Claudio, arrested for fornication with his almost-wife, claims his problem was "too much liberty"(1.2.121). He elaborates "Our natures do pursue, / Like rats that raven down their proper bane, / A thirsty evil, and when we drink, we die." (1.2.125-7). In other words, his animal appetites, unrestrained, undisciplined and unguided, led to his misfortune. Later the Duke makes a similar claim about the harmful effects of failing to strenuously enforce the law: Because he did enforce the law, the law became "Even like an o'ergrown lion in a cave / That goes not out to prey." (1.3.23-4). Even later Angelo takes about laws without penalties as
[A] scarecrow of the law,
Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape till custom make it
Their perch and not their terror. (2.2.1-4)
What's all this animal imagery about? What, according the play, is the proper role of the law when it comes to our appetites? Does the play get it right?
It is true that Measure for Measure often draws parallels to the animal world and metaphors certain human behaviors or feelings with the behaviors or feelings of animals. The given passages perfectly show this and introduce the concept of “appetite”, the pure lust to fall back in to our animalistic schemes and follow no law and rule.
ReplyDeleteThis image is very fitting and can be applied to every person: we all have “appetite” but are used to suppress it, as we know it can harm other people. The role of laws is to show us in what boundaries we can follow our appetite. There is an incredible amount of rules, used to regulate our behavior and made to protect every individual. If we would live out our appetite to the fullest, we would probably act like every other animal species. If we think about this like that, then laws are maybe the most important difference between us – humans - and animals. The fact that we make an effort to suppress our appetite as a joint group is what differentiates us.
The play pictures this issue in a very interesting way. Claudio broke the appetite-boundary and thus automatically poses a threat to others; but does he really? On first sight, nobody seems to be harmed or threatened by his actions: His soon-to-be wife wants him alive and nobody else takes harm from her being pregnant. This leads us to the question: what laws are really necessary to ensure safety for all? And, most importantly, to what extent can we live out our appetite? Should we punish those who do what they are by nature supposed to do?
The play also shows that the appetite is bigger than the will to follow the laws; even Angelo is willing to break the law and sleep with Isabella just to fulfill his appetite. So, can we even hold the appetites back, or are they still completely driving us, making us closer to animals than we may imagine? I am looking forward to how the play is about to answer those questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete