Aside from our Biblical, Confessional, liturgical and historic committments, a study in rendered on
Iago, a keen antagonist in Shakespeare's Othello. Iago appears to be a decretal reprobate from
eternity past. We submit the following review of Iago, the corrupted, depraved, ontologically
enslaved, epistemologically enslaved, volitionally enshackled and thoroughly corrupted Iago.
eternity past. We submit the following review of Iago, the corrupted, depraved, ontologically
enslaved, epistemologically enslaved, volitionally enshackled and thoroughly corrupted Iago.
Shakespeare’s
Othello:
Iago, the Corrupted, Depraved, Enslaved, and Rational Mad Man
Following
the suggestion of the text, two questions are posed (Kennedy 1014). Thus, the task is to ask and assess two
questions. The first question is: “What motivates Iago to carry out his
schemes?” Several motives will appear in
the text as consequences rather than causes of Iago’s depravity—ontology
governing epistemology and praxis. Iago is “essentially” corrupt, at root and
at base (pun intended). These motives
will be cited several times, albeit without full analysis of each motive. The
second question is: “Is Iago a devil incarnate, a madman, or a rational human
being?” With respect to the second
question, preliminarily, the metaphysical and theological question of a “devil
incarnate” is immediately dismissed; although Shakespeare makes a few
theological allusions, they are that, allusions, rather than didactic, dogmatic,
or catechetical assertions of belief.
The second question will be treated more largely than the first question,
focusing on Iago as an utterly corrupt madman possessing high intelligence, facile
reasoning skills and wittiness, adept craftiness, and an ability to adroitly shift
to tactical demands. Also, with respect
to the second question, the term “madman” is little addressed in terms of
“insanity” or a “diminished capacity.”
While there are a few instances where Iago indicates a moral
sensibility, his conviction and silence in Act 5 strongly indicates an
underlying awareness of right and wrong.
Iago is not insane, but fully rational and corrupt. Asimov handily summarizes Iago, “Since the
entire play is a demonstration of the two-facedness of Iago, it is entirely
proper that he [Iago] swears by Janus” (Asimov 615). As such, as a thoroughly corrupted human, Iago
freely chooses the worst paths in accordance with his own instinctual depravity;
his ontological depravity enslaves him to his own choices and feelings. Throughout Iago’s displays of madness (again,
madness not as insanity or madness without some underlying and existential
moral sense) and rationality, a basic, corrupted and repeated pattern of
opposition emerges as one scholar notes:
“I versus him, them, and everyone else” (Rodgers-Gardener 41). Iago cannot be other than he is, at base. At
base (again, pun intended), Iago takes “pleasure in manipulating lives” with an
“intense” pleasure (Asimov 631). This is
the ultimate “ego;” “ego” is the Anglicized form of the Greek pronoun “εγω;”
this is the ultimate, lawless and autonomous “I” of “Iago,” perhaps an
intentional play on a word by Shakespeare. To answer the two posed questions,
the procedure will be to provide a diachronic analysis of Iago from Acts 1 to 5. Question one will not be widely developed,
although each stated motive could be individually assessed on its own. Question two will be the larger focus. The diachronic analysis, Act by Act, will
afford an emphasis of accumulated weight—albeit tedious—that will inarguably demonstrate
that Iago is a madman with exceptional rational skills. Iago is corrupted, enslaved, addicted and
depraved, but rational, cool, adroit and scheming.
A
larger context on Iago (beyond Othello:
The Moor) is strongly suggested with weighty questions. Beyond Iago specifically and by way of a
wider context about moral freedom and moral enslavement in decision-making, a
few indications are offered. Again, this
is for a wider context and for introductory purposes, lest one think that
Shakespeare is a solitary voice on the subject of depravity, moral sense and
ability of the mind and will. The ancients may have pointed to the “fates,”
predetermination, and puppetry. These
lengthy discussions—depravity, moral ability, and freedom of the will—surely broke
out in the historic, well known, well documented and extended imbroglio between
Pelagius, a British monk, St. Augustine of Hippo, Africa, and St. Jerome of
Jerusalem and Rome in the late 4th century. There are “volumes” of primary documents from
these three contestants, not to mention the secondary sources through the
centuries. Based on Pelagius and Augustine, these debates caused one well known
scholar, the Rev. Dr. R.C. Sproul (B.A., Westminster College, M.Div.,
Pittsburgh Seminary, Th.D., Free University of Amsterdam, and author of seventy
books), to famously say that all theological discussions, all philosophic
systems and all religious denominations can be reshuffled and re-categorized
into three categories: Pelagian,
Semi-Pelagian, or Augustinian. Infamously,
as the battles roiled, the Synod of Orange in France, 529 C.E., ruled for
Western Christendom in favor of Augustinianism.
Eastern Christendom, or Greek Orthodoxy and affiliates, never accepted
the Synod of Orange. The Italian scholar, Thomas Aquinas of the 13th
century, and the English scholar and Oxfordian, John Wycliffe of the 14th
century, stood in the Augustinian tradition.
The battles about volitional freedom and rational enslavement (to one’s
own nature) broke out with a poignant freshness in the infamous and widely
known battle between Erasmus of Rotterdam, the Dutch Renaissance humanist and
scholar, and the unwieldy but scholarly monk from Wittenberg, Germany, the
Teutonic titan, Martin Luther in 1525.
Luther issued his classic and must-read-for-the-period, The Bondage of the Will, again favoring
Augustinian directions on ontology, anthropology, harmartiology, and ethics
(Luther, throughout). Luther, true to
his tavern-style, called Melanchthon’s arguments a “gold painted cow pie”
(actually, Luther used a scatological term in German). Luther’s view reflected Swiss, German,
French, and English Reformers. It is
quite arguable that Augustine, Luther and others reflected a careful, Pauline
theology. English scholars were abreast
of the Continental developments. The
Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, the law of the
land during Shakespeare’s day, the Articles to which every Anglican cleric
subscribed, and the Articles which were largely amplified and defended in the
writings of the dominant English Reformers, reads on the relevant points of
depravity and freedom:
Original sin
standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but
it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is
engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original
righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil… (Article IX, “Of
Original Sin, Articles of Religion”).
Or again,
“The condition of
Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by
his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God…(“Of
Free Will,” Articles of Religion, Article X)
The Roman Catholic response was to
rebut these English (and other Protestant) views with the well-crafted Council
of Trent (1545-1563), reasserting free will with some sacramental
modifications, but denying the depth, extent, and deadly effect of native depravity. Subsequently, various disagreements with
Reformation Protestantism arose from within the three Protestant streams of
Anglicanism, Lutheranism and the Presbyterianism-Reformed axis, e.g. Jacobus
Arminius of the Dutch Reformed Church of the Netherlands, John Wesley of Anglican
Methodism and Charles Finney of Wesleyan-Pentecostalist orientations. It is probably fair to say that in the
post-Enlightenment, post-Protestant and post-Roman traditions in the West,
these are non-issues. One suspects that
an asserted “moral autonomy and ability,” Kant’s view, is assumed in the
post-Kantian West, more assumed than analyzed. Suffice it to be said that a
long, long history informs the debate through history with deeper questions. Even in our own time, a degree of biological
determinism (evolution) and behaviorism (B.F. Skinner) survives. Or, one even hears uncritical themes of
“victimology” in media stories, as if “freedom” and “moral power” disappeared
or were diminished due to poverty, bad parenting, inadequate government funding
and more. Aside from this wider context
of introduction, yet for the purpose of the present task of analyzing Iago as a
rational villain, at no point does Iago evince anything else or any other thing
than a consistent, repeated, and unaltered course of depraved thinking,
feeling, and conscience. One wonders,
using modern themes, if Iago might claim: “My Momma was mean to me and my Daddy
beat me and was a drunk,” ergo, I lack
moral freedom, volition, rationality and affection?” Who knows, but wider questions are in play. Whatever
Shakespeare believed about volitional freedom, depravity and moral enslavement
and whatever he may have known of the lengthy history of these vexed questions,
Shakespeare’s Iago presents a rational madman (a vexing oxymoron), incapable,
indisposed, disabled, and dead in his moral capacities and thoughts. Corrupt though he was, yet he was rational,
cool and scheming. Turning from the wider context to the diachronic (and
tedious) analysis with the cumulative weight, Iago’s character is now assessed,
Act by Act.
