‘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 evaluate for Measure, Angelo emerges as a double-sided source an distract focal train for such a problem play, as umteen of Shakespeares later works are considered to be. Shakespeare appears to have taken his inspiration for the novel from sources such as Promos and Cassandra (George Whetstone) and Giraldi Cinthios Hecatommithi, twain plays in which a self-righteous deputy, be it Promos in Whetstones version, or Angelo in Shakespeares, seduces a woman (Cassandra or Isabella) by promise of pardon for her condemned brother.Scholars have argued for centuries whether Angelo, or indeed Promos, is a moralistic or an evil computer address. Those scholars who support the notion of Angelo as moral oftentimes cite the following factors in the play the Duke obviously trusts Angelo Angelo is disheartened overflowing by the end of the play to offer a sincere vindication and Angelo tries to resist the temptation that Isabella presents. On the other hand, others have a rgued that Shakespeare depicts Angelo as a purely evil man. These critics emphasise Angelos treatment of Marian, the Dukes possible suspicion of Angelo, his commit for Isabella, and his broken promise to Isabella.By examining Angelo in both of these circumstances, it will have apparent that the most successful interpretation of Angelos shell is a combining of both of these facets. One of these critics, Leo Kirschbaum, suggests that the change in the structure of Measure for Measure is the result of a change in the sectionization of Angelo. At the beginning of the play, Kirschbaum notes, Angelo is cruel and inflexible, but this is tempered somewhat by the fact that he is also noble in his consistent adherence to the law. hardly in the end he is a character who is no longish noble but who is instead small-minded, mean, calculating (and) vindictive. Therefore, a comprehensive analytic thinking of the character and his significance is necessary to decide whether Angelo does actua lly deserve sympathy. Upon summary of the early scenes, we, as the auditory modality, would instinctively begin to consider Angelo a character not worthy of sympathy, as he has ostensibly fooled the Duke into trusting him bountiful to give him power over Vienna and then immediately condemns Claudio to last for impregnating his lover, despite his genuine love for her.By telling Angelo Mortality and clemency in Vienna Live in thy tongue, and heart, it is apparent that the Duke trusts Angelo, redden more than his own right-hand man, Escalus, who is overlooked to be the Dukes deputy. This, however, is overshadowed by the Dukes chat with the friar in I. iii where he says Believe not that the drool dart of love Can pierce a fatten embracing and I have on Angelo imposd the office Who may in thambush of my conjure up strike home in both quotes we are led to confide that the Duke perhaps does not trust Angelo to the extent that is signly apparent. Instead, it appears to be so cial function of a wider plan of which we are so uttermost unaware. To make a moral judgement on Angelo at this stage of the play would be incorrect however we have barely met him as a person, and unless seen him in a brief exchange whilst accepting the position the Duke offers him. He is, however, tyrannous enough to promise Claudios liberty in return for Isabellas virginity, such is his power in the Dukes place.These factors, along with his cruel treatment of Mariana, with whom he had plans of spousals which broke down because her promised proportions Came sort of composition, exposing his shallow and insincere nature, would point to Angelo not being worthy of the audiences sympathy, and simply a cold, emotionless character (whose blood is very 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 prove to suggest he is a character with redeeming features who can b e seen as reflecting the positive implications of punishment in a play so concerned with the theme of justice. His apology in the final scene is the prime example of his somewhat altered attitude, payable to the events of the story. He is sorry that such sorrow I procure And so deep sticks it in my penitent heart a quote which refers to the Dukes synopsis that the dribbling dart of love Can not pierce a complete bosom.This apology, especially with its placement at the end of the play, does leave the audience with a slightly more positive view of Angelo than would be had otherwise. Angelos initial refusal of Isabellas offering whilst carrying out the Dukes plan is another factor of the play which would train the audience to sympathising somewhat with Angelo and not considering him an entirely malicious character.Despite the evidence of these two points, however, I firmly believe that Angelo is mainly a character undeserving of sympathy, whose reputation amongst the masses is well -founded by his selfish actions and hypocritical nature, as we learn that he has committed a crime far worse than Claudios something apparently known by the Duke, who soliloquises at the end of exertion III, saying He who the sword of heaven will bear Should be as holy as severe.Although the scoop 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.