Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
Measure For Measure, Act 4, Dec 11
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Candy
(new)
Nov 20, 2019 12:39PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
As a mage, the Duke it seems to me has powers that go beyond the purely rational. Rather like Prospero's control of Miranda, Isabella seems now to lose her will in his. The last we see of the old Isabella is when she says of Mariana,What a merit were it in death to take this poor maid from the world!
as if life is not worth living after you've been jilted. Thereafter she adopts his "pious fraud" strategy.
So what do we make of the duke-as-friar? One idea is that he stands for GOD, moving in a mysterious way his wonders to perform. Very allegorical. And what do we make of his constant deceptions? He rarely tells the truth to anyone, although we accept his story of Mariana to Isabella.
I used to think of M4M as a very "Roman Catholic" play, and certainly the other friars in the play are honest enough and presented positively, but Isabella and Angelo have the protestant-puritan mind set, and they become the focus of our interest when it comes to theology. Ultimately I think it is about protestantism, if it is "about" the church at all.
I think it is not too far fetched to see the poor Clares as a kind of brainwashing cult from which the Duke, with more open and liberal beliefs ("He is your husband on a pre-contract / To bring you thus together, 'tis no sin.") manages to rescue her. I've read accounts of the Oxford Movement, so called, which was an ultra-catholic protestantism of the 19th century whose practices, sleep deprivation, self-harm etc, are so like those described in "Going Clear".
The Duke as mage corresponds to S himself as mage, in that we don't notice S's tricks with the clock (more extreme in M4M than in any other of his plays) and his distortions of events, any more than Isabella and the rest are sceptical of the Duke's information and commands. For example, Mariana tells us of the Duke,
Here comes a man of comfort, whose advice
Hath often still'd my brawling discontent.
We never think to ask, when could such advice ever have been given? If she says it on Tuesday, Claudio was only arrested on Monday, and the threatened execution is on Wednesday. We are fully under S's spell.
We spoke earlier of this play being "problematic" in the sense that it is not a true comedy, nor a true tragedy. Act 4 seems to expose this more than ever. Particularly gruesome is their decision to send Ragozine's head to Angelo!The "humor" in this must be like black comedy. I could see the scene in a Quentin Tarantino movie!
PROVOST
Here in the prison, father,
There died this morning of a cruel fever
One Ragozine, a most notorious pirate,
A man of Claudio’s years; his beard and head
Just of his colour. What if we do omit
This reprobate till he were well inclined;
And satisfy the deputy with the visage
Of Ragozine, more like to Claudio?
DUKE VINCENTIO
O, ’tis an accident that heaven provides!
Dispatch it presently;
Martin wrote: "I used to think of M4M as a very "Roman Catholic" play, and certainly the other friars in the play are honest enough and presented positively, but Isabella and Angelo have the protestant-puritan mind set, and they become the focus of our interest when it comes to theology. Ultimately I think it is about protestantism, if it is "about" the church at all..."Very interesting, Martin! As you know, many historians believe that S may have been a "secret Catholic". There is a lot of evidence for this. Perhaps he was torn between the two religions -- faithful to his Arden roots in Catholicism, but also needing to follow the law of the land regarding Protestantism under Elizabeth and James. Hmmm...
Ultimately, I think there are a lot of hypocrites in this play, and the Catholic church is very hypocritical. (Actually, the Protestant Reformations were at least in part about the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church.)
The Duke is a hypocrite. First of all, he impersonates a Friar -- a crime punishable by law. Then he chooses to do as he pleases, posing as the Friar and leading people to follow him as a man of the cloth. Plus, him lying to Isabella about Claudio's death is rather cruel. Isabella is pretty unstable. She could do something rash at the "news" that her brother has been executed despite her efforts... But the Duke apparently wants to get extra glory in the end when he reveals Claudio as alive.
Angelo, of course, is a hypocrite for obvious reasons. In Act 4 he proves himself an even BIGGER hypocrite.
ANGELO
"This deed unshapes me quite, makes me unpregnant
And dull to all proceedings. A deflower’d maid!
And by an eminent body that enforced
The law against it! But that her tender shame
Will not proclaim against her maiden loss,
How might she tongue me! Yet reason dares her no;"
Plus, he is a coward, afraid that Claudio would take revenge on him.
