Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
Measure For Measure, Act 2, Nov 27
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Candy
(new)
Nov 20, 2019 12:37PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
I feel like it is a lot to grasp...and might be part of why this play is considered "problem". I'm oping to find Tillyard writes about this play as I'll look a little later on.
ELBOW
If it Please your honour, I am the poor duke's
constable, and my name is Elbow: I do lean upon
justice, sir, and do bring in here before your good
honour two notorious benefactors.
ANGELO
Benefactors? Well; what benefactors are they? are
they not malefactors?
ELBOW
If it? please your honour, I know not well what they
are: but precise villains they are, that I am sure
of; and void of all profanation in the world that
good Christians ought to have.
This struck me as pretty funny.
Um...I find I am needing to read this whole scene in "bundles" as it is a lot to understand or keep pace with. It's really almost mathematical and wrestling with a logic that evades me. When I say "bundles" I am thinking that there are several "sets" within this set. Bundking the data helps us consume something overfilled with too much information. I've recently been trying to find examples of this theory of "chunking."
"The term chunking was introduced in a 1956 paper by George A. Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two : Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information. Chunking breaks up long strings of information into units or chunks. The resulting chunks are easier to commit to working memory than a longer and uninterrupted string of information. Chunking appears to work across all mediums including but not limited to: text, sounds, pictures, and videos. "
Every few lines we seem to take on a new direction which makes the dialogue screwball feeling. I find myself looking for "white space"!!!
The "signal to noise ratio" is dense. Again, adding to the idea of why this might be a problem play?
http://people.sunyit.edu/~lepres/thes...
Okay, some "research": it was F S Boas (1862-1957, very long life), who classified AWTEW, M4M, Tr&Cr and Hamlet as S's "problem plays", in his very first publication, Shakespeare and His Predecessors (1896). Boas is not well-remembered now, but see his wikipedia article. The phrase caught on, but was subject to rather different interpretations. Boas saw the problem as being the morality of the plays, Tillyard more the problem of critical interpretation. Nowadays the classification has less resonance as each of S's plays presents its own problems, and there is nothing so very distinct about Boas's four. In the Victorian period the comedies on stage tended to be prettified, live rabbits hopping about in MND etc. The three problem comedies, AWTEW, M4M, Tr&Cr, could not be prettified and were almost never performed. (Tillyard thought AWTEW must be almost unactable, and admits that he never saw it performed himself.) To the Victorians, M4M was seen as going beyond just problematical, and Bowdler cut the play out completely from his expurgated edition of S's works. The difficulty of reading M4M now is tied up with the density of S's late style, and Act 2 is perhaps the hardest, especially the two Isabella-Angelo scenes.Whew!
But isn't scene 1 lovely? A gift to the actors doing Elbow-Clown-Froth who want to work up a comedy routine. Elbow is a reincarnation of Dogberry, or of the constable Dull in LLL, if you remember him. (Dull bringing Costard before the King is a bit like Elbow bringing Pompey before the Duke's deputy.) Froth is a shiny-faced lad with little wit and much money, and Pompey (I see now for the first time) is copying the tedious stupidity of Elbow as being his best line of defence. We see a cleverer Pompey when he says,
"If this law hold in Vienna ten year, I'll rent the fairest house in it after three-pence a bay."
He omits the chain of reasoning: the law executes men for having pre-marital sex, all the Viennese men do it, after ten years there'll be a man shortage, supply of housing stays the same while demand goes down, house prices fall, Pompey can rent a big house.
And this I never noted before,
Clown: Sir, she was respected [had sex] with him before he married with her.
Escalus: . . . Is this true?
Elbow: O thou caitiff! O thou varlet, etc
Elbow is under the same accusation as Claudio (and S himself!) as having had pre-marital sex. Escalus finds this interesting. Elbow's violent denials are not very convincing.
And needless to say we never find out what the stewed prunes were all about.
Mod
Yes this series of dialogues and comedic banter is fantastic although dense and difficult. It is getting easier after reading here and reading again.
The names are priceless in this play!!!!
Martin wrote: "Okay, some "research": it was F S Boas (1862-1957, very long life), who classified AWTEW, M4M, Tr&Cr and Hamlet as S's "problem plays", in his very first publication, Shakespeare and His Predecesso..."A stewed prune was a prostitute
Martin wrote: "John, how do you know that?"From John D.
