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?
I think the animal imagery has to do with the discussion of how much autonomy it is just to give people. With animals it is seen as just to restrict autonomy. We keep birds in a cage because if we did not they would fly away and we feed dogs specific portions ourselves because if we didn’t they wouldn’t stop eating and hurt themselves. Animals are not rational, and many times cannot control their impulses and appetites. We as humans, and rational actors, know better and thus make animal’s choices for them. This is what the impropriety laws being discussed aim to do. The government is making choices for the people about what is best for them. Angelo believes impropriety is a sin, and sins take hold when people devolve into animal instincts and desires. Thus, it is the obligation of the government to outlaw these sins and prevent improper appetites, even though it only affects the sinner. The question is then what the purpose or obligation of government ought to be. Governments form to protect people from getting their rights violated by other people. Almost everyone would agree that the government should outlaw murder because it involves violating someone else’s right to life. What is up for debate is whether the government can prevent you from taking an action that only impacts yourself. In this case, taking part in brothels, and having relations before marriage. If that is unjust, is outlawing drug use unjust? Is attempting to prevent suicide unjust? Can the government prevent you from doing something that only impacts yourself now, but has the potential to violate other people’s rights like buying a knife, but also building a bomb? There isn’t a “right” answer, but personally I believe that the government shouldn’t the authority to restrict autonomy that only impacts the individual committing the action, and can only restrict that autonomy when there is a reasonable suspicion that it will/could be used to negatively impact another person.
ReplyDeleteThis play is about obfuscated messages in many different ways, from the contradictions of Angelo's purity versus his desire for Isabella and the duke's wish to enforce rules more heavily and yet also empathize with everyone to Elbow, who uses words with the exact opposite meaning to his intention. Given that intentions are hidden inside of intentions, I believe that the animal imagery is actually meant to be a contradiction of the primary problem of the play. While some animal species form hierarchies not unlike humans, there is not evidence for an animal society with the lawmaking process and criminal justice system that humans are so taken with. In several instances, the animal imagery is that of the animal not working in what one would consider the proper way, the way that will keep it alive. There is the imagery of a lion staying in its cave rather than eating, or going after mice rather than prey that is actually worth the energy it takes to catch it, as well as that of rats consuming poison and the law of a horse used by humans for transport. In each of these instances, the animal is talked about doing something that goes against its nature. By likening the law to animals outside of their natural habitat, Shakespeare is stating that adhering to the law and punishing those with whose actions we disagree, humans are actually going against what would really be common sense for their survival. This argument does allow for the punishment of those whose crimes put the rest of humanity in danger - for example, a starving rat might resort to eating poison, or a lion to catching mice. On the whole, however, the argument is that perhaps without a set of strictures that all must follow, the world might be a more carefree place.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the play’s animal imagery is a comment on how humans aren't always rational actors and tend to default to animalistic behavior. Shakespeare’s diction choice of “nature” during Claudio’s line highlights how this type of behavior may be inherent to humanity. Nature insinuates that the following behavior is innate/natural to human beings. The usage of the rats metaphor highlights how behavior stemming from excess liberty invests humanity. During the time that this play was written, rats often brought disease to different areas and ruined their food supplies; thus, it can be inferred that the core purpose of this rat, aka excess liberty, in this context is to spoil the human race and infect it with criminality. Secondly, the Duke’s comment about the lion highlights the paradox that is an apex predator not hunting. Lions are known to dominate anything of their choosing, so a lion CHOOSING not to hunt doesn’t make sense. In this case, the metaphor explains that even though the law is supposed to be able to take down everything in its path, being overworked enforcing the law makes the law enforcement, and thus the law itself, unable to be enforced. Thirdly, Angelo’s usage of the bird metaphor shows what happens when the law is there but not enforced. Birds are supposed to fear the scarecrow, but when they realize that it is not of harm to them, they begin to perch on it. This metaphor explains how the law is supposed to prevent people from committing crimes; however, the lack of law enforcement means that criminals now exploit the lack of enforcement to their advantage, which makes the law null and void. All in all, while each animal reference serves a different point, they all highlight how this “animalistic” behavior may be natural for humans, these lines explain how humans will always take advantage of excess freedoms while trying to hinder those freedoms, through law enforcement, leads to massive burn out. With all of that in mind, I think that the play gets this phenomenon very well.