Shakespeare's "Othello:" Iago...Totally
Corrupted, Utterly Depraved, Entirely
Enslaved and Remorselessly a Rational
Madman
Aside from our Biblical, Confessional, liturgical and historic committments, a
study in rendered on Iago, a keen antagonist in Shakespeare's Othello. Iago
appears to be a decretal reprobate from eternity past. We submit the
following review of Iago, the corrupted, depraved, ontologically
enslaved, epistemologically enslaved, volitionally enshackled and thoroughly
corrupted Iago.
Shakespeare’s Othello: Iago, the Corrupted, Depraved, Enslaved, and
Rational Mad Man
Following the suggestion of the text, two questions are posed
(Kennedy 1014). Thus, the task is to ask and assess two questions. The first
question is: “What motivates Iago to carry out his schemes?” Several
motives will appear in the text as consequences rather than causes of Iago’s
depravity—ontology governing epistemology and praxis. Iago is “essentially”
corrupt, at root and at base (pun intended). These motives will be cited
several times, albeit without full analysis of each motive. The second question
is: “Is Iago a devil incarnate, a madman, or a rational human being?” With
respect to the second question, preliminarily, the metaphysical and theological
question of a “devil incarnate” is immediately dismissed; although
Shakespeare makes a few theological allusions, they are that, allusions,
rather than didactic, dogmatic, or catechetical assertions of belief. The
second question will be treated more largely than the first question, focusing
on Iago as an utterly corrupt madman possessing high intelligence, facile
reasoning skills and wittiness, adept craftiness, and an ability to adroitly shift
to tactical demands. Also, with respect to the second question, the term
“madman” is little addressed in terms of “insanity” or a “diminished
capacity.” While there are a few instances where Iago indicates a moral
sensibility, his conviction and silence in Act 5 strongly indicates an underlying
awareness of right and wrong. Iago is not insane, but fully rational and
corrupt. Asimov handily summarizes Iago, “Since the entire play is a
demonstration of the two-facedness of Iago, it is entirely proper that he [Iago]
swears by Janus” (Asimov 615). As such, as a thoroughly corrupted human,
Iago freely chooses the worst paths in accordance with his own instinctual
depravity; his ontological depravity enslaves him to his own choices and
feelings. Throughout Iago’s displays of madness (again, madness not as
insanity or madness without some underlying and existential moral sense) and
rationality, a basic, corrupted and repeated pattern of opposition emerges as
one scholar notes: “I versus him, them, and everyone else” (RodgersGardener 41). Iago cannot be other than he is, at base. At base (again, pun
intended), Iago takes “pleasure in manipulating lives” with an “intense”
pleasure (Asimov 631). This is the ultimate “ego;” “ego” is the Anglicized form
of the Greek pronoun “εγω;” this is the ultimate, lawless and autonomous “I” of
“Iago,” perhaps an intentional play on a word by Shakespeare. To answer the
two posed questions, the procedure will be to provide a diachronic analysis of
Iago from Acts 1 to 5. Question one will not be widely developed, although
each stated motive could be individually assessed on its own. Question two
will be the larger focus. The diachronic analysis, Act by Act, will afford an
emphasis of accumulated weight—albeit tedious—that will inarguably
demonstrate that Iago is a madman with exceptional rational skills. Iago is
corrupted, enslaved, addicted and depraved, but rational, cool, adroit and
scheming.
A larger context on Iago (beyond Othello: The Moor) is strongly
suggested with weighty questions. Beyond Iago specifically and by way of a
wider context about moral freedom and moral enslavement in decisionmaking, a few indications are offered. Again, this is for a wider context and for
introductory purposes, lest one think that Shakespeare is a solitary voice on
the subject of depravity, moral sense and ability of the mind and will. The
ancients may have pointed to the “fates,” predetermination, and
puppetry. These lengthy discussions—depravity, moral ability, and freedom of
the will—surely broke out in the historic, well known, well documented and
extended imbroglio between Pelagius, a British monk, St. Augustine of Hippo,
Africa, and St. Jerome of Jerusalem and Rome in the late 4th century. There
are “volumes” of primary documents from these three contestants, not to
mention the secondary sources through the centuries. Based on Pelagius and
Augustine, these debates caused one well known scholar, the Rev. Dr. R.C.
Sproul (B.A., Westminster College, M.Div., Pittsburgh Seminary, Th.D., Free
University of Amsterdam, and author of seventy books), to famously say that
all theological discussions, all philosophic systems and all religious
denominations can be reshuffled and re-categorized into three
categories: Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, or Augustinian. Infamously, as the
battles roiled, the Synod of Orange in France, 529 C.E., ruled for Western
Christendom in favor of Augustinianism. Eastern Christendom, or Greek
Orthodoxy and affiliates, never accepted the Synod of Orange. The Italian
scholar, Thomas Aquinas of the 13th century, and the English scholar and
Oxfordian, John Wycliffe of the 14th century, stood in the Augustinian
tradition. The battles about volitional freedom and rational enslavement (to
one’s own nature) broke out with a poignant freshness in the infamous and
widely known battle between Erasmus of Rotterdam, the Dutch Renaissance
humanist and scholar, and the unwieldy but scholarly monk from Wittenberg,
Germany, the Teutonic titan, Martin Luther in 1525. Luther issued his classic
and must-read-for-the-period, The Bondage of the Will, again favoring
Augustinian directions on ontology, anthropology, harmartiology, and ethics
(Luther, throughout). Luther, true to his tavern-style, called Melanchthon’s
arguments a “gold painted cow pie” (actually, Luther used a scatological term
in German). Luther’s view reflected Swiss, German, French, and English
Reformers. It is quite arguable that Augustine, Luther and others reflected a
careful, Pauline theology. English scholars were abreast of the Continental
developments. The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England,
the law of the land during Shakespeare’s day, the Articles to which every
Anglican cleric subscribed, and the Articles which were largely amplified and
defended in the writings of the dominant English Reformers, reads on the
relevant points of depravity and freedom:
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly
talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally
is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from
original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil… (Article IX,
“Of Original Sin, Articles of Religion”).
Or again,
“The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and
prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and
calling upon God…(“Of Free Will,” Articles of Religion, Article X)
The Roman Catholic response was to rebut these English (and other
Protestant) views with the well-crafted Council of Trent (1545-1563),
reasserting free will with some sacramental modifications, but denying the
depth, extent, and deadly effect of native depravity. Subsequently, various
disagreements with Reformation Protestantism arose from within the three
Protestant streams of Anglicanism, Lutheranism and the PresbyterianismReformed axis, e.g. Jacobus Arminius of the Dutch Reformed Church of the
Netherlands, John Wesley of Anglican Methodism and Charles Finney of
Wesleyan-Pentecostalist orientations. It is probably fair to say that in the postEnlightenment, post-Protestant and post-Roman traditions in the West, these
are non-issues. One suspects that an asserted “moral autonomy and ability,”
Kant’s view, is assumed in the post-Kantian West, more assumed than
analyzed. Suffice it to be said that a long, long history informs the debate
through history with deeper questions. Even in our own time, a degree of
biological determinism (evolution) and behaviorism (B.F. Skinner)
survives. Or, one even hears uncritical themes of “victimology” in media
stories, as if “freedom” and “moral power” disappeared or were diminished
due to poverty, bad parenting, inadequate government funding and
more. Aside from this wider context of introduction, yet for the purpose of the
present task of analyzing Iago as a rational villain, at no point does Iago
evince anything else or any other thing than a consistent, repeated, and
unaltered course of depraved thinking, feeling, and conscience. One
wonders, using modern themes, if Iago might claim: “My Momma was mean to
me and my Daddy beat me and was a drunk,” ergo, I lack moral freedom,
volition, rationality and affection?” Who knows, but wider questions are in
play. Whatever Shakespeare believed about volitional freedom, depravity and
moral enslavement and whatever he may have known of the lengthy history of
these vexed questions, Shakespeare’s Iago presents a rational madman (a
vexing oxymoron), incapable, indisposed, disabled, and dead in his moral
capacities and thoughts. Corrupt though he was, yet he was rational, cool and
scheming. Turning from the wider context to the diachronic (and tedious)
analysis with the cumulative weight, Iago’s character is now assessed, Act by
Act.
Whatever one may think or believe about the freedom and power of
the human will in relation to reason and feeling, Iago is an example of
bondage to himself. At no point, does he demonstrate abiding moral sense,
moral conscience that governs, or a moral power of will over himself. Act 1
sets the essential outlines of Iago’s character and motives. A list of motives
can be cited, more as consequences of a foundational, essential and
ontological corruption. The list of motives is hereby developed. He’s an
embezzler, if not a pick-pocketer, of the hapless and duped Roderigo (1.1.13). He is “greedy.” Roderigo, in his own way, also demonstrates a persistent
moral inability; he angles for an adulterous relationship with Desdemona and
is willing to kill Cassio. Iago is “greedy” for Roderigo’s easy money. Iago
“hates” and is “jealous” of Cassio, claiming that Cassio’s promotion above him
proceeds by a “preferment” that “goes by letter and affection” (1.1.37). Iago
takes contemptuous views of his fellow soldiers who, he claims, are selfserving pensioners and time-servers in pursuit of cashiering out for the easier
life; unlike these lackeys, some—as Iago infers about himself—“…These
fellows have some soul…I am not what I am” (1.1.56, 67). Iago is “loveless”
and “contemptuous” of others. In short, while Iago plays the game of external
forms, he is willing to play the “hypocrite,” the two-faced, the Janus-faced liar,
or, to be “not what I am.” Iago is a morally negating “hypocrite” in a
shameless way. His fellow soldiers are self-serving soulless creatures while
he, Iago, has—he thinks—higher ambitions, e.g. Ego, Super-Ego and Super
Id, if we may anachronistically use Freud’s presumptions. It is a serious
contradiction that Iago does not himself sense, that is, to castigate his fellow
soldiers who are self-serving while Iago, himself, asserts and values the
same. After a discussion with Roderigo, playing to Roderigo’s quest for
Desdemona, he stirs Cassio to confront Brabantio about Desdemona’s
marriage to Othello. Iago is “manipulative.” No trick, no turn of phrase and no
concept is too low or too vulgar for Iago as he adroitly uses rational, spiteful
and ill-willed language, said to include bestiality, racism, geo-political tensions,
and the biological prospect of illegitimate offspring from such a union. Iago is a
“liar.” He shamelessly recommends that Roderigo “poison his [Brabantio’s]
delight” and “plague him with flies” (1.1.70, 74). As Roderigo bestirs Brabantio
from sleep and engages him in conversation, Iago speaks from the dark
shadows; this betrays Iago’s self-awareness of right and wrong and his
underlying sense that informs his desire for anonymity and exculpability; from
the shadows, Iago uses inflammatory rhetoric with Brabantio. Here are a few
choice phrases from Iago: Othello is an “old black ram,” “tupping your white
ewe,” “the devil will make a grandsire of you,” “covered with a Barbary horse,
nephews neigh to you,” and the Moor and Desdemona are mating like the
“beast with two backs” (1.1.111, 114, 116-117). Roderigo echoes Iago’s
inflammatory rhetoric and says that Desdemona is in the “gross clasps of the
lascivious Moor” in this “gross revolt” (1.1.120, 139). Iago is an impenitent
“trouble-maker.” Yet, aware of his involvement and need for cover-by-night,
the need to excuse himself from the entanglement and any accountability for
hatred of Cassio and Othello, Iago explains his self-serving departure: “It
seems neither meet nor wholesome to my place…/against the Moor”
(1.1.145). Willing to inflame, hate and accuse, Iago wants no
accountability. Wanting no accountability betrays his underlying moral sense
of right and wrong which aggravates the charge of corruption and underscores
that Iago is a rational tactician rather than a raving madman. His Janus-faces
are further seen as he excuses himself and beats a retreat: “Tho’ I do hate
him as I do hell pains…/Yet for necessity of present life…/I must show out a
flag and sign of love” (1.1.154). The scene is set in the seed plot of Act 1,
Scene 1, and presents a corrupted yet reasoning Iago. The consequential
motives to a native depravity are: greedy, jealous, hateful, loveless,
contemptuous, hypocritical, manipulative and trouble-making. Although he
shows a few limited signs of moral sense and sight, e.g. the need to hide in
the dark and appear otherwise than he is in reality, he still disregards
adherence to moral norms. No changes in Iago’s character appear
throughout the scenes as they unfold. His corrupted motives proceed from his
essential corruption, at base, in the dirt, root, tree, branch and leaves.
In Act 1, Scene 2, the scene shifts to Venice and another street before
Othello’s residence; however, if the scene changes, here as throughout the
play, there are no changes in the rational madman, Iago. Again, “madman,”
by an assumption, does not imply ignorance, lack of moral sight or sense,
mental incompetence, or a lowered IQ. Iago is a “madman” in another
sense: he thinks, feels, chooses, and acts in the face of norms he
understands. As the angered Brabantio and Roderigo approach, Iago offers
more lies when he says to Othello: “I hold it the very stuff of conscience/To do
no contrived murder. I lack iniquity…” (1.2.2). Iago’s claim to have a “the very
stuff of conscience” may be factual, but it is hardened conscience beyond
sensibility and moral governance; as the play unfolds, one will see that he
utterly lacks the “stuff of conscience.” Iago’s claim is false on its face. The
claim to do “no contrived murder” will melt as the plot unfolds and the bodies
pile up. Iago, quite to the contrary, will be guilty of assault and battery with the
intent to kill (a failed attempt with respect to Cassio), two second degree
murders (Emilia and Roderigo), one first degree homicide as an accessory to
the fact (Desdemona), and one felony murder as an accessory to the fact
(Othello). That is four homicides. As for Othello, the fourth homocide, the
issue of first and second degree murder is not at issue; in the commission of
any other felonies, a result has occurred with Othello’s suicide. Ergo,
Othello’s suicide is an indictable offense as a “felony murder,” the equivalent
of a first degree homocide for modern sentencing purposes and for older
rulings in English common law. In other words, there are four felonious
homocides to which and for which Iago is guilty. Iago’s claim to “lack iniquity”
is wickedly ludicrous on its face, especially after watching him in Act 1, Scene
1. Shakespeare is further advancing the idea of Iago’s moral villainy and
moral incompetence. Of course, Iago offers—as a confirmed liar—further
inflammatory words as Brabantio approaches Othello. In a major pivot, Iago
states to Othello that Brabantio has used “scurvy and provocative terms
against your honor…/…with the little godliness I have I did full hard forbear
him…” (1.2.6, 17). Again, more lies are instinctually offered. While Iago has
affirmatively declared “I lack no iniquity,” he now recognizes that he
possesses “little godliness.” This may be the first limited truth claim uttered by
Iago. Further, he plainly lies to Othello that he “did full hard forbear him.” This
is palpably false. Iago further states, despite any stated evidence, that
Brabantio will bring the force of law to bear on Othello: “…what restraint or
grievance the law…” (1.2.14). Act 1, Scene 2, develops Iago’s confirmation in
lies, false self-exculpation, and trouble-making. Piling lie upon lie, Iago is a
clinical sociopath, a corrupted disposition that is un-amenable to correction or
treatment. Iago is corrupt at base, in the dirt, root, tree, trunk, branches and
leaves.
