Othello: The Moor of Venice is probably Shakespeare’s most controversial play. Throughout this work, there is a clear theme of racism, a racism that has become commonplace in Venetian society which rejects the marriage of Othello and Desdemona as anathema. The text expresses racism throughout the play within the language transaction of the dialogue to question the societal ethos established by Othello, thereby making him nothing less than a cultural “other.” Furthermore, the character of Desdemona is displayed as mad, or out of her wits, for marrying such an “other,” and the audience sees her slip from an angelic state of purity to that of a tainted character. Also, the menacing Iago, a mastermind of deviant rhetoric, is able to play Othello and Desdemona against one another until their marriage fails, while at the same time destroying his adversary and friend, Cassio. Thus Iago has a specific agenda, not only to get back at Othello for choosing Cassio instead of him, but also to make Cassio the victim of his plan to destroy the forbidden marriage referred to by Brabantio as a “treason of the blood” (1.2.166-167). Essentially, Iago is a representative of the white race, a pre-Nazi figure who tries to inform the public of the impurity of Othello and Desdemona’s marriage. He demonstrates how this miscegenation is threatening to the existing social order. Thus, through analysis of racism, the play represents the hatred possessed by mankind — a hate so strong that society sees the mixing with an “other” to be a curse to humanity and a terrible threat to Aryan culture.
The play is structured so that the climax, or rather the main premise of the play, appears near the beginning; almost as if Shakespeare were making an argument, beginning the play with a thesis. It is obvious that Iago has an agenda planned of malevolent proportions. Why else would he address the senator Brabantio with something that was really none of his business? If one believes that miscegenation is a taboo currently manifested within the play then he/she will see how Iago was acting as a representative of society — a synecdoche responsible for pointing out that something has gone wrong — with a hidden purpose or motive that was the locus for his actions. Iago is the antithetical character of Shakespeare’s creation. He is the catalyst of all the destructive happenings within the play starting from the very beginning of the play when he and Roderigo approach the residence of Brabantio, Desdemona’s father, in Act 1 scene 1. He uses racist language to appeal to the senator’s traditional beliefs, including such phrases as “Even now, now, very now, an old black ram / Is tupping your white ewe (1.1.85-86). Iago even goes so far as to hypothesize that Brabantio’s grandchildren will be animals because of his daughter’s base marriage with an “other.”
you’ll have your daughter covered with a Barbary
horse, you’ll have your nephews neigh to you
you’ll have coursers for cousins, and gennets for
germans. (1.1.108-111)
Iago plays out the importance of his role when he further states that he is the one, almost as if he were appointed to such a position, who must inform Brabantio that his daughter and the Moor were “making the beast with two backs” (1.1.112-113). But later we are told that Iago’s motive is jealousy and he uses the rhetoric of racism to undermine Othello. Is this the result of Iago’s ego being shattered by Othello appointing the more virtuous Cassio to be his right hand man?
Historically, Shakespeare was writing in a time when the slave trade was beginning to peak and English Common Law forbid any sexual relations between the purity of the English commonwealth and outsiders or “others” such as blacks. The structure of the commonwealth was geared to increase population through the institution of marriage. Draper writes that the “English Common Law require no ceremony, signature, seals, witnesses, nor even consummation” to fulfill a matrimonial binding between two people (Draper 41). However, in the case of Othello, a cultural “other,” and Desdemona, a senator’s daughter, this legal practice was questioned dramatically. Thus, according to English Common Law, they were in fact actually married. Iago insists to Brabantio that the two were married quickly, and therefore, an annulment may be possible. This idea gives the patriarchal Brabantio a sign of hope that he may still have a chance to nullify the marriage. Although history shows us that there was a disagreement between Canon Law and Common Law, the church did recognize that the legal age when parental consent was no longer necessary was seven, and a legal but clandestine marriage could be recognized at the age of twelve for females (Draper 42). Technically, Brabantio was not allowed legally to nullify his daughter’s “o’er hasty” marriage to the Moor. However, culturally he had all the support necessary to challenge the marriage given common racist assumptions of that time period. Brabantio could have questioned the legality of the marriage based on the Canon Law’s conception of consummation, but he failed to propose such an inquiry (Draper 43). Instead, Brabantio assumes that his daughter was the victim of some sort of savagery whereby she was under the influence of spells and witchcraft.