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare's play Measure for Measure, the characters Claudio and the Duke both use animal imagery to describe the relationship between human appetites and the law. Claudio compares his own animalistic desires to rats that "raven down their proper bane" and ultimately lead to his downfall. The Duke, compares the law to an overgrown lion that becomes too domesticated and fails to effectively enforce order. Angelo, the play's main antagonist, also uses animal imagery to describe the relationship between the law and human appetites. He describes laws without penalties as a "scarecrow of the law" that ultimately fails to keep people in check. According to the play, the proper role of the law is to act as a restraint on human appetites, preventing individuals from succumbing to their base desires and causing harm to others. The Duke and Angelo both argue that strict enforcement of the law is necessary to maintain order and prevent chaos. However, the play also suggests that the law should not be too strict or it may become ineffective. I personally think that enforcement of the law is necessary but only to an extent. I think that our current enforcement system with Judges and Jurys offer more room for emphaty as well as a more appropriate response to a specific crime taking into account the needed context. Noted there are still many faults without out current system but I believe steps have been made in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, the conscious choice of animals provides insight into the power dynamic between the law and the people it governs. In all examples thus far, wild animals have been used when speaking about the laws that rule over people. In the example provided above, Claudio compares human nature to rats who operate as they wish, and he attributes his arrest to this animalistic trait. Rats commonly are associated with uncleanliness and the lower ends of the social ladder, as they lurk in sewers and eat trash. In Claudio’s eyes, “too much liberty” didn’t relegate him to the status of a strong animal that operates on similar desires, but to an animal near the bottom of the food chain. This underlines that Claudio believes that the law is what elevates humans above not just other wild animals, but those dirtiest, and by our metrics, least civilized wild animals. Animals not only represent the law that oversees the people but the law itself. This is highlighted further when the Duke likens unenforced laws to an “o’ergrown lion in a cave / That goes not out to prey.” This example serves two purposes. First, it paints the law as on the offensive that, when implemented, seeks prey. Rather than an animal that serves to protect its territory, a lion goes out and gets what it wants without many animals above who have a say. Secondly, in tandem with the rat metaphor, the lion metaphor sets up a power dynamic between the people who’ve been living under “too much liberty,” and those who are meant to enforce the law. The lion versus the rat is a one-sided matchup of predator and prey that, even if the metaphors don’t come directly from Angelo, serves to highlight Angelo’s view of the law. Angelo’s view of the role of the law in society is confirmed in the example given at the beginning of act two. While the example of the rat and lion are picked from separate points in the text, the example of a bird and a scarecrow eloquently explains the power dynamic all at once. In theory, a scarecrow (the law) is meant to scare crows (the people) away. This goes to represent that efficient law enforcement (scarecrow) works to deter its people (birds). When a scarecrow works, the birds fly above it and never stoop so low as to use it as a “perch.” They are, in a way, flying higher and closer to the sky, which, in Angelo’s ideal moral and religious world, may represent a closer connection to G-d. However, for Angelo, it is necessary to not let the law “keep one shape till custom make it their perch,” meaning that like the lion, the scarecrow must be offensive as well. Fundamentally, the scarecrow represents Angelo’s vision of the law as immovable at its core (except for him), yet needing to be changed so as to make it feared. While all those in Vienna are able to put the pieces together of where they stand in regard to the law with Claudio being a rat (the people), and the Duke being a lion (the law), it is only Angelo who envisions a fluid system that accounts for all with him as an immovable force the will go to any length to increase the morality in Vienna.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the play, the correct role of law is to control most animalistic instincts. For example, throughout the play, multiple people are prosecuted for benefiting from prostitution even though sex is necessary for the progression of society. Sex is a natural instinct to reproduce in an effort to stay advanced. So, outlawing and enforcing that would be catastrophic to society. That seems to be exactly the goal of Angelo. When Claudio, a moral citizen of their society, impregnates his fiancé, Angelo sentences him to death. I think the sentence is far more immoral than Claudio’s “crime.” He was in a committed relationship which resulted in the progression of society. He did not steal or murder, yet he was still sentenced to death since they had sex outside of marriage. This is a clear example of how there is no leeway in regard to upholding laws. While Angelo is trying to reform the current society, he incarcerates arguably innocent people for victimless crimes. This connects directly to the current world and the number of people incarcerated for marijuana possession. While nothing they did resulted in the harm of another person or thing, many of them are serving life sentences. As a society, we have chosen to punish people for victimless crimes such as minor drug offenses, speeding, and prostitution. I do not think the play gets it right because it is too similar to our current society, and I do not believe either is correct. Both focus on incarcerating harmless people in an attempt to show that the government cares about criminal justice “reform.”
ReplyDelete