"Stewed Prune" was a common term for a prostitute at the time of the play, Measure for Measure, according to the New Cambridge Shakespeare, an edition by Arthur Quiller-Couch and John Dover Wilson. In the play, in act 2 scene 1, Pompey the bawd has been brought before the Justice Escalus. Pompey attempts to divert attention from himself by raising the question of what happened to Elbow's wife who came to Mistress Overdone's house, the brothel, looking for stewed prunes.
The Cambridge Shakespeare defines "stewed prunes" as "a favorite dish in brothels." According to Sparknotes, stewed prunes were "a dish commonly served in brothels as a cure for syphilis." It is my understanding that Elbow's wife is pregnant, and because of her pregnancy food cravings, she wants stewed prunes. So she goes to the brothel looking for them:
POMPEY -- "Sir, she came in great with child; and longing,
saving your honour’s reverence, for stewed prunes;
sir, we had but two in the house, which at that very
distant time stood, as it were, in a fruit-dish"
They then talk of the fact that Froth was eating all the prunes, which I suppose is funny because he was trying to cure his own syphilis?
Then Pompey later says: "Why, very well; I telling you then, if you be remembered, that such a one and such a one were past cure of the thing you wot of, unless they kept very good diet, as I told you,—"
"The thing you wot of" is supposed to be syphilis.
I take it that the original complaint is that Elbow's wife was mistaken for a prostitute while in the brothel looking for prunes. Mistress Overdone tried to pair her up with Froth, but she spit in his face.
ELBOW "Ay, sir, by Mistress Overdone’s means: but as she
spit in his face, so she defied him."
The fact that they cannot prove anything against Froth, and so they let him go (even though he is a patron of the brothel) seems to me to be a statement on the ambiguous nature of "crimes" regarding sex. WHO, exactly, is doing WHAT, and who is to judge what is a "crime"?
Is Elbow supposed to be presented as foolish? His name Elbow suggest he is elbowing his way into situations and wants to make a name for himself. He doesn't even seem to know if wants to accuse his wife or Froth, but just that he wants to accuse SOMEONE. And yet he is supposed to be such a great constable.
First time reading, so let me know if I am getting it wrong! :-)
Candy wrote: "Stewed prunes...I leave this here for perusal...
https://openliterature.net/2011/06/24..."
Haha! Upon reading Candy's reference, I see maybe I am being naive about Elbow's wife. Said "pregnancy cravings" are not exactly for foods but for sex??
"The prunes in question, on which Pompey dwells so fulsomely as to drive a frustrated Angelo from the court, are a transparent reference to male sexual favours, underlined by the use of “stew’d”, a culinary term synonymous with low-life and immorality."
Christine wrote: "Candy wrote: "Stewed prunes...I leave this here for perusal...
https://openliterature.net/2011/06/24..."
Haha! Upon reading Candy's reference, I see maybe I am being naive about E..."
There was a part of the south bank of the Thames river in London known as the Stews inhabited by prostitutes and other low life. It was called the Stews because of the fish ponds there which were a source of food for the residents. Most of the land belonged to the Bishop of Winchester who enriched himself with the rents extracted from poverty stricken people, a practice not beyond a clergyman of the reformed church.
John D.
Very nice post, Christine, I think you have nailed it.Surely the running joke though, is Pompey's skill at creating courtroom confusion and annoyance by generating irrelevant information. It is a joke Dickens could use to perfection, and could have got from Shakespeare,
‘Now, Mr. Weller,’ said Serjeant Buzfuz.
‘Now, sir,’ replied Sam.
‘I believe you are in the service of Mr. Pickwick, the defendant in this
case? Speak up, if you please, Mr. Weller.’
‘I mean to speak up, Sir,’ replied Sam; ‘I am in the service o’ that
‘ere gen’l’man, and a wery good service it is.’
‘Little to do, and plenty to get, I suppose?’ said Serjeant Buzfuz, with
jocularity.
‘Oh, quite enough to get, Sir, as the soldier said ven they ordered him
three hundred and fifty lashes,’ replied Sam.
‘You must not tell us what the soldier, or any other man, said, Sir,’
interposed the judge; ‘it’s not evidence.’
‘Wery good, my Lord,’ replied Sam.
--- and so on.
