Maeve's Meta-Post

After re-reading my previous posts, I think my key topic for blog postings have been character motivations.  The characters that I favor in Shakespeare are generally the enigmatic evil-doers and the clever fools: I loved Iago and Feste (I didn’t write about him, but I thought about him), and I was very interested in trying to piece together their personal philosophies and the ways they justify their own actions.  In my last blog post, I was really intrigued by how Othello translated into opera, and particularly how that affected the portrayal of Iago.

Another point of interest for me has been gender relations and female autonomy.  Reading my first post, in which I briefly touched on Egeus’ accusation that Lysander had “bewitched” Hermia into loving him in A Midsummer Night's Dream, it reminded me of Brabantio making the same accusation to Othello.  Though I had only really considered this accusation in terms of it’s ridiculousness, another way to look at it is as a reflection of the way women are though of and treated within these plays.  The idea that a woman would have to be bewitched to choose a suitor that her father disproved of (and, in a way, the idea that a woman might be bewitched at all/so easily) suggests that women have no autonomy and are thought to be unable to think for themselves.  

Of all my posts, my favorite was the one I wrote about Verdi’s Otello.  When I was posting it, I felt like there was a lot more I wanted to say but I had to cut myself off so I wouldn’t write an epicly lengthy post that no one would want to read.  I think one of the best ways for me to think about Shakespeare is by comparing different adaptations, as seeing interpretations of the plays help me conceptualize characterizes and scenes in ways I wouldn’t have otherwise.  

I think the biggest flaw with my blog posts overall is that they lack focus and organization, though I think this has improved slightly with each successive post.  My first post started out with no real thesis other than general confusion, but luckily turned out as a meditation on gender within A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  In the latter two posts I think I had a better idea of what I wanted to write about, but they still read as being a bit unorganized and my latest post ended abruptly without a conclusion.  In my future posts, I think I ought to put more time into outlining the points I want to make in my posts, so I don’t lose track of what I want to say and how I’m saying it.

Staging and Subtext

Staging is one of the most important aspects of theatre that is rarely touched upon in our discussions. More often than not we focus on the words on a page and give little thought to how the players use the space of the stage to layer these words with meaning. These actions are left more room for interpretation, and part of the reason we don’t talk about them is that they are left up to the discretion of the director producing each individual production. Film productions extend even more power, because the director can not only control the staging of the players, but even time itself. Through editing the director is allowed to extend time itself, breaking up monologue over different periods, changing location, even adding subtle subtext between the characters themselves. I was particularly inspired by the film adaption that we watched in class, and the bulk of this post will focus on an analysis of the differences between the words on the page and the image on screen.
Iago’s speech that sews the seeds of ruin is an interesting one. On stage, it is only a moment, and yet as we discussed in class, it careens the action into the realm of tragedy. It accomplishes this over the span of about 50 lines. On the page, and thus the stage, this reading is incredibly short. It depends greatly on the skill of the actor to convey this convincely to the audience. On the page, it requires the reader to suspend disbelief, robbed of the chance to be swept up by the skill of the actor. However, performed well this speech will captivate the audience.
When performed on the screen, this monologue can be broken up. In the version presented in class, the speech was chopped over several scenes, with an unknown amount of time between each segment. Indeed, the staging within the segments was loaded with subtext. Othello and Iago were doing battle in a courtyard, physically foreshadowing their verbal sparring to come. Then later, Othello points a loaded gun at Iago to coerce his lines out of him. This fundamentally changes the intention of the scene. Instead of relying on the power of the actor, such an arrangement allows the editor the ability to add back some believability to the scene, but at what cost. The chief problem is that by extending the scene out from one speech to a speech across several scenes is that you introduce extended time that Shakespeare did not intend into the play. What are the other characters doing, for instance? What has happened to Othello besides Iagos prompting that might affect his mental state? By extending the scene out the editor subtly introjects these ideas into the audiences mind, even if they’re not aware of them.
Not to say one way is better than another, but it seems to me that the editing gives way to much liberty to the director, more than usual. It adds some structural problems, and all and all weakens the scene.

Iago's true motive?

