I think my top publication option would be through BYU's Criterion, but another viable option would be the University of Washington's undergraduate journal Intersections.
Brinn Bullough
Professor Burton
English 382
11/20/12
Marriage Politics
in Measure for Measure
“For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and
with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matt. 7:2).
When what is morally
acceptable in public opinion and practice comes in conflict with the
regulations and ideologies of new leadership, are change and legal justice best
served by enforcing new policies with absolute strictness towards a few of the
erring majority, to intimidate the rest into mending their ways? Or is it
actually both more just and effective to temper justice with mercy, by
forgiving culturally common offences and encouraging future adherence to the
law? These challenges, spurred by social and governmental changes in
Elizabethan society, were especially involved in perceptions of what was
acceptable and legal in shifting marriage practices during Shakespeare’s time.
In addition, more widespread access to Bible texts, and differing perspectives
between Puritan leadership and popular Catholic traditions led to a variety of
interpretations regarding the appropriate course of action in enforcing new
marriage policies. Responding to these conflicts in his play Measure for Measure, Shakespeare
contrasts elements of unforgiving Mosaic Law with merciful “Sermon on the
Mount” doctrine to question the enforcement of of newly imposed Puritan
marriage regulations over traditionally accepted marriage practices. An
understanding of these changing practices, therefore, is essential to a proper
interpretation of the play, which may otherwise be misconstrued as irreverent,
sexist, or at least confusing from a modern perspective.
The push for reform
under Puritan leadership was spurred by perceptions of the “fallen” state of
England’s populace, and called for a return to Mosaic Law in enforcing
penalties for both legal and moral infractions. Puritan writer Martin Bucer believed
that the punishments meted out by church courts were absurdly light, asserting that
“those guilty of whoredom, adultery,
incest or fornication, either should drink a full draught of Moses’ cup—that is, taste of present
death—or be seared with a hot iron” (Shuger 31). This argument was based on the
idea that if theft, which is considered a “lesser” sin according to the Law of
Moses, was punishable by death in English law, then adultery, a greater sin,
should have at least as severe a punishment.
The church courts,
however, represented by the Duke in the play, were traditionally driven by the notion
of “penitential justice,” and tended to be lenient with wrongdoers in the hopes
that they would repent and make amends, thus saving their souls and becoming
better citizens. Therefore, although crimes such as theft were legally
punishable by death, the general tendency was to forgive criminals upon
conditions of restitution. Renaissance historian Debora Shuger explains that this trend was
based on the belief that “crimes were sins, yet sinning was universal” (126). She
continues: “The common sinfulness of fallen humanity meant that lawbreakers did
not belong to a separate criminal class—could not be defined as ‘alien and
other’—but ‘were simply errant brethren’” (126). These motives stressed the
value of rescuing the soul of the sinner over upholding the letter of the law,
and illustrate the significance of the title of Measure for Measure in introducing the themes and conflicts of Shakespeare’s
play.
Interestingly, the play’s
most truly pious character, Isabella, is also the most forgiving towards the
offences of repentant others, while Antonio, the most Pharisaic character, who
represents new Puritan leadership, is the most relentless and hypocritical in
his demand for absolute justice. Isabella is willing to recognize traditionally
accepted marriage practices as valid, although supporting the publicly
formalized sanction of the Church in establishing a legal marriage contract.
Antonio, on the other hand, denies the validity of any marriage not officially
sanctioned by religious authority, rejecting the long-practiced tradition of
marriage by common verbal and physical consent between the married parties.
These opposing views and
judgment strategies become central to the development and resolution of the
play when Isabella’s brother Claudio is arrested and sentenced to death by
Antonio for impregnating a woman he intended to marry, but as their marriage had
not yet been formalized, he was considered guilty of fornication. Seeking mercy
for Claudio’s offence, Isabella invites Antonio to recognize his own faults before
passing judgment, saying, “Go to your
bosom,/ Knock there, and ask your heart what it doth know/ That’s like my
brother’s fault. If it confess/ A natural guiltiness, such as is his, /Let it
not sound a thought upon your tongue/ Against my brother’s life” (Measure for Measure 2.2.143-148).
Recognizing the validity of her argument, Antonio concedes, “She speaks, and
‘tis/ Such sense that my sense breeds with it” (2.2.148-149), but though he is
morally guiltless at the time of her challenge, his pride leads him to resist
her pleading, and eventually to demand her compliance with his own sexual
advances in exchange for her brother’s pardon. Although Antonio rationalizes that
sparing one offender will justify his own sin, his intentions to break both the
institutional law and social mores regarding chastity make him guilty from both
perspectives, and therefore remove from him the right to pass judgment at any
level.
