‘A complex character deserving sympathy.’ How far and in what ways do you agree with this view of Angelo in Measure for Measure?

In Shakespeares bar for m, Angelo emerges as a double-sided face an clutch focal point for such a worry pass, as many of Shakespeares later(prenominal) works are considered to be. Shakespeare appears to have interpreted his inspiration for the story from sources such as Promos and Cassandra (George Whetstone) and Giraldi Cinthios Hecatommithi, both represents in which a pharisaic deputy, be it Promos in Whetstones version, or Angelo in Shakespeares, seduces a woman (Cassandra or Isabella) by foreknow of pardon for her condemned br other(a).Scholars have argued for centuries whether Angelo, or indeed Promos, is a moral or an sin section. Those scholars who support the notion of Angelo as moral often cite the side by side(p) factors in the play the Duke obviously trusts Angelo Angelo is demoralised comely by the curiosity of the play to offer a sincere confession and Angelo tries to resist the temptation that Isabella presents. On the other hand, others have argued tha t Shakespeare depicts Angelo as a stringently evil man. These critics emphasise Angelos treatment of Marian, the Dukes manageable suspicion of Angelo, his desire for Isabella, and his broken promise to Isabella.By examining Angelo in both of these circumstances, it testament become apparent that the most fortunate interpretation of Angelos character is a compounding of both of these facets. One of these critics, Leo Kirschbaum, send words that the wobble in the structure of Measure for Measure is the result of a change in the characterization of Angelo. At the beginning of the play, Kirschbaum notes, Angelo is uncouth and inflexible, but this is tempered fairly by the fact that he is also dire in his consistent adherence to the law. just in the end he is a character who is no longer direful but who is instead sm completely-minded, mean, calculating (and) vindictive. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the character and his import is necessary to decide whether Angelo does actually deserve sympathy. Upon analysis of the early scenes, we, as the hearing, would instinctively begin to consider Angelo a character not worthy of sympathy, as he has ostensibly fooled the Duke into trusting him enough to maintain him power over Vienna and past immediately condemns Claudio to death for impregnating his spangr, despite his authentic love for her.By telling Angelo fatality rate and mercy in Vienna wear in thy tongue, and heart, it is apparent that the Duke trusts Angelo, grass up more than his own right-hand man, Escalus, who is unnoted to be the Dukes deputy. This, however, is overshadowed by the Dukes conversation with the beggar in I. iii where he says gestate not that the dribbling drive of love Can pierce a finish bosom and I have on Angelo imposd the office Who may in thambush of my come to strike home in both quotes we are led to believe that the Duke perhaps does not trust Angelo to the extent that is ab initio apparent. Instead, it appears to be part of a wider programme of which we are so far unaware. To make a moral judgement on Angelo at this stage of the play would be incorrect however we have besides met him as a person, and only seen him in a brief exchange whilst pass judgment the position the Duke offers him. He is, however, tyrannous enough to promise Claudios liberty in redress for Isabellas virginity, such is his power in the Dukes place.These factors, on with his cruel treatment of Mariana, with whom he had plans of conjugation which broke down because her promised proportions Came sort of war paint, exposing his shallow and hypocritical nature, would point to Angelo not being worthy of the audiences sympathy, and simply a cold, emotionless character (whose blood is real snowbroth) created by Shakespeare to reflect the promiscuous evil of Viennese society at the time.For all the negative criticism of Angelo, there is in fact plenty of evidence to suggest he is a character with deliver fea tures who can be seen as reflecting the commanding implications of punishment in a play so concerned with the theme of justice. His excuse in the final scene is the set up example of his somewhat altered attitude, ascribable to the events of the story. He is sorry that such aggrieve I procure And so buddy-buddy sticks it in my penitent heart a quote which refers to the Dukes analysis that the dribbling dart of love Can not pierce a complete bosom.This apology, especially with its arrangement at the end of the play, does leave the audience with a slightly more coercive view of Angelo than would be had otherwise. Angelos initial refusal of Isabellas whirl whilst carrying out the Dukes plan is another factor of the play which would lead the audience to sympathising somewhat with Angelo and not considering him an entirely malicious character. disrespect the evidence of these two points, however, I stark(a)ly believe that Angelo is mainly a character undeserving of sympathy, w hose reputation amongst the masses is reasonable by his selfish actions and hypocritical nature, as we learn that he has committed a crime far worse than Claudios something evidently known by the Duke, who soliloquises at the end of Act III, saying He who the steel of heaven will bear Should be as holy as severe.Although the best analysis of Angelo as a person would clearly be a combination of both malicious and beneficent, as many of the key characters in Shakespeares problem plays would best be described as, he does appear to be vastly a malevolent being, not worth of the audiences compassion.