Without a doubt, the character of Iago, Othello’s malicious, conspiring antagonist, has often been examined, analyzed, scrutinized, and discussed to the umpteenth degree. Of course, the attention to him is well-justified, for he is the quintessential villain in a quintessential tragedy. Countless scholars have written dissertations and theses on the various aspects of Iago’s character which make him the model of villainy, and most conclude that he is the embodiment of all that is evil. Let’s face it: the man is a scathing racist, a virulent misogynist, a master manipulator, a calculated conspirator, and, essentially, a murderer who ruins marriages, friendships, loyalties, and, ultimately, lives. But why? What is truly his motive? What drives Iago to devote his every thought, word, and deed to the destruction of happiness?

              Clearly, one can answer the aforementioned questions in a myriad of ways. Based on textual evidence alone, one may justify Iago’s motive as his jealousy of Michael Cassio’s promotion to the rank of lieutenant by Othello, his gaining retribution for his wife’s alleged sexual encounter with Othello, his general envy of the upper class, or maybe, Iago has no motive but to simply wreak havoc on everybody’s lives. (Part of Iago’s allure from a scholarly perspective is the mystery of his true motive—his character leaves a lot for generations of interpreters to work with.) Bearing in mind these alternatives (and several more that I find unnecessary to list due to the vast number of them), I would argue yet another possibility: Iago loves Othello—in that way. I’m certainly not the first to propose this notion; in fact, according to a little research I did on Google, there have been several productions of the play in which Iago has been portrayed as having homosexual feelings for Othello, not to mention scholarly writings that suggest the idea. At first, I, myself, thought the concept of a gay Iago was a bit far-fetched, a bit too modernly interpretative, but as the thought settled in my mind, I accepted it as a reasonable and valid possibility.

              It’s very easy to read and interpret literature through a lens to which one is accustomed, and in our modern day, where various forms of literary criticism open doors to examining countless possibilities, it’s essential to consider all perspectives fairly. Needless to say, this particular take on Iago resonates with me. Viewing Iago as almost a scorned lover paints him as somewhat of a sympathetic character, at least from a modern reader’s eyes. I realize I am going out on a limb by suggesting that anything to do with Iago could be considered “sympathetic,” but when one considers the timeframe of the play, there’s a lot of information we, the readers, don’t know concerning Othello’s and Iago’s past together. Of course, due to circumstances, there’s not a lot we could possibly know about their future had Iago’s plan worked out successfully. Before I look to the text, I’m in no way suggesting that I “like” Iago or think his actions are justifiable—he is a villain through and through—but I can certainly see why he would feel scorned were his feelings for Othello more than the “love” a man has for his general, and for that reason, I do feel a bit sorry for him.

              In order to substantiate my seemingly-outrageous claims, I’d like to cite some evidence from the text, particularly Act III, scene iii. Understanding that the word “love” in this context may not mean what it means today, nor have the same implications, from what I know, “love” in Shakespeare’s time was rather ambiguous, as was sexuality in general; for example, Shakespeare hints at homoeroticism in a good portion of his sonnets. I can see both sides of the coin: “love” meaning love, and “love” meaning steadfast loyalty, platonic friendship, and dedication between any two people. Being the devil’s advocate, however, I found several clues in this scene alone which seem to hint at Iago’s feelings for Othello. For one, Iago repeatedly and emphatically asserts his love for Othello: “My lord, you know I love you” and “I humbly do beseech you of your pardon / For too much loving you” (III.iii.121; III.iii.216–217). These lines may be innocent enough, but they arise suspicion when comparing them to other lines in the conversation. At one point, Iago tells Othello, “You cannot [know my thoughts], if my heart were in your hand” (III.iii.168). This is an allusion to marriage, in fact, one that Othello himself alludes to later in the play—”The hearts of old gave hands”—referencing old marital customs where the ceremony of joining hands meant the joining of hearts. The scene ends with Iago stating “I am your own for ever,” an utterance which has often been compared to, or a mockery of, traditional wedding vows III.iii.484). Take this passage, for example: “...but how, how satisfied, my lord? / Would you, the supervisor, grossly gape on, / Behold her topped?” (III.iii.399–401). Basically, Iago is asking Othello if he would want to watch his wife have sex with Cassio to prove her guilt—how sick of Iago to suggest that!