Unlike Antonio, Claudio
and Juliet’s belief that they are “husband” and “wife,” at least in practice, springs
from a prevalent attitude regarding what constituted a valid marriage at the
time, and would render them essentially guiltless in public opinion. In an article
regarding British marital customs, scholar Christopher Lasch explains: “According
to the canon law of the Middle Ages, engagements to marry, especially if they
were followed by sexual intercourse were as binding as marriage itself” (Lasch
90). Further, even certain types of verbal contracts were recognized as legally
binding, regardless of whether they were followed by intercourse. Viewed in
this light, Claudio’s assertion that “upon a true contract/ I got possession of
Julietta’s bed;/ You know the lady, she is fast my wife” (Measure for Measure
1.3.29-31), becomes more accessible, as the lovers had a (private) verbal
agreement prior to consummating their “contract” through sexual intercourse.
Although this attitude
may seem unusual by modern Western marriage standards, Professor Lasch
clarifies that it is consistent with views held during Shakespeare’s day that “an
exchange of binding promises and physical union were the essential elements of
marriage, not the publication of banns, parental consent, clerical
intervention, or even, indeed the presence of witnesses” (Lasch 90). Since
Claudio and Juliet’s union was not publicly or clerically sanctioned, Claudio
acknowledges his remissness in that aspect, saying that although privately they
are married in all respects, “…we do the denunciation lack/ Of outward order” (Measure for Measure 1.3.32-33). This “outward
order” would have established their marriage as legal in public opinion. In
Claudio and Juliet’s eyes then, it was the clandestine nature of their union,
and not the consummation itself, which constituted their sin.
As a representative of
the law, however, Antonio is less willing to forgive their oversight, in spite
of its being so commonly practiced among the people at large. In fact, it is
his desire to quell this practice that leads to his harsh ruling against
Claudio’s life as punishment for his offence. Antonio hopes, by this means, to frighten the
people into adherence with newly-enforced marriage legalities that they might
otherwise ignore. As Lucio tells Isabella, Antonio hopes “to give fear to use
and liberty,” and in condemning her
brother to death, Antonio “follows
close the rigor of the statute/ to make him an example” (Measure for Measure 1.5.67-68).
This behavior is
perhaps reflective of British legislation regarding marriage, which may have
caused conflict during Shakespeare’s time. In her article, Ceremony versus Consent: Courtship, Illegitimacy, and Reputation in
Northwest England, 1560-1610, author Jennifer McNabb explains this
transition between informal to legalized marriage practices, saying:
Despite the validity of marriages made by consent alone, the
church in England attempted to introduce a more formalized means of matrimony,
requiring three readings of the banns (or a marriage license) and a public
reading in a parish church officiated by a minister between partners over the
age of consent. (McNabb 61)
Antonio’s extreme denouncement of Claudio, however, is unjust
in its enforcement, regardless of the his desires to uphold justice and law, as
the offence has gone unpunished in thousands of other instances, and Claudio
openly expresses his intentions to publically formalize his marriage to Juliet.
Mocking Antonio’s decree, Pompey asks: “Does your worship mean to geld and
splay all the youth of the city?” (Measure
for Measure 2.1.210-211). Then, referring to the widespread tradition of these
informal marriage practices, he suggests, “If you head and hang all that offend
that way but for ten year together, you’ll be glad to give out a commission for
more heads” (Measure for Measure
2.1.218-220). Ironically, Isabella’s trickery in exchanging Mariana for herself
applies these same traditional laws, and causes Antonio’s attempt at forcibly
seducing her to backfire, as he finds himself irrevocably bound up in the same
type of valid but “irregular” marriage through the physical consummation of his
prior betrothal to Mariana.
In order to
understand why the bed trick is effective in “marrying” Antonio to Mariana, one
must be aware of the significant power of verbal contracts in British marriage
laws. In an article regarding English marriage practices during Shakespeare’s
day, Shakespeare scholar Margaret Ranald explains:
[Both] English customs and civil law recognized two kinds of
[verbal] betrothal contracts, whose effects were determined by the tense
employed. A vow made in words of the present tense constituted an agreement to
enter into the married state immediately. A vow in words of the future tense
was merely a promise to marry at some future time. (Ranald 71)
These vows were considered fully binding, although vows made
in the future tense could be disbanded if some tenet of the contract was broken
and the marriage had not been physically consummated (Ranald). In the case of
Antonio and Mariana, their betrothal had been made in the future tense, and
Mariana’s loss of a dowry had freed Antonio from any obligation to marry her.
However, upon consummating their betrothal through sexual intercourse, the
marriage became immediately binding, though not yet officially sanctioned by
the Church.