Whatever
one may think or believe about the freedom and power of the human will in
relation to reason and feeling, Iago is an example of bondage to himself. At no point, does he demonstrate abiding moral
sense, moral conscience that governs, or a moral power of will over himself. Act
1 sets the essential outlines of Iago’s character and motives. A list of motives can be cited, more as consequences of a foundational,
essential and ontological corruption. The list of motives is hereby developed. He’s
an embezzler, if not a pick-pocketer, of the hapless and duped Roderigo
(1.1.1-3). He is “greedy.” Roderigo, in
his own way, also demonstrates a persistent moral inability; he angles for an
adulterous relationship with Desdemona and is willing to kill Cassio. Iago is “greedy” for Roderigo’s easy money.
Iago “hates” and is “jealous” of Cassio, claiming that Cassio’s promotion above
him proceeds by a “preferment” that “goes by letter and affection”
(1.1.37). Iago takes contemptuous views
of his fellow soldiers who, he claims, are self-serving pensioners and
time-servers in pursuit of cashiering out for the easier life; unlike these
lackeys, some—as Iago infers about himself—“…These fellows have some soul…I am
not what I am” (1.1.56, 67). Iago is
“loveless” and “contemptuous” of others. In short, while Iago plays the game of
external forms, he is willing to play the “hypocrite,” the two-faced, the
Janus-faced liar, or, to be “not what I am.”
Iago is a morally negating “hypocrite” in a shameless way. His fellow soldiers
are self-serving soulless creatures while he, Iago, has—he thinks—higher ambitions,
e.g. Ego, Super-Ego and Super Id, if we may anachronistically use Freud’s presumptions. It is a serious contradiction that Iago does
not himself sense, that is, to castigate his fellow soldiers who are
self-serving while Iago, himself, asserts and values the same. After a discussion
with Roderigo, playing to Roderigo’s quest for Desdemona, he stirs Cassio to
confront Brabantio about Desdemona’s marriage to Othello. Iago is “manipulative.” No trick, no turn of
phrase and no concept is too low or too vulgar for Iago as he adroitly uses
rational, spiteful and ill-willed language, said to include bestiality, racism,
geo-political tensions, and the biological prospect of illegitimate offspring
from such a union. Iago is a “liar.” He shamelessly
recommends that Roderigo “poison his [Brabantio’s] delight” and “plague him
with flies” (1.1.70, 74). As Roderigo
bestirs Brabantio from sleep and engages him in conversation, Iago speaks from
the dark shadows; this betrays Iago’s self-awareness of right and wrong and his
underlying sense that informs his desire for anonymity and exculpability; from
the shadows, Iago uses inflammatory rhetoric with Brabantio. Here are a few choice phrases from Iago:
Othello is an “old black ram,” “tupping your white ewe,” “the devil will make a
grandsire of you,” “covered with a Barbary horse, nephews neigh to you,” and the
Moor and Desdemona are mating like the “beast with two backs” (1.1.111, 114,
116-117). Roderigo echoes Iago’s
inflammatory rhetoric and says that Desdemona is in the “gross clasps of the
lascivious Moor” in this “gross revolt” (1.1.120, 139). Iago is an impenitent “trouble-maker.” Yet,
aware of his involvement and need for cover-by-night, the need to excuse
himself from the entanglement and any accountability for hatred of Cassio and
Othello, Iago explains his self-serving departure: “It seems neither meet nor
wholesome to my place…/against the Moor” (1.1.145). Willing to inflame, hate and accuse, Iago
wants no accountability. Wanting no
accountability betrays his underlying moral sense of right and wrong which
aggravates the charge of corruption and underscores that Iago is a rational
tactician rather than a raving madman. His Janus-faces are further seen as he
excuses himself and beats a retreat: “Tho’ I do hate him as I do hell
pains…/Yet for necessity of present life…/I must show out a flag and sign of
love” (1.1.154). The scene is set in the
seed plot of Act 1, Scene 1, and presents a corrupted yet reasoning Iago. The consequential motives to a native
depravity are: greedy, jealous, hateful, loveless, contemptuous, hypocritical,
manipulative and trouble-making.
Although he shows a few limited signs of moral sense and sight, e.g. the
need to hide in the dark and appear otherwise than he is in reality, he still
disregards adherence to moral norms. No
changes in Iago’s character appear throughout the scenes as they unfold. His corrupted motives proceed from his
essential corruption, at base, in the dirt, root, tree, branch and leaves.
In
Act 1, Scene 2, the scene shifts to Venice and another street before Othello’s
residence; however, if the scene changes, here as throughout the play, there
are no changes in the rational madman, Iago.
Again, “madman,” by an assumption, does not imply ignorance, lack of
moral sight or sense, mental incompetence, or a lowered IQ. Iago is a “madman” in another sense: he thinks, feels, chooses, and acts in the
face of norms he understands. As the angered Brabantio and Roderigo approach,
Iago offers more lies when he says to Othello: “I hold it the very stuff of
conscience/To do no contrived murder. I
lack iniquity…” (1.2.2). Iago’s claim to have a “the very stuff of conscience” may be factual, but it is hardened conscience
beyond sensibility and moral governance; as the play unfolds, one will see that
he utterly lacks the “stuff of conscience.” Iago’s claim is false on its face. The claim to do “no contrived murder” will
melt as the plot unfolds and the bodies pile up. Iago, quite to the contrary,
will be guilty of assault and battery with the intent to kill (a failed attempt
with respect to Cassio), two second degree murders (Emilia and Roderigo), one first
degree homicide as an accessory to the fact (Desdemona), and one felony murder
as an accessory to the fact (Othello). That is four homicides. As for Othello, the fourth homocide, the
issue of first and second degree murder is not at issue; in the commission of any
other felonies, a result has occurred with Othello’s suicide. Ergo, Othello’s suicide is an indictable
offense as a “felony murder,” the equivalent of a first degree homocide for
modern sentencing purposes and for older rulings in English common law. In other words, there are four felonious
homocides to which and for which Iago is guilty. Iago’s claim to “lack
iniquity” is wickedly ludicrous on its face, especially after watching him in
Act 1, Scene 1. Shakespeare is further
advancing the idea of Iago’s moral villainy and moral incompetence. Of course, Iago offers—as a confirmed liar—further
inflammatory words as Brabantio approaches Othello. In a major pivot, Iago states to Othello that
Brabantio has used “scurvy and provocative terms against your honor…/…with the
little godliness I have I did full hard forbear him…” (1.2.6, 17). Again, more
lies are instinctually offered. While
Iago has affirmatively declared “I lack no iniquity,” he now recognizes that he
possesses “little godliness.” This may
be the first limited truth claim uttered by Iago. Further, he plainly lies to Othello that he
“did full hard forbear him.” This is
palpably false. Iago further states, despite any stated evidence, that
Brabantio will bring the force of law to bear on Othello: “…what restraint or grievance
the law…” (1.2.14). Act 1, Scene 2,
develops Iago’s confirmation in lies, false self-exculpation, and
trouble-making. Piling lie upon lie, Iago is a clinical sociopath, a corrupted
disposition that is un-amenable to correction or treatment. Iago is corrupt at base, in the dirt, root,
tree, trunk, branches and leaves.
In
shifting to Act 1, Scene 3, the scene has shifted to the Venetian council chambers
where disputes are heard. Iago is
largely absent throughout in terms of discussion. But, true to character as noted above and
throughout the paper, he reemerges at the end of Scene 3 with his usual
depravities. In session, the Venetian
noblemen discuss the impending Turkish invasion of Cyprus, but also the
Brabantio-Othello-Desdemona relationship.