"He should have lived,
Save that riotous youth, with dangerous sense,
Might in the times to come have ta’en revenge,
By so receiving a dishonour’d life
With ransom of such shame."
Angelo is like the many religious figures of all stripes, who rail against sex, but are then caught with prostitutes.
Being punished for sex is a Puritan tradition -- folks were at one time paraded in the street naked for adultery. But the hypocrisy and this dichotomy are also Catholic things. In the parish where I grew up we had: one pedophile priest (later convicted); one rather attractive priest who was rumored to be sleeping with some of the parish ladies; and one old wind bag priest who constantly railed against sex.
I think at least one of the themes of this play is about religion.
Christine, more on your very interesting message 4 later, but I quite agree about the black comedy humour. When the Duke says, "O, ’tis an accident that heaven provides!" you'd think he was commenting on a gigantic marrow at a harvest festival rather than the prospect of getting hold of a severed head. More than Tarantino I think of Lebowski:Walter: You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.
The Dude: Yeah, but Walter...
Walter: Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish.
You say of M4M "not a true comedy, nor a true tragedy", but back in the 18th century that is how all the plays were viewed. I've just been reading Samuel Johnson on Shakespeare,
"The players, who in their edition [first folio] divided our author’s works into comedies, histories, and tragedies, seem not to have distinguished the three kinds by any very exact or definite ideas.
An action which ended happily to the principal persons, however serious or distressful through its intermediate incidents, in their opinion, constituted a comedy. . . . Tragedy was not in those times [Elizabethan times] a poem of more general dignity or elevation than comedy; it required only a calamitous conclusion, with which the common criticism of that age was satisfied, whatever lighter pleasure it afforded in its progress. . . .
Through all these denominations of the drama, Shakespeare’s mode of composition is the same; an interchange of seriousness and merriment, by which the mind is softened at one time, and exhilarated at another."
End of longish quote.
I've seen Mark Rylance play the Duke (BBC broadcast) where he gets quite a lot of engaging humour out of the part, exasperation with Lucio, like a schoolteacher with a silly pupil, saying things in such a way no one could take it as the truth, etc. It worked very well.
Of course the prison scenes make serious points in with the grim comedy: Pompey is quite respectable now, helping to break the 6th commandment, unlike working in a brothel helping to break the 7th.
Martin wrote: ""The players, who in their edition [first folio] divided our author’s works into comedies, histories, and tragedies, seem not to have distinguished the three kinds by any very exact or definite ideas.An action which ended happily to the principal persons, however serious or distressful through its intermediate incidents, in their opinion, constituted a comedy..."
Interesting, and good to know! So, by this definition, a comedy could really have any measure of sad or even grotesque things happening, as long as there was a reasonably happy ending for the principle characters.
I had forgotten about The Big Lebowski, haha! That is perfect. I suspect the Elizabethans, given their penchant for violence as entertainment (hangings, beheadings, bear baitings...) would have gotten a kick out of those scenes.
Ragozine is an unnecessary name. It's a perfect anagram of organize. Organize has the definition in OED (since 1413) as "To furnish with organs; to render organic; to give the structure and interdependence of parts which subserves vital processes."Shakespeare played with names.
If we read carefully this play, we can assume that Elbow lost one hand up to his elbow, Pompey has only one eye, and Froth's face is covered with froth. They are used to solve the riddle of "stewed prunes."
Mod
I have had a terrible time logging in and have lost several attempts to post. Here goes some more attempts. I took a break and tried to gather my thoughts. I have written the Goodreads people I hope no one else has struggled.
I have been reading Shakespeare and The Common Understanding which argues that classical stories had to be taking place within a day to a year. Rabkin suggests that Shakespeare innovated storytelling by creating his own time frames.
However...this play as Martin points out takes place over a very short time period! Is it possible that this influences our sense of comedy versus tragedy?
"The avenue by which Professor Rabkin approaches the plays is J. Robert Oppenheimer’s Science and the Common Understanding, from which the concept of “complementarity” is borrowed, the necessity in certain situations of employing apparently contradictory descriptions without embarrassment. In this view, human communication and understanding of ultimates must necessarily be paradoxical. Whether in fact this concept from atomic physics applies to the moral universe is an open question. Suffice it that Professor Rabkin has made very convincing use of it in this book."