Claudio and
Juliet’s marriage was likely a private exchange of marital vows in the present
tense, and regardless of whether it was followed by sexual intercourse would
have been declared irrevocable in a court of law, as common law marriages were
still recognized as legally valid, though such private contracts, where no
witness was present, were strongly discouraged. Speaking about marriage rites
during the Renaissance, author T. G. A. Wilson observes: “as for the actual
contract, the presence of one or more witnesses, preferably including a priest
… were understandably felt to make the marriage firmer than one performed by
words alone” (Wilson 365). In addition, Claudio and Juliet’s union may also
have been considered sinful because of their deliberate choice to keep the
marriage secret from Juliet’s family in order to receive dowry money when it
became available by publicly announcing their marriage at that time. Claudio
acknowledges that they chose to conceal their marriage “Only for propagation of
a dower/ Remaining in the coffer of her friends,/ From whom we thought it meet
to hide our love/ Till time had made them for us” (Measure for Measure 1.4.34-37). The lack of approval of the
marriage by their friends and families is the greatest contributor to the sense
of guilt they feel, while the need for solemnization of their vows through a
Church ceremony is viewed with less concern.
Informal as
Claudio and Juliet’s marriage agreement may have been, it was still considered
a mutually binding commitment which was largely recognized as pardonable by
their community, though not by Antonio. Sexual intercourse, however, without
the strength of verbal marriage contracts, was not considered a valid form of
marriage, but rather was viewed as an abhorrent and highly punishable sin.
Because of this, the Duke shows great mercy in pardoning Lucio’s impregnation
of a woman who he does not claim as his wife, and his sentence that Lucio
should marry this woman, whom Lucio calls “a whore,” because of her involvement
in his own sin, is an apt punishment. Indeed, Lucio’s own avoidance of the
marriage commitment is what makes the Duke’s sentence both merciful and
necessary in restoring both Lucio and his lover in public esteem. If not
married, the Duke would have been obligated to sentence Lucio to a more severe
punishment of “death, whipping, [or] hanging” (Measure for Measure 5.1. 518).
Indeed,
during Elizabethan rule, Puritan emphasis on personal morality and sexual
purity left little room for mercy in this arena, as, according to Debora Shuger, “those who argued for making adultery a felony were
almost all Puritans … [while] the Tudor church courts punished sexual
misconduct by the wearing of a white sheet during the Sunday service for three consecutive
weeks” (10). Some of the cultural
tension reflected in the marriage laws of Measure
for Measure is a result of such English Puritanism, which involved a
“determination to impose godly behavior upon all residents, and a willingness
to use physical punishment … to enforce proper conduct” (11). Antonio’s swift
and merciless judgments towards individual sinners for the general “welfare” of
the community especially reflect this type of legislation.
Further, Puritan goals
focused on the “reformation of manners, work ethic, English ‘Rezeption’ of the Mosaic penal code,
and capital punishment for adultery and ‘rape,’ which … includes consensual
clandestine marriage” (Shuger 11). It is perhaps this unyielding,
self-righteous agenda that leads Shakespeare to question whether New Testament Christian
motives are really behind the Puritan “eye for an eye” (KJV Ex. 21:24) attitude towards justice, especially in contrast
with the Savior’s “he who is without sin” response to the woman taken in
adultery (KJV John 8:7). Shakespeare
would have taken for granted that his audience was familiar with both these
Biblical concepts and the political renovations of the time, so without an
understanding of these contextual references, it would be easy for a modern
reader to be led astray, as the marital, religious, and political structure of
today’s world is vastly different from that of Shakespeare. An awareness of the
Biblical and political undertones of his text, however, greatly enhances a
reader’s ability to understand and analyze “Measure
for Measure.”
Works
Cited
Holy Bible: King James Version. The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. Canada: Intellectual Reserve, 2008. Print.
Lasch, Christopher. "The Suppression of Clandestine
Marriage in England: The Marriage Act of 1753." Salmagundi,
No. 26. Skidmore College. JSTOR, 5 Nov. 2012.
Marcus, Leah. “London.” Critical Essays on
Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. Ed. Richard P. Wheeler. New York: G. K.
Hall & Co., 1999.
McNabb, Jennifer. "Ceremony versus Consent: Courtship,
Illegitimacy, and Reputation in Northwest England, 1560-1610." The
Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1. JSTOR, 5 Nov. 2012.
Nelson, T. G. A. “Doing Things with Words: Another Look at
Marriage Rites and Spousals in Renaissance Drama and Fiction.” Studies in Philology, Vol. 95, No. 4.
University of North Carolina Press. JSTOR, 5 Nov. 2012.
Ranald, Margaret
Loftus. “As Marriage Binds, and Blood Breaks”: English Marriage and
Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Quarterly.
JSTOR, 5 Nov. 2012.
Shakespeare, William.
“Measure for Measure.” Ed. Grace Ioppolo. NY: W. W. Norton & Co., 2010.
Print.
Shuger, Debora Kuller. Political Theologies in Shakespeare’s
England: The Sacred and the State in Measure for Measure. NY: Palgrave,
2001. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment