An Opposing World View: Transient Morality in Shakespeare's Measure for Measure and Machiavelli's Mandragola

FOR MANY YEARS, political scientists have noted the "Machiavellian" nature of various Shakespearean characters. The actions and schemes of these figures reflect the Florentine's bold maxims for installing a newly ordered state. For those like myself who teach comparative texts, there can be little doubt that Machiavelli's teachings had a lasting influence on Shakespeare, especially in his development of duplicitous characters and their use of "instrumental reason." ¹ However, debate remains as to whether or not Shakespeare's adoption of Machiavellian-like-characters is also an adoption of Machiavelli's worldview and its rejection of a fixed moral order.

This debate surfaced in one of my classes in which I assigned the students both Machiavelli's Mandragola and Shakespeare's Measure for Measure. Initially, these two comedies seem to be similar in both plot and character development, suggesting that Shakespeare, like Machiavelli, embraced a world of transient moral values. This conclusion was reinforced further by Harold Bloom in Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, in which he writes that any possible idealism that might have remained in Shakespeare is completely gone in Measure for Measure, as it "surpasses the four High Tragedies as the masterpiece of nihilism." ² In fact, Bloom goes as far as to suggest that "no other work by Shakespeare is so fundamentally alienated from the Western synthesis of Christian morality and Classical ethics" (364). With the exception of one character, Barnardine, Bloom believes that Shakespeare has acquiesced to the moral disorder of the world, with the creation of characters who are void of virtue and goodness. The absence of these qualities removes the possibility of justice.

At first blush, Bloom's conclusion that Measure for Measure is a masterpiece of nihilism seems true. However, the same claim can be made of Machiavelli's Mandragola, so why do audiences feel very different at the close of each comedy? Students consistently enjoy Mandragola but feel discouraged and disheartened with Measure for Measure. The cause of these different reactions seems to lie with the authors' responses to the world's moral disorder. While both authors recognize its presence, presenting us with loathsome and corrupt characters, they do not draw the same conclusion about its place and value. On close analysis, it appears that Machiavelli embraces man's moral corruption while Shakespeare rejects it.

Unlike Bloom, I do not believe that Measure for Measure is wholly nihilistic. On the contrary, I believe that Shakespeare's acknowledgment of the moral disorder is in no way a full acceptance of it. In fact, I would argue that he still clings to the hope that some men will adhere to principles of order and justice. This can be seen in his creation of three characters who stand in opposition to the world's transient morality, namely, Escalus, Isabella, and the unlikely Barnardine. Amidst a world of chaos, these characters reflect Shakespeare's unwillingness to surrender totally to the licentiousness of the world. The fact that some characters still protest, question, or respond with baffled silence to the disorder around them, must be seen as Shakespeare's opposition to this demoralizing reality. Thus, the play's dark and disparaging nature is the result of Shakespeare's unwillingness to adopt Machiavelli's worldview.

In sharp contrast to the darkness of Measure for Measure, Machiavelli's Mandragola proves optimistic and leaves audiences upbeat and entertained. Here, Machiavelli's characters launch a maddening plan of sexual duplicity and fraud, all of which ends fortuitously for the characters involved. Such a positive outcome can only be the result of Machiavelli's embrace of human immorality as he manipulates it to the advantage of all. With no delusions of a final, just order, Machiavelli has lowered his sights, creating characters in Mandragola who conspire to deceive and...