And then I was also reading a complicated book which is really a legend to taime frames in antiquity I suppose it could be said..."Chronology of the Ancient World."
So the discussion here of time frame was very meaningful to me.
Mod
the only thing I thought was interesting was "sweet spurned"
I'm not sure what could be a riddle. Except stewed prunes ould go back to losing sexal organs due to veneratel disease? Is that what you are thinking?
Mod
Of taking life? working with the job of death-making. "discredit our mystery" is strange...
ABHORSON
A bawd, sir? fie upon him! he will discredit our mystery.
Provost
Go to, sir; you weigh equally; a feather will turn
the scale.
Exit
POMPEY
Pray, sir, by your good favour,--for surely, sir, a
good favour you have, but that you have a hanging
look,--do you call, sir, your occupation a mystery?
ABHORSON
Ay, sir; a mystery
POMPEY
Painting, sir, I have heard say, is a mystery; and
your whores, sir, being members of my occupation,
using painting, do prove my occupation a mystery:
but what mystery there should be in hanging, if I
should be hanged, I cannot imagine.
ABHORSON
Sir, it is a mystery.
POMPEY
Proof?
ABHORSON
Every true man's apparel fits your thief: if it be
too little for your thief, your true man thinks it
big enough; if it be too big for your thief, your
thief thinks it little enough: so every true man's
apparel fits your thief.
Mod
"ready, prepared," Old English gearo "ready, prepared, equipped," from gearwian "to equip, prepare" (related to gearwe "clothing, dress") from Proto-Germanic *garwjan "to make, prepare, equip, ready, complete" (see gear (n.)). Cognate with German gar, Dutch gaar. Related: Yarely.
Is this where Hepburn says "My she was yar" related in "The Philedelphia Story"
https://classicsailor.com/2018/09/my-...
Mod
...then a bed trick, then a head trick. That is at least three times a switcch is made
In dire times a false king, then a false marriage, and a false death.
I'm wondering what kind of a three pairs that could numerically symbolize. A Pythagoream triple? An Ennead?
Or....
https://www.mathwarehouse.com/geometr...
Candy wrote: "I'm not sure what could be a riddle. Except stewed prunes ould go back to losing sexal organ..."This riddle is triggered by Ragozine, whose head (organ) is rendered to save Claudio. Organize has the usage of "to furnish with organs; to render organic" (OED 1413 to 1874). Organize is a perfect anagram of Ragozine.
You're right; "stewed prunes" puns on losing sexual organs due to venereal disease. Prune has the usage of to cut down or mutilate; stew of "a brothel (OED 1362 to 1873).
Froth is not infected: "Does your honour see any harm in his face?"
Pompey lost one eye: "thou wicked Hannibal."
Elbow lost one elbow. Pompey tells people to check Elbow's hand: "By this hand, Sir, his wife is a more respected person than any of us all."
This matches Pompey's "longing (as I said) for prunes: and having but two in the dish." Pompey and Elbow are the "two" being pruned here.
This kind of abductive reading can impact a play; e.g. Elbow may point at Pompey's eyepatch for "thou wicked Hannibal"; and Pompey at Elbow's bare elbow for "By this hand."
Abductive reading is to find the best explanation. Some say Hannibal is a mistake for cannibal. I don't see that fits Pompey well.
Candy, "mystery" used to have the meaning of a skilled profession (COED lookup again!), something requiring an apprenticeship and learnt over many years, like being an artist or musician. Abhorson is proud of his work and claims the same status for executioners. The thief and the coat is a bit puzzling, but Ab seems to be developing an argument that taking away a man's coat is easy, as any coat will do, but taking away a man's life is a different matter, as the life is unique, etcetera, but he is cut short by the entrance of the provost. I think that is what is going on here. As for our stewed prunes, I think S was just trying to bewilder his audience as much as Pompey succeeds in bewildering Escalus.
Candy,"Chronology of the Ancient World". Is that the Bickerman book? If so, do you have the '68 or revised '80 edition?