Another peculiar moment is when Iago reveals he has “slept” with Cassio: “I lay with Cassio lately” (III.iii.418). This would seem innocent enough—I’m sure it was customary for soldiers to share beds for lack of proper bedding at times—but he goes on to say, “…then, sir, would he grip and wring my hand, / Cry ‘O, sweet creature!’, then kiss me hard, / As if he plucked up kisses by the roots / That grew upon my lips, lay his leg o’er my thigh, / And sigh, and kiss…” (III.iii.425–429). Why wouldn’t Iago stop this? After all, he was afflicted with “a raging tooth” that night, and certainly in no mood to be kissed so passionately without stopping it (III.iii.419). I would sum up the evidence in this scene in Iago’s own words: “This may help to thicken other proofs / That do demonstrate thinly” (III.iii.435–436).

Again, all of this “evidence” can be interpreted in many ways other than what I proposed, but there are several—many, rather—instances elsewhere in the play that illustrate Iago’s “abnormal” sexual tendencies. His marriage to Emilia is distant and cold, most likely affected by his misogyny. His words are rife with sexual imagery and allusions to sexual behavior (at one point, he compares the fighting group’s happiness “in terms like bride and groom / Devesting them for bed” (II.iii.44–45). Let’s not forget  in the very beginning of the play, Iago’s line, “an old black ram/Is tupping your young white ewe!” (I.i.94–95). Iago also alludes to his inadequacies in bed, accusing Othello and Cassio of being potential sexual rivals by cheating with Emilia. These, among other reasons, are all contributing factors to the assumption that Iago is sexually frustrated and longing for his unrequited love between he and Othello. It’s only a possibility but one certainly worth exploring and considering as a motive for Iago’s villainous actions.

Honest Iago...Not!

This is the first time I have read Othello and I must admit that it has grown on me. While I mainly enjoy Shakespeare's comedies I find this play can be interpreted as both a tragedy and comedy. I feel that Iago's schemes create the moments of comedy which will lead to tragedy. Throughout reading I couldn't get over how everyone's action fall into place for his scheme against Cassio and Othello. He has no care in the world who he brings down because he uses everyone in the play. He uses Emilia, Roderigo, and Cassio to get revenge for not getting a promotion.

Iago's actions show he knows the key to his plan is jealousy and the illusion of friendship. He uses friendship on both Cassio and Othello, always acting like he is on both of their sides. It drove me crazy to keep hearing him being called “honest” when he was the most deceitful character. There were times I wondered if his wife Emilia knew he might be the perpetrator of the events between Desdemona and Othello. In 3.3.314, she says to Iago regarding the handkerchief “What handkerchief?/ Why that the Moor first gave to Desdemona/ That which so often you bid me steal.” Didn't Emilia suspect Iago because he wanted her to steal the handkerchief? I wondered later why she even gave it to him and didn't return it to Desdemona, especially knowing the significance of it. Later in Act Four as the relationship between Desdemona and Othello is in shambles it was ironic when Emilia says' “Oh fie upon them! Some such squire he was/ That turned you wit the seamy side without/ And made you to suspect me with the Moor (4.2.150-152). I find her statement ironic because it brings attention to her husband Iago yet she never suspects him of being the mastermind.

Honest Iago's plan strips Othello of all his confidence and leaves him as a shell of jealousy and paranoia. Iago uses Othello race against him. He uses the fact that he is black to put doubt in Othello's mind if he is good enough for Desdemona. He eludes to Othello that being with him is against her “nature.” Iago says to Othello “No to affect many proposed matches/Of her own clime, complexion, and degree./Whereto we see in all things nature tends” (3.3.236-239). He plants within Othello's mind that although she is with him it is more of her nature to be with a man of her own culture and class.

By the end of Act Four, Iago has managed to ruin the reputation of Othello, Cassio and Desdemona. I look forward to finishing the play and hoping he will be exposed for the dishonest person he has been throughout the play. So far I don't think it will end well but we'll see.

The path and significance of the Handkerchief

            The handkerchief is significant in Othello, because it holds special meaning to Othello, Desdemona , and Iago. For Othello, the significance of the handkerchief is that it belonged to his mother and it was "bewitched" with magic. The handkerchief held special magic and power. If the handkerchief was lost then the "magic" in the relationship of the one who is in possession of it is gone.  To Desdemona the handkerchief as a special meaning because it came from the one she loves, Othello.
            The significance of the handkerchief for Iago is that it becomes a tool or a prop for him when it comes to manipulating Othello and accusing Desdemona and Cassio. Emilia doesn't seem to realize the importance of the handkerchief when Iago woos her to get it. Cassio thinks that Desdemona has given it to him and he gives it to Bianca a Courtesan. When really Iago plants it in Cassio's chamber to cause more mischief.  In act 4.1 on page 2169 Bianca comes back and has the handkerchief and tells Cassio that it must be another woman's token and she will not copy it. Othello realizes it is his and he becomes enraged and wants to get revenge on Cassio for having and giving it to Bianca. Othello also becomes enraged when he speaks and questions Desdemona about the situation.

