Clinch 1
Sarah Clinch
ENG 400
Dr. Ethan Lewis
8 May, 2009
Chiastic Fantastic
While he stole his stories from legend, myth and history, the jewels of William
Shakespeare’s work lie in the presentation, rather than the plot. Weaving many literary
devices into the rhythm and poetry of his words, Shakespeare wrote more than just stories
of tragedy, comedy, romance and history: he penned eternally educational plays and
poems worthy of study for over four hundred years, and worthy of four hundred more.
Specifically, Shakespeare utilizes relationships between his characters to drive the action
in many of his plays, fueled by his mastery of literary devices. One of the most sinister
relationships in any of his plays, between the Moor and his ensign in Othello, showcases
the danger inherent in jealousy. Othello and Iago not only mirror each other, and not only
echo each other, but mirror an echo of each other; like two funhouse mirrors facing each
other the distorted opposites reflect and counter-reflect in an ever changing and adapting
struggle over power and prestige. Shakespeare presents these struggles through the
literary device of chiasmus, “a grammatical figure by which the order of words in one of
two parallel clauses is inverted in the other” (“Chiasmus”). Simply put, a chiastic phrase
is one which is “parallel in syntax, but reversed in the order of words” (Lewis), such as
a,b:b,a. Shakespeare’s clever distortion of the chiastic instances in Othello do not
suggest an imperfect mechanism; rather, they help fuel the backwards, inverted
relationship between the Moor, Othello, and his saboteur, Iago. Through an intermingling
Clinch 2
of the chiasmi in both Othello and “Sonnet 64,” in reviewing the relationship between
Othello and Iago, the funhouse reveals its magic tricks, and the foils each destroy the
other in a tragic verbal battle royale.
Othello and Iago chiastically connect in Act III, Scene iii, when Othello
proclaims: “I’ll see before I doubt; when I doubt, prove” (190), and Iago contends: “I
speak not yet of proof. / Look to your wife” (196-7). While clearly neither of these
statements are perfect chiasmi, they create a telling truth about Iago’s motives which can
only be identified through the literary device. When viewing Othello’s statement as a
chiasmus (a,b:b,a), the key words within the phrase arrange into: see, doubt : doubt,
prove. Clearly, in this formula, the words “see” and “prove” tie together. While Othello
may hold doubt in his heart, he recognizes that he must “see” before he can “prove”
anything. Iago’s counterstatement, as formulaically a chiasmus, reads: speak, proof :
look, wife. Iago showcases the relationship between seeing and believing again by tying
“proof” with “look,” which mirrors Othello’s statement through slightly varying diction
(the funhouse mirrors at work); however, he instills doubt in Othello’s heart by, through
the chiasmus, speaking of Othello’s wife. When taking these two distorted chiasmi
together, in terms of the inverted phrases, the statement reads as if the formula were
a,b:b,a : b,a:a,b, or see, doubt : doubt, prove : speak , proof : look, wife. The four ‘a’
words become “see,” “prove,” “proof” and “look,” while the four ‘b’ words become
“doubt,” “doubt,” “speak” and “wife.” When viewing Othello and Iago together as if their
characteristics were intrinsically chiastic, one can see that this long chiasmus pushes
Othello into doubting his wife, Desdemona. Their mirrored phrases suggest the foils they
each create for the other, which seal the characters’ dooms.
Clinch 3
To add fuel to this chiastic fire, Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 64” links with the Moorish
tragedy through the underlying theme of decay, by various instances of chiasmus.
Shakespeare’s sonnet includes the chiastic phrase, “increasing store with loss, and loss
with store” (Shakespeare), on the eighth line. While the statement is a perfect chiasmus,
the logic upon first reading fails to gel as perfectly. It is impossible to increase the
amount of possessions by losing them, just as it is impossible to increase the amount of
loss with possessions. However, by distorting the ideas within the chiasmus slightly, the
literary device finds meaning in the confusion. The statement then contends that the more
you lose, the more you treasure your possessions; however, the more you have, the more
you stand to lose. Shakespeare’s mastery of the funhouse mirror distortion of chiasmi
continues in the last couplet of his sonnet, in which he states: “weep to have that which it
fears to lose” (14). Like in Othello, this chiasmus imperfectly, yet artfully, represents a
truth which relates to the previous chiasmus in his sonnet. Using the formula for a
chiasmus to arrange the key words, the phrase becomes: weep, have : fears, lose. Even
though the more you lose the more precious your possessions are, anticipating or fearing
the loss does not prevent weeping over that loss. Also, having goods or possessions
always includes a fear of losing them, whether through theft, bankruptcy, or other means.
