Measure

At the conclusion of Measure for Measure the Duke has apparently caused a good deal of chaos, including the near execution of a valet whose only crime is having sex with his lover, all for no apparent reason. At the beginning of the play he hands over power to Angelo, even though Angelo says that he is not ready for it. The Duke then goes into hide as the Friar and essentially plays games with spates lives. It is thus not surprising that the commonwealth ability want to overthrow him.The first contrast that would be used, and perhaps the most powerful, would be that the Duke is the Duke. The idea that a person had a divine right(a) to power through the divine right of Kings was powerful at this time. The Duke might consent done some worse things I would seem a fool if I didnt admit this but he made everything right in the decease, and eitherway, God has elect him as Duke through birth. For better or worse he is the Duke, and the people should think twice before substit ution him.First, if you get rid of leadership through birth, what system will replace it? Second, what likely candidates are there for being Duke instead of him? The most likely, at least as far as birth and spotlight is, ironically, Angelo. The rebels should be asked the question of whether they would prefer the present Duke or Angelo as t inheritor leader. I think the answer is sooner easy to predict. This is based upon the quite practical, better the devil you know than the devil you dont argument. This should charm to the practical kind of people who would probably be wanting to remove the Duke at the end of the play.another(prenominal) argument would be to suggest that the Duke was visualiseing how a real leader should act through position a man who would be tempted by power in charge. Thus a real leader, such(prenominal) as the Duke himself, knows that the laws are written by men and are thus fallible. He be becomes the Duke of dark corners to show that at times a leader must bend with the wind rather than applying the law livingly.This argument suggests that the Duke knew that Angelo would turn out to be a bad leader, and let him carry on with it, even when peoples lives were at stake. This showed the people that the Duke had their best interests at heart through showing them just how bad a leader Angelo would be, or someone like him, if the Duke was removed or died without an heir.Another argument is the point that despite obviously quite enjoying the kind of chaos and risk which ensued when he gave up power, the Duke never showed any sign of indulging this when he was acting as Duke. He thus did not succumb to the temptation of absolute power as Angelo did. This will be argument for the fact that the Duke, probably coming from a whole line of similarly powerful people, as the blood and temperament to control the metropolis, even though his imagination might lead elsewhere.The people might also be persuaded by the fact that at the end of the pla y everything is actually excellently resolved. The right people are marrying the right people, others have been pardoned when they be it and even, as in the case of Barnadine, when they dont. Even the Duke has rescued Isabella from what is regarded as a terrible disembodied spirit in the convent and will marry her. This ensures that the Duke will soon have an heir to take over homunculus him, and the succession of Dukes will be preserved. This being the case, why not forget the past rather than arduous to bring about retribution for the Dukes misdeeds.Trying to remove the Duke might also cause a miniature civil war. It is unlikely that he or his supporters will go quietly. Also, the Dukes of neighboring cities might come to the Dukes rescue because they fear the precedent of removing a Duke when the people dont like him could dish out to their cities. Or they may come to the rescue of the city through invading it while there is a power vacuum. That way the people would lose the ir Duke and their city.So I would appear to several different arguments in order to save the Duke from the planned rebellion. First, he is the Duke and has the divine right to be so because he has been chosen by God. Secondly, what he did was actually a favor to everyone because it removed someone (Angelo) from contention of ever decent Duke who appeared to be good material but actually turned out to be a bestow disaster. Third, the Duke showed that he understands the dark side of human nature, and even has his fair share of it himself, but ahs been able up to this time to keep it in check.He has been a just Duke up until this point that is why Angelos strict and eventually hypocritical decisions seem so harsh. Fourth, the Duke has shown just how difficult it is to be a Duke, and the people should think twice about replacing him because of the uncertainty of what will follow. Fifth, the Duke restores peace and harmony at the end of the play, and he is even getting married himself so he can now have an heir in waiting. Sixth, if they try to remove him a war will almost certainly occur, and the whole city may be lost.To conclude, perhaps the best argument, if Shakespeares plays exist in this imaginary world of later on the play ends will be the title of one of his other dark comedies alls tumesce that ends well. Of course the question left by this play is well is it?, and the citizens are perhaps right to ask whether a man who could everything the Duke has done should continue in power. Bu the alternatives are too uncertain, too cover and too chaotic to imply that the Duke should be replaced.In the final part of the argument I would piddle away clear that all those who were presently planning to remove the Duke will receive a full and absolute pardon. They might continue with the rebellion just because they are afraid of what would happen if they dont, and yet have revealed themselves as potential rebels. However, I would mark down the names of all those involved carefully and take to be them on behalf of the Duke in the future. . . .