In I.3, Brabantio accuses Othello of his crime. He is in a state of emotional pain, because 1) his daughter had deceived him with an untimely elopement and 2) because he assumes Othello has enchanted his daughter to do his bidding. Brabantio states histrionically: “Damned as thou art, thou hast enchanted her!” (1.3.63). He sees Othello as a savage, or a devil who has the ability to manifest evil powers, a quality possessed by such “others.” He claims that Othello is a thing that should be “feared, not to delight” who “hast practiced on her [Desdemona] with foul charms, / [and] Abused her delicate youth with drugs or minerals / That weaken motion” (1.3.70,72-74). This dialogue early on in the play establishes the paradigm of the white purity and benevolence suggesting that other races represent darkness and evil savagery. During the Rennaisance the black race had been seen as negative, and the contamination of black blood in the seemingly pure white race was considered a sin. Brabantio appeals to his racist culture and affirms its racist thought when stating: “The Duke himself, / Or any of my brothers of the state, / Cannot but feel this wrong as ’twere their own; / For if such actions may have passage free, / Bondslaves and pagans shall our statesmen be (1.3.94-98).
Karen Newman historically reviews the question of miscegenation. She quotes George Best, an early English traveler who made ethnographic accounts of black cultures mixing with white cultures:
I my selfe have seene an Ethiopian as blacke as a cole brought into England, who taking a faire English woman to wife, begat a sonne in all respects as black as the father was, although England were his native countrey, and an English woman his mother: whereby it seemeth this blacknes proceedeth rather of some natural infection of that man, which was so strong, that neither the nature of the Clime, neither the good complexion of the mother concurring, could any thing alter (quoted in Newman 127).
Best concludes that the product of miscegenous relationships is tainted. In other words, the progeny of such a relationship will forever be black. This must be the reason why Brabantio was so upset when he found out that his daughter had freely married the Moor. At first he could not accept this because the Moor must have tricked her into marrying him, but after hearing Desdemona’s own testimony that she voluntarily married Othello, Brabantio had no choice but to stand aside and watch the tragedy unfold.
We are now able culturally to accept that Othello was, in fact, a “veritable negro.” Newman goes on to explore some of the traditional definitions of the term “black.” She writes that according to the Old English Dictionary the original etymology of the word suggested “deeply stained with dirt, soiled, dirty, foul….(h)aving dark or deadly purposes, malignant; pertaining to or involving death, deadly, baneful, disastrous…” etc., etc. (Newman 126). She illustrates the clear cut opposition between the blackness of Othello and the fair whiteness of Desdemona. This binary opposition is united in matrimony, a concept that Shakespeare was experimenting with to suggest the chaos that would ensue in such a cultural context. Obviously, Iago is the mastermind of destruction in the play who perpetuates the action. But who is really tainted or illustrated to seem as such? Othello defends accusations agaist him as a savage by referring to his reputation as a loyal Venetian general, and Desdemona must defend herself against accusations of promiscuity.
Although Othello is not made out to be the smartest and most cunning character of the play, though possibly the bravest and daring of Shakespeare’s characters, he does exemplify a certain wit uncommon to the European notion of a Moor. He is a man who has won the heart of a senator’s daughter. Helen Gardner discusses Desdemona as a heavenly figure and Othello as a demonic figure; however she undermines the idea that a “theological interpretation is necessary,” stating that “their [the metaphors] very frequency deprives them of any imaginative potency” (Gardner 3).
Gardner spends most of her lecture defending the character of Othello as if he were some kind of hero — a hero who has established an ethos of a long life of good deeds necessary for a Moor merely to exist in a predominately white culture. He has fought as a Venetian soldier and won the trust of his people. But has he really won their trust? Othello had won the love of Desdemona with his stories of battle and he had also convinced Brabantio that he would be a loyal son-in-law by that same token. Gardner purports that although “he is a stranger, a man of alien race, without ties of nature or natural duties(,) (h)is value is not in what the world thinks of him, although the world rates him highly, and does not derive in any way from his station” (Gardner 4). Furthermore, Gardner states that Othello is in fact a self-made man and “the product of a certain kind of life which he has chosen to lead,” whereby he is able to transcend certain preconceived notions of race through his “heroic capacity for passion” (4). Granted, Othello was a courageous man and he is also seen sometimes as a romantic, wooing Desdemona with various stories of chivalry and experience: “She’d come again, and with a greedy ear / Devour up my discourse” (1.3.148-149). He took on the whole socio-political structure and had his way with it for a time until that one man named Iago made it his goal to be the author of Othello’s demise.
