Othello and Iago

By Alanna Horgan January 4th, 2011

In Othello Shakespeare has constructed one of literatures most enigmatic characters: Iago. Coleridge shares the popular opinion that Iago is driven by ‘motiveless malignity’, but this response is a shallow one based on the easy, less confronting assumption that he is a symbol for evil, the devil incarnate, and allows for none of Shakespeare’s skill in developing complex and very human characters. Instead by contrasting Iago with Othello, placing him directly beside tragedy’s doomed hero, Shakespeare compares the two for all their differences, and more notably, their similarities. Then it can soon be seen that Iago, often accused of having either weak motives, or none at all, in fact has the exact same incentives as Othello.

Both are driven by jealousy to ‘prepost’rous conclusions,’ of revenge, neither having balanced emotion with logic. The main difference in their characters is that while Iago has the self-awareness to realise this, Othello lives in the self-delusion that his actions are those of duty, not jealousy. Manipulating the audiences unconscious desire to believe in the inherent goodness of the aristocracy – the literal nobility in the higher classes – Shakespeare uses Iago not as a symbol for evil, but rather as a contrast with Othello that challenges our perceptions of good and evil, and how the truth can be blurred by dichotomist labelling of the victim and the antagonist. Through Iago, Shakespeare shows us that sometimes there is no hero, no matter how much people want one to exist.

One of the most disputed factors in Othello is the motive of Iago, stated as two things. The first, discussed with a gentleman named Roderigo, is the promotion Cassio received, but that Iago believed he deserved, stating “I know my price, I am worth no worse a place.” While this can be dismissed as an over-reaction to a lost promotion, it must be taken in context. At twenty eight, it is possible that (regarding the nature of Elizabethan times) Iago had been a loyal soldier for twelve or more years. His experience on the battle field, having given his whole life, compared to Cassio’s “bookish theoric” would incite a deep resentment at having been overlooked. It was a common fact then, and even now, to “mark a duteous and knee-crooking knave, that (doting on his own obsequious bondage) wears out his time, much like his master’s ass, for naught but provender, and when he’s old, cashier’d.” To give ones life and then be tossed aside for a more eloquent option, or “cashier’d,” could inspire a classic postal worker need for revenge in the best of men.

However it is Iago’s second motive that is perhaps the most influential in his actions, and leads him to his choice of revenge on Othello. “And it is thought abroad that ‘twixt my sheets h’as done my office. I know not if’t be true, but I, for mere suspicion in that kind, will do as if for surety.” These are Iago’s words in an aside to the audience, and yet not a more apt description could be found to describe the later motivations of Othello. Describing his jealousy in the same speech, Iago further states that “the thought whereof, doth, like a poisonous mineral, gnaw (his) inwards, and nothing can or shall content (his) soul.” This is often overlooked due to the distrust Iago has inspired in the audience, however it is the general nature of a Shakespearean play that in an aside the truth must be told. Such is Shakespeare’s skill in manipulating his audience that they believe, despite this, that not a true word can flow from the lips of Iago, even in an aside.

Nevertheless later evidence suggests that Iago’s beliefs could have come from something more that unsubstantiated rumour. In the “willow” scene, Iago’s wife Emillia is discussing the nature of adultery with Desdemona. She says quite plainly, “who would not make her husband a cuckold to make him a monarch?” Tying back in with the issue of Iago’s promotion, Shakespeare may be placing the elusive suggestion that Emillia tried this very theory to raise Iago in the ranks of society, and failed. It could explain her later words regarding the nature of men, “Let them use us well, else let them know: the ills we do, their ills instruct us so.” Sounding so much like words owing themselves to bitter experience, this adds a layer of possible meaning to the play, and lends strong credibility to Iago’s claims of unendurable jealousy. Therefore, while this does not excuse the evils Iago comes to inflict upon others, it cannot be said that he is ‘without any motive.’