In shifting to Act 1, Scene 3, the scene has shifted to the Venetian
council chambers where disputes are heard. Iago is largely absent throughout
in terms of discussion. But, true to character as noted above and throughout
the paper, he reemerges at the end of Scene 3 with his usual depravities. In
session, the Venetian noblemen discuss the impending Turkish invasion of
Cyprus, but also the Brabantio-Othello-Desdemona relationship. Three
subplots emerge with minor resolutions. First, there is a discussion between
Brabantio and the Venetian noblemen. Second, there is a discussion between
Othello and the Venetian noblemen about the marriage. Third, there is a
responsive and lengthy discussion between Desdemona, Brabantio, and the
Venetian noblemen about the marriage (1.3.1-301). After the tensions to the
subplots are partially resolved in these lengthy discussions, Iago and
Roderigo re-emerge in a telling section apart from the Seignory (1.3.302382). For the present argument, the end of Act 1, Scene 3, the discussion
between Iago and Roderigo is relevant to the thesis that Iago is a rational and
corrupted sociopath, corrupted through all faculties of soul, mind, reason, will,
and feeling.
Extending on the above, Act 1, Scene 3 offers a foundational insight to
Iago, specifically, his own discussion about human nature in general, the role
of will, reason, passions and a power and ability of will and reason. This is an
important hermeneutical key to Iago himself. Iago himself offers it. Iago, in a
consummate act of self-deception and individualistic assertion of autonomous
competence, educates the dim-witted and hapless victim of embezzlement,
Roderigo. Iago states: “…Our wills are gardens…sterile with idleness or
manured with industry…” Laziness and industry of will are the two moral
options of the benighted Iago. This is a limited set of options! Iago further
speaks of planting botanical species in the garden of the human body by
autonomous willing and decision. Iago believes in the ability, competence
and independency of moral choice in the planting; however, Iago utterly fails
to answer why he unfailingly and consistently plants the seeds of his own
corrupt thoughts and choices; as noted above, Iago is greedy, jealous, hateful,
loveless, contemptuous, hypocritical, manipulative and trouble-making. The
deeper question is avoided, namely, why does Iago consistently plant corrupt
seeds? Did Iago autonomously plant these seeds by way of an enabled moral
and “free” choice or, as a “depraved self” corruptly acting upon himself, did he
necessarily choose these seeds because of his own corruption? It is argued
here that “Yes” is the answer to both questions. Yes, Iago freely made these
choices with consistency. But also yes to this question. Yes, Iago is natively
and naturally corrupted which influences his mind, affections and volitions.
Iago’s failed explanation about the human condition raises another charge, to
wit, hubris, conceit and self-deception about himself and humans. Iago never
demonstrates the slightest ability—as desire—to make capable moral choices
or thinking. Essentially, at base, Iago is corrupted and, as a consequence, he
freely chooses according to his nature. The list of motives comes as
consequences to his nature.
To revise and extend on the botanical metaphor offered by Iago in Act
1, Scene 3, this is exactly what Iago has done with Roderigo and Brabantio,
willfully planting seeds of insinuations, distrust and hate. This sowing reaps a
latter harvest of crops—corrupt crops in their minds, corrupted wills and
bodies driven by their own underlying ontology and epistemology. The
continuing moral incompetence and obtuseness of Roderigo may be another
support in view of moral depravity and inability. Roderigo is consistently
blinded until the end of the play; Othello, Emilia, and Desdemona are similarly
duped. Also, throughout the play, players continue to believe that Iago is
“honest,” a narrative-seed that, inferably, Iago has assiduously and carefully
cultivated. One may infer that Iago has been reaping an internal harvest for
quite some time within himself, by himself, and upon himself —greed,
jealousy, hatred, lovelessness, deception, self-exculpation, trouble-making,
and conceit about his moral abilities and self-blindness. Little does he know
that he himself is in bondage to those same fruits while claiming self-control or
a power to choose otherwise.
If one introduces the issue of reason as over against or alongside the
matter of human will, the following develops. Following Iago’s own
hermeneutic, Iago’s will and body are “manured with industry,” a powerful
statement by Shakespeare implying “excrement” in Iago’s body, mind and
soul. One may think of horse, pig, dog and other sources of excrement. In
our clinical times, these matters are confined to sterile bathrooms. However,
in the streets of England and in a more agricultural society, these matters
appeared in barns, streets and byways. Whether then or now, it remains a
powerful statement. It is a powerful phrase by Shakespeare put in a verbal
rather than noun form, “manured.” With respect to himself and his own reason,
Iago, full of himself and full of industrious “excrement” (from beginning to end),
asserts that the “scale of reason” serves as a “counterpoise” to the
passions. Rhetorically put, but containing an indicative assertion, “Where and
at what point does Iago demonstrate this counterpoise of reason governing his
underlying motives, or passions of hate, jealousy and more?” This is almost
an Aristotelian touch of sorts by Shakespeare with Aristotle’s classic quest
and emphasis on reason as the moderator of difficult passions. It was
Aristotle’s argument and quest for “harmony” of all parts, reason governing the
unruly passions. Iago notes that without reason, one would be conducted “to
preposterous conclusions” (1.3.323). Quite precisely but very ironically, the
“preposterous conclusions” based on reason will arise in Iago’s own corrupted
garden of corrupted reasoning and thinking. Iago’s reason will indeed lead to
“preposterous conclusions.” Iago adds, “…we have reason to cool our raging
motions” (1.3.324). This is a telling section on Iago’s view of himself and
others, suggesting power and ability of will, reason, and controlled
passions. As a rational but corrupted man, Iago is “supremely aware that he
wants to destroy all that does not feed his ego” and this governs all that he
says and does (Rogers-Gardener, 50). Iago thinks himself autonomous when,
in fact, he is in bondage to his own being. The corrupted root, tree and trunk
nourish the corrupted branches and leaves.
To extend and emphasize the above, how does Iago reflect on mind,
will and body as Act 1, Scene 3, concludes? The emphasis shifts back to
empirical passions of hate, greed, revenge, and slander, again without an
ounce of compunction, expression of moral ability, or moral sight and
sense. In another greedy shakedown-move on Roderigo, Iago repetitively
exhorts the dim-witted Roderigo to “fill thy purse,” or, put another way, fill
“Iago’s purse.” In another instance of slander, of course without evidence or
reason, he assures Roderigo that Desdemona “must change for youth when
she is sated with his body…/…she will find the error of her choice…” (1.3.335336). The marriage, Iago assures Roderigo, is sure to dissolve since it
involves an “erring barbarian and a supersubtle Venetian” (1.3.340). The twofaced Iago further exclaims murderously, “I hate the Moor” (as does Roderigo)
and exhorts both to be “conjunctive in our revenge” on Cassio (1.3.347). With
respect to Othello, Iago encourages Roderigo, “If thou canst cuckold him, thou
dost thyself a pleasure, me a sport” (1.3.346-347). The intellectual and moral
dimwit, Roderigo, ignobly exits. In a staccato-like-aside at the end of Act 1,
Scene 3, Iago offers more corrupted expositions on corrupted faculties of
reason and soul: (1) that Othello faultily thinks that men are “honest”
(1.3.377), (2) that “For my sport and profit, I hate the Moor” (1.3.363), (3) that
Othello and Emilia have disported themselves together, thus cuckolding him,
Iago, to wit, “…betwixt the sheets/He hath done my office…” (1.3.364-365)
and (4) that he will “abuse Othello’s ear that he [Cassio] is too familiar with his
[Othello’s] wife” (1.3.371-372). Whatever Iago thinks his intellectual and moral
freedoms to be, he—empirically—has no powers of moral sense, yet shows
that he is rational and willing. Iago shows hate, greed, revenge and slander in
his “freely chosen” agenda, influenced by his “cool reason,” as cultivated by
own willful garden “manured by industry” (tongue firmly in cheek). As one
analyst summarizes it: “The Othellos and Iagos and Macbeths in Shakespeare
are humanity gone mad…” (Rodgers-Gardener, 69). Rational madness, at
base and in the roots, begets more madness in the branches.
