Introduction
According to the classic definition given by Aristotle, “Tragedy is, then, an imitation of a noble and complete action, having the proper magnitude; it employs language that has been artistically enhanced by each of the kinds of linguistic adornment, applied separately in the various parts of the play; it is presented in dramatic, not narrative form, it achieved, through pity and fear the catharsis of such incidents”.
Unfortunately, the process of translating the aforementioned quotation into modern languages as well as numerous interpretations given to it by different scholars has gradually blurred out the original meaning behind it, leading to an accumulation of dispute around the implications of particular key terms in the definition. In an attempt to contribute towards the development of modern literature, some critics amend the definition going away from the classical one, breeding more confusion regarding the subject. Nevertheless, the nature of Aristotle’s approach to drawing a definition (his use of the method of diaeresis), explains the longevity of it as, as the definition “clearly isolates a series of important characteristics of tragedy whose presence or absence in any particular work of art can be readily verified”. Thus, Aristotle’s definition allows to us delineate a list of features that must be intrinsic with a play in order for it to be classified as a tragedy. These include: hamartia, hubris, peripeteia, anagnorisis, nemesis, catharsis.
One of the most controversial features is hamatria: whilst the rest of the terms on the list are rather definite in their message, the meaning behind hamartia differs from the expected. Instead of being a form of character, a fatal flaw, it is described as an incident in the plot. Furthermore, there is also a robust connection between hamartia and peripeteia, a change of circumstances that inevitably occurs at the turning point of the tragedy and consequently leads to some sort of destruction, frequently death of one of the key characters. According to Aristotle, there is a cause and consequence type of relationship between the two. Hence, a fatal flaw acts as a trigger for the rapid decay. However, this creates ambiguity as, to an extent, the given connotation of hamartia suggests the that deliberate actions of characters are strenuously limited by external forces, for instance, the concept of fate written within the play’s plot. By this definition it is implied that despite the attempts, it is virtually impossible for an individual to overcome what is predetermined by fate.
This idea is noticeable in many pieces, but it is particularly apparent in the works of one of the most well-known and recognized authors, William Shakespeare. In his works he consistently creates drama through staging fatal endings for the main characters. So, in the famous Romeo and Juliet, both main protagonists face death in the culmination of the play; similarly, in Othello, Othello kills his wife, Desdemona, the leading female character in an state of jealousy and distrust towards her etc. Although Shakespeare does not belong to the Greek literators, all of the aforementioned tragic events occurring in the plays are illustrative of the principles stated by Aristotle. However, there are also a degree of discrepancy: the “fatal flaw” described in by Aristotle is mostly evident in the male characters, for instance, Othello in Othello and Romeo in Romeo in Juliet, yet the ones faced with the consequences of it are Desdemona and Juliet respectively. This allows to suggest that, perhaps, both female characters in the plays were somewhat deprived of freedom of action.
Therefore, a subsequent question arises, stating the research question of this paper: “ To what extent are Desdemona and Juliet responsible for and in control of their actions?”.
In order to answer the main research question, the following sub-question is introduced: “To what extent is fate the key force in advancing the story of Desdemona and Juliet?”. Exploring this theme will allow to evaluate the degree of dependency on the pre-determined factors that are not affected by the internal actions of the characters, hence outline the level of significance of the characters’ deeds and therefore answer the question of their responsibility.
Furthermore, this essay seeks to briefly explore the topic of gender presentation in both works, as due to the peculiarities of the settings, various traditions and beliefs cherished in the past play important role in the character development and may hinder Desdemona and Juliet’s independence. This would place a value on the extent of their control over their actions and allow to answer the second part of the research question.
Desdemona’s direct actions and their consequences. The role of women in Othello
In order to examine the extent to which Desdemona was responsible for her actions, this essay seeks to investigate her attitudes and behaviors towards the characters she interacted the most with — Brabantio, Cassio, and Othello himself. The common debate is, these isolated relationships created the way she was perceived by the public and subsequently led to “the inevitable death of Desdemona”.