          It is interesting how a piece of cloth can mean such significance and have such power over the characters and cause such destruction over a relationship. If this play was not titled "The Tragedy of Othello, The Moor of Venice" it should be titled " The Path and Power of the Handkerchief"

Iago's Motivation

The first thing that struck me when I started reading Othello, was that it seemed worlds away from the largely comic Much Ado About Nothing.  But as I continued to read the first act, I did note that just as in Much Ado About Nothing, many of the characters in Othello are deceiving the others; the principle deceiver being Iago.  Unlike in Much Ado where Don John's deceptions are figured out and righted, Iago's ability to deceive downright everyone thus far has me convinced that this might be the kind of play where the villain triumphs.

The source of Iago's hate for his master, Othello, is apparently all due to his feeling slighted at being overlooked for the position of lieutenant.  This propels Iago to seek revenge on not only Cassio and Othello, but apparently everyone they associate with.  I wonder though if Iago has any other motivation for such serious general malicious intent.  At first I thought that Iago's disdain for Othello particularly might be based in somehow in racism, as everyone seems to make note of Othello's skin color- but I think this wouldn't really account for Iago's hatred for everyone else as well. I think that maybe the only explanation is in Act I scene I,  where Iago says of his loyalty to Othello:

 In following him, I follow but myself;
Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty,
But seeming so, for my peculiar end. (I.i.58-60)

Iago has no true loyalty to anyone but himself, but he also says that "heaven is [his] judge" which to me means that Iago is saying that he has no reverence for God or Heaven, because he still intends to act in whatever way pleases him.  Iago makes himself more enigmatic as he goes on, saying that the day that he shows his true nature is the day that he lets crows peck out his heart (I.i.61-64). As Iago concludes his passage with "I am not what I am", I'm left wondering how Iago sees himself and how we are meant to see him.  If Iago tells us that he is a villain, but then says that his identity is unstable, then I'm curious to see if he will purely be a villain over the course of the play or if at some point he'll express some sort of pathos.

Meta-Blogging!

In my last three posts on “New Paltz Shakespeare” I have looked at; “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, “Twelfth Night” and “Othello”.
In my first post about “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” I examined the text to stage aspect of the play, looking at performance through the lens of the NYC ballet, considering how the original text can be communicated in so many ways (ie through dance and without words). My second post “Everybody Plays the Fool” was a bit spacey; it attempted to focus on Feste and the true fools of the play. Shakespeare may name characters like Feste and other more bumbling men (like the Rude Mechanicals in Midsummer and the police in “Much Ado about Nothing”) as fools, but each set of characters seems to open a new commentary on people and their actions. Finally last week’s post was about tragedy in Othello and the pieces of the play that can classify it as so. I also focused on the opposing dimensions of the relationships before and after the classic happy ending.
Although each post seems quite different from one another I think they have a central focus on the duality that Shakespeare creates in his works. The collision of different characters and seamless questions the text presents keep me working to try and decode the plays even more. I am also working to understand Shakespeare’s works though the idea of opposites and parallel situations. How can his writings be presented without words? Who are the true fools in the plays? Why do the comedies have many aspects of tragedy? The opposing situations and different tasks certainly are very interesting to me!
I would like to revisit the idea of the happy endings and majority of unrealistic relationships in the comedies and the darker but sometimes more true character bonds in the tragedies, through the context of marriage and love.
I am enjoying this alternative/additional classroom space, the blog is a nice format to further explore our ideas and see what our classmates are thinking. It’s fun to write blog posts as opposed to mini essays or in class reflections because we can put in video clips, have as much space and time as needed to get into an idea and we can comment on one another’s work. I enjoy the more freestyle guidelines as it allows me to think about the ideas more thoroughly. It’s also a great exercise at writing for others and presenting my ideas in a clear and approachable way.

