Well, it seems that Shakespeare was able to keep up his usual Comedy pattern of chaos, clowns, chaos and marriage. Not to be confused with the typical Shakespeare tragedy pattern of chaos, clowns, chaos and death. While I don't find this play particularly comical, I will admit that there is a good amount of wit in it, and there are some great lines and passages that make you think...damn.
However, I am very satisfied with the title. In past Shakespeare experience, I have been privy to reading The Tempest, Othello, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and a few others. Aside from The Tempest, it seems that my teachers have only really assigned me plays that have the title of a character or two who are in the play. As I'm sure Dr. MB is from her title contest, I am someone who loves book and play titles and finds it great when they appear in the text or their meaning is snuck in. It's a beautiful AHA! moment. And Shakespeare does not disappoint. I probably got too excited when I found this one, Act 5, scene 1, line 465, page 203:
"An Angelo for Claudio, death for death. Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure; Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure."
While I am not a firm believer in the theory of an eye for an eye, as made clear in my little Gandhi quote title, I do like that ounce of justice that Shakespeare has provided us. He gave us a title and then that title rang true in the set up of the punishment and the conclusion of the play. Everything finally came together. A lot of the previous blog posts complained that there was no justice and that these characters had no shame in running around in disguise destroying each others lives. In some cases, I completely agree, but in others, this line sort of changes my mind. Maybe in his time disguised as a friar, the duke has learned a better way to dole out punishments among his people. He may not be at 100% as a ruler, but he is certainly trying to get there. I still judge him for hiding, but after he is revealed, he does eventually fess up and explain everything too.
And although I like the title coming into play and the duke stepping back into his role, I am also unsatisfied with the ending. The Duke comes back and acts like some fairy godmother, hopping around and pointing at each character giving them their own happy or unhappy ending. And while like I said, I do not always agree with the whole eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, WHY DOES ANGELO PRETTY MUCH GET AWAY WITH ALL HE'S DONE? The Duke makes this whole measure for measure speech, declaring that there will be justice for justice and saying that for Claudio's death, Angelo will die, but then he pardons it so that Marianna can have a husband. "Lend me a knee" she begs Isabella. Give me a break! I don't see how this whole part fits with the title, unless that's the whole point? Is there such thing as measure for measure? Or is Shakespeare saying, we can't follow anything measure for measure as much as we want to because it just never works out that way. One punishment will never be equal to another.
I'm waiting for an epiphany here or for someone who gets it. I think the title is meant to be ironic, like you can't always get what you want, or at least you can't always get what you want in exactly the same way that someone else has it. But I can't seem to quite peg why such a significant title was used, appears in the book, but then just doesn't fall through. Any ideas? Lend me a knee.
(also very upset that all the funny shakespeare memes are romeo and juliet and hamlet...give some measure for measure love, internet!)
I’m glad someone finally asked the meaning behind the title because I am also a tad bit confuzzled by it. Yes, I know that is not a word, but it describes my feelings perfectly. When I first heard the title, I thought of that old stone slab called Hammurabi’s Code from high school history class. It taught about equal punishments for crimes committed against people by others. At the time, I liked the idea of an eye for an eye. However, the question arises of how we are to define what punishments are equal. For this reason, I don’t think it’s possible to carry out this idea of measure for measure because of the various elements that play into the situation it applies to. Too many variables cause shifts in whether equal punishments are right or wrong. I think Shakespeare wrote this play to comment upon the ambiguous nature behind the idea of measure for measure. There is no clear understanding of why humans consider it, why we think it’s fair when the consequences resulting have negative effects sometimes. If you constantly practice it, everyone is going to want revenge on everyone. It’ll turn into bloody chaos.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your "aha!" moment, and with the speech by the Duke, I agree that everything fell together. However, I disagree with your ruling that Angelo should be punished. Angelo has done nothing in the end. He committed no crimes, no one died, he did not rape Isabella. So besides being a pious, hypocritical jerk he has done nothing wrong to be punished. I thought that the title was serious in the fact that every measure was met by a like measure. Every action by Angelo was countered in some way by the Duke. Leading to nothing ever getting done. Also, your chaos, clowns, chaos, a wedding made me laugh. it is very true to all Shakespeare comedies. I think the answer is that nothing is ever complete, and every action we do isn't really permanent.
ReplyDelete