Act 1 established the preliminary villainies of Iago in mind, will and
affection. A lengthy set of motives has been listed in response to the first of
two questions. The first question pertained to Iago’s motives and those have
been indicated. The second question pertains to Iago as a devil incarnate or
rational madman. Act 1 is a foreshadowing of later villainies with enlargement
on both questions. Act 2 amplifies and illustrates Iago’s innate corruption as
his total corruption gains clarity as a scheming, rational, but morally insensate
sociopath.
Act 2, Scene 1 opens at a seaport and quay wall in Cyprus (2.1.1100). Act 2, Scene 2, may be quickly dispatched; Scene 2 is an official and
public summons in a Cyprus street. The trumpeted summons calls to repasts
of drink, food, and a celebration of a nuptial and military victory over the
Turks. Act 2, Scene 3, involves a shift to the banquet inside the Cyprus
citadel, a setting-shift from the public (Scene 1 and 2) to a more confined
context where most of the play will center (Scene 3). Throughout Act 2, the
moral degradation of Iago’s mind and character is expanded. Again, there is
not one instance of moral insight or sense on Iago’s part, a slave of
himself. Iago is one of “Shakespeare’s rootless, commercial men, without
loyalty to anyone, but himself…Machiavellian types, turning whatever practical
trick to advance themselves” (Rogers-Gardener, 54). Rather than rootless
and quite to the contrary, Shakespeare may be arguing that tricksters have
deeply corrupted “moral roots,” themselves.
Act 2, Scene 1, gives further displays of Iago’s depraved character.
One sees Iago’s ill-will, spite, rational madness, and corruptions further
explored. Diachronically, the list emerges. First, Cassio’s gives a courteous,
regal, polite and courtly kiss to the hand of Desdemona, a non-sexual event
that Iago seeks to sexualize. Iago’s intends to exploit Cassio’s kiss as a token
of many intimacies between Cassio and Desdemona. Second, Iago’s engages
in impertinent, bawdy, banal, sexual and loose banter with Desdemona,
therein revealing Iago’s misogyny and general views of women as sexually
dissolute (Iago’s projections or perhaps his own adulteries). Third, Iago’s
slanders Desdemona to Roderigo, promising Roderigo a future adultery with
Desdemona. Fourth, Iago further backstabs and slanders Cassio to Roderigo,
highlighting a troublesome love-triangle needing resolution and further
enflaming the frustrated Roderigo. Fifth, Iago makes himself an accessory to
the fact of a felonious assault and battery by soliciting Roderigo to fight
Cassio. Sixth, in extension of five, Iago promises to get Cassio drunk and
predisposed to fighting so Roderigo may take Cassio by the sword. Seventh,
Iago gives an expansive soliloquy where he repeats the suspicion that Othello
has “cuckolded” him with Emilia, that he will entice the Moor to an incurable
jealousy by an alienation of affection from Desdemona, that he will further
“abuse him [Cassio] to the Moor”, and that he will make Othello “egregiously
an ass/…even to madness…” (2.1.279, 282, 284). The list of motives and
villainies proceeds by a continuing collection of them. Act 2, Scene 1, brings
the exposition along about Iago’s depravities of mind, feeling and will—an
inexorable bondage to himself.
The ingredients of Iago’s corrupt character were established in Act 1
and they continue in Act 2. Everyone will be made asses as the plot
unfolds. Beyond being made asses (of all associated with Iago), the story will
develop far beyond that. Many will be killed and assaulted as
consequences. In a line evincing his own depravity with a brief dose of selfunderstanding and a rare moment of self-insight of right and wrong, Iago
confesses, “Knaveries plain fact is never seen till used” (2.1.286). Knowing
what knavery means, a dissolute condition, Iago proceeds indifferently and
coldly.
Act 2, Scene 1, shifts to the quick and brief Scene 2. Scene 2 is a call
to a banquet, and shifts quickly to Scene 3, inside the Cyprus
citadel. Hereafter, the focus will be on the domestic and courtly setting rather
than Venice, Venetian streets, oceanic travels, and the streets of Cyprus. For
an inexperienced reader, one wonders, by this point, if the diabolic schemer
can keep all his own schemes. Iago may be a considerable tactician, moment
by moment, but, as a strategist, long term, he utterly fails by the play’s end. At
this point, Iago is pulling many corrupted strings, but can he, Iago, keep up
with it all? But, ever blindly confident and supremely sure in his own wit and
autonomous stratagems, one observer summarizes Iago this way: “The
positively inflated ego is swollen with megalomania” (Rogers-Gardener, 48).
Swollen with his own blind conceits, Iago is irremediable, incorrigible, and
corrupt. To make it worse, Iago could care less.
Act 2, Scene 2, is quickly noted and by-passed; it is a public summons
to a nuptial and military banquet full of sport, drink, dance, and feasting. The
scene shifts quickly to Act 2, Scene 3, where further evidences of Iago’s
irrational rationality, ill-willed willingness, and moderated immoderations more
fully express his consummate darkness as a villain.
As noted, Act 2, Scene 2 shifts from the streets of Cyprus to the
Cyprus citadel in Act 2, Scene 3, a change in setting but not a shift in Iago’s
unreformed character. Iago’s corruptions and depravity are not indexed to
geography. Iago’s corruptions are not indexed to time or
circumstances. Iago’s corruptions are not even indexed or influenced by his
own periodic self-insights to himself. This is a factual summary from 2.3
supporting these contentions. First, Iago actively gets Cassio drunk and
predisposes him to felonious recklessness before Roderigo’s designs at
assault and battery. Second, extending on the first, Iago sings two military
and national songs of revelry, actively bestirring and inducing Cassio to
drunkenness and drawing him into Roderigo’s dangerous orbit. The sober,
but ever-scheming and ever-impenitent Iago sings “O sweet England…/Some
wine, ho!” (2.3.71, 80). Cassio gets drunk and never understands the IagoRoderigo-conspiracy. The arranged fight between Cassio and Roderigo
occurs quickly, but Othello opportunely arrives and, as a Commander, quells
the disturbance. Othello interrogates the principals and relieves Cassio, as
the second in command, for cause as an “example” (2.3.225). Third, after all
leave, Iago, the Janus-faced liar and ever-shifting tactician, engages in a
duplicitous dialogue with Cassio, counseling Cassio to seek redress directly
through Desdemona to Othello. The duplicity implicates Desdemona in later
charges of adulteries with Cassio and furthers Iago’s design to remove
Cassio. Fourth, in an executive summary, after all are off stage and Cassio
has left, Iago offers a soliloquy stating and summarizing his developing tactics:
(1) “Th’ inclining Desdemona to subdue” (2.3.290), (2) to play on Othello
“…with his weak function” (2.3.299), and (3) to further destroy Cassio beyond
the drunkenness and assault by Roderigo, e.g. “Directly to his good? Divinity
of hell!” (2.3.301). Iago, again evincing another brief moment of self-insight
along with a corrupted indifference, admits he is a diabolical character with
utter shamelessness:
When devils will the blackest sins put on/
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows/
As I do now… (2.3.303-305)
This is about as close as one comes to Iago revealing a self-awareness of his
own depravity and diabolic machinations. Depraved in mind, will and feelings,
Iago evinces not the slightest ounce of freedom, the slightest ability or power
of moral sense or sight.
