SHAKSPER 1999: Re: Othello; Iago

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 03/03/99 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0359  Wednesday 3 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Tue, 02 Mar 1999 12:54:11 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0348 Re: Othello

[2]     From:   Kenneth Requa <PoohBah99@aol.com>
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Mar 1999 07:45:59 EST
        Subj:   Iago


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Tue, 02 Mar 1999 12:54:11 -0800
Subject: 10.0348 Re: Othello
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0348 Re: Othello

Peter Hadorn:

>I would ask him to look again at Othello's own description of their
>falling in love:

Thanks for quoting it.

>I don't take this as meaning that he had to be told to woo.  I take this
>rather, to mean, that Desdemona was, in a round about way, declaring
>that she was already won.  I would suggest that Othello knew exactly the
>effect his words would have.

Sorry, I do take it that he had to be told to woo.  I've told many young
women details of my previous life without expecting, or even hoping for,
a seduction.  There's nothing in the text at all to suggest that he was
wooing all along.  He might just feel that he was an educator, like
Purchas or Hakluyt.  And we can't know the contrary.  Charity, if not
critical modesty, would indicate that we take characters (like people)
at their words as much as possible.

>I would respond: Why not?  Shakespeare used magical/supernatural
>elements very judiciously.  My point about Othello is that he likes to
>woo with his words and is not above lying to do so.  Why not here as
>well.

Of course it's possible.  The burden of evidence is on you, since you're
making the accusation that he's a liar.

Incidentally, I'm not even sure that these examples of wonders would
even qualify of "magical/supernatural elements" to a contemporary
audience.  It might be more like Captain James T. Kirk telling us about
Klingons-perfectly acceptable within the genre of travel narrative, or
science fiction, as the case may be.

>Lawrence: "Why couldn't his father give his mother a handkerchief with
>magical powers?"
>
>Because of the lie he told to Desdemona about the origins of the
>handkerchief.  He told her: "That handkerchief/ Did an Egyptian to my
>mother give.  She was a charmer, and could almost read/ The thoughts of
>people.  She told her, while she kept it/ 'Twould make her amiable, and
>subdue my father/ Entirely to her love. . . ."  It's only later that he
>admits that it was his father, and not an Egyptian, who gave the
>handkerchief to his mother.

This could mean many things.  Maybe his father paid for it, but his
mother commissioned the work.  Maybe his father bought it from the sibyl
for his mother, and Othello earlier neglected to mention the
middle-man.  In any case, I'm sure an "antique token" could quite easily
be invested with extra significance in a series of pre-Christian
ceremonies.

>Referring to my assertion that King Harry V CLAIMS ineptness in wooing
>Katherine, Lawrence responds: "Keep in mind that his ineptness is
>elicited by Katherine.  Every time he gets off on a courtly tangent,
>comparing her to an angel or a goddess, she drags him back forcefully."
>I admit that their exchanges are indeed structured in this way.  But I
>would also point out that towards the latter part of their speech it
>becomes apparent that he is no slouch at understanding and speaking
>French.

Katherine's response "le François que vous parlez, il est melieux que
l'Anglois lequel Je parle" is a response to what the Riverside describes
as a "halting translation," made even more halting by Henry interrupting
himself to pray for saintly aid.  Hardly the work of a polyglot.

>Alice, the "interpreter" at one point tells Henry: "Your
>majeste entend bettre que moi."

Maybe she's lying, or at least flattering him.  While I'm indulging in
paranoia, maybe everyone who claims to speak French is lying.  The
Cambridge editors note that most of the French speeches involve some
sort of grammar error in the early texts, if memory serves me
correctly.  Maybe Henry's being bamboozled into attacking Germany by
mistake.  After all, he's only told that the town is Agincourt, and not
Munster.

>Finally, Lawrence writes: "In other words, Shakespeare's effective
>lovers and leaders may manipulate language, but never very consciously.
>"As you can tell, I disagree completely.  I think they are very
>conscious of their own abilities to manipulate language.  Are we to
>think that King Harry doesn't realize what he is doing when, in speaking
>to his soldiers at the city walls of Harfleur in the "Once more unto the
>breach" speech, he ennobles his men, while in speaking to the Governor
>of Harfleur, he calls his soldiers savages?

This brings us to our central disagreement.  My own interpretation
(which I haven't really looked at since my honours essay) has to do with
military discipline, how Henry lets slip the dogs of war in their attack
on Harfleur, and how he's horrified at the possibilities he's let loose.

The larger issue has to do with whether inconsistency necessarily
implies dishonesty, or ill-will.  To tie this back to another thread,
Hamlet is often referred to as young:  does this mean that Yorik is a
liar?  that everyone calling Hamlet young is cynical?

Yes, the various lovers, leaders, etc., are aware of the power of their
own language.  But most rhetors are better at making a presentation if
they actually believe it.  I was at a workshop recently on giving
conference papers, where one of the professors told everyone that the
best paragraph he ever delivered was one where he had personally
invested in every word.

Cheers,
Seán.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kenneth Requa <PoohBah99@aol.com>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Mar 1999 07:45:59 EST
Subject:        Iago

A question from a student discussing Othello in class:

The other day when my AP Lit class was discussing Othello we were trying
to come to a conclusion as to why Iago is who he is and how he manages
to gull everyone so effectively.  During the course of the discussion I
made a comment referring to Harold Bloom's assertion that Iago must have
been a truly loyal subject at one point in order to earn the trust of
Othello and friends and that he experiences a "fall" at or before the
beginning of the play.  My teacher had apparently never considered that
idea and I wondered what opinions others might have.  Thanks!

Kenneth Requa
Springfield High School
Springfield, IL


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.