Three subplots emerge with minor resolutions. First, there is a discussion between
Brabantio and the Venetian noblemen. Second, there is a discussion between
Othello and the Venetian noblemen about the marriage. Third, there is a responsive and lengthy discussion
between Desdemona, Brabantio, and the Venetian noblemen about the marriage (1.3.1-301). After the tensions to the subplots are
partially resolved in these lengthy discussions, Iago and Roderigo re-emerge in
a telling section apart from the Seignory (1.3.302-382). For the present argument, the end of Act 1,
Scene 3, the discussion between Iago and Roderigo is relevant to the thesis
that Iago is a rational and corrupted sociopath, corrupted through all
faculties of soul, mind, reason, will, and feeling.
Extending
on the above, Act 1, Scene 3 offers a foundational insight to Iago,
specifically, his own discussion about human nature in general, the role of
will, reason, passions and a power and ability of will and reason. This is an
important hermeneutical key to Iago himself.
Iago himself offers it. Iago, in
a consummate act of self-deception and individualistic assertion of autonomous competence,
educates the dim-witted and hapless victim of embezzlement, Roderigo. Iago states:
“…Our wills are gardens…sterile with idleness or manured with
industry…” Laziness and industry of will
are the two moral options of the benighted Iago. This is a limited set of options! Iago further speaks of planting botanical
species in the garden of the human body by autonomous willing and decision. Iago believes in the ability, competence and
independency of moral choice in the planting; however, Iago utterly fails to
answer why he unfailingly and consistently plants the seeds of his own corrupt
thoughts and choices; as noted above, Iago is greedy, jealous, hateful,
loveless, contemptuous, hypocritical, manipulative and trouble-making. The deeper question is avoided, namely, why
does Iago consistently plant corrupt seeds? Did Iago autonomously plant these
seeds by way of an enabled moral and “free” choice or, as a “depraved self” corruptly
acting upon himself, did he necessarily choose these seeds because of his own
corruption? It is argued here that “Yes”
is the answer to both questions. Yes, Iago freely made these choices with
consistency. But also yes to this
question. Yes, Iago is natively and
naturally corrupted which influences his mind, affections and volitions. Iago’s
failed explanation about the human condition raises another charge, to wit,
hubris, conceit and self-deception about himself and humans. Iago never demonstrates the slightest ability—as
desire—to make capable moral choices or thinking. Essentially, at base, Iago is corrupted and,
as a consequence, he freely chooses
according to his nature. The list of
motives comes as consequences to his
nature.
To
revise and extend on the botanical metaphor offered by Iago in Act 1, Scene 3,
this is exactly what Iago has done with Roderigo and Brabantio, willfully planting
seeds of insinuations, distrust and hate.
This sowing reaps a latter harvest of crops—corrupt crops in their
minds, corrupted wills and bodies driven by their own underlying ontology and
epistemology. The continuing moral
incompetence and obtuseness of Roderigo may be another support in view of moral
depravity and inability. Roderigo is
consistently blinded until the end of the play; Othello, Emilia, and Desdemona
are similarly duped. Also, throughout
the play, players continue to believe that Iago is “honest,” a narrative-seed that,
inferably, Iago has assiduously and carefully cultivated. One may infer that
Iago has been reaping an internal harvest for quite some time within himself,
by himself, and upon himself —greed, jealousy, hatred, lovelessness, deception,
self-exculpation, trouble-making, and conceit about his moral abilities and
self-blindness. Little does he know that
he himself is in bondage to those same fruits while claiming self-control or a
power to choose otherwise.
If
one introduces the issue of reason as over against or alongside the matter of
human will, the following develops. Following
Iago’s own hermeneutic, Iago’s will and body are “manured with industry,” a
powerful statement by Shakespeare implying “excrement” in Iago’s body, mind and
soul. One may think of horse, pig, dog
and other sources of excrement. In our
clinical times, these matters are confined to sterile bathrooms. However, in the streets of England and in a
more agricultural society, these matters appeared in barns, streets and byways. Whether then or now, it remains a powerful
statement. It is a powerful phrase by
Shakespeare put in a verbal rather than noun form, “manured.” With respect to
himself and his own reason, Iago, full of himself and full of industrious “excrement”
(from beginning to end), asserts that the “scale of reason” serves as a
“counterpoise” to the passions. Rhetorically
put, but containing an indicative assertion, “Where and at what point does Iago
demonstrate this counterpoise of reason governing his underlying motives, or
passions of hate, jealousy and more?” This
is almost an Aristotelian touch of sorts by Shakespeare with Aristotle’s
classic quest and emphasis on reason as the moderator of difficult passions. It was Aristotle’s argument and quest for
“harmony” of all parts, reason governing the unruly passions. Iago notes that without
reason, one would be conducted “to preposterous conclusions” (1.3.323). Quite precisely
but very ironically, the “preposterous conclusions” based on reason will arise
in Iago’s own corrupted garden of corrupted reasoning and thinking. Iago’s reason will indeed lead to
“preposterous conclusions.” Iago adds, “…we have reason to cool our raging
motions” (1.3.324). This is a telling
section on Iago’s view of himself and others, suggesting power and ability of
will, reason, and controlled passions.
As a rational but corrupted man, Iago is “supremely aware that he wants
to destroy all that does not feed his ego” and this governs all that he says
and does (Rogers-Gardener, 50). Iago thinks
himself autonomous when, in fact, he is in bondage to his own being. The
corrupted root, tree and trunk nourish the corrupted branches and leaves.
To
extend and emphasize the above, how does Iago reflect on mind, will and body as
Act 1, Scene 3, concludes? The emphasis
shifts back to empirical passions of hate, greed, revenge, and slander, again
without an ounce of compunction, expression of moral ability, or moral sight
and sense. In another greedy shakedown-move
on Roderigo, Iago repetitively exhorts the dim-witted Roderigo to “fill thy
purse,” or, put another way, fill “Iago’s purse.” In another instance of slander, of course
without evidence or reason, he assures Roderigo that Desdemona “must change for
youth when she is sated with his body…/…she will find the error of her choice…”
(1.3.335-336). The marriage, Iago assures Roderigo, is sure to dissolve since it
involves an “erring barbarian and a supersubtle Venetian” (1.3.340). The two-faced Iago further exclaims
murderously, “I hate the Moor” (as does Roderigo) and exhorts both to be
“conjunctive in our revenge” on Cassio (1.3.347). With respect to Othello, Iago encourages Roderigo,
“If thou canst cuckold him, thou dost thyself a pleasure, me a sport”
(1.3.346-347). The intellectual and
moral dimwit, Roderigo, ignobly exits.
In a staccato-like-aside at the end of Act 1, Scene 3, Iago offers more
corrupted expositions on corrupted faculties of reason and soul: (1) that Othello faultily thinks that men are
“honest” (1.3.377), (2) that “For my sport and profit, I hate the Moor” (1.3.363),
(3) that Othello and Emilia have disported themselves together, thus cuckolding
him, Iago, to wit, “…betwixt the sheets/He hath done my office…” (1.3.364-365) and
(4) that he will “abuse Othello’s ear that he [Cassio] is too familiar with his
[Othello’s] wife” (1.3.371-372).
Whatever Iago thinks his intellectual and moral freedoms to be, he—empirically—has
no powers of moral sense, yet shows that he is rational and willing. Iago shows
hate, greed, revenge and slander in his “freely chosen” agenda, influenced by
his “cool reason,” as cultivated by own willful garden “manured by industry”
(tongue firmly in cheek). As one analyst summarizes it: “The Othellos and Iagos
and Macbeths in Shakespeare are humanity gone mad…” (Rodgers-Gardener, 69). Rational madness, at base and in the roots,
begets more madness in the branches.
