In Acts 2 and 3 of Measure for Measure, things start to “get real.” Angelo remains steadfast in his decision to have Claudio executed, until he decides he’s fallen in love with Isabella. Suddenly, he’s smitten and willing to give Claudio a break if Isabella will give up her virginity to him. Although these two acts have lots of not-so-subtle commentary on law and the morality of government, the most interesting line that stood out to me actually came from the first scene of Act 2, in which Angelo says we must not make a scarecrow of the law, that the law must be more than a vague threat looming over the heads of would-be criminals.
The idea of using the law to make an example of someone is something that I find very intriguing, and something I believe still holds relevance today. Public executions aren’t very common these days, but the practice of using unnecessary punishment to deter others from “sin” or crime is still here. The most prominent example that stayed with me as I read Angelo defend his decision is the practice of pursuing those guilty of digital piracy, a topic that holds great significance to me. Occasionally, we hear stories in the news of the RIAA picking an absurdly insignificant target to make an example of; suing grandmothers and teenagers for thousands of dollars for downloading a CD, and even suing a dead man’s children for songs he downloaded years before ( http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/riaa-wants-to-depose-dead-defendants.html ). This practice is absurd, because it seems like the prosecuting party is less concerned with justice and more about making the victim a symbol of crime. In that case, and in the case of Measure for Measure, what purpose does the law serve, and what purpose do those in power serve if not to incite fear and to hold control over the majority?
One thing that surprised me is how quickly Claudio gives in to cowardice, pleading with his sister to trade her dignity for his life. Angelo has shown little sign in wavering on his decision to execute Claudio, and it seems that Claudio is facing the reality of the situation, and cracking under the pressure. It’s interesting think how one would react put in the same situation. Anyone can say that they would never trade their honor for their life, but when it really comes down to an axe to your head or however it was done in the old days, honor goes out the window and it’s understandable that Claudio panics. It’s been said that you see the essence of a man just before he dies, so if this is how Claudio will be remembered, what does that say about his character? He was a sympathetic character to me initially, but after Acts 2 and 3, I hesitate in feeling pity for him. He values his own life over his sister’s chastity, and it seems he would put her in harm’s way to save his own hide. Hopefully he will redeem himself before the end of the play.
5 comments:
I think the act on Claudio's part of begging his sister to give up her virginity is a complicated one.
One on hand, death is a very final point. There is no coming back from that. Claudio is about to be a father, he's young, he wants to be with the woman he loves. It makes sense to me that he would beg her for that opportunity, considering that in that case, everyone lives.
Alternatively, sex and virginity at that time are seen as very different than they are today. It was not such a small sacrifice on Isabella's part, because in her very pious eyes, she and the others involved, would be doomed eternally for this behavior. Isabella feels that her brother could still be saved in the afterlife.
There is no right or wrong here, unfortunately. It is a sticky situation to say the least, and while I don't think it was particularly selfless of Claudio, I don't find it condemnable either.
I still have a degree of sympathy for Claudio. Since he obviously didn't have a problem with having premarital sex then it would seem likely that maybe he views his sister becoming a nun as being a bit of a prude. I don't think he values virginity, and probably doesn't see the big deal with Isabella sleeping with Angelo. For him it seems a simple equation: lose your virginity, or lose my life. He doesn't seem too concerned with eternal damnation, and may not feel that that is at stake since by his own actions he already chose to give up his. I think from his perspective all she's doing is having sex. Claudio seems more like a free love type person, and Isabella is ultra conservative. At the end of the day I'd rather be at a party with Claudio than Isabella. She needs to loosen up a bit. Of course it's still horribly wrong what Angelo is asking her to do, but I somehow doubt that God would eternally damn someone because they saved their brother's life, even if they had to have sex to do it.
I agree with both comments to the blog here that there really is no wrong or right answer. Virginity is something that is important to Isabella and she feels if she loses it to someone she is not married to GOD will punisher her. Back then and even to some people now that means the world to them. I also see the point that her brother would ask her to give it up for him because he already had sex out of marriage so it's no big deal. What I found most interesting is that usually in a story from Shakespeare's time the women gets blamed for most things. However, Claudio could be getting killed for having sex out of wedlock, but have we heard a punishment for his bride-to-be? Is Isabella the person who should take the fall for Claudio and his bride? I also find it interesting that Claudio is willing to have his sister give up her identity and beliefs to save him and on many levels it's wrong, but lets be honest, if I was put in that situation where I had a chance to live or die...I'd be scared and I would have to at least ASK my sibling(s) for help so I could live. I also didn't think about Claudio looking like a coward. I thought his reaction to death was normal especially if the way to die was a painful hanging.
The fact of using a person to make an example of someone as a way to deter other individuals from making the same mistake is not a new one, yet when I was reading the play, all I could think of was, "How archaic and hypocritical to do this." However, you bring up a great point here; lawmakers are still doing the same thing and punishing individuals for not so serious crimes as a way to make an example of them.
I'm glad to see the question of this play's relevance to a modern audience emerge in this post. I think that this is a play that does still have resonance with the way modern lawmakers work. It also reminds me of the Elliot Spitzer affair from a few years back: the moral, upstanding, hard on crime governor who uses his knowledge to try and cover up a nasty prostitution habit. At least for me, Shakespeare is showing us a world that is as morally complicated and strange as our own time.
Post a Comment