Claudio’s soliloquy is a strong dramatic device in Act III Scene 1 in many ways. Claudio describes death as an “in certain thought” (Act III Scene 1,126). This heightens the ambiguity because as Claudio’s feelings towards death are not sure and certain, the audience have no choice but to involve themselves into the discussion of it, causing them to get more involved in the play by perhaps challenging his views or even developing a further one from Claudio’s own. It allows the audience to start a debate within themselves and the characters on what death actually involves and ask themselves “what does it really mean?” I think this has been a great technique that Shakespeare has used as I was drawn into the play further at this stage: the uncertainty of the soliloquy forced me to try and develop some certainty of my own.
Also, the language that he uses in the soliloquy allows quite a large opportunity to interpret and speculate about what his words really mean. The quotation “to lie in cold obstruction, and to rot” (Act III Scene 1, 118) seems to be simply stating that at death, we lie in a coffin, that we rot in there and go nowhere else. Although, the ambiguity in this quote actually drove me to question if it really did meant that. Claudio could be saying that in death we could go to an unknown, cold dark barren land where we slowly rot away. This quotation does lead you to engage more in his feelings and thoughts.
There is a clear contrast between Claudio’s soliloquy and another soliloquy concerning death in another of Shakespeare’s plays. In the soliloquy of Hamlet, he believes that death is better than life and that the “ills…we have” (Act III Scene 1) we would not have to put up with when we could end our lives. Contrasting to this, we can see the ambiguity that the subject of death holds as Claudio believes the opposite of this. Also Hamlet’s soliloquy is non-religious on the whole, especially as he is contemplating death, which would be committing self-murder, thus condemning him to Hell. The religious element is much more of an ambiguous one than in Measure for Measure. The ambiguity within this is significant because it rouses the audience into obtaining a higher level of understanding of the varied views of death and allows them to develop their own.
The language used in Measure for Measure is very ambiguous in the majority of the play. This causes the audience to become fully engaged and engrossed in the many problematic issues that arise throughout. An example of this is found in this quote:
“O it’s excellent
To have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant” (II.2.108-110)
One interpretation that I made of this was that Isabella meant that it is good that Angelo had the all that power but that he should not use all of it on one person; it would be of that of a “giant’s” strength and too heavy on one man. But the ambiguity of this quote challenges the audience’s mind and another interpretation could be that it is an attack on his technique of handling people in his position. He is being an oppressor of all those who do un-intentional sins and he is bullying people: a “giant” is typically believed to be of a bullying nature. Another example is the ambiguous language used in Claudio’s soliloquy:
“To be imprisoned in the viewless winds
And blown with restless violence round about” (Scene III Act 124-125)
This could be interpreted as Claudio talking about “Hades”, the underworld, as some believe that when you die, you are forced to go there. Hades is known to be dark and this relates to the description of “viewless winds” (A.III. i. 125). But also, it could be Claudio talking about going to Hell when you die: these keywords also hold similarity to Hell’s properties. Both these interpretations could be right but in allowing the text to be ambiguous in its context, Shakespeare has encouraged me to think about what Claudio means and also in reality, what death could also really mean.
The interpretation of the law in Measure for Measure is very ambiguous and this is where the central focus of the play is. This is a strong dramatic device all throughout the play. In this ambiguity, the audience are not being taught by straight-forward morals but by complex, problematic situations that need an in-depth and varied analysis; this engrosses the audience into the play. The situation of Claudio having sexual intercourse with his fiancée and impregnating her before marriage is a crime punishable by death. Claudio is sentenced to death and all throughout, we are taken through many routes and problems stemmed from this. The audience’s understanding is increased because we are taken through the many opinions and feelings of other different characters, which allows us to access a many-sided argument other than a one-sided argument. Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the ending is un-satisfying for me. Pompey who has sex with women before marriage on a daily basis is let free by Angelo just because of the way the situation was interpreted. Angelo commits the same crime as Claudio and Pompey yet punishes him only Claudio by death, which is clearly unjust. In the end he gets away with all his dishonesty and corruptness: the Duke only punishes him by marriage to his former fiancée. The audience throughout the whole play are forced to personally decide whether it is just for Claudio to be killed and yet at the end, the whole criminal justice system has just been changed by the simple command of the Duke who lets him off free. The ending is even more ambiguous as The Duke randomly announces that he is to marry Isabella and Claudio is freed. Yet Lucio is condemned to death just for negatively speaking of the Duke! I am very unsatisfied with this, as the full involvement of the audience throughout the play has been fuelled with the anticipation of a fair and satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, Shakespeare denies us of this but as a dramatic device, it has left the audience wanting more and continuously arguing their own feelings and the characters’ too.
Concluding, the dramatic devices that Shakespeare has used in Act III Scene 1 have been used successfully to explore Claudio’s ambiguous feelings about death. The setting provided a dramatic and effective atmosphere that allowed the audience to use their minds creatively in terms of imagery and comparing them to the actual feelings of Claudio. The soliloquy was a good weapon of choice in strongly yet ambiguously projecting Claudio’s feelings about death. Not only did it provoke my mind into interpreting death and what it really involves but it used language as a dramatic device contained within it as well. The language granted us the opportunity to see the clear ambiguity in the play and with that, interpret many different things that could have more than one meaning or conclusion (including the law). The sheer ambiguity of the play through all these devices and more has given the audience a deeper insight into issues we would have normally swept aside and ignored. It has highlighted that not everything is black and white and that the law is ambiguous, it depends on personal interpretation because otherwise, Claudio would have been killed for a crime that was considered wrong and punishable by death- no matter the circumstance- by only one person’s interpretation. Shakespeare has highlighted that it is in fact necessary that debate is carried out and opinions do matter. Without Claudio’s feelings about death, we would have not been provoked to question a serious issue, one we must all face in life.