But has anyone got to the Isabella-Angelo scenes yet? I think they are among the greatest things S ever wrote. What strikes me this time is there are three views of what Claudio has done: (1) he has done nothing wrong, e.g. the Provost, "He hath but as offended in a dream", (2) he has done wrong but deserves a lighter sentence, e.g. Escalus "poor Claudio! There is no remedy", and (3) he deserves Angelo's sentence. And there is one other person who thinks like Angelo, namely Isabella herself,
There is a vice that most I do abhor,
And most desire should meet the blow of justice,
For which I would not plead, but that I must
She pleads because of filial affection. But she does not talk to Angelo of her love for Claudio or try to extenuate his offence, but concentrates on the presumption of the magistrate, arrogating to himself powers that should belong to God only. This makes the debate much tighter and more cutting, as Angelo finds a mind like his own, but arguing skilfully against him.
John wrote:There was a part of the south bank of the Thames river in London known as the Stews inhabited by prostitutes and other low life. It was called the Stews because of the fish ponds there which were a source of food for the residents. Most of the land belonged to the Bishop of Winchester who enriched himself with the rents extracted from poverty stricken people, a practice not beyond a clergyman of the reformed church...."I also read that Stews could be a general slang term for brothel. How ironic -- and sad -- that the Bishop exploited the poor for his own gain!
Mod
(early Elbow says something about his name, and he is leaning...I thought that was funny suggesting he is a bit of a slacker or lazy>)
Elboe's wife would have two very critical and common sense reasons for looking around for stewed prunes. I think Shakespeare is having fun with "stew" and "stewed prunes"....but when it comes to pregnancy...there are two reasons a woman is looking to eat prunes. One is for iron. Prunes are an excellent source of iron and often pregnancy can be taxing on woman's iron utilizing. And with weight gain and all the adjustments the organs are making by moving out of the way for a growing baby...a woman can get irregular Prunes are also an excellent source of gentle laxative.
So I think there is a lot of fun going on with a variety of layers when it comes to stewed prunes.
Also...isn't there a juxtaposition between stewed prunes and bunch of grapes?
I see we haven't posted in a few days, but I have been reading!Interestingly, on Twitter yesterday, the Folger Library asked who we thought was the worst Shakespearean character. Overwhelmingly, people chose Angelo.
I can see why! Angelo is awful. He is like the Harvey Weinstein of his day! Scene 4 really got to me, when he threatens Isabel, telling her that no one would believe her if she were to tell the truth about him. First of all, she is a Novice, so her word should be worth something!
ANGELO
"Who will believe thee, Isabel?
My unsoil’d name, the austereness of my life,
My vouch against you, and my place i’ the state,
Will so your accusation overweigh,
That you shall stifle in your own report
And smell of calumny."
He then goes on to further solicit her:
"And now I give my sensual race the rein:
Fit thy consent to my sharp appetite;
Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushes,
That banish what they sue for; redeem thy brother
By yielding up thy body to my will;"
Plus, he makes it even worse by threatening to draw and quarter Claudio!
"Or else he must not only die the death,
But thy unkindness shall his death draw out
To lingering sufferance."
As far as Shakespeare villains go I still think Iago is pretty bad. But Angelo might be worse. He has power and he chooses to abuse it in the most horrible ways.
Christine, I am so pleased to see someone, at last, has commented on Angelo's monstrous bargain to Isabella, and made the connection with the all too topical Harvey Weinstein. When I suggested the play to Candy, I said the full title might be "Measure for measure, or, can we ever forgive Harvey Weinstein." For me, Angelo's "Who will believe thee, Isabel?" is etched in my mind, and I always think of it when I read yet another case of a woman who has broken silence about an act of abuse committed ten, twenty, thirty, or even more years ago. In fact if the play were better known, this quote might have become the slogan of the MeToo movement.Angelo winning the Folger worst-Shakespeare-villain prize may in part be due to the #MeToo effect: I would put him well below Edmund on the evil scale. But of course we have to try and see what is going on with the man. To me he is like Robespierre, but suddenly overtaken by feelings Robespierre never had. Angelo would wish to die by the law he believes in,
You may not so extenuate his offence
For I have had such faults; but rather tell me,
When I, that censure him, do so offend,
Let mine own judgment pattern out my death,
And nothing come in partial.
Robespierre does not want to outlive a failed revolution,
"Oh, I shall resign it to them without a regret! Why should I wish to live under a system where intrigue triumphs for ever over truth, where justice is a lie, where the basest passions and the most ridiculous of terrors supersede in men’s hearts the most sacred duties?" etc
This Robespierre quote, from his speech of 5 Feb 1794, seems to me just like Angelo,
"If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs."