The first insight into the character of Desdemona is given by Shakespeare in the opening act of the play, where he reflects on her relationship with Brabantio, her father. This is an important detail that allows to better understand Desdemona’s personality as the role of family in shaping an individual is immense in the Shakespearean society. Whilst many literary critics tend to mitigate the significance of this action claiming Desdemona’s utter naiveness and innocence, the play begins with a treason, which is illustrative of Desdemona’s deceitful nature. As explained by professor Marienstrass, “treachery and infidelity still have such profound symbolic meaning in the sixteenth century: they reveal that man’s obligation towards God may be broken, that it is not necessarily the basis of existence”. Hence, Desdemona’s acceptance of Othello’s pursuit, let alone the fact she married him without acknowledging Brabantio of this is a deed against parental honor, a deplorable in Elizabethan era misconduct. This is especially relevant as Desdemona is Brabantio’s only child, so she is indicative of his parental fulfillment. Brabantio is afflicted by it: “For your sake, jewel, /I am glad at soul I have no other child,/ For thy scape would teach me tyranny.” (I, iii, 193-5) Additionally, this is exacerbated by the fact Brabantio is widowed, hence does not have anyone to part his despair with in order to overcome it, as well as it delineates the extent of Desdemona’s traitorousness — she was his closest person: “Poor Desdemona, I am glad thy father’s dead: / Thy match was mortal to him, and poor grief / Shore his old thread in twain.” (V, ii, 202-5). The accumulation of these facts present Desdemona as a character that lacks loyalty and is able to deceive even the immediate relatives, which is exploited by Iago in order to plant doubts into Othello’s head. Therefore, Desdemona’s betrayal of her father — a deliberate action — ends up contributing to her death, thus delineating her responsibility for her own actions.
Another relationship that played a role in prompting Desdemona’s death was the one with Michael Cassio. Through malicious manipulations carried out by Iago, Cassio was presented to Othello as the one his wife had a secret affair with. However, whilst most of it was indeed the product of Iago’s actions, some aspects that made Othello believe in the possibility of such an affair were to be blamed on Desdemona herself. Unlike with Brabantio, Desdemona shows extreme simplicity in her relationship with Cassio, who actively abuses their friendship. For some reason, Desdemona does not notice Cassio’s intentions to exploit her position of “the Captain of the Captain” and get a promotion in the army. Thus, she blindly accepts Cassio’s request to persuade Othello, which, in fact, would be an interference with state affairs. Conspicuous is also Desdemona’s eagerness to fulfill her mission. She is very insistent in her intent to get Cassio promoted. This is reflected in the scene where she holds a conversation with Othello regarding Cassio’s audience, and persistently repeats her quest seven times: “But shall’t be shortly?”, “Shall’t be tonight, at supper?”, “Tomorrow dinner then?”, “Why, then, tomorrow night, or Tuesday morn, / On Tuesday noon, or night; on Wednesday morn / I prithee name the time, but let it not / Exceed three days.” (III, iii, 56-63) To an extent such demand could be perceived by Othello as an indicator of extreme loyalty to Cassio, especially as opposed to the extreme lack of the latter to her own father, and subsequently raise questions about the nature of it.
It is also important to consider the relationship Desdemona had with Othello. Although it is undeniable that love between the two existed, it can be argued that they were not particularly aware of each other’s characters due to the rather short period of wooing before the marriage took place. At least, Desdemona was not, as despite the continuous hints regarding what Othello had prepared for her, she decides to ignore it. Early in the play Desdemona fails to accept the fact that unlike her, Othello is very much interested in how things appear to the general public, and not only how they really are. The concept of infallibility of reality is so strong in Desdemona’s mind, she continues to ignore the red flags even when she, seemingly, realizes Othello’s suspicions: “And, but my noble / Moor Is true of mind, and made of no such baseness / As jealous creatures are, it were enough / To put him to ill think.” (III, iv, 26-29) Till the end, Desdemona justifies Othello’s actions, cultivating the idea of him being righteous, hence, not explicitly denying her infidelity.
However, to further evaluate the degree of free will Desdemona possessed it is vital to understand the laws of the society described in Othello, and the role of women within it in particular. According to Emile Durkheim, “the regulations that limit a woman’s activity in marriage are greater than those limiting a man’s”. Indeed, wives — and women in general — are presented in Othello as “fallen”, like Emilia, Bianca and, although mostly unintentionally, Desdemona, whilst men are mostly “noble” and “intelligent”. Thus, it is noticeable that males are given more rights, more control over their wives, who in the Elizabethan era were treated as almost belongings, hence the degree of control women had over their own lives plummets greatly.