This fear creates appreciation for the goods and possessions one still owns. Somewhat
earlier in the sonnet, when Shakespeare pens: “when I have seen such interchange of
state, / Or state itself confounded to decay” (9-10), he again utilizes an imperfect
chiasmus to suggest his theme of decay and loss. The chiasmus yields the following fruit:
interchange, state : state, decay. By tethering “interchange” with “decay,” Shakespeare
suggests that through friction between two things, whether physical, verbal or by other
Clinch 4
means, the state of things corrodes away into nothing. These truths surface through
Shakespeare’s exploitation of the literary device of chiasmus, and can be directly applied
to his Moorish tragedy.
The two pieces of Shakespearean genius, Othello and “Sonnet 64,” feed each
other and reflect the theme of decay. “Sonnet 64” deals with the “state itself confounded
to decay” (10), while Othello encompasses the disaster one man creates due to his
jealousy over power and influence: the corrosion of human character. Through the
literary device of chiasmus, Shakespeare realizes this decomposition. With both perfect
chiasmi, which use the same words reflected like a mirror’s image, and imperfect
chiasmi, which use different words in a funhouse-mirrored warp to create a unique
meaning, Shakespeare portrays the reflection of the echo of personality between Othello
and Iago. Even their patterns of speech chiasmatically align: Othello speaks much, yet
says little; Iago speaks little, yet says much. Othello’s plethora of words contain truths,
but he takes much longer to reveal his meanings; Iago’s short speeches contain many
truths, but he takes much less time to reveal his meanings. As an intrinsically chiastic
relationship, Othello and Iago both act as foils for each other, and so the tragedy is set up
to ignite.
With the literary device of chiasmus as the flint, the fire between Othello and Iago
sears eternal. A thousand words may befit a picture, but the Greek fire within the words
of Othello burns through the hearts of all who identify with either of the tragic
complements. Othello himself realizes the echo of himself that Iago mirrors: “by heaven
he echoes me” (III.iii. 110), and by Iago’s repeating we can assume he recognizes the
relationship as well. Both Othello and Iago stand to lose much through their tragically
Clinch 5
fated connection, and while Shakespeare suggests that fearing loss leads to treasuring
what one possesses (“64”), Othello and Iago lose sight of appreciating what they own and
instead let greed and jealousy grab hold and manipulate their emotions and objectives.
Shakespeare complements his own work by exemplifying how not to appreciate life in
Othello, directly opposed to the ideas presented in “64.” Shakespeare complements his
work by presenting how not to act; however, he also shadows his own work by creating a
characterized example of his truths. Through interchange of state, decay occurs, as
exemplified by Iago and Othello. The bandying of wits (one form of interchange between
states) involving the tragic complements spurs the tragedy of the play, and the dramatic
action barrels forward unto its inevitable conclusion. However, when viewing the
“interchange of state” (10) as the inverted trade-off of characterization (through the
mirror’s echo), the decay forms from the clash of foils which festers, spreads throughout
and dooms the population of the dark and tragic play. Othello and Iago’s relationship
chiasmatically seals the doom of both men; also, from these reverberating actions and
reactions all who are involved with their power struggle share their fate. Again, as two
funhouse mirrors facing each other, the correlation between the literary device of
chiasmus and the relationship between Othello and Iago infinitely reflect truths about
both Othello and “Sonnet 64,” and both Othello and “Sonnet 64” infinitely reflect truths
about the relationship between the foils and about the chiasmus and its many useful
applications. The ouroboros presented here does not share a tragic end with the Moor and
his ensign; rather than consuming itself, this truth propagates and enlightens eternally.
Constantly regenerating through new discoveries (possible through the imperfect chiasmi
Clinch 6
which blur truth into subjectivity and unlimited figurative interpretation), this cyclical
argument feeds itself, and feeds prying minds tenfold.
Clinch 7
Works Cited
Lewis, Ethan. Class lecture. The Shakespeare Project. University Hall Building,
University of Illinois at Springfield, Springfield, IL. 31 March 2009.
Shakespeare, William. Othello. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1997. 1251-1288.
Shakespeare, William. “Sonnet 64.” The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997. 1854-1855.