J M Thompson says Robespierre could read men's minds, but could not see their character. Angelo cannot see his own character. He can see nothing positive in his desire for Isabella. It is just devil worship.
Isabella is a virtuous unworldly naïve young woman set apart by her vocation, as Lucio says to her: "I hold you as a thing enskied and sainted,
By your renouncement - an immortal spirit,"1.4.
but it seems an unbending, self-centred, self-righteous virtue. Her:
"Isabel live chaste, and brother die;
More than our brother is our chastity."2.4,
seems heartless. It is, however, a reflection of the principles of the christian martyrs who preferred death to sin. She actually declares her willingness to die for Claudio, but not to sin for him:
"O, were it but my life,
I'd throw it down for your deliverance
As frankly as a pin."3.1.
It must not be forgotten that there were around Shakespeare's time many who died for their religious principles, both Catholic and Protestant, so Isabella must not be judged by the humanist standards of our time. Isabella is prepared to plead for Claudio's life, as she is also for Angelo's even though she abhors the sin they have committed, because she recognizes the mercy Christ shows towards sinners:
"Why, all the souls that were were forfeit once,
And he that might the vantage best have took
Found out the remedy:"2.2.
She is at her best when pleading with Angelo for Claudio. Here she speaks with warmth, compassion, and insight, and with humanity as well as morality. However she fails to show Claudio the same compassion and understanding that she urges on Angelo. Indeed it hardly seems necessary for her to have told him of Angelo's bargain at all unless she looked upon it as a way of turning a man condemned for vice into a sacrifice for virtue:
"I'll to my brother.
Though he hath fall'n by prompture of the blood,
Yet hath he in him such a mind of honour,
That had he twenty heads to tender down
On twenty bloody blocks, he'ld yield them up,
Before his sister should her body stoop
To such abhorred pollution."2.4.
In her mind the proposition has become not that if she will yield to Angelo, Claudio may be spared, but if Claudio will die willingly her virtue will be preserved. It must be said that Angelo's proposition to one such as her would have caused considerable mental anguish and I think the reason some find her hard to like is that she does not display this mental anguish. For her the dreadful choice is really no dilemma, she has her answer ready, and has nothing but revulsion for any questioning of her. We do not demand that she sacrifice her virtue for Claudio but feel that if she had perhaps agonised over her decision a little more, and had been a little more sympathetic towards Claudio, she would have been more likeable.
At first sight there is a tendency to liken Isabella to Portia in the Merchant Of Venice. Both make impassioned pleas for mercy and then fail to show mercy when it is called for from them, but here the resemblance really ends. Portia is worldly, dominating, used to managing the affairs of her fortune and estate, a good judge of and manipulator of people. She has none of Isabella’s naivety or obsessivety. Despite her demure submission to him when he wins her in the lottery of the caskets, she seems more than a match for the charming but ineffectual Bassanio. It is she who takes charge when news arrives of Antonio's fate, telling Bassanio what to do when he seems at a loss and then going herself to rescue Antonio when everyone else seems capable only of lamentation and futile pleading. She and her opponent Shylock are the only strong personalities in the play and in a battle of wits and wills she wins hands down. She demonstrates more than a little ruthlessness as, having shown Shylock his bond is worthless, she insists he shall have nothing else, neither the repayment of his principle nor the mercy she had urged him to show, bringing the full weight of the law down upon him. It is left to the duke and Antonio to mitigate the sentence Portia has passed on him. The episode of the rings reveals her to have a streak of coquettish malice. Again she has won the battle of wits and wills putting Bassanio on notice that she will be no quiet, dutiful little wife.
Martin wrote: "Christine, I am so pleased to see someone, at last, has commented on Angelo's monstrous bargain to Isabella, and made the connection with the all too topical Harvey Weinstein. When I suggested the ..."Yes, I thought of Weinstein right away and I agree, "Who will believe thee, Isabel?" could definitely be a catch phrase for the Me Too movement, if more folks were into Shakespeare and this play.
Another thing that continues to amaze me about Shakespeare's plays is how contemporary and relevant they actually are! Yes, the Me Too movement is a new thing (in a sense) but what a profound perception Shakespeare had, to write about such situations in his day.
Interesting comparison between Robespierre and Angelo. It is a horrible attitude!
"Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue;:"
Terror, justice and virtue, the same thing? Yes, I can see how that would be Angelo's thinking.
John wrote: " it seems an unbending, self-centred, self-righteous virtue. Her:"Isabel live chaste, and brother die;
More than our brother is our chastity."2.4,
seems heartless...."
We have to remember, though, that back in those days (and indeed until sometime in the early 20th century) virginity was really a BIG DEAL. A huge deal. For a woman, losing her virginity before marriage rendered her damaged goods, hence no one would marry her -- hence she was doomed to a life of poverty, and usually prostitution.
For Isabel, she has even more to lose. If she succumbs to Angelo, she would get kicked out of the nunnery -- and she would not be able to fulfill her life goal. Plus, she would not be able to live a normal secular life either -- as a fallen woman who had lost her virtue.
For Isabel, the kind of life that would be available to her after yielding to Angelo would not be a life worth living. She'd be cast out and end up being a prostitute. (Maybe that is why S put the brothel in the play as a foil to the convent.)
Therefore, Isabel says she would rather just die, martyr style, than agree to Angelo's proposal.
I really think the issue goes deeper than religion. It is about women's roles and expectations.
John, a really interesting post above, and I very much liked the Isabella-Portia comparison.I had not thought before that there is indeed a problem with the Isabella-Claudio meeting. She seems to be offering Claudio a choice, when her own determination means that he has no choice. As you say it would have been kinder not to bother him about it.
Of course, we see her developing. In the first meeting with Angelo she is quickly discouraged, but learns to confront him with Lucio's encouragement. In the second meeting it takes the length of the whole scene before the penny finally drops and she realises what Angelo wants. Everything then happens quickly, and there is perhaps a gap between initial shock and final determination.
The last comedies often contain a kind of "mage" character who, as it were, helps S with the working out of the plot, two men, the Duke in M4M and Prospero, two women, Helena in Alls Well and Paulina in Winters Tale. Portia emerges as a bit like an earlier version of the mage, while Isabella emerges as someone increasingly under the mage's control.
Mod
I had a question.
Maybe I missed something but what are the black masks? Are they "masques" or facial details? Is it the Hangman?
"Thus wisdom wishes to appear most bright
When it doth tax itself; as these black masks
Proclaim an enshield beauty ten times louder
Than beauty could, display'd. But mark me;
To be received plain, I'll speak more gross:
Your brother is to die."
Mod
Isn't Claudio being unorganized....dragging his sister into this whole thing? Shouldn't Claudio have planned his nuptials a little more tightly...getting all the paperwork done before leaping into bed?
Just throwing that out...since really we are in this mess because Claudio is a bit like Bertram. Another dead beat guy. LOL
Candy, see Act 3 discussion re "black masks"
Candy wrote: "Isn't Claudio being unorganized....dragging his sister into this whole thing? Shouldn't..."Not at all. The mess is Angelo starting a moral crusade. If he hadn't picked on Claudio it would have been someone else.
Mod
I've moved your last comment here John...
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Mod
Mod
Who will believe thee, Isabel?
My unsoil'd name, the austereness of my life,
My vouch against you, and my place i' the state,
Will so your accusation overweigh,
That you shall stifle in your own report
And smell of calumny. I have begun,
And now I give my sensual race the rein:
Fit thy consent to my sharp appetite;
Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushes,
That banish what they sue for; redeem thy brother
By yielding up thy body to my will;
Or else he must not only die the death,
But thy unkindness shall his death draw out
To lingering sufferance. Answer me to-morrow,
Or, by the affection that now guides me most,
I'll prove a tyrant to him. As for you,
Say what you can, my false o'erweighs your true.
Exit
ISABELLA
To whom should I complain? Did I tell this,
Who would believe me? O perilous mouths,
That bear in them one and the self-same tongue,
Either of condemnation or approof;
Bidding the law make court'sy to their will:
Hooking both right and wrong to the appetite,
To follow as it draws! I'll to my brother:
Though he hath fallen by prompture of the blood,
Yet hath he in him such a mind of honour.
That, had he twenty heads to tender down
On twenty bloody blocks, he'ld yield them up,
Before his sister should her body stoop
To such abhorr'd pollution.
Then, Isabel, live chaste, and, brother, die:
More than our brother is our chastity.
I'll tell him yet of Angelo's request,
And fit his mind to death, for his soul's rest.
