Recently Read: Measure For Measure

I've just finished reading Shakespeare's Measure For Measure. I should say 're-read' really, as I've read it before (I think!). I thought I hadn't when I bought it, but the minute I started reading the introduction I was like, "Oh yeah, I remember this one." It must have been a long time ago though, as it was only really the plot that rang a bell.

It was very good this time round (assuming I'm not confusing it with something similar). Not quite a favourite, but it'd possibly make my top ten. It's quite funny, especially so the character Lucio, who's simply described as "a Fantastic" in the character list at the start. As I always say about Shakespeare, it's very British sitcom in vibe, and Lucio is a character in the very sense of the word.

Also, I should note that the language is quite flowery (I'm never sure if that's the right term, but I can think of no other). Some plays feel quite basic in their language - and are therefore easier to follow. Whereas others are more flowery, and consequently a bit harder going. Meaning I have to concentrate a little bit more to understand some of the passages. It tends to be that the better Shakespeare plays have this flowery lilt, and the lesser ones not so. You may remember the last play I read, Troilus and Cressida. That one was very easy to follow, and though I enjoyed it, it felt more plain in language. It lacked poetry, as I said in that post.

I've also noticed that this (sometimes hard to understand) floweriness tends to be a Shakespeare thing, as everything else I've read from that period, again, feels so much more common. The language more straight forward. The Christopher Marlowe plays I've read were pretty straight forward to grasp compared to Shakespeare. Likewise, I've recently read the plays, The Witch of Edmonton (Rowley, Dekker, Ford, 1621), and Thomas Middleton's The Witch (circa 1616).

[I'll blog about these plays, along with a final play about witches I'm reading - though it could be a struggle, as the first two aren't fresh in my memory. The three plays came in one book, and it's quite heavy, meaning I haven't been too keen on carrying it with me to work to read on the bus, lol. So I've slowly worked my way through it over the course of months.]

These were fairly basic in their language and easy to follow too. Though, naturally, given their age, there were some parts where I wasn't fully able to comprehend what the hell the characters were talking about. Still, it all wasn't too far from modern English in general.

I should really make a list of Shakespeare's plays, categorising them according to whether I deem them sufficiently flowery or not, to see if there's some sort of pattern. I do tend to note this aspect when blogging, so it shouldn't be so difficult to do.

Attitudes to Virginity

The other thing I want to comment upon is the attitude to chastity in the play. Or rather, the different attitude to it that more modern people have. In the book's preamble there are mentions of how audiences have often viewed the character of Isabella as selfish.

In the play Claudio, Isabella's brother, is (unfairly) bound for execution. Isabella, a novice nun, begs Angelo, the ruler of Vienna, to spare his life. Angelo then offers her a deal: he will spare her brother, if she gives up her virginity to him. She refuses to do this. Essentially placing her chastity above her brother's life. There's then a scene later in the play, where Claudio, in a fit of fear, begs her to make the deal. Isabella reacts with anger, accusing her soon-to-be executed brother of lacking honour.

Apparently, modern audiences tend to see this behaviour as odd and selfish. I guess the thinking being that a life (especially of a loved family member) is surely much more important than a simple act of sex. However, when I read it I didn't find it strange at all, especially given the context of the era. Firstly, the idea is, men should defend the honour of women. A man is supposed to risk his life to protect the honour of a female family member. That's sort of the norm (though here, admittedly, it's quite an extreme example, the death being so certain). Secondly, sex isn't just a consequence-less act. It can bring a child into the world. So it's quite a profound thing to do. It's not just sex. In fact, Isabella at one point says,

"I would rather my brother die by the law than my son should be unlawfully born."

So it's not just about her, it's about a potential unborn child as well. (And this is before we even begin to take into account any spiritual aspect.)

If anything, it's our modern view of sex as throwaway and somewhat detached from procreation that's perverse. It's a bit sad in a way that we've devalued it so much. So much so that modern audiences simply cannot understand why their ancestors valued it so highly. This fact struck me somewhat - I guess why I'm mentioning it here. It seems to say something about the modern world.

Nevertheless, weighing a brother's life against the life of a potential child (and the honour of a family name) is a moral conundrum, and it does add a real drama to the play. As does the wider question the play presents about the law in general and those who are charged with implementing it (something I won't bore you with further here - I think I've written enough).

So, anyway, all that moral stuff, along with the bawdy humour (and the flowery language) made it an enjoyable read for me.