Amplifying and extending on the above, the ever crafty Iago has two
more objectives—do they ever end? First, Iago will need to involve Emilia in
the plot, to wit, that Emilia might advocate with Desdemona to pursue Cassio’s
redress to Othello, thus securing his earlier agenda for Roderigo, Cassio,
Desdemona and Othello. Second, Iago states a strengthened resolve to
further the breach between Othello and Desdemona. The abusive stratagems
are:
My wife must move for Cassio to her mistress; /
I’ll set her on; /
Myself to draw the Moor apart/
And bring him jump when he may Cassio find/
Soliciting his wife. Ay, that’s the way. /
Dull not device by coldness and delay. (2.3.332-337)
Act 2 advances the theme of corruption, with Iago ever weaving astute facts
with shifting tactics and more fictions. Wherein Iago once swore, “By Janus, I
think no” (1.2.32), a double-faced two-timer, liar and backstabber, one is ever
faced with his relentless duplicity and villainy in every scene.
A cumulative weight of evidence is evident by the end of Act 2. While
some have argued that Iago possesses a “motiveless malignity,” another
analyst reminds the reader otherwise. That is, Iago is driven by his many
corrupted motives (Asimov 621). In Acts 1 and 2, with respect to Iago, there is
a “fierce delight in pulling strings, in the feeling of power that comes of making
others into marionettes whom one can manipulate at will” (Asimov 621). But,
can Iago totally master the chaotic subplots that he, arrogantly, thinks he can
master and effect? Or, will the wicked one fall by his own devices? These are
the kind of questions in Acts 1 and 2 that allow the plot to thicken in Acts 3-5.
But, even as the character ingredients are largely established in Act 1 and
further strengthened in Act 2, one scholar wisely reminds the reader that Iago
“is in control of a lot less than he thinks” (Rogers-Gardener, 55). Acts 3 and 4
will further extend the delineations of Iago’s depraved rationality until—with
effects following earlier causes—a depravity will bear the fruits of assaults and
homocides.
Act 3 consists of four scenes. Act 3, Scenes 1 and 2 are short and
offer differing contexts of minimal interest to the present theme of Iago’s
manifold depravities of mind, ill-will, non-conscience, and sociopathic nonfeeling. Scene 1 involves Cassio’s continued importunity of Desdemona to
intercede on his behalf which Desdemona continues to promise. This serves
to underscore the ignorance of all players about Iago’s developing
tactics. Amazingly and ironically, everyone still thinks Iago is honest. Othello
begins his degradation. Scene 2 involves a brief on state affairs with Othello
directing Iago to ensure letters are given to the courier en route to
Venice. The showdown continues through scenes 3 and 4 with more seeds of
jealousy sown, an alleged dream of Cassio’s, the initiation of handkerchiefgate, Othello’s deepening degradation, and Othello’s order to Iago to have
Cassio killed. Act 3, Scenes 3 and 4—more germane to the thesis—shows the
developing tension of Othello’s moral and intellectual degradation fueled by, to
use one analyst’s two terms for Iago, this “moral pyromaniac” and “war
everlasting” (Bloom, 75). Bloom has it right.
Act 3, Scene 3, shows additional consequences arising from this moral
and felonious arsonist. It opens with a discussion between Desdemona,
Cassio and Emilia. Desdemona desires to plead for Cassio. Emilia ignorantly
wonders about her husband’s inexplicable interest in the issue. Yet, all three
are all in the dark. Othello and Iago approach the three, but Cassio hastily
departs fearing Othello. As they approach, Othello inquires about the
departing conversant. Of course, never missing a beat as they approach,
Iago depravedly pours more gas on the fire, “…No, sure, I cannot think it/That
he would steal away so guiltylike [sic]” (3.3.39-40). This has been Iago’s
boldest imputation about Cassio to date, “so guiltylike.” Desdemona illadvisedly importunes Othello for reconciliation with Cassio. Shakespeare
gives intensity to Desdemona’s importunity to reconcile with
Cassio. Apparently on a Sunday night, she asks that Othello might meet
Cassio “tomorrow night, or Tuesday morn/On Tuesday morn, or night, on
Wednesday morn…” (3.3.66-67). Othello dismisses the pleading while his
unexpressed and internal jealousy burns brighter. The two ladies depart,
clearing the stage for an extended discussion between Iago and Othello
(3.3.98-293). The seed of jealousy has already been planted, further
ensnaring Othello’s mind, will and feelings. Othello earnestly plies Iago for his
thoughts. Iago insinuates more, “O beware, my lord, of jealousy/It is like the
green-eyed monster which doth mock/The meat it feeds on. The cuckold lives
in bliss” (3.3.178-180). Othello is falling, demanding proof and, if obtained,
“Away at once with love or jealousy” (3.3.206). Iago turns up the heat with the
light of fire, “Look to your wife; observe her well with Cassio/…Look to‘t/…Is
not to leave’t undone, but keep’t unknown” (3.3.211, 214, 218). More fully
ensnared, Othello commissions Iago to spy-mastership and asks Iago to use
Emilia as a spy, “”If more thou dost perceive, let me know more/Set on thy
wife to observe…” (3.3.255-256). Careful to remain out of view himself, again
evincing some underlying and momentary shaft of light breaking through to
himself, Iago counsels Othello to patience and observation, “Note if your lady
strain his entertainment/With any strong or vehement opportunity/Much will be
seen in that…” (3.3.266-268). Iago departs. Desdemona enters with Othello
complaining of a headache. Othello claims “I have a pain upon my forehead
here,” pointing to his head where cuckolding horns might appear? (3.3.300).
Desdemona offers the charmed marital gift, the handkerchief. Handkerchiefgate is underway. Othello refuses it as an inadequate remedy. He drops the
handkerchief to the ground, unbeknownst to Desdemona and Othello. They
exit. In a brief interlude, Emilia finds the handkerchief and turns it over to
Iago. Emilia says that Desdemona “…let it drop by negligence”
(3.3.328). The ill-starred but determined tactician of adept, adroit, and
depraved thinking, willing and feeling, offers this statement of intent: “I have
use for it…/I will leave it in Cassio’s lodging lose this napkin/And let him
[Othello] find it…/Are to the jealous confirmation strong/As proofs of Holy Writ.
This may do something” (3.3.336-340). Whatever metaphor might be chosen,
poisons, pyromania, or the earlier “gardening” metaphor used by Iago to
describe the human will, power, mind, and reason, the results are the
same: degradations underway, further clarified and with consequences to
come. Iago advises of these developments, “The Moor already changes with
my poisons/Dangerous conceits are in their nature poisons” (3.3.340341). Othello’s suspicion and mental/moral deterioration is tethered to Iago’s
corruptions and is growing: “Farewell, the tranquil mind! /…O Farewell! /
Othello’s occupation is gone…/…Give me the ocular proof” (3.3.364, 366,
374, 376). More pyrotechnical consequences as a result of Iago’s lighting of
matches in a barn full of combustible straw and wood!
Act 3, Scene 3, further documents two more stratagems on Iago’s part:
the use of a contrived dream by Cassio and by playing the handkerchiefcard. The first is a real winner. The second is a ballgame with extra innings.
Iago tells the distressed and gullible Othello about this fictitious dream. Iago
claims that Cassio one night cried in a dream: “In sleep I heard him say,
`Sweet Desdemona/Let us be wary, let us hide our love’” (3.3.434-435). Iago
pours more gas on the fire, claiming that Cassio cast his leg over Iago, saying,
“Cry `O sweet creature!’ And then kiss me hard” (3.3.437). Iago notes that
“this may help to thicken other proofs” (3.3.445). While working the dreamattack, Iago puts the handkerchief-angle into play: “Have you not sometimes
seen a handkerchief/Spotted with strawberries in your wife’s hand…/It speaks
against her with other proofs” (3.3.449-450, 456). Iago is enraged, “Blood,
blood, blood!” (3.3.467). Once again, to escape accountability and yet
advance his game, Iago counsels caution. However, a new consequence
emerges when Othello orders Cassio’s death: “Within these three days let me
hear thee say/That Cassio’s not alive” (3.3.488-489). At this point, Iago is
complicit as an accessory to the fact of a conspiracy to commit felonious
murder with the intent to kill. Iago, true to his enslaved mind and sociopathic
sense, does nothing to stop the misinformation, premeditation, malice
aforethought or moral malignity. Othello rewards Iago, “…To furnish me with
some swift means of death/For the fair devil. Now art thou art my lieutenant”
(3.3.494-495). Act 3, Scene 3, ends with heightened tensions that are not
being relieved but are being aggravated. The tensions are escalating;
Othello’s degradation is spiraling downwards. Iago’s escalating and
uncorrected depravities and the potential for an unjustified homocide come to
view. Iago’s depravity is pulling all parties into the orbit of his depraved
ontology, epistemology, and praxis. Iago’s initial depravities, as root, tree
trunk, and branches are yielding leaves and fruits of more depravity.
As the plot thickens and tensions approach a zenith in Act 3, Scene 3,
the next scene, Scene 4, resolves nothing. If anything might be said about
Scene 4, there is a coming, going, and set of interlocutions that are quick and
rapid—almost as if Shakespeare is using kinesis or motion of place and ideas
to match the crafted shenanigans of Scene 3. Scene 4 is full of disconcerting
energy and disorienting rapidity. The speed of it all is there. Desdemona,
Emilia and a Clown chat. Still, Desdemona seeks, still being ignorant of the
back story, Cassio’s place of sleeping. She is also looking for the lost
handkerchief. Othello enters. A strained discussion with Desdemona
ensures. He wants to see the lost handkerchief, but Desdemona begs off and
complains that Othello’s speech is “…startling and rash” (3.4.75). Again,
ignorantly, she says to Othello: “I pray, talk to me of Cassio” (3.4.88). Of
course, that is exactly the wrong subject for discussion. Othello exits and
Desdemona and Emilia discuss Othello’s jealousy, “Is not this man jealous?”
(3.4.95). Iago, in his first appearance in Scene 4, and Cassio enter. Cassio
further implores Desdemona for rehabilitation and reconciliation with Othello.
Desdemona begs off, “My advocation is not now in time” (3.4.119). Of course,
Iago sees Cassio’s importunity as advancing his game to widen the CassioOthello breach all the while with a standing order to kill Cassio. Again, with
more kinetic changing of characters, Iago departs with Emilia and Desdemona
resuming the discussion about jealousy. Emilia says: “But jealous souls will
be answered so/They are not ever jealous for the cause/But jealous for they’re
jealous. It is the monster/Begot upon itself, born on itself (3.4.153-157).
Desdemona begins to get the sense of things, including Othello’s degradation,
exclaiming, “Heaven keep that monster from Othello’s mind”
(3.4.158). Desdemona and Emilia depart—more kinesis. Bianca enters and
chats with Cassio about coming to see Cassio. Cassio gives the handkerchief
to Bianca and a hankie-discussion ensues, including a new angle, Bianca’s
jealousy of the origin of the hankie. Cassio states that “I found it in my
chamber” (3.4.183). All exit. One needs a play-card of who comes and goes
in these energetic and changing scenes, all of which underscore the plots,
subplots, and tensions that emerged in Act 3, Scene 3. One feels like one is
playing an “Action Video Game” with all the kinesis of Scene 4. Iago has
successfully sown the seeds of jealousy and has posited an alleged dream of
Cassio to enrage Othello. Iago has successfully put Handkerchief-gate in
play. Othello’s degradation deepens. Othello orders Iago to murder Cassio.
Iago is promoted. Nothing is resolved, but the tensions intensify as Act 4
unfolds at the hand of this “moral pyromaniac” and “war everlasting.” To bring
this back to the theme, Iago is depraved in all faculties of mind, reason and
soul without the slightest of empirical evidences to the contrary. He is corrupt,
root, tree, branch and leaves.
To update the thesis, one analyst offers these comments on Iago’s
moral competencies. He says,
“A.D. Nutall wonderfully remarks of Iago that he `chooses’ which emotions he
will experience. He is not just motivated, like other people. Instead, he
decides to be motivated” (Bloom, 72).
This is a gratuitous assumption and a philosophic presumption on Nutall’s
part, regrettably posted with Bloom’s endorsement. Iago “freely chooses”
according to an ontology this is preceedingly corrupted, impenitent and
shameless. His choices show him to be a perfect slave to himself, “choosing
what he loves,” “choosing what he values,” “preferring the predilections of his
affections” and never knowing or seeing otherwise. The cumulative evidence
shows thus far, deliriously and tediously so, that this madman destroys himself
and others, without compunction or remorse. Iago’s corrupt ontology governs
Iago’s epistemology and praxis, as well as the other parties in the play.
Acts 1-3 have provided for the disasters of Act 4 and the homocides of
Act 5. The tensions are not abated in Act 4. Iago’s plots move beyond
allegations of Desdemona’s infidelity to greater depravities to Iago’s
conspiracy to commit murders. First, he counsels Roderigo to kill Cassio and
promises to assist Roderigo. Second, Iago rebuts Othello’s exploding desire
for poisoning, hanging, and quartering of Desdemona. Rather than these
methods of murder, Iago favors and counsels Othello to murder Desdemona
by manual strangulation. Act 4 gets ugly fast. It opens and ends with one
constant, one stable and repeated character—Iago’s depravity.
Act 4, Scene 1, like the earlier acts, presents Iago’s corruption untethered and not indexed to time, place, other characters, or the occasional
self-insight to himself. Iago is persistently corrupt. 4.1 opens with Iago making
more sexual insinuations to Othello about Desdemona. Scene1 ends with
Iago as an accessory to the fact of murder in the first degree, replete with
counsel, premeditation, malice aforethought, and the intent to kill. Iago
explicitly provokes Othello by suggesting that Desdemona and Cassio have
lain naked in bed without sexual intent: “Or to be naked with her friend in
bed/An hour of more not meaning any harm?” (4.1.4-5). As if Desdemona and
Cassio were lying naked in bed innocently, discussing—as it were—
differential calculus, ecclesiastical history, canon law, principles of
engineering, Aristotle’s ethics, or Plato’s dialogues (tongue in cheek)? Just
lying there, two friends, buck naked, without sexual intent? The suggestion
abounds with Iago’s presumptive boldness and Othello’s incredible
naiveté. Othello falls into an epileptic trance only to arise and hear—once
again—Iago’s additional, aggravated, shameless, and impenitent comments
that millions of men are cuckolds, “There’s many a beast then in the populous
city/And many a civil monster/…There’s millions now alive/That nightly lie in
those unproper beds” (4.1.61-62, 66-67). “Millions” is quite a word by
Iago. By extrapolation, if one assumes three to four million for England’s total
population and if one assumes 500,000 for London’s population during
Elizabeth’s time, Iago’s exaggeration suggests that an entire nation—man for
man, east to west, and south to north—is cuckolded. Iago’s brazenness of
assertion is unlimited. Iago continues by further impugning the demoted
Cassio, advising Othello to watch Cassio closely as he, Iago, will pull the fuller
confession from Cassio. Iago counsels Othello saying: “And mark the fleers,
the jibes and notable scorns/That dwell in every region of his face/For I will
make him to tell the tale anew/Where, how, how oft, how long ago, and
when/He hath and is again to cope your wife (4.1.82-87). Othello stands
downstage while Iago and Cassio discuss Bianca. Othello mishears the
preliminary discussion; he mistakenly thinks Cassio is talking about
Desdemona and their sexual liaisons. Cassio describes Bianca and their
sexual rollicking, saying, “…I think, I’ faith, she loves me/Ha, ha, ha! /I marry
her? What? A customer?.../This is the monkey’s own giving out…/She was
here even now; she haunts me in every place…/…she falls me thus about my
neck--/ So hangs and lolls and weeps on me, so shakes and pulls me”
(4.1.112, 117, 120, 127, 130, 132, 134). The sexuality of the words is
explosive. The comic words by Cassio, “Ha, ha, ha!,” haunts the tragic air and
further exacerbates Othello. Othello errantly believes this is about Cassio and
Desdemona. To Othello’s mind, Cassio has confessed to adultery thanks to
Iago’s leadership. His rage increases. Bianca enters, again with Othello
downstage and listening, and a discussion ensues between Cassio and
Bianca about the handkerchief. Bianca exclaims that it was a “minx’s token”
(4.1.144). A minx is a wanton and dissolute woman. After others exit, the
entire scene closes with Iago and Othello discussing the gruesome methods
for murdering Desdemona. Hanging? Othello says, “Hang her!” (4.1.173).