Having established motive, this broadens the view of Iago from merely a ‘symbol for evil’ to something more human, a character with depth all the more frightening because it shows us the evils in humanity, as opposed to a body merely housing some usurper evil. Shakespeare has instead constructed a subtle comparison between Othello and Iago, describing a more confronting view of the nature of good and evil, which is accentuated by the ambiguities of the minor characters. The most obvious connection between Othello and Iago is their reactions in the face of extreme jealousy, under situations where nothing is “for surety.” When put in even the mildest of doubt Othello asserts himself with the claim that “I’ll see before I doubt; when I doubt, prove; and on the proof, there is no more but this: away at once with love or jealousy.”

Yet this conviction quickly degenerates into “fresh suspicions” based upon nothing but words. When he has seen the handkerchief that implies Desdemona’s betrayal, Othello asks “was that mine?” even then taking Iago’s word as proof over the handkerchief itself. His condition echoes the “gnawing” feeling earlier expressed by Iago, and is captured in the words, “Look where he comes: not poppy, nor mandragora, nor all the drowsy syrups of the world shall ever medicine thee to that sweet sleep which thou owd’st yesterday.” It is the inescapable seed of jealousy – “a jealousy so strong that judgement cannot cure” spoken of by Iago, that will manifest no matter what it is based on, in a susceptible mind. This kind of mind is one that Iago and Othello share, having not “one scale of reason to poise another of sensuality” thus the “blood and baseness” of their natures conducting them to “most prepost’rous conclusions.” Unlike the matter of fact way in which Cassio and Bianca clear up a similar confusion, neither possesses the balance of soul required to combat jealousy. This similarity of character even now blurs the line between the hero and the villain of Othello.

How they act upon this jealousy is the other major factor in comparing the characters. While Othello, in his belief of betrayal, focuses his revenge on Desdemona, Iago looks not to his wife but the man he believed the betrayal occurred with. Both courses of action lead to unlawful destruction, but are simply executed with differing angles. The result is still the same – murder. Othello’s actions can never be fully placed on Iago – it was still Othello who decided to kill her, it was his hand that carried out the act, and on such loose grounds it can be said that any suspicion – from innocent source or ill – could have lead to the same end. The only fundamental difference in these two characters then is their perceptions of themselves. Iago is relentlessly self-aware – verifying continually Emillia’s assessment of the nature of jealousy. “They are not jealous for the cause, but they’re jealous for they’re jealous. It is a monster begot upon itself, born on itself.” He accepts that jealousy can become both cause and motive, and says only of his actions that “Heaven is (his) judge,” never claiming righteousness.

Othello on the other hand is very self-deluded, believing his motive to be that of justice rather than jealousy and pride. He insists “Yet she must die, else she’ll betray more men,” ignoring his imbalance of emotion, and earlier statements such as “I had been happy, if the general camp, pioneers and all, had tasted her sweet body, so I had nothing known,” which suggests his grief involves loss of pride, even more so than the actual act of cuckoldry itself. If then Iago is a ‘symbol of evil’, how can it be said that Othello, the hero of the tragedy, is not also a wolf in sheep’s clothes?

Beyond their illustrated intensity of emotion, their similar motives, and their different but equally powerful way with words, Othello and Iago also share the love and respect of their peers. So, if so alike, why then is it that Othello’s actions are of an “honourable murderer,” but Iago’s the work of pure evil? Perhaps Iago is not a symbol for evil, but rather, with Othello, the symbol of all the corruptions of an aristocratic society. A General, so respected, could not possibly be seen as evil by either the characters within the play, nor the audience without. Shakespeare has carefully constructed this man to be admired as an authority, painted as a victim, thus manipulating an emotional response from the audience that overlooks any wrongdoing. In contrast, Iago’s strengths are never shown to the audience, only his state after the jealousy has taken hold of him, so the weaknesses are always shown to outweigh the strengths.

Shakespeare shows the audience only what he wants us to see, in order to prove that the answer is that no truth is so simple as fairytale good and evil, complexity of human character defying all possibility of such categorization. This is the message that Shakespeare presents his audience with: that though two men can share so identical a set of qualities and courses of action, one can be seen as a hero, the other as a villain – though both are equally guilty and accountable for their actions. Despite all evidence, people will see what they want to see, and that blindness is the true evil in society.