The Abysmal Iago

At the plays end I am left contemplating the destruction wrought by Iago. As far as evil characters go, can there be anyone more disturbing than Iago? It is interesting that the play opens with Iago swearing, "Sblood, you'll not hear from me!" (1.1.4) but it is his voice that infects all the major players- Othello, Cassio, Desdemona, Roderigo and Emilia- as he spins his web of deceit and betrayal. And for what reason?

The play begins with the simple idea of revenge. Cassio's promotion to lieutenant affronts Iago who believes himself more deserving of the position. It would be a simple plot to have Iago destroy Cassio and step into his place but Iago desires more. He wants nothing more than the complete destruction of the world around him.

Did Shakespeare mean to cast Iago as a symbol of anarchy? In Act I, Scene I, he does say, "We cannot all be masters, nor all masters cannot be truly followed." (1.1.43-44) He even goes so far as to say, "In following him [Othello] I follow but myself." (1.1.57-58). More than revenge seems to be motivating Iago, he wants to subvert the social structure. As a military man, the idea of hierarchy would be as automatic as breathing but Iago wants nothing to do with the system.

If Iago were simply interested in overthrowing the social order of the military, why not content himself with destroying Cassio and Othello thus leaving Venice vulnerable to its enemies? Why does he go farther destroying Roderigo, Desdemona, and Emilia. Iago is not simply a destructive force but an abyss.

Iago declares proudly to Roderigo, "I am not what I am." (1.1.65) If he is not what he is, then what is he? The audience never knows fully what Iago is. Even his motivations are murky. He throws out many reasons for his plot- Cassio's promotion by Othello, Emilia's possible infidelity with Othello, love for Desdemona, or for Roderigo's money. In the end we never know as Iago's last lines in the poem are, "From this time forth. I never will speak word." (5.2.310)

This confusion about Iago makes the tragedy more poignant. Desdemona is killed. Emilia is killed. Roderigo is killed. Othello is dead. Cassio suffers a career ending injury. All of this carnage is the result of Iago who will not speak. His silence is as poisonous as his speech.

Language & Violence

With the character of Iago we find that language becomes an instrument of violence. He does this by prompting the de-signification of language. He tells us “I am not what I am,” and explains that the day his actions (and therefore his speech) reflect his true intentions is the day he’ll be dead, signaling to us that anything he says cannot be trusted, as it will be a lie. He is not only lying to the other characters in the play, he is lying to us, the readers, which further complicates the contradictions and paradoxes found in the play. 

Language can be described as the ultimate marker of humanity: we think in it, we understand ourselves and the world  through it, and it enables/constrains knowledge. Iago, then, disrupts the  fundamental organizing tool of reality. He turns language from a tool that facilitates communication and understanding, from a tool of designation and  denotation with which human beings can identify and construct their realities, to a tool of obfuscation. His language brings ambivalence and uneasiness to the world of the play. For example, the speech Othello gives to the Duke in act 1  illustrates his mastery of the medium: he uses pathos, false modesty, and elements of performance and storytelling to lure his audience to his side. His language is concrete, and it is fecund in that it promotes empathy, which is how he gets Desdemona to fall in love with him. When he speaks to Iago at 4.1.34-41, however, his ability to speak has completely disintegrated because he has been so thoroughly led astray by him. He speaks in short, furtive sentences. At times he doesn’t even use full sentences and just spits out nouns: “Handkerchief--confessions--handkerchief,” and “Pish! Nose, ears, and lips!” which is interesting because it reminded me of cubism and how post WWI artists used it to depict the violence that occurs when the world becomes fragmented--which is essentially what happens to Othello. His emotional world was constructed on the basis that Desdemona was virtuous and faithful to him (“Honey,” “O my sweet,” “It gives me wonder great as my content to see you here before me,” “My dear love,” “I do love thee”) so when he believes that this is untrue, then everything around him unravels. Othello mimics the unravelling of his world with what wishes to do to his wife, which is to “chop her to messes” (4.1.190.) He wants to cut her up into pieces the way language and his identity have been. Not only does this show how Iago has fractured language, it also shows that his language is not fecund: it is the exact opposite of Othello’s and leads to death. If language is an indicator of humanity, then Othello’s inability to speak signals that he is being dehumanized--he is turning into the beast that Iago compared him to at the opening of the play and his killing Desdemona serves as a justification for the xenophobia and racism Iago advances. Ironically, Iago tells Othello to “keep time in all,” or to maintain control. He is referring to Othello’s passion, which he claims is “most unsuiting to a man,” but because his passion is one of the things that differentiates Othello from the other ‘civilized’ Venetians, Iago actually wants him to lose control of it--another instance of the bastardization of language.

Through the de-signification of language, Iago creates a world in which there is a total eradication of truth, but only he is aware of that. What does this mean for the characters of Othello? It means that Iago is  a tyrant, of sorts, who manipulates people and impels them to do as he wishes. His tyranny is of the worst kind, however, because it is insidious; he forces people to do as he dictates while allowing them to believe that they are acting of their own volition. By giving people wrong information he forces them to make decisions according to a script that he has laid out. A cruel joke is being played on the other characters: they no longer recognize the rules of the game. Each character believes that he or she is making a decision for a reason: Othello kills Desdemona because she has committed adultery; Roderigo tries to kill Cassio because that will help him “get” Desdemona--but the truth of the situation is that all of their decisions are based on nothing. Desdemona’s adultery is a complete fabrication (much like this play: ironically Othello says that “It is not words that shakes me thus” but it is. It is the power of words that “shakes” him, just as they “shake” the audience--it’s as if Iago is putting on a play, but instead of being in the audience Othello is in the middle of it.) All the destruction and devastation their actions inflict, then, is for nothing. The tragedy of the play is overwhelming in its thoroughness because there is no point to it; it is totally devoid of meaning. This is emphasized by the fact that Iago never gives us a real reason for his actions. He tells us first that it is because he has been passed over for a promotion, then that it is because he suspects Othello has slept with his wife. But we cannot trust his “reasons” and even if we do, there still remains an imbalance: surely the obliteration of Venetian military power  (which is what Othello’s death means) cannot be tantamount to adultery or workplace advancement? Even at the end of Lear there is a bit of hope in the form of Edgar: I’m not sure where the hope is going to come from at the end of this play. 

Is the woman what she seems?

“Men should be what they seem” so remarks Iago in Act 3 scene 3 line 131. Othello is a play dominated by men whose women appear to be merely pawns and plot devices to support the vehicle of Iago’s systematic takedown of Othello. It is quickly apparent, while men are often not what they question remains are the women of Othello what they seem? Of the three women in Othello, perhaps most intriguing of all is Desdemona.

From a topical standpoint, Desdemona is perceived as frail, demure, subservient, and pasty sniveling wimp. A total and complete victim, from what Shakespeare tells us about her. What does Shakespeare tell us of Desdemona? We know she is of the upper crust of Venice as her father Barbanzio is a senator. It referenced by Iago in 1.1 line 88-87 “Even now, now, every an old black ram is tupping your white ewe”. From this we can physically get an idea of her as being very fair, and probably young. The most we know of Desdemona’s history however, comes from omission. We never hear anything about siblings or about her mother. From this it is easy to paint the biography of her as a sheltered pious. Perhaps she is even a little lonely? Her only companion seems to be Emilia. Who she can never have real companionship as an equal with due to class difference as well as a ill willed husband. Desdemona seems to give in and give up before the battle has even begun with Othello. She speaks to Emilia in 4.3 “ All’s one. Good faith, how foolish are our minds. If I do die, before thee, prithee shroud me in one of these same sheets”. Such words are of defeat a doomed character with no struggle or growth.

Yet perhaps she is not what she seems. From the first act of the scene, Shakespeare lets us know Desdemona lies. Desdemona goes and full on lies to her father about her marriage to Othello. While there have been a great many other liars in Shakespeare’s plays , there is a difference in Desdemona. . While often overlooked as a great heroine, can anyone imagine this being pulled over on Juliet? Absolutely not, because for all that she is, sneaking about behind her parents back, her love for Romeo shines through language with genuine sincerity. Juliet never once attempts to stop the feud, nor does she even give Paris the time of day. Iago never would have been able to have crafted Romeo and against Juliet as he does to Othello against Desdemona. And perhaps because there is some validity to the things in which he says or at least enough what if for it to be plausible. In the movie Stage Beauty the two characters during rehearsal discuss the exclusion of Cassio’s name from her speech in the death scene. Billy Crudup’s character reasons, Desdemona cannot say Cassio’s name because there is too much truth in it. Iago had to pick someone who it was conceivable for her to have an affair with. Beyond Cassio in the same scene of 4.3 the question arises as to why she even brings up the character of Lodovico? Is her bringing up the character Lodovico, her way of showing regret that she was still free to be with him? And when Emilia says “ I know a lady, in Venice would have walked barefoot to Palestine for a touch of his nether lips” ( line 36), Desdemona quickly deflects the subject by going into her song. Why? Maybe because Desdemona is not a she seems, and this makes her a far more complete and palatable character than just poor sweet pious Desdemona.