Quartering or dismemberment? “I will chop her into messes. Cuckold me?”
(4.1.182). Poison? “Get me some poison, Iago, this night!” (4.1.186). Iago
advises against these homicidal methods arguing for manual strangulation,
“Do not do it with poison. Strangle her in her bed, even the bed she hath
contaminated” (4.1.188-189). Act 4, Scene 1, opened with Iago’s explicit
sexual insinuations to Othello about Desdemona; it ends with plans to commit
murder in the first degree with malice aforethought, ill will, premeditation and
the specific formation of the intent to kill. Thus far, is there one scene where
Iago demonstrates any ability or any power of mind or will to do good? Does
he empirically demonstrate any powers to choose aright? While perhaps not
a devil incarnate, he is a rational madman who never retreats, never objects,
never interposes and never ceases his machinations. Existentially and
ontologically, Iago is corrupted to the core. The fruit of his existential ontology
is his corrupted existential epistemology. The further consequence of his
corrupted ontology and epistemology is his corrupted praxis and ethics.
Act 4, Scene 2 extends the issues further in support of the
thesis. Things get worse, now in the direction of more crimes. It continues
the discussions about the alleged infidelity of Desdemona and ends with
Iago’s complicity with Roderigo to murder Cassio. Aside from complicity in
Othello’s plot to murder Desdemona, Iago adds this to his rap sheet as an
accessory to the fact of another felony murder. Four discussions occur in this
scene, two without Iago and two with Iago. The first two involve the fruits of
Iago’s depraved tree, extending the tension. The latter two discussions,
involving Iago, continue the uncorrected corruption of Iago. The first
discussion without Iago directly (but involving Iago’s consequences) involves
Othello interrogating Emilia about Desdemona; Othello wants answers from
this close observer and attendant of Desdemona; Emilia puts up a spirited
defense saying, “…I durst my lord, to wager, she is honest/Lay down my soul
at stake…/Remove thy thought; it doth abuse thy bosom…” (4.2.13-15).
Othello, however, peremptorily dismisses Emilia’s with “She says enough; yet
she’s a simple bawd/…This is a subtle whore…” (4.2.21-22). The second
discussion, without Iago’s direct involvement (but involving the fruits of his
earlier works), shifts to a fight between Othello and Desdemona; this is a
painful discussion; Desdemona is confused, but the scene reflects the now
wild, untamable, tainted and agitated mens rea of Othello: “Come, swear it,
damn thyself/Heaven knows that thou art false as hell/Ah, Desdemon! Away,
away, away! /Impudent strumpet! /What, not a whore? /That have the office
opposite Saint Peter/And keep the gate of hell!” (4.2.37, 41, 83, 89, 9596). Amidst the varied accusations, Othello calls Desdemona “Desdemon,”
leaving the “a” off the name and implying she is a “demon” complicit with the
demonic underworld. The third discussion involves Iago, Desdemona, and
Emilia about Othello’s state of mind (4.2.115-179); with tensions out of control,
Iago seeks to distance himself from involvement with Othello and duplicitously
fobs it off on Othello’s anxious concerns for state affairs, saying, “The
business of the state does him offense” (4.2.173). Despite his manifold
depravities, Iago still has an underlying moral sense, now and then, not that it
means a thing to him. While the first three discussions revolve around
Othello’s state of mind, the fourth discussion is between Roderigo and Iago,
wherein they proactively plot the murder of Cassio. This fourth discussion
affords additional exposition on Iago’s character. Roderigo begins to see
something of Iago’s duplicity: “Every day thou daff’st me with some
device/…for your words and performances are no kin together” (4.2.183,
189). Iago, as usual, puts forward another lie to stir Roderigo and to offer
false hope. Ever shifting his tactics adroitly to new battlefield conditions, Iago
claims that Othello and Desdemona are headed to Mauritania. Iago suggests
that Roderigo kill Cassio. This will cause Venice to retain Othello in Cyprus. If
accomplished, under this scenario, the retention of Othello and Desdemona in
Cyprus will allow Roderigo his continued pursuits of Desdemona. Iago boldly
clarifies to Roderigo the agenda: “Why, by making him incapable of Othello’s
place—knocking out his [Cassio’s] brains/Ay, if you dare do yourself a profit
and a right” (4.2.222, 224). Iago promises Roderigo that he will participate in
the murder saying, “I will be near to second your attempt/And he shall fall
between us. Come, stand not amazed at it, but go along with me” (4.2.227229). In Act 4, Scene 2, there is no mitigation of Iago’s rational madness or
corruption—an enslavement to his own depravity.
Act 4, Scene 3, is quickly bypassed; it is important on its own terms,
but is not directly related to Iago and the thesis of his addicting corruption. Of
warrant, heightening the tension, Desdemona sings the “Willow Song”
followed by the famous discussion on love, fidelity and infidelity between
Desdemona and Emilia (4.3.42-48; 4.3.60-105). This scene stands on its own
and adds to the plaintiff, doleful and sad harbingers. Act 3, Scene 3, only
heightens the sadness and melancholy of the results that occur in Act 5.
Act 5, Scene 1, begins with the emerging Iago-Roderigo-murder plot of
Cassio, develops with Iago’s shifting tactic to pursue the killing of both men
and ends with a chaotic scene with Iago stabbing Cassio from the shadows
and, finally, Iago stabbing and silencing his co-conspirator, Roderigo. It is
more chaos. First, Iago premeditates the murder of Cassio by counseling
Roderigo: “Have at thy hand. Be bold and take thy stand” (5.1.7). Yet, Iago
wants both dead. He wants Roderigo dead: “…Now whether he kills
Cassio/Or Cassio kill him, or each do kill the other/Every way makes my
gain. Live Roderigo/He calls me to restitution large” (5.1.12-15). Cassio must
also die for “If Cassio do remain…/That makes me ugly; and besides, the
Moor/May unfold me to him; there stand I in much peril/No, he must die. Be ‘t
so…” (5.1.18, 20, 21-22). Again, the occasional moral insights inform and
deepen the awareness of Iago’s moral, intellectual and volitional
incompetencies. The fight ensues. Roderigo is wounded and Iago wounds
Cassio in the leg (from behind and in stealth). Othello hears the chaos and
thinks Iago has killed Cassio, “The voice of Cassio! Iago keeps his word”
(5.1.28). Lodovico and Othello enter. Iago, in another tactical shift and effort
at self-exculpation amidst the chaos, cries out, “O treacherous villains!”
