The Measure in “Measure for Measure”

“The least attractive though most instructive of Shakespeare's plays”—these words seem to be the warmest praise ever bestowed on “Measure for Measure” by a prominent Shakespeare critic. Coleridge speaks of it as “its comic being disgusting, its tragic horrible” and this disfavour has persisted to the present day. It found perhaps still more rigorous expression by silence than by disparagement. Of the great mass of Shakespeare literature where the most painstaking research is given to the smallest detail remotely connected with any line or word, only a negligible fraction has been devoted to “Measure for Measure.” In thumping enormous catalogues and looking through endless files, some mention of it may be found, but they are scant and meagre, few and far between when compared with the comments even on minor works as the “Comedy of Errors” or “Love's Labours Lost.” Yet a comedy which belongs to the period of the great problems plays, standing in time near to “Lear” and “Othello” can not be considered as a mere beginner's exercise nor has it ever been accused of being shallow or trifling.

The impression, then, is that of a tacit agreement, a sort of conspiracy of silence by which the succeeding generations of scholars bound themselves to pay as little attention as possible to this particular play, to shroud it in darkness as deeply as the light of their erudition would permit. But what was the reason for setting one work apart from the rest and treat the immortal as far as it was concerned as an Untouchable?

The answer to this question seems to be an easy one, since a great deal has been said about the repulsive characters and situations, the coarse jokes and undignified expressions in which the play abounds. The frequent allusions to venereal diseases add neither to the refinement nor to the hilarity of its general atmosphere. These critical remarks are perfectly true, but in other plays occur as many passages which are not fit for squeamish ears and