Iago's Powerful Persuasion

From the very start of Othello, one of Shakespeare’s most tragic plays, the audience is hyper aware of the fact that things are just not going to end well. For me, these formidable sentiments stem from the play’s central antagonist, Iago, who I consider to be the most disturbing villain of all of Shakespeare’s plays. While some villains are blatantly cruel, murderous, or vengeful, real fear is evoked by villains like Iago, whose honest and gentle façade masks the sick mind of a misogynistic sociopath. These thoughts lead me to question what makes Iago powerful enough to have so many people at his emotional disposal. The answer quickly became obvious – his power lies in his speech. Iago implements Aristotle’s very basic methods of persuasive rhetoric, ethos, pathos, and logos, to masterfully manipulate the thoughts, emotions, and actions of characters like Roderigo, Cassio, and Othello.

Beginning with Roderigo, whose sheer idiocy we must briefly ignore, Iago uses an intricately simple web of words to ensnare his victim. Roderigo questions Iago’s true feelings towards Othello, to which Iago uses the very essence of ethos, the method of persuasion in which the speaker establishes himself as someone to trust and to be perceived as a figure of authority, to persuade Roderigo of just how intensely he abhors Othello. Iago eloquently and passionately explains how he was overlooked for the position of lieutenant, despite his battle prowess, and goes on to make statements like, “I follow him to serve my turn upon him”(1.1.42), and “In following him I follow myself”(1.1.58). He masterfully presents Roderigo with simple, obvious facts about himself that prove his true objective is to bring about the fall of Othello. Furthermore, his repeated, even incessant use of the pronoun “I” further drives his argument that Roderigo should trust him, as his hatred for Othello matches Roderigo’s own. Is his use of ethos successful? Does he repeatedly convince Roderigo to unreservedly hand over his purse without once being questioned as to the purpose of the money? Yes, and yes.

With Cassio, Iago uses pathos, the method of persuasion by which the speaker employs emotions to evoke a certain response, to toy with Cassio’s already delicate emotions. After Cassio is publicly embarrassed and reprimanded for his drunken and violent outburst, Iago recognizes the fact that Cassio is emotionally distraught and crushed by the supposed loss of his closest friend and confidant. “What, are you hurt, lieutenant,” Iago fervently asks. He attempts to assuage Cassio’s fears as a friend would, and also attempts to paint himself as someone Cassio can consider an ally. He goes on to advise Cassio to “confess [himself] freely to [Desdemona],” and “ Importune her help to put [him] in [his] place again”(2.3.295-296). Here again he presents Desdemona’s emotions as a woman to be better suited to consider Cassio’s pleas for reinstatement.

Iago saves to implement his mastery of logos, the method of persuasion that employs the use of logic and reason, to convince even the “valiant (1.1.48),”Barbary horse”(1.1.113), himself, Othello. On several occasions Iago repeats Othello’s own words, warranting Othello to say “By heaven, thou echo’st me” (3.3.112). The result of this echoing is that both the audience and Othello are confused as to the origin of the initial thoughts of cuckoldry. “Did Michael Cassio, when you wooed my lady, / Know of your love?” Iago enigmatically asks Othello. He never gives an opinion or judgment, but rather, lays out a path of reasonable facts and logical observations for Othello to do with what he will. Iago recognizes the fact that Othello is a logical and reasonable individual, and thus understands that he must use simple logos to provide Othello with the tools to make his own assumptions.

These observations lead me to question Iago’s true motivation? What exactly does he hope to gain by destroying the lives of every single person that makes up his social circle? What joy, pleasure, or benefit does he achieve in manipulating upstanding people into performing in his demented production, where he alone is playwright, director, and audience?