The real mystery of this play is not found in the character of Othello. On the contrary, I believe that we must look toward the behaviors of Desdemona in order to witness the cultural taboo in action. Desdemona is portrayed as an angelic girl, one who is chaste and loyal yet naive all at once. Her naivety is illustrated in her dialogue with her husband. She does not know that Othello is the object of Iago’s manipulation, nor does she understand the implications of her speech. In act one, Iago states that “It cannot be long that Desdemona should continue / her love to the Moor” (1.3.338-339). He is certain that there is no way possible in which she may continue to love Othello because he is an “other.” But in act two, again conversing with Roderigo, Iago states that she will find the fault in her choice because she will notice how Othello lacks “loveliness in favor, sympathy in years, manners, and beauties” (2.1.237-238). Everyone seems to believe that Desdemona has little knowledge of the actions she is taking. She is considered sweet and innocent — almost divine. There is little insight into the motives of Desdemona concerning her decision to marry until near the end of the play when she is talking with Emilia. Othello commands Desdemona to get to bed, and she shows fear by saying that it would be wrong to displease him. Emilia responds harshly that she wished Desdemona had never seen him (4.3. 6-17). This seems to be her first sign of fear and unfortunately her last.
Desdemona shows almost a weening from her patriarch in the first act when telling her father that she had freely chosen to take the hand of the Moor in holy matrimony. She speaks courageously:
I am hitherto your daughter. But here’s my husband,
And so much duty as my mother showed
To you, preferring you before her father,
So much I challenge that I may profess
Due to the Moor my lord. (1.3.183-187)
Also, there is a certain amount of irony that can be extrapolated from the text whereby Desdemona is praised so highly by Cassio describing Othello’s winning of her love as achieving “a maid that paragons description and wild fame” (2.1.61-62) and directly referring to her in her presence as “the grace of heaven” (2.1.84). Iago sets Cassio up as the so-called adulturer with Othello’s bride, and Desdemona is indirectly destroyed in her husband’s eyes by the name of Cassio. In other words, Cassio praises Desdemona so highly that she feels a certain responsibility to get Cassio back on Othello’s good side, but when Desdemona praises Cassio in the eye’s of Othello she is looked upon then as a whore.
Given writes that Desdemona is the object of purity but shows how she is willing to sacrifice all of this “to devote herself physically to Othello and invite hybrid offspring” (Given 194). Not only did she supposedly put herself into a position to “invite hybrid offspring,” she unwittingly erred in her choice of husband because of her husband’s malevolent manipulator, Iago, who could not see the purity in Desdemona. In Act 2, Iago states that “If she had been blessed, she would never / have loved the Moor” (2.1252-253). Furthermore, Given explicitly states that “Othello and Desdemona threw themselves deliberately against nature’s barrier of race” (Given 195). She explains that their expectations were both divergent but she cannot conclude whose were in fact more unnatural since they both invited and provoked disaster (195). Given goes on to argue that it was actually Desdemona who did Othello a great wrong. This claim is supported with the concept of celibacy as a destructive factor in a culturally mixed marriage which was doomed from the start. Given believes that Desdemona’s fault is her own and nobody else’s, and that her dismal fate was “invited by her own act [of marriage]” (198). Also, she argues that Desdemona was not so much attracted to Othello for his military achievements as is explained in the text but rather “instinctive appreciation of his noble manhood and irresistible womanly response to it — the response of one so preternaturally sensitive to worth in the opposite sex, and so super-refined that she could sink the physical in the mental, completely ignoring Othello’s blood and color” (199). Basically, she argues that Desdemona did not fall in love with the Moor because of some Romantic idealism. Then was her wanting to marry Othello an instinctive suicide?
