Essay: Angelo’s Metamorphosis: Emotional Turmoil and Moral Ambiguity in Measure for Measure​

Throughout the extract, there is an overriding intonation of emotional turmoil, which further augments the play, as well as the idiosyncrasy of Shakespeare’s character, Angelo. Angelo exhibits a passively atypical characteristic of ‘virtue’ (Shakespeare, Bawcutt, 1991: 2.2.165): both the source of enigma and the instrument of its externalised detection in Measure for Measure. There exists moral ambiguity within the aura of the scene: the extra rhetoric elucidates ostentatious, hyperbolic nature of his soliloquy, which, thus, augments the anxiety of his character; and it suggests his overwhelming feeling of despondency. Blinded by his rigid application of justice, he veers away from the mean, toward the extreme of unmitigated rigor. The distortion of postulation exemplifies the unequivocal nature of the character – and its vivid, scintillating representation implies the importance of Shakespeare’s character.
Firstly, Angelo’s concern is to dispense moral accountability. The apt utilisation of the interrogative syntax, ‘What’s this? What’s this?’ (Shakespeare, Bawcutt, 1991: 2.2.166), perhaps elicits Angelo’s consternation and perplexity, with the epiphany of volatile, novel feelings; and irrefutably, Shakespeare’s exponential employment of such magniloquence sustains an understanding of the intonations that underlies and complements the enthralling intricacy of the character. However, despite Isabella’s previous use of the formal ‘you’, Angelo utilises ‘thee’, which suggests his awareness of her as a subordinate. The use of the abstract noun, ‘tempter’ (Shakespeare, Bawcutt, 1991: 2.2.167), possesses connotations of the Devil, wherein Angelo condemns the quality. He considers sex and sexual desire itself evil, like the Devil. Analogously, the conspicuous perplexity conveys Angelo’s disquiet and sheer neurotic praxis, whilst the noun, ‘sin’, also serves to affirm this image of guilt and transgression, simultaneously. The single use of ‘Ha?’ (Shakespeare, Bawcutt, 1991: 2.2.167) suggests his bewilderment and the interlude elicits a pause of a further epiphany: it is ‘Not she’ (Shakespeare, Bawcutt, 1991: 2.2.168). The two strong beats, with the interpolated negative adverb, reiterate the rejection of his previous excuse. Nevertheless, rectifying this damage, Angelo decisively settles the problem: ‘Not she, nor doth she tempt, but it is I’ (Shakespeare, Bawcutt, 1991: 2.2.168). The personal pronoun – through the strong final beat of the lexis – ‘I’, though simple, reiterates the volatility of his character, wherein the full accountability, he has placed upon himself, elucidates his morality. Angelo acknowledges that – although he has revered Isabella’s purity, which has created lustful thoughts – it is due to his inner corruption, rather than hers. Shakespeare’s use of trochaic metre asserts his overt capitulation of his excuse, whilst the monosyllabic syntax implies the forthright, earnest nature of his decision, as well. Likewise, Shakespeare’s utilisation of the caesura, followed by ‘but’, reaffirms his certainty that Isabella deserves no blame, solely conveying his weakness. The egregious depiction of the antithetical, juxtaposed nature of the sun outlines this. The meat, ‘carrion’ (Shakespeare, Bawcutt, 1991: 2.2.169), rots in the sun, whilst flowers are burgeoned by that same heat. The employment of the directly juxtaposed lexis, with the attributive adjectives, ‘corrupt’ and ‘virtuous’ (Shakespeare, Bawcutt, 1991: 2.2.171), suggests the fraught, mercurial temperament of Angelo’s character. There is the image of flesh as corrupt, but also inner corruption as spiritual.
Moreover, Angelo is analogous to a reflective moralist, whereby he endeavours to construct a new experience, with personal realisation perhaps indicating a general truth: ‘Can it be / That modesty may more betray our sense / That woman’s lightness?’ (Shakespeare, Bawcutt, 1991: 2.2.171-173) Abjectly, each of the characters are chaste – yet, through mere abstention, rather than venereal pleasure. The use of the caesura, with ‘Can it be’, elicits Angelo’s incredulity and scepticism at his own sinful, devil-like thoughts. Shakespeare’s use of ‘our’ is taken in conjunction with the next line – so, this could suggest Angelo is talking about men, rather than women. Isabella willingly renounced her actions as a way of defending one’s purity to please God; and the generic maxim, ‘woman’, conveys his view of other women as Eve (Evans et al., 2012) – like his previous notion of ‘tempter’. Therefore, this dichotomous notion of chastity reaffirms the antithesis of both characters.