Act
1 established the preliminary villainies of Iago in mind, will and
affection. A lengthy set of motives has
been listed in response to the first of two questions. The first question pertained to Iago’s
motives and those have been indicated.
The second question pertains to Iago as a devil incarnate or rational
madman. Act 1 is a foreshadowing of
later villainies with enlargement on both questions. Act 2 amplifies and
illustrates Iago’s innate corruption as his total corruption gains clarity as a
scheming, rational, but morally insensate sociopath.
Act
2, Scene 1 opens at a seaport and quay wall in Cyprus (2.1.1-100). Act 2, Scene 2, may be quickly dispatched;
Scene 2 is an official and public summons in a Cyprus street. The trumpeted summons calls to repasts of
drink, food, and a celebration of a nuptial and military victory over the
Turks. Act 2, Scene 3, involves a shift
to the banquet inside the Cyprus citadel, a setting-shift from the public (Scene
1 and 2) to a more confined context where most of the play will center (Scene
3). Throughout Act 2, the moral
degradation of Iago’s mind and character is expanded. Again, there is not one instance of moral
insight or sense on Iago’s part, a slave of himself. Iago is one of “Shakespeare’s rootless,
commercial men, without loyalty to anyone, but himself…Machiavellian types,
turning whatever practical trick to advance themselves” (Rogers-Gardener, 54). Rather than rootless and quite to the contrary,
Shakespeare may be arguing that tricksters have deeply corrupted “moral roots,”
themselves.
Act
2, Scene 1, gives further displays of Iago’s depraved character. One sees
Iago’s ill-will, spite, rational madness, and corruptions further
explored. Diachronically, the list
emerges. First, Cassio’s gives a courteous, regal, polite and courtly kiss to
the hand of Desdemona, a non-sexual event that Iago seeks to sexualize. Iago’s intends to exploit Cassio’s kiss as a
token of many intimacies between Cassio and Desdemona. Second, Iago’s engages
in impertinent, bawdy, banal, sexual and loose banter with Desdemona, therein
revealing Iago’s misogyny and general views of women as sexually dissolute
(Iago’s projections or perhaps his own adulteries). Third, Iago’s slanders Desdemona to Roderigo,
promising Roderigo a future adultery with Desdemona. Fourth, Iago further backstabs and slanders
Cassio to Roderigo, highlighting a troublesome love-triangle needing resolution
and further enflaming the frustrated Roderigo.
Fifth, Iago makes himself an accessory
to the fact of a felonious assault and battery by soliciting Roderigo to
fight Cassio. Sixth, in extension of five, Iago promises to get Cassio drunk
and predisposed to fighting so Roderigo may take Cassio by the sword. Seventh, Iago gives an expansive soliloquy
where he repeats the suspicion that Othello has “cuckolded” him with Emilia,
that he will entice the Moor to an incurable jealousy by an alienation of
affection from Desdemona, that he will
further “abuse him [Cassio] to the Moor”, and that he will make Othello
“egregiously an ass/…even to madness…” (2.1.279, 282, 284). The
list of motives and villainies proceeds by a continuing collection of them. Act 2, Scene 1, brings the exposition along
about Iago’s depravities of mind, feeling and will—an inexorable bondage to
himself.
The
ingredients of Iago’s corrupt character were established in Act 1 and they continue
in Act 2. Everyone will be made asses as
the plot unfolds. Beyond being made
asses (of all associated with Iago), the story will develop far beyond
that. Many will be killed and assaulted
as consequences. In a line evincing his own
depravity with a brief dose of self-understanding and a rare moment of self-insight
of right and wrong, Iago confesses, “Knaveries plain fact is never seen till
used” (2.1.286). Knowing what knavery
means, a dissolute condition, Iago proceeds indifferently and coldly.
Act
2, Scene 1, shifts to the quick and brief Scene 2. Scene 2 is a call to a banquet, and shifts
quickly to Scene 3, inside the Cyprus citadel.
Hereafter, the focus will be on the domestic and courtly setting rather
than Venice, Venetian streets, oceanic travels, and the streets of Cyprus. For an inexperienced reader, one wonders, by
this point, if the diabolic schemer can keep all his own schemes. Iago may be a considerable tactician, moment
by moment, but, as a strategist, long term, he utterly fails by the play’s
end. At this point, Iago is pulling many
corrupted strings, but can he, Iago, keep up with it all? But, ever blindly confident and supremely
sure in his own wit and autonomous stratagems, one observer summarizes Iago
this way: “The positively inflated ego is swollen with megalomania”
(Rogers-Gardener, 48). Swollen with his own blind conceits, Iago is
irremediable, incorrigible, and corrupt. To make it worse, Iago could care
less.
Act
2, Scene 2, is quickly noted and by-passed; it is a public summons to a nuptial
and military banquet full of sport, drink, dance, and feasting. The scene shifts quickly to Act 2, Scene 3,
where further evidences of Iago’s irrational rationality, ill-willed
willingness, and moderated immoderations more fully express his consummate
darkness as a villain.
As
noted, Act 2, Scene 2 shifts from the streets of Cyprus to the Cyprus citadel
in Act 2, Scene 3, a change in setting but not a shift in Iago’s unreformed
character. Iago’s corruptions and
depravity are not indexed to geography. Iago’s
corruptions are not indexed to time or circumstances. Iago’s corruptions are not even indexed or
influenced by his own periodic self-insights to himself. This is a factual summary from 2.3 supporting
these contentions. First, Iago actively gets Cassio drunk and predisposes him
to felonious recklessness before Roderigo’s designs at assault and
battery. Second, extending on the first,
Iago sings two military and national songs of revelry, actively bestirring and
inducing Cassio to drunkenness and drawing him into Roderigo’s dangerous orbit. The sober, but ever-scheming and
ever-impenitent Iago sings “O sweet England…/Some wine, ho!” (2.3.71, 80). Cassio
gets drunk and never understands the Iago-Roderigo-conspiracy. The arranged fight
between Cassio and Roderigo occurs quickly, but Othello opportunely arrives
and, as a Commander, quells the disturbance. Othello interrogates the principals and
relieves Cassio, as the second in command, for cause as an “example” (2.3.225). Third, after all leave, Iago, the Janus-faced
liar and ever-shifting tactician, engages in a duplicitous dialogue with Cassio,
counseling Cassio to seek redress directly through Desdemona to Othello. The
duplicity implicates Desdemona in later charges of adulteries with Cassio and
furthers Iago’s design to remove Cassio. Fourth, in an executive summary, after all are
off stage and Cassio has left, Iago offers a soliloquy stating and summarizing
his developing tactics: (1) “Th’ inclining Desdemona to subdue” (2.3.290), (2) to
play on Othello “…with his weak function” (2.3.299), and (3) to further destroy
Cassio beyond the drunkenness and assault by Roderigo, e.g. “Directly to his
good? Divinity of hell!” (2.3.301). Iago, again evincing another brief moment
of self-insight along with a corrupted indifference, admits he is a diabolical
character with utter shamelessness:
When devils will
the blackest sins put on/
They do suggest
at first with heavenly shows/
As I do
now… (2.3.303-305)
This is about as close as one comes
to Iago revealing a self-awareness of his own depravity and diabolic machinations. Depraved in mind, will and feelings, Iago
evinces not the slightest ounce of freedom, the slightest ability or power of
moral sense or sight.
Amplifying
and extending on the above, the ever crafty Iago has two more objectives—do
they ever end? First, Iago will need to
involve Emilia in the plot, to wit, that Emilia might advocate with Desdemona
to pursue Cassio’s redress to Othello, thus securing his earlier agenda for Roderigo,
Cassio, Desdemona and Othello. Second,
Iago states a strengthened resolve to further the breach between Othello and
Desdemona. The abusive stratagems are:
My wife must
move for Cassio to her mistress; /
I’ll set her on;
/
Myself to draw
the Moor apart/
And bring him
jump when he may Cassio find/
Soliciting his
wife. Ay, that’s the way. /
Dull not device
by coldness and delay. (2.3.332-337)
Act 2 advances the theme of
corruption, with Iago ever weaving astute facts with shifting tactics and more
fictions. Wherein Iago once swore, “By
Janus, I think no” (1.2.32), a double-faced two-timer, liar and backstabber,
one is ever faced with his relentless duplicity and villainy in every
scene.