Thus far I have explained some of the reasons why Othello and Desdemona might have decided to get married. But who is at fault for the failure of their marriage and their ultimate deaths is another question. Obviously the mastermind of the severing of their marriage was Iago, but who was actually responsible for initiating the problematic action of the play? Richard Flatter seems to believe that it is actually Roderigo who is to blame for the murder of Desdemona and the death of Othello. He claims that “had he [Roderigo] not fallen in love with the senator’s daughter he would never have sought Iago’s help” and “(h)ad he been poor, Iago would never have shown any interest in the fool’s love affair” (Flatter 66). In a way, Shakespeare uses the character of Roderigo as a necessary device to carry out Iago’s plans. Throughout the play Roderigo is manipulated as an important tool by Iago to undo Othello. For example, Roderigo gets into a fight with Cassio, when he indulges in drink with Iago and Montano in Act 2 scene 3. Unfortunately, Roderigo’s address to the inebriated Cassio takes place off stage so the audience is unable to see what exactly transpires. Flatter might say that Roderigo made a remark concerning Desdemona, and it is quite possible that Cassio did not take his statement lightly. Nonetheless, Othello shows up just in time to witness his newly appointed lieutenant fighting foolishly against Montano. Another example when Roderigo is used as a tool by Iago is at the beginning of Act 5. Roderigo is talking with Iago and Cassio shows up and once again the fighting ensues. Only this time Roderigo manages to stab Cassio “maiming” him before he himself is slain but not yet dead. This allows Othello to enter and see Cassio in a weakened state upon which Othello commends Iago for his “honest and just” deed (5.1.31). Afterwards, Roderigo becomes expendable, left for dead and finally killed by Iago (5.1.62).
Two more deaths occur in the play, or rather a murder and a suicide. One of the most controversial scenes in all of Shakespeare takes place in Desdemona’s bedchamber where the Moor’s chaste wife sleeps soundly. Michael Neill points out that “there is something oddly somnambulant about Desdemona’s preparation for her death, as there is about Othello’s conduct of the murder” (Neill 199). The action is slowed down to a somber pace. Othello has reverted to a savage-like state as everyone had suspected. In Othello’s mind he knows he must kill his wife because “she must die, else she’ll betray more men” (5.2.6). Then he states that he will “Put out the light, and then put out the light” (5.2.7). He can only take her life in the dark because deep down he still truly loves his wife. This is obvious because he kisses her before she awakes to catch him in the act and then he kisses her again before he dies on her later. Neill illustrates how this scene represents the nuptial consummation through a seemingly perverse performance (Neill 200).
Desdemona’s death was inevitable or rather expected by everyone who first saw the marriage between the two as forbidden. However, Othello’s death is much more symbolic because it represents the “other” falling while trying to achieve the status of the white man. Othello acknowledges the fact that he is an “other” when he realizes his irreconcilable fault and chooses to take his own life. Thus upon his suicide his last words implicate that those who stand in his presence should speak of him as he truly is, and know that “Like the base Judean, threw a pearl away / Richer than all his tribe” (5.2.343-344). At the end of the play Othello commits suicide in front of the audience, which signifies the conclusion to Shakespeare’s argument that miscegenation is, in fact, a cultural taboo. Globally speaking, outside the constructs of Shakespeare’s fiction, we must ask ourselves if such a taboo still exists today in contemporary society, and if it does, is there a cultural faultline that segregates human beings based on presupposed ideologies of the racial implications of language? James Andreas investigates this question thoroughly supporting the claim that language is essentially a construction of a culture, and the racism found within it is merely a product of past traditions of ignorance. He describes that this cultural anathema grew to be so strong that at the height of slavery in the Western world, “audiences could no longer tolerate nor would directors depict the ‘monstrous’ sexual relationship of black males and white females on stage,” nor did they need the presence of an Iago spitting out racist comments. (Andreas 182). This is a direct result of just how much such racist beliefs were ingrained into the cultural psyche.
Clearly, the binary opposition represented in the relationship between the black Othello and the white Desdemona is an illustration of cultural tension. The failure of these two individuals to mate successfully demonstrates a cultural failure. Racism, the creation of man through the vehicle of language, is the tool used in Othello to destroy the lives of two visually different types of people. Can we as a culture descended from Eurocentric origins justifiably argue against Iago using racism to take vengeance on Othello? Iago simply was able to recognize an effective way to properly deal with his jealousy of Othello by applying a universally accepted cultural racism. Thus Shakespeare presents us with a morality play at the historical height of the colonial slave trade that demonstrates how the rhetoric of racism practiced by a whole culture can suppress the mind into a lifestyle of ignorance — an ignorance that professes miscegenation is taboo.