknowledging that such a
linguistic leitmotiv was what is meant by problem plays, for All’s Well That Ends Well
counts 106 “ifs” and Troilus and Cressida 95 (depending on editions), which are fair
numbers ― but as Hamlet holds 114 occurrences, such a suggestion would alas sound
like a pure hypothesis…
13 Ernest Schanzer, The Problem Plays of Shakespeare, chapter III, “Measure for Measure.” 1963, p. 71.
14 Diehl, Huston (Winter, 1998). “’Innite Space’: Representation and Reformation in Measure for
Measure.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 4, p. 403.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Measure for Measure, New Shakespeare Edition, pp. xxix-xxx, in Ernest Schanzer. Ibid., p. 96.
If? What if? Hypothesis as a Leitmotif in Measure for Measure 103
Bibliography
Main sources
shAkesPeAre, William (1965). Measure for Measure. J.W. Lever (ed.). London: The
Arden Shakespeare
shAkesPeAre, William (2008). Mesure pour mesure. André Markowicz (trad.).
Besançon: Les Solitaires intempestifs.
shAkesPeAre, William (2004). Hamlet. Jean-Michel Déprats (trad.). Paris: Gallimard.
Coll. Bilingue Folio theatre.
Literature
williAm, B. Bache (1969). Measure for Measure as Dialectical Art. Lafayette (Ind.):
Purdue University Studies.
diehl, Huston (Winter, 1998). “’Innite Space’: Representation and Reformation in
Measure for Measure.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 4.
chAPPuit, Jean-François (2012). Measure for Measure. Paris: Atlande. Coll. Clefs
concours.
kAmPs, Ivo & rAber, Karen (2004). Measure for Measure. Texts and Contexts. Boston/
New-York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
nicholls, Graham (1986). Measure for Measure: Text and Performance, Palgrave/
Macmillan.
schAnzer, Ernest (1963). The Problem Plays of Shakespeare. Routledge/Schocken
Books.
Linguistics
chuQuet, Jean (1984). “IF…”, Cahiers de recherche en grammaire anglaise, 2. Paris :
Ophrys.
culioli, Antoine (1999). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Formalisation et
opérations de repérage, 2, Paris and Gap : Ophrys.
delmAs, Claude (1985). Structuration abstraite et chaîne linéaire en anglais
contemporain. Thèse d’Etat. CEDEL.
delmAs, Claude, et alia (1993). Faits de langue en anglais. Paris : Dunod.
ducrot, Oswald (1972). Dire et ne pas dire, Paris : Hermann.
lAPAire, Jean-Rémi, et rotGe, Wilfrid (1991). Linguistique et grammaire de l’anglais.
Toulouse : PUM.
sAntin-Guettier, Anne-Marie (1996). « On each side ? ou On either side ? ».
Publications de l’Université du Maine.
skeAt, W.W. (1978). An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. Oxford :
O.U.P.