A
cumulative weight of evidence is evident by the end of Act 2. While some have
argued that Iago possesses a “motiveless malignity,” another analyst reminds
the reader otherwise. That is, Iago is
driven by his many corrupted motives (Asimov 621). In Acts 1 and 2, with respect to Iago, there
is a “fierce delight in pulling strings, in the feeling of power that comes of
making others into marionettes whom one can manipulate at will” (Asimov
621). But, can Iago totally master the
chaotic subplots that he, arrogantly, thinks he can master and effect? Or, will the wicked one fall by his own devices? These are the kind of questions in Acts 1 and
2 that allow the plot to thicken in Acts 3-5. But, even as the character
ingredients are largely established in Act 1 and further strengthened in Act 2,
one scholar wisely reminds the reader that Iago “is in control of a lot less
than he thinks” (Rogers-Gardener, 55). Acts 3 and 4 will further extend the
delineations of Iago’s depraved rationality until—with effects following
earlier causes—a depravity will bear the fruits of assaults and homocides.
Act
3 consists of four scenes. Act 3, Scenes
1 and 2 are short and offer differing contexts of minimal interest to the present
theme of Iago’s manifold depravities of mind, ill-will, non-conscience, and
sociopathic non-feeling. Scene 1
involves Cassio’s continued importunity of Desdemona to intercede on his behalf
which Desdemona continues to promise.
This serves to underscore the ignorance of all players about Iago’s
developing tactics. Amazingly and
ironically, everyone still thinks Iago is honest. Othello begins his degradation. Scene 2
involves a brief on state affairs with Othello directing Iago to ensure letters
are given to the courier en route to Venice.
The showdown continues through scenes 3 and 4 with more seeds of
jealousy sown, an alleged dream of Cassio’s, the initiation of handkerchief-gate,
Othello’s deepening degradation, and Othello’s order to Iago to have Cassio
killed. Act 3, Scenes 3 and 4—more germane to the thesis—shows the developing tension
of Othello’s moral and intellectual degradation fueled by, to use one analyst’s
two terms for Iago, this “moral pyromaniac” and “war everlasting” (Bloom, 75). Bloom has it right.
Act
3, Scene 3, shows additional consequences
arising from this moral and felonious arsonist.
It opens with a discussion between Desdemona, Cassio and Emilia. Desdemona desires to plead for Cassio. Emilia ignorantly wonders about her husband’s
inexplicable interest in the issue. Yet, all three are all in the dark. Othello and Iago approach the three, but
Cassio hastily departs fearing Othello. As
they approach, Othello inquires about the departing conversant. Of course, never missing a beat as they
approach, Iago depravedly pours more gas on the fire, “…No, sure, I cannot
think it/That he would steal away so guiltylike [sic]” (3.3.39-40). This has been Iago’s boldest imputation about
Cassio to date, “so guiltylike.” Desdemona ill-advisedly importunes Othello for
reconciliation with Cassio. Shakespeare
gives intensity to Desdemona’s importunity to reconcile with Cassio. Apparently on a Sunday night, she asks that
Othello might meet Cassio “tomorrow night, or Tuesday morn/On Tuesday morn, or
night, on Wednesday morn…” (3.3.66-67). Othello dismisses the pleading while his
unexpressed and internal jealousy burns brighter. The two ladies depart, clearing the stage for
an extended discussion between Iago and Othello (3.3.98-293). The seed of jealousy has already been planted,
further ensnaring Othello’s mind, will and feelings. Othello earnestly plies Iago for his thoughts. Iago insinuates more, “O beware, my lord, of
jealousy/It is like the green-eyed monster which doth mock/The meat it feeds
on. The cuckold lives in bliss” (3.3.178-180).
Othello is falling, demanding proof and, if obtained, “Away at once with
love or jealousy” (3.3.206). Iago turns up the heat with the light of fire,
“Look to your wife; observe her well with Cassio/…Look to‘t/…Is not to leave’t
undone, but keep’t unknown” (3.3.211, 214, 218). More fully ensnared, Othello commissions Iago
to spy-mastership and asks Iago to use Emilia as a spy, “”If more thou dost
perceive, let me know more/Set on thy wife to observe…” (3.3.255-256). Careful
to remain out of view himself, again evincing some underlying and momentary
shaft of light breaking through to
himself, Iago counsels Othello to patience and observation, “Note if your lady
strain his entertainment/With any strong or vehement opportunity/Much will be
seen in that…” (3.3.266-268). Iago departs. Desdemona enters with Othello
complaining of a headache. Othello
claims “I have a pain upon my forehead here,” pointing to his head where cuckolding
horns might appear? (3.3.300). Desdemona offers the charmed marital gift, the
handkerchief. Handkerchief-gate is
underway. Othello refuses it as an inadequate remedy. He drops the handkerchief to the ground,
unbeknownst to Desdemona and Othello. They exit. In a brief interlude, Emilia finds the
handkerchief and turns it over to Iago.
Emilia says that Desdemona “…let it drop by negligence” (3.3.328). The ill-starred but determined tactician of adept,
adroit, and depraved thinking, willing and feeling, offers this statement of
intent: “I have use for it…/I will leave it in Cassio’s lodging lose this
napkin/And let him [Othello] find it…/Are to the jealous confirmation strong/As
proofs of Holy Writ. This may do something” (3.3.336-340). Whatever metaphor
might be chosen, poisons, pyromania, or the earlier “gardening” metaphor used
by Iago to describe the human will, power, mind, and reason, the results are
the same: degradations underway, further
clarified and with consequences to come.
Iago advises of these developments, “The Moor already changes with my
poisons/Dangerous conceits are in their nature poisons” (3.3.340-341). Othello’s suspicion and mental/moral
deterioration is tethered to Iago’s corruptions and is growing: “Farewell, the tranquil mind! /…O Farewell! /
Othello’s occupation is gone…/…Give me the ocular proof” (3.3.364, 366, 374,
376). More pyrotechnical consequences as
a result of Iago’s lighting of matches in a barn full of combustible straw and
wood!
Act 3, Scene 3, further documents two
more stratagems on Iago’s part: the use of a contrived dream by Cassio and by
playing the handkerchief-card. The first
is a real winner. The second is a ballgame with extra innings. Iago tells the
distressed and gullible Othello about this fictitious dream. Iago claims that Cassio one night cried in a
dream: “In sleep I heard him say, `Sweet Desdemona/Let us be wary, let us hide
our love’” (3.3.434-435). Iago pours more
gas on the fire, claiming that Cassio cast his leg over Iago, saying, “Cry `O
sweet creature!’ And then kiss me hard” (3.3.437). Iago notes that “this may help to thicken
other proofs” (3.3.445). While working
the dream-attack, Iago puts the handkerchief-angle into play: “Have you not
sometimes seen a handkerchief/Spotted with strawberries in your wife’s hand…/It
speaks against her with other proofs” (3.3.449-450, 456). Iago is enraged, “Blood, blood, blood!” (3.3.467).