Juliet’s direct actions and their consequences. The role of women in Romeo and Juliet
Similarly to Othello, Romeo and Juliet follows the same societal guidelines of the time, presenting males as the dominants of the world, taking away the vital opportunity to hold responsibly for their actions from the females. However, it can be stated that in Romeo and Juliet the role of Juliet is somewhat different to the one of Desdemona in Othello: unlike the latter, Juliet was significantly younger, hence throughout the play her female character was less meek and depicted as a rebellious teenage soul. Furthermore, the role of Romeo is not exclusively male like that of Othello’s as he has several feminine features.
Many critics state that it is Romeo who is to blame for the death of the lovers. However, there is certain evidence that demonstrates Juliet’s contribution to her fatal end.
The essential feature of Juliet’s character is her passionateness. Juliet is portrayed as a character eager to take control over her life and be ahead of what is destined for her. This is particularly apparent in her desire to be somewhat in the lead of her relationship with Romeo. For instance, she kisses him when they first meet, which was a daring act back in the day. Moreover, in the famous balcony scene Juliet articulates her love for Romeo with the words “I gave thee mine before thou didst request it.” (2.2.5) Whilst it clearly shows how loving she is, it also reflects on how ardent about being in control of her deeds she is. By saying she had given her heart to Romeo before he even asked she declares the independence of her actions. Thus, it can be judged that by nature, Juliet is willing to be responsible for her deeds.
Furthermore, Juliet also makes a bold statement by refusing to marry Paris. Not only she goes against her father’s will, she does so with spirit, further exacerbating the parental conflict. It is obvious in Romeo and Juliet that Juliet is treated by her father as his property who must be obedient and silent. “An you be mine, I’ll give you to my friend; / And you be not, hang, beg, starve, die in the streets” (3.5.192-193) Therefore the assertion made by Juliet “He shall not make me there a joyful bride!” (3.5.6) is particularly audacious and deepens the misunderstanding between parents and children. To an extent it may be said that this is the key reason for Romeo and Juliet’s suicide — the feud of their parents and their inability to accept love of their heirs. However, this may be counter-argued that Juliet is partially responsible for it as, whilst the rivalry between the Capulet and the Montague is out of her control, she never explicitly informed her parents about her feelings to Romeo.
Instead, Juliet decided to imitate her own death in order to regain the control over her actions. This, unlike every other thing carried out by Juliet, was entirely unaffected by the external factors and was the decision of her own. Although Friar Laurence did suggest the plan, it was Juliet who, knowing the possible consequences, accepted it and embraced it. Moreover, when Juliet found out that Romeo committed suicide thinking Juliet was dead, she decided to also take her own life, which is, inevitably, the fatal fate determined for “the star-crossed lovers”: “O, happy dagger, / This is thy sheath. / There rust, and let me die.” (5.3.174-175)
Depiction of fate, chance and coincidence in Othello and Romeo and Juliet
Despite the previously discussed expressions of free will showed by Desdemona and Juliet affecting their subsequent lives, the theme of fate in both Othello and Romeo and Juliet is undeniable. Shakespeare is widely known for incorporating it, sometimes in rather unexpected forms, into his literary works. According to the critics studying Shakespeare, “Most of the people in Shakespeare’s time believed in astrology, the philosophy that a person’s life was partly determined by the stars and the planets”. And whilst Shakespeare would often give a spin to the classic idea of destiny controlled by the greater powers such as God and stars widely accepted in the Elizabethan era, he would still employ the public excitement related to the topic in order to promote his works to the general audience. Thus, in Shakespeare’s works the theme of fate is frequently presented through an array of coincidences created by characters’ actions, and not so often predetermined by external forces. Nevertheless, the combination of these actions arranged in a specific order forms a so-called chance, which acts as a limiting factor to particular characters not involved in this chain of deliberate deeds as they are not engaged in the process.
Following this logic, for Desdemona, certain events that took place without her intervention but which led to her death, could be classified as fate, or rather coincidence, which was out of her control and hence limited her responsibility for it.