(5.1.59). Roderigo cries out, so Iago surreptitiously and fatally stabs Roderigo
to silence a co-conspirator and, then, adroitly shifts all blame to Roderigo,
saying, “O murderous villain! O villain!” (5.1.63) Iago, in another facile move,
applies a tourniquet to Cassio’s leg and further blames the now dead
Roderigo, “He, he, ‘tis he. [A litter is brought in.] O, that’s well said; the chair”
(5.1.100). Iago continues feigningly the showmanship of concern for Cassio
by exhorting members to attend to Cassio’s battle wound, “Kind gentleman,
let’s go see poor Cassio dressed—” (5.1.127). Iago’s depravity, but facility of
mind in premeditation and shifting tactics—as needed—are on offer in Act 5,
Scene 1. Ever adept at corrupt tactics, things begin unraveling.
Little more may be stated about Iago’s character than has been said,
but Act 5, Scene 2, results in three more homicides beyond
Roderigo’s. Desdemona, Emilia and Othello will die. In Act 5, Scene 2, the
utter unmasking of Iago’s unremitted villainies and his arrest are put
forward. Everyone now will see “what” Iago was rather than “who” Iago
was. To say “who” he was would imply humanity and personality. To say
“what” he was is more suggestive, suggesting Iago lacks a fundamental
humanity. Iago is more of a “what” or a “thing” than a “who” or a person. He is
anti-human by this point.
The early part of Act 5 involves Othello and Desdemona, their agitated
and extended discussion, Othello’s open and stated plan to kill Desdemona,
Othello’s utter mental and moral degradation, and, finally, Othello’s homocide
in the first degree by manual suffocation. After Desdemona dies, Emilia
enters and Othello tells Emilia that Iago has been the source of the alleged
details of adultery. Several times, in initial disbelief, Emilia states, “My
husband?” or “My husband, says that she is false?” (5.2.152, 159). This back
and forth begins to unmask the fuller story to Emilia. She is horrified. Emilia
justly accuses Othello, “…O gull! O dolt! /As ignorant as dirt…/The Moor hath
killed my mistress! Murder, murder!” (5.2.171-172, 174). Monanto, Gratiano
and Iago enter. Emilia then interrogates Iago with all auditors (and audience)
on hand. If Iago could count on the naiveties of other players, he apparently
never anticipated Emilia’s wrath, Emilia’s love for Desdemona, or Emilia’s
willingness to expose and thoroughly castigate her husband. Emilia says, “He
[Othello] says that thou toldst him his wife is false/I know thou didst not; thou’rt
not such a villain/Speak, for my heart is full” (5.2.180-182). Iago offers a halfanswer and Emilia presses on accusingly and with stunned ferocity, “But did
you ever tell him she was false?” (5.2.185). Iago says, “I did” (5.2.186). Emilia
concludes the arraignment and indictment of her guilty husband before
everyone, saying, “And your reports have set the murder on/“Villainy, villainy,
villainy! /…O villainy!” (5.2.194, 197, 198). Iago tries to control and dismiss
Emilia to no avail. Iago, knowing his machinations may be stated and proven,
demands silence, “Zounds, hold your peace/Be wise and get you
home/Villainous whore! /“Filth, thou liest!” (5.2.226, 228, 237,239). Iago—this
time—stupidly reacts to the unmasking, fatally stabs Emilia, and exits. All
other auditors, including Othello, have heard the unmasking of Iago and have
witnessed Iago’s second degree murder of Emilia. Gratiano says, “Sure, he
[Iago] hath killed his wife” and Montano states, “But kill him rather. I’ll after that
villain/For ‘tis a damned slave” (5.2.244, 249-250). Once the hunter and
player, Iago is now the hunted and played. Othello speaks. Lodovico, Cassio
(on a stretcher), Montano and an arrested Iago appear. “Bring the villain forth”
Lodovico orders (5.2.294). For the first time, instead of being dubbed “the
honest Iago,” he is now repeatedly called “the villain” by most participants in
the scene. Facts have emerged for all to see and hear. Othello makes an
aborted effort to kill Iago, but only wounds him. Lodovico asks Iago, “This
wretch [Othello] hath part confessed his villainy/Did you and he [either
Roderigo or Othello may be in Lodovico’s question] consent in Cassio’s
death?” and, in another brief moment of honesty from Iago, he says, “Ay.”
(5.2.304-305, 306). Othello commits suicide, the fruit of Iago’s long progeny of
serial lies and tactics. Documents are retrieved from the dead Roderigo’s
pockets showing Iago’s complicity in an effort to kill Cassio. Further,
eyewitnesses have witnessed him commit the second degree homocide of
Emilia. They have heard of Iago’s complicity to kill Desdemona. They have
witnessed, as a result, Othello’s homocide. Iago has been involved in four
homocides as the play closes with Act 5, Scene 2. Lodivico rightly
summarizes Iago, “O Spartan dog” (5.2.373); an explanatory note from the
text notes that Spartan dogs were known for “savagery and silence.” Lodivico
commands Iago, “Look on the tragic loading of this bed/This is thy work. The
object poisons the sight” (5.2.374-375). Lodovico commands Gratiano to deal
with the legal dimension of the Moor, presumably, estate settlement issues
(?); exercising command presence, Lodovico orders Cassio to take command
of Iago’s fate, “To you, Lord Governor,/Remains the censure, the place, the
torture. O, enforce it!” (5.2.379-380). Meanwhile, Lodovico will return to
Venice and “…to the state/The heavy act with heavy heart relate” (5.2.381382). Finally, the corrupted Iago is arrested and, inferably, remanded to
custody and trial for multiple homocides and assaults. These are the
“preposterous conclusions” arising from Iago’s vaulted, vain and confident
assertions about the role of reason governing passions.
As the play closes, one might hear the English audience uproariously
exclaim, “Away with the villain!” Two questions have been asked and
answered. The first question is: “What motivates Iago to carry out his
schemes?” Several motives were cited variously. Iago is greedy, jealous,
hateful, loveless, contemptuous, hypocritical, manipulative and troublemaking. He is also a sociopath and habitual felon. It has been argued that
these motives are the consequences rather than causes of Iago’s depravity—
ontology governing epistemology and praxis. Iago is “essentially” corrupt. The
second question was, “Is Iago a devil incarnate, a madman, or a rational
human being?” Dismissing the devil-incarnate theory, it was argued that Iago
was an utterly corrupt madman possessing high intelligence, facile reasoning,
rapier-like wit, adept craftiness, and an adroitness to shift tactics to new
changes on his own battlefield. Asimov, as previously noted, summarizes
Iago, “Since the entire play is a demonstration of the two-facedness of Iago, it
is entirely proper that he [Iago] swears by Janus” (Asimov 615). Everything
thought, said and done by Iago, or the Big Ego, is false. As such, as a
thoroughly corrupted human being, Iago freely chooses the worst paths in
accordance with his own depravity. Iago is innately or instinctually enslaved
to his own choices and feelings. Throughout Iago’s displays of madness and
rationality, a basic, corrupted and repeated pattern of opposition emerges: “I
versus him, them, and everyone else” (Rodgers-Gardener, 41). Iago cannot
be or think in any other way, as the play evinces. As previously noted, this is
the ultimate “ego,” the εγω, or the ultimate “I” of Iago. To answer the two
posed questions, especially the last one, the procedure was to diachronically
evaluate Iago’s words and deeds from Acts 1 to 5. The diachronic analysis
afforded accumulated weight that inarguably demonstrates that Iago is a
madman with exceptional rational skills. The occasional flashes of moral
sense and insight exist within Iago, but these flashes of insight mean nothing
to him. Iago is corrupted, enslaved, addicted and depraved, but rational, cool,
adroit and scheming. Ontology governs and influences epistemology and
praxis. It would be difficult to gainsay Shakespeare’s audiences’ anticipated
reaction, “Away with the villain! To the gallows! This utterly and totally
depraved villain in mind, soul, sight, sense, will and feeling! Away with him!