An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind...

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!)

Marriage...The Ultimate Eternal Justice!

I have to admit, it took me a really long time to finish Act 5 because there is so much going on.  So they all end up betrothed/married, right? I actually found myself laughing at this ending, because it really does deliver justice to all the characters.  It just happens in the weirdest way.  What I find funny is the fact that she begs for Angelo’s life because she claims that he didn’t know what he was doing.  But does it really matter whether he had sex with someone else, or with her? Either way, he’s doing it out of wedlock. Of course this confuses me because I’ve been getting mixed messages on this issue.  Many times throughout the play, I get the impression that it’s okay to have sex out of wedlock if it’s with your betrothed.  Technically, that’s what Angelo does.  Of course, he broke it off because she lost her dowry, so I guess the justice really is the fact that he has to marry her anyway. 

Each character who does something wrong ultimately receives justice in the end.  We spend this entire play searching for this justice, and it actually ends in an (almost) satisfying way.  No one dies, no one gets corporal punishment—both things we expect to see.  Both are things we want to see.  But the real punishment is that each is tied to a person with whom they do not really want to marry.  It’s perfect! Angelo would rather die than actually marry Mariana.  He begs for death, even.  The fact that the Duke does not spare him eternal entrapment is the ultimate form of justice! So the character we hate most gets what he deserves.  But what about Isabella? She is forced to marry the Duke.  Does the really deserve it? In my eyes, I think she does because of her deceit.  The issue of freewill comes up here, because we could make the argument that the Duke was involved, yet Isabella made the decision to go along with his plan.  If you ask me, it was her choice, so she needs to face the consequences.  I honestly don’t think the Duke was going to let Angelo kill Claudio in the first place.

As for the Duke…this is the only place where I feel the play doesn’t deliver justice.   So he gets to mess with people’s lives and lie and deceive., but he gets away with it? Where is the justice for the Duke’s actions? Honestly, I think he’s the most villainous person in this play.  But perhaps he’s there to teach us the importance of freewill. He sways these characters in certain directions, but ultimately, their decisions are their own.  An interesting use of a villain, I think.