Once again, to escape accountability and yet advance his game, Iago counsels
caution. However, a new consequence emerges when Othello orders
Cassio’s death: “Within these three days
let me hear thee say/That Cassio’s not alive” (3.3.488-489). At this point, Iago is complicit as an accessory to the fact of a conspiracy to
commit felonious murder with the intent
to kill. Iago, true to his enslaved
mind and sociopathic sense, does nothing to stop the misinformation,
premeditation, malice aforethought or moral malignity. Othello rewards Iago, “…To furnish me with
some swift means of death/For the fair devil. Now art thou art my lieutenant”
(3.3.494-495). Act 3, Scene 3, ends with heightened tensions
that are not being relieved but are being aggravated. The tensions are escalating; Othello’s degradation
is spiraling downwards. Iago’s escalating and uncorrected depravities and the
potential for an unjustified homocide come to view. Iago’s depravity is pulling
all parties into the orbit of his depraved ontology, epistemology, and praxis. Iago’s initial depravities, as root, tree
trunk, and branches are yielding leaves and fruits of more depravity.
As the plot thickens and tensions approach
a zenith in Act 3, Scene 3, the next scene, Scene 4, resolves nothing. If anything might be said about Scene 4,
there is a coming, going, and set of interlocutions that are quick and rapid—almost as if Shakespeare
is using kinesis or motion of place
and ideas to match the crafted shenanigans of Scene 3. Scene 4 is full of disconcerting energy and disorienting
rapidity. The speed of it all is there. Desdemona,
Emilia and a Clown chat. Still, Desdemona
seeks, still being ignorant of the back story, Cassio’s place of sleeping. She
is also looking for the lost handkerchief.
Othello enters. A strained
discussion with Desdemona ensures. He
wants to see the lost handkerchief, but Desdemona begs off and complains that
Othello’s speech is “…startling and rash” (3.4.75). Again, ignorantly, she says
to Othello: “I pray, talk to me of Cassio” (3.4.88). Of course, that is exactly the wrong subject
for discussion. Othello exits and
Desdemona and Emilia discuss Othello’s jealousy, “Is not this man jealous?”
(3.4.95). Iago, in his first appearance in Scene 4, and Cassio enter. Cassio
further implores Desdemona for rehabilitation and reconciliation with Othello. Desdemona
begs off, “My advocation is not now in time” (3.4.119). Of course, Iago sees Cassio’s importunity as
advancing his game to widen the Cassio-Othello breach all the while with a standing
order to kill Cassio. Again, with more
kinetic changing of characters, Iago departs with Emilia and Desdemona resuming
the discussion about jealousy. Emilia
says: “But jealous souls will be answered so/They are not ever jealous for the
cause/But jealous for they’re jealous. It is the monster/Begot upon itself,
born on itself (3.4.153-157). Desdemona begins to get the sense of things, including
Othello’s degradation, exclaiming, “Heaven keep that monster from Othello’s
mind” (3.4.158). Desdemona and Emilia
depart—more kinesis. Bianca enters and chats with Cassio about coming to see
Cassio. Cassio gives the handkerchief to
Bianca and a hankie-discussion ensues, including a new angle, Bianca’s jealousy
of the origin of the hankie. Cassio
states that “I found it in my chamber” (3.4.183). All exit.
One needs a play-card of who comes and goes in these energetic and
changing scenes, all of which underscore the plots, subplots, and tensions that
emerged in Act 3, Scene 3. One feels
like one is playing an “Action Video Game” with all the kinesis of Scene 4. Iago
has successfully sown the seeds of jealousy and has posited an alleged dream of
Cassio to enrage Othello. Iago has
successfully put Handkerchief-gate in play. Othello’s degradation deepens. Othello orders Iago to murder Cassio. Iago is
promoted. Nothing is resolved, but the
tensions intensify as Act 4 unfolds at the hand of this “moral pyromaniac” and
“war everlasting.” To bring this back to
the theme, Iago is depraved in all faculties of mind, reason and soul without
the slightest of empirical evidences to the contrary. He is corrupt, root, tree, branch and leaves.
To
update the thesis, one analyst offers these comments on Iago’s moral competencies. He says,
“A.D. Nutall
wonderfully remarks of Iago that he `chooses’ which emotions he will
experience. He is not just motivated,
like other people. Instead, he decides to be motivated” (Bloom, 72).
This is a gratuitous assumption and
a philosophic presumption on Nutall’s part, regrettably posted with Bloom’s
endorsement. Iago “freely chooses”
according to an ontology this is preceedingly corrupted, impenitent and
shameless. His choices show him to be a perfect
slave to himself, “choosing what he loves,” “choosing what he values,” “preferring
the predilections of his affections” and never knowing or seeing otherwise. The cumulative evidence shows thus far,
deliriously and tediously so, that this madman destroys himself and others,
without compunction or remorse. Iago’s corrupt ontology governs Iago’s epistemology
and praxis, as well as the other parties in the play.
Acts
1-3 have provided for the disasters of Act 4 and the homocides of Act 5. The tensions are not abated in Act 4. Iago’s plots move beyond allegations of
Desdemona’s infidelity to greater depravities to Iago’s conspiracy to commit
murders. First, he counsels Roderigo to
kill Cassio and promises to assist Roderigo.
Second, Iago rebuts Othello’s exploding desire for poisoning, hanging,
and quartering of Desdemona. Rather than
these methods of murder, Iago favors and counsels Othello to murder Desdemona by
manual strangulation. Act 4 gets ugly
fast. It opens and ends with one
constant, one stable and repeated character—Iago’s depravity.
Act
4, Scene 1, like the earlier acts, presents Iago’s corruption un-tethered and
not indexed to time, place, other characters, or the occasional self-insight to
himself. Iago is persistently corrupt. 4.1
opens with Iago making more sexual insinuations to Othello about Desdemona. Scene1 ends with Iago as an accessory to the fact of murder in the first degree, replete with
counsel, premeditation, malice aforethought, and the intent to kill. Iago explicitly provokes Othello by
suggesting that Desdemona and Cassio have lain naked in bed without sexual
intent: “Or to be naked with her friend in bed/An hour of more not meaning any
harm?” (4.1.4-5). As if Desdemona and
Cassio were lying naked in bed innocently, discussing—as it were—differential calculus,
ecclesiastical history, canon law, principles of engineering, Aristotle’s
ethics, or Plato’s dialogues (tongue in cheek)?
Just lying there, two friends,
buck naked, without sexual intent? The
suggestion abounds with Iago’s presumptive boldness and Othello’s incredible
naiveté. Othello falls into an epileptic
trance only to arise and hear—once again—Iago’s additional, aggravated,
shameless, and impenitent comments that millions of men are cuckolds, “There’s
many a beast then in the populous city/And many a civil monster/…There’s
millions now alive/That nightly lie in those unproper beds” (4.1.61-62,
66-67). “Millions” is quite a word by Iago. By extrapolation, if one assumes three to
four million for England’s total population and if one assumes 500,000 for
London’s population during Elizabeth’s time, Iago’s exaggeration suggests that an
entire nation—man for man, east to west, and south to north—is cuckolded. Iago’s
brazenness of assertion is unlimited. Iago continues by further impugning the
demoted Cassio, advising Othello to watch Cassio closely as he, Iago, will pull
the fuller confession from Cassio. Iago
counsels Othello saying: “And mark the fleers, the jibes and notable scorns/That
dwell in every region of his face/For I will make him to tell the tale anew/Where,
how, how oft, how long ago, and when/He hath and is again to cope your wife
(4.1.82-87). Othello stands downstage while Iago and Cassio discuss
Bianca. Othello mishears the preliminary
discussion; he mistakenly thinks Cassio is talking about Desdemona and their
sexual liaisons. Cassio describes Bianca
and their sexual rollicking, saying, “…I think, I’ faith, she loves me/Ha, ha,
ha! /I marry her? What? A customer?.../This is the monkey’s own giving out…/She
was here even now; she haunts me in every place…/…she falls me thus about my
neck--/ So hangs and lolls and weeps on me, so shakes and pulls me” (4.1.112,
117, 120, 127, 130, 132, 134). The
sexuality of the words is explosive. The comic words by Cassio, “Ha, ha, ha!,”
haunts the tragic air and further exacerbates Othello. Othello errantly believes this is about
Cassio and Desdemona. To Othello’s mind,
Cassio has confessed to adultery thanks to Iago’s leadership. His rage increases. Bianca enters, again with
Othello downstage and listening, and a discussion ensues between Cassio and
Bianca about the handkerchief. Bianca exclaims
that it was a “minx’s token” (4.1.144). A
minx is a wanton and dissolute woman. After others exit, the entire scene
closes with Iago and Othello discussing the gruesome methods for murdering
Desdemona. Hanging? Othello says, “Hang
her!” (4.1.173). Quartering or dismemberment?