The first example of such coincidence, predetermined fact that was completely out of Desdemona’s control, is the race of Othello. Whilst he comes from a privileged descent, “I fetch my life and being/From men of royal siege” (1.2. 21-22), he is originally from Africa and is black. This becomes one of the key reasons for Brabantio’s objection to Othello’s marriage to Desdemona. Although originally Brabantio did not oppose the “Moor”, as a result of Iago’s persistent persuasion in Othello’s savagery which cultivated Brabantio’s racism, he then became progressively more prejudiced, which established the basis of Brabantio’s disapproval of the union. Had Othello not been black, Brabantio would have not showed such hostility towards his daughter’s alliance, but the imagery of “[his] daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs. (1.1.129-131), absolutely filthy and animalistic in its nature, which Iago provided to Brabantio, convinced the latter that his daughter must have been under some sort of spell. He started arguing her love for Othello was unnatural and “She, in spite of nature,/Of years, of country, credit, every thing,/To fall in Love with what she feared to look on!”. This prompted Brabantio’s attempts to discontinue their marriage, majorly through threatening Othello with Desdemona’s deceitful character. In fact, it was Brabantio who initially planted this idea in his son-in-law’s mind: “Look to her, Moor, if thou hast eyes to see./She has deceived her father, and may thee.” (1.3.333-334).
Arguably, this constructed the grounds for Othello’s future fixation on jealousy and aggressive tendencies, and inevitably led to Desdemona’s death.
Similarly, the role of fate in one’s life is illustrated through the unpredictability of weather. In Othello such makes a great deal of difference: specifically due to the unforeseeable relentless atmospheric conditions the Turkish fleet was rapidly defeated in the storm, which resulted in Othello and his army returning to Venice. “News, lads! our wars are done./The desperate tempest hath so bang’d the Turks,/That their designment halts: a noble ship of Venice/Hath seen a grievous wreck and sufferance/On most part of their fleet”. (2.1.2) Has that not happened, Othello might have had less time to allot to concerns about a possible affair between Cassio and his wife. Instead, he spent countless hours trying to piece together all the limited evidence he had and was played on by Iago, which led to further exacerbation of his doubts. This, indeed, was fate and did not involve Desdemona as the so-called greater powers were intact.
However, some of the coincidences are partial to Desdemona’s actions and are started by them. Whilst her loss of the handkerchief so dear to Othello’s heart was not a deliberate action, “she let it drop by negligence” (3.3.14), it caused an array of events leading to the fatal ending. In fact, Iago himself comments on his unbelievable luck as obtaining a symbolic item was not a part of his plan, but rather a coincidence that formidably advanced his positions in corrupting Desdemona’s image in Othello’s head. This handkerchief was the “ocular proof” Othello was demanding when Iago first attempted to infect his mind with destructive ideas: “Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore,/Be sure of it; give me the ocular proof” (3.3.16).
Whilst it is entirely Desdemona’s fault and hence the responsibility she lost the handkerchief, its subsequent fate is determined by a chance. The fact it is Emilia, Iago’s wife, who found it seems very coincidental as well as that she, albeit her devotion to Desdemona, decides to give it to Iago who was seeking it for so long, and not the true owner of the item, as Iago walks in immediately after she had discovered the lost handkerchief and does not let her second-guess her actions.
“EMILIA
I am glad I have found this napkin:
This was her first remembrance from the Moor:
My wayward husband hath a hundred times
Woo’d me to steal it; but she so loves the token,
For he conjured her she should ever keep it,
That she reserves it evermore about her
To kiss and talk to. I’ll have the work ta’en out,
And give’t Iago: what he will do with it
Heaven knows, not I;
I nothing but to please his fantasy.
Re-enter Iago” (3.3.13-14)
Thus, it can be concluded, that despite being a direct action of Desdemona’s, it was out of her intention.
Lastly, the final piece of evidence that made Othello believe in Desdemona’s infidelity, yet was completely forged is the conversation between Iago and Cassio he overheard. By a complete chance, not once in the conversation Cassio mentions the name of his lover he had allegedly slept with, Bianca. Due to Iago’s manipulations Othello perceives Cassio’s story in such a way as if it was told about Desdemona, making her a “trumpet”: “She was here even now; she haunts me in every place.” (4.1.7) Moreover, completely by chance Bianca herself then enters the scene, bringing the aforementioned handkerchief, hence proving Cassio’s “accusations”. This made it possible for the future events to take place and contributed to the culmination of the play.