“I will chop her into messes. Cuckold me?” (4.1.182). Poison? “Get me some poison, Iago, this night!”
(4.1.186). Iago advises against these homicidal methods arguing for manual
strangulation, “Do not do it with poison. Strangle her in her bed, even the bed
she hath contaminated” (4.1.188-189).
Act 4, Scene 1, opened with Iago’s explicit sexual insinuations to
Othello about Desdemona; it ends with plans to commit murder in the first
degree with malice aforethought, ill will, premeditation and the specific
formation of the intent to kill. Thus
far, is there one scene where Iago demonstrates any ability or any power of
mind or will to do good? Does he
empirically demonstrate any powers to choose aright? While perhaps not a devil incarnate, he is a
rational madman who never retreats, never objects, never interposes and never
ceases his machinations. Existentially and ontologically, Iago is corrupted to
the core. The fruit of his existential
ontology is his corrupted existential epistemology. The further consequence of his corrupted
ontology and epistemology is his corrupted praxis and ethics.
Act
4, Scene 2 extends the issues further in support of the thesis. Things get worse, now in the direction of more
crimes. It continues the discussions
about the alleged infidelity of Desdemona and ends with Iago’s complicity with
Roderigo to murder Cassio. Aside from
complicity in Othello’s plot to murder Desdemona, Iago adds this to his rap
sheet as an accessory to the fact of
another felony murder. Four discussions
occur in this scene, two without Iago and two with Iago. The first two involve the fruits of Iago’s
depraved tree, extending the tension.
The latter two discussions, involving Iago, continue the uncorrected corruption
of Iago. The first discussion without
Iago directly (but involving Iago’s consequences) involves Othello interrogating
Emilia about Desdemona; Othello wants answers from this close observer and
attendant of Desdemona; Emilia puts up a spirited defense saying, “…I durst my
lord, to wager, she is honest/Lay down my soul at stake…/Remove thy thought; it
doth abuse thy bosom…” (4.2.13-15). Othello, however, peremptorily dismisses
Emilia’s with “She says enough; yet she’s a simple bawd/…This is a subtle
whore…” (4.2.21-22). The second discussion, without Iago’s direct involvement
(but involving the fruits of his earlier works), shifts to a fight between
Othello and Desdemona; this is a painful discussion; Desdemona is confused, but
the scene reflects the now wild, untamable, tainted and agitated mens rea of Othello: “Come, swear it,
damn thyself/Heaven knows that thou art false as hell/Ah, Desdemon! Away, away,
away! /Impudent strumpet! /What, not a whore? /That have the office opposite
Saint Peter/And keep the gate of hell!” (4.2.37, 41, 83, 89, 95-96). Amidst the varied accusations, Othello calls
Desdemona “Desdemon,” leaving the “a” off the name and implying she is a
“demon” complicit with the demonic underworld.
The third discussion involves Iago, Desdemona, and Emilia about
Othello’s state of mind (4.2.115-179); with tensions out of control, Iago seeks
to distance himself from involvement with Othello and duplicitously fobs it off
on Othello’s anxious concerns for state affairs, saying, “The business of the
state does him offense” (4.2.173). Despite
his manifold depravities, Iago still has an underlying moral sense, now and
then, not that it means a thing to him. While
the first three discussions revolve around Othello’s state of mind, the fourth
discussion is between Roderigo and Iago, wherein they proactively plot the
murder of Cassio. This fourth discussion
affords additional exposition on Iago’s character. Roderigo begins to see something
of Iago’s duplicity: “Every day thou daff’st me with some device/…for your
words and performances are no kin together” (4.2.183, 189). Iago, as usual, puts forward another lie to
stir Roderigo and to offer false hope. Ever
shifting his tactics adroitly to new battlefield conditions, Iago claims that
Othello and Desdemona are headed to Mauritania. Iago suggests that Roderigo kill Cassio. This will cause Venice to retain Othello in
Cyprus. If accomplished, under this
scenario, the retention of Othello and Desdemona in Cyprus will allow Roderigo his
continued pursuits of Desdemona. Iago boldly clarifies to Roderigo the agenda:
“Why, by making him incapable of Othello’s place—knocking out his [Cassio’s] brains/Ay,
if you dare do yourself a profit and a right” (4.2.222, 224). Iago promises
Roderigo that he will participate in the murder saying, “I will be near to
second your attempt/And he shall fall between us. Come, stand not amazed at it,
but go along with me” (4.2.227-229). In
Act 4, Scene 2, there is no mitigation of Iago’s rational madness or
corruption—an enslavement to his own depravity.
Act
4, Scene 3, is quickly bypassed; it is important on its own terms, but is not
directly related to Iago and the thesis of his addicting corruption. Of warrant, heightening the tension,
Desdemona sings the “Willow Song” followed by the famous discussion on love,
fidelity and infidelity between Desdemona and Emilia (4.3.42-48; 4.3.60-105). This scene stands on its own and adds to the
plaintiff, doleful and sad harbingers. Act 3, Scene 3, only heightens the
sadness and melancholy of the results that occur in Act 5.
Act
5, Scene 1, begins with the emerging Iago-Roderigo-murder plot of Cassio,
develops with Iago’s shifting tactic to pursue the killing of both men and ends
with a chaotic scene with Iago stabbing Cassio from the shadows and, finally, Iago
stabbing and silencing his co-conspirator, Roderigo. It is more chaos. First, Iago premeditates
the murder of Cassio by counseling Roderigo: “Have at thy hand. Be bold and
take thy stand” (5.1.7). Yet, Iago wants
both dead. He wants Roderigo dead: “…Now
whether he kills Cassio/Or Cassio kill him, or each do kill the other/Every way
makes my gain. Live Roderigo/He calls me
to restitution large” (5.1.12-15).
Cassio must also die for “If Cassio do remain…/That makes me ugly; and
besides, the Moor/May unfold me to him; there stand I in much peril/No, he must
die. Be ‘t so…” (5.1.18, 20,
21-22). Again, the occasional moral
insights inform and deepen the awareness of Iago’s moral, intellectual and
volitional incompetencies. The fight ensues. Roderigo is wounded and Iago
wounds Cassio in the leg (from behind and in stealth). Othello hears the chaos
and thinks Iago has killed Cassio, “The voice of Cassio! Iago keeps his word”
(5.1.28). Lodovico and Othello enter.
Iago, in another tactical shift and effort at self-exculpation amidst
the chaos, cries out, “O treacherous villains!” (5.1.59). Roderigo cries out,
so Iago surreptitiously and fatally stabs Roderigo to silence a co-conspirator and,
then, adroitly shifts all blame to Roderigo, saying, “O murderous villain! O
villain!” (5.1.63) Iago, in another
facile move, applies a tourniquet to Cassio’s leg and further blames the now
dead Roderigo, “He, he, ‘tis he. [A litter is brought in.] O, that’s well said;
the chair” (5.1.100). Iago continues feigningly
the showmanship of concern for Cassio by exhorting members to attend to
Cassio’s battle wound, “Kind gentleman, let’s go see poor Cassio dressed—”
(5.1.127). Iago’s depravity, but
facility of mind in premeditation and shifting tactics—as needed—are on offer
in Act 5, Scene 1. Ever adept at corrupt tactics, things begin unraveling.
Little
more may be stated about Iago’s character than has been said, but Act 5, Scene
2, results in three more homicides beyond Roderigo’s. Desdemona, Emilia and Othello will die. In Act 5, Scene 2, the utter unmasking of
Iago’s unremitted villainies and his arrest are put forward. Everyone now will see “what” Iago was rather
than “who” Iago was. To say “who” he was
would imply humanity and personality. To
say “what” he was is more suggestive, suggesting Iago lacks a fundamental
humanity. Iago is more of a “what” or a
“thing” than a “who” or a person. He is anti-human by this point.
The
early part of Act 5 involves Othello and Desdemona, their agitated and extended
discussion, Othello’s open and stated plan to kill Desdemona, Othello’s utter
mental and moral degradation, and, finally, Othello’s homocide in the first
degree by manual suffocation. After Desdemona
dies, Emilia enters and Othello tells Emilia that Iago has been the source of the
alleged details of adultery. Several
times, in initial disbelief, Emilia states, “My husband?” or “My husband, says
that she is false?” (5.2.152, 159). This back and forth begins to unmask the
fuller story to Emilia. She is
horrified. Emilia justly accuses Othello, “…O gull! O dolt! /As ignorant as
dirt…/The Moor hath killed my mistress! Murder, murder!” (5.2.171-172, 174).
Monanto, Gratiano and Iago enter. Emilia
then interrogates Iago with all auditors (and audience) on hand. If Iago could count on the naiveties of other
players, he apparently never anticipated Emilia’s wrath, Emilia’s love for
Desdemona, or Emilia’s willingness to expose and thoroughly castigate her
husband. Emilia says, “He [Othello] says that thou toldst him his wife is
false/I know thou didst not; thou’rt not such a villain/Speak, for my heart is
full” (5.2.180-182). Iago offers a half-answer and Emilia presses on accusingly
and with stunned ferocity, “But did you ever tell him she was false?” (5.2.185).
Iago says, “I did” (5.2.186). Emilia
concludes the arraignment and indictment of her guilty husband before everyone,
saying, “And your reports have set the murder on/“Villainy, villainy, villainy!
/…O villainy!” (5.2.194, 197, 198). Iago
tries to control and dismiss Emilia to no avail. Iago, knowing his machinations may be stated
and proven, demands silence, “Zounds, hold your peace/Be wise and get you home/Villainous
whore! /“Filth, thou liest!” (5.2.226, 228, 237,239). Iago—this time—stupidly reacts to the
unmasking, fatally stabs Emilia, and exits.
All other auditors, including Othello, have heard the unmasking of Iago and
have witnessed Iago’s second degree murder of Emilia. Gratiano says, “Sure, he [Iago] hath killed
his wife” and Montano states, “But kill him rather. I’ll after that villain/For
‘tis a damned slave” (5.2.244, 249-250).
Once the hunter and player, Iago is now the hunted and played. Othello speaks. Lodovico, Cassio (on a
stretcher), Montano and an arrested Iago appear. “Bring the villain forth” Lodovico orders
(5.2.294). For the first time, instead
of being dubbed “the honest Iago,” he is now repeatedly called “the villain” by
most participants in the scene. Facts
have emerged for all to see and hear. Othello
makes an aborted effort to kill Iago, but only wounds him. Lodovico asks Iago,
“This wretch [Othello] hath part confessed his villainy/Did you and he [either Roderigo
or Othello may be in Lodovico’s question] consent in Cassio’s death?” and, in
another brief moment of honesty from Iago, he says, “Ay.” (5.2.304-305, 306).
Othello commits suicide, the fruit of Iago’s long progeny of serial lies and
tactics. Documents are retrieved from the dead Roderigo’s pockets showing Iago’s
complicity in an effort to kill Cassio.
Further, eyewitnesses have witnessed him commit the second degree
homocide of Emilia. They have heard of Iago’s
complicity to kill Desdemona. They have
witnessed, as a result, Othello’s homocide.
Iago has been involved in four homocides as the play closes with Act 5,
Scene 2. Lodivico rightly summarizes Iago, “O Spartan dog” (5.2.373); an
explanatory note from the text notes that Spartan dogs were known for “savagery
and silence.” Lodivico commands Iago, “Look
on the tragic loading of this bed/This is thy work. The object poisons the
sight” (5.2.374-375). Lodovico commands
Gratiano to deal with the legal dimension of the Moor, presumably, estate
settlement issues (?); exercising
command presence, Lodovico orders Cassio to take command of Iago’s fate, “To
you, Lord Governor,/Remains the censure, the place, the torture. O, enforce it!” (5.2.379-380). Meanwhile,
Lodovico will return to Venice and “…to the state/The heavy act with heavy
heart relate” (5.2.381-382). Finally, the corrupted Iago is arrested and,
inferably, remanded to custody and trial for multiple homocides and
assaults. These are the “preposterous
conclusions” arising from Iago’s vaulted, vain and confident assertions about
the role of reason governing passions.
As the play
closes, one might hear the English audience uproariously exclaim, “Away with
the villain!” Two questions have been
asked and answered. The first question is:
“What motivates Iago to carry out his schemes?” Several motives were cited variously. Iago is
greedy, jealous, hateful, loveless, contemptuous, hypocritical, manipulative
and trouble-making. He is also a
sociopath and habitual felon. It has been argued that these motives are the consequences rather than causes of Iago’s depravity—ontology
governing epistemology and praxis. Iago is “essentially” corrupt. The second question was, “Is Iago a devil
incarnate, a madman, or a rational human being?” Dismissing the devil-incarnate theory, it was
argued that Iago was an utterly corrupt madman possessing high intelligence,
facile reasoning, rapier-like wit, adept craftiness, and an adroitness to shift
tactics to new changes on his own battlefield.
Asimov, as previously noted, summarizes Iago, “Since the entire play is
a demonstration of the two-facedness of Iago, it is entirely proper that he
[Iago] swears by Janus” (Asimov 615).
Everything thought, said and done by Iago, or the Big Ego, is
false. As such, as a thoroughly
corrupted human being, Iago freely chooses the worst paths in accordance with
his own depravity. Iago is innately or
instinctually enslaved to his own choices and feelings. Throughout Iago’s displays of madness and
rationality, a basic, corrupted and repeated pattern of opposition
emerges: “I versus him, them, and
everyone else” (Rodgers-Gardener, 41).
Iago cannot be or think in any other way, as the play evinces. As previously noted, this is the ultimate
“ego,” the εγω, or the ultimate “I” of Iago. To answer the two posed questions,
especially the last one, the procedure was to diachronically evaluate Iago’s
words and deeds from Acts 1 to 5. The
diachronic analysis afforded accumulated weight that inarguably demonstrates
that Iago is a madman with exceptional rational skills. The occasional flashes of moral sense and
insight exist within Iago, but these flashes of insight mean nothing to him. Iago
is corrupted, enslaved, addicted and depraved, but rational, cool, adroit and
scheming. Ontology governs and
influences epistemology and praxis. It would be difficult to gainsay Shakespeare’s
audiences’ anticipated reaction, “Away
with the villain! To the gallows! This utterly and totally depraved villain in
mind, soul, sight, sense, will and feeling! Away with him!
Works
Cited
“Articles of Religion.” The
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.
Anglicans Online. (www.anglicansonline.org). N.d. Web.
28 Apr 2012.
Asimov,
Isaac. Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare. New
York: Grammercy Books, 1970. Print.
Bloom,
Harold. Dramas and Dramatists. Philadelphia, PA: Chelsea House Publishers,
2005. Print.
Luther,
Martin. Bondage of the Will. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing, 1957.
Print.
Rogers-Gardener,
Barbara. Jung and Shakespeare. Willmette, IL: Chiron Publications, 1992.
Print.
Shakespeare,
William. Othello. Literature: An Introduction to Reading
Fiction, Poetry, and Drama. Ed. X.J. Kennedy and Dana Goia. 6th ed. New York: Pearson,
2010. 912-1012. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment