Turnitin receipt ID: 261453398

Independent Research Project Study of Othello

Option 2: Othello Stephen Chalkias
In his tragedy, Othello, Shakespeare presents his audience contradictory impressions of
the plays tragic hero, Othello, and his intentions. He does through the characterisation of
Othellos dramatic manner, which is simultaneously naturalistic and stylized and which is
sufciently ambiguous that it allows the audience to develop their own feelings about
Othellos character. Othello is given the title the noble Moor to which some believe he
fulflls, being described by Samuel Johnson as "magnanimous, artless, and credulous,
boundless in his confdence, ardent in his afection (Johnson, 1765). This view is shared
by writer, A. C. Bradley, in his work, Shakespearean Tragedy. However, Othellos actions
throughout the play suggest a degree of irony to these claims, as they present a
contradictory impression - one of an egotistical and self-deluding man as expressed by F.
R. Leavis in Diabolic Intellect and the Noble Hero, The Common Pursuit.
At frst, Othello seems to follow a similar structure to that of Shakespeares earlier work,
Macbeth, with the establishment of the great Aristotelian tragic hero, though also pressing
the audience to constantly question the polarizing nature and acts of the Othello. A. C.
Bradley sees Othello as by far the most romantic fgure among Shakespeare's heroes
(Bradley, 1950). In Bradleys interpretation of Othello, Othello is to be seen as a near-
perfect hero who is subjected to the malevolent works and cunning of the devilish Iago.
Bradleys belief that Othello is virtually faultless (Bradley, 1950) stems from his belief in
Othellos divine perfection, declaring him as a man who does not belong to our world
one who seems to enter it we not know whence almost as if from a wonderland
(Bradley, 1950). Bradley synonymises Iagos character with his actions, Iagos plot is
Iagos character in action (Bradley, 1950), which reinforces his idea that Othellos actions
are reasoned by Iagos manipulation of his virtue and trusting nature (rendering it his tragic
faw his great strength becoming his weakness). It is on 20 occasions that Iago is
referred to as honest, of which 12 are from Othello, which according to the Bradley view,
is a demonstration of his trust. However, upon closer examination of Othellos trust, we
begin to see the cracks in Bradleys argument. For example, Othello demonstrates no trust
towards Desdemona, his devoted wife. Furthermore, one could question why Bradley
judges Iago on account of his actions in the one hand, and yet excuses Othello from his
(much more severe) actions on the other. While he is pushed it is difcult to see how an
idyllic human being, pure and virtuous, trusting and good, can be pushed to such an
extent, even if he be, wrought in the extreme (Othello, Act V, Sc. 2, 363-364)
It is this contrary perspective in Othellos character, stemming from his actions and
behaviour throughout the play, that is taken up by F. R. Leavis, who focuses on a deeply
fawed human being, whose ugliness is exposed with very little efort. Leavis analysis
which contradicts Bradleys idyllic assessment, also refects the view taken by T. S. Eliot,
Turnitin receipt ID: 261453398
who saw Othello as a terrible exposure of human weakness (Eliot, 1927) and Iagos
manipulations as a mere corollary action to this tragic display. Leavis sees Bradley as
pertinacious in his views, stating the plain fact is that Othello is the chief personage in
such a sense that the tragedy may fairly be said to be Othellos character in action,
(Leavis,1952), blatantly opposing Bradleys assessment of Iago, saying Iago is a
subordinate and merely ancillary who brings forth the true nature of Othello. The
motiveless malignity (Leavis, 1952) of Iago is what brings out the egotism within the
fatally self-centred Othello and Shakespeares characterisation is the key factor leading to
the limitless interpretations of Othellos nature. This allows the audience to place their own
level of importance on the actions of Iago, and this level of importance placed on Iago
determines from which view Othello is seen - the naturalistic or the stylized. Although
Bradley believes there is not a syllable to be said against Othello (Bradley, 1950), this
view seems fairly ignorant when the play and Shakespeares dialogue is looked at from the
perspectives of the likes of Eliot and Levis. It is evident from the quote she loved me for
the dangers I had passed/and I loved her that she did pity them (Othello, Act 1, Sc. 3,
171-172) that Othellos egotistical nature, which Leavis holds so strongly, is present within
the early stages of the play. In this line, he claims himself that he loves Desdemona for
loving him, suggesting the idea that he is marrying Desdemona not out of love for her, but
out of love for himself. Although Othello is described as a valiant Moor who is true of
mind, it is this praise that leads the questioning of how strongly Othello holds this opinion
of himself. T. S. Eliots writings on Othellos fnal speech describe Othello as feeling sorry
for himself, which is evident after close analysis of his dialogue. After committing murder of
his sweet Desdemon, Othello asks, Soft you, a word or two before you go. Eliot sees
this as evidence for his fatally self-centred nature as he is asking for the attention on
himself, whereas Bradley regards this line as poetic and a start to many of Othellos
many famous speeches. Bradley sees this fnal speech with overwhelming truth and
beauty (Lewis, 1927) and, as described by Wyndham Lewis, the clearest expression of
the favour of Shakespeares heart and mind. However, Eliot believes Othello is cheering
himself up in this fnal apologetic. Othello has a strong desire to think well of himself and
Eliot defnes this defect as bovarysme, the human will to see things as they are not
(Harding, 1984) and essentially is calling Othello delusional, indicating the end of Othellos
self-destruction in the plays denouement. In his fnal speech, Othello desperately pleads,
speak of me as I am (Act 5, Scene 2, 338), echoing the chilling admission of dishonest
Iago, I am not what I am (Act 1, Scene 1, 65). However, Eliot criticises the fner points in
this fnal speech in order to dislodge the halo Bradley placed on the noble Moor (Harding,
1984) and this hypersensitivity to the smaller details is evident in his critical analysis of the
plays words. Eliot demonstrates that Othello mitigates his crime, avoiding responsibility by
taking the time to elaborate on his pride in his services to the state.
Bradley gives more literal and naturalistic interpretation of Othellos fnal speech:
Turnitin receipt ID: 261453398
"As he speaks those fnal words in which all the glory and agony of his life--long
ago in India and Arabia and Aleppo, and afterwards in Venice, and now in
Cyprus seem to pass before us, like the pictures that fash before the eyes of a
drowning man, a triumphant scorn for the fetters of the fesh and the littleness
of all lies that must surie him sweeps our grief away, and when he dies
upon a kiss the most painful of all tragedies leaes us for the moment free
from pain, and e!ulting in the power of "loe and man"s uncon#uerable mind$%
(Bradley, 1950)
It is clearly evident that Bradley is supportive of Othellos reclamation attempts of his noble
and virtuous nature in his fnal words. He accepts that Othello was not easily jealous and
portrays him as a great fgure that has been brought down by the work of a manipulative
villain (Iago). Contradictory to the views of Eliot and Leavis, Bradley believes that Othello is
one whom the audience are to sympathise for, and not one who is sympathising for
himself, but rather making a rehabilitative efort in order to retain his dignity after being
wrong done by. It is for this reason that it is questionable whether or not Othello followed
the path of a tragic hero.
Due to Shakespeares language and equivocal method of characterisation, there are
limitless interpretations of the character of Othello, stretching from those of A. C. Bradley to
those of F. R. Leavis and T. S. Eliot and then there are those in between, such as the
interpretation of William Hazlitt who describes the nature of Othello as noble, but his blood
is of the most infammable kind, incorporating both the natural and stylized sides of the
play. Shakespeare writes with a degree of ambiguity which is in a sense, empowering. He
allows the audience to put themselves in Othellos shoes so to speak, allowing them to
develop their own perspectives as to whether they would succumb to the devilish work of
Iago or they would be consumed by their own fatally self-centred nature. In conclusion, it
is impossible to assess whether Othello is the egotistical person Eliot claims he is or
whether he is the noble and romantic fgure Bradley sees as Shakespeare has written is
such a way that the characters are open to diferent interpretations with the sending of
mixed messages from their characterisation through dialogue and dramatic devices.
-Stephen Chalkias
&eferences'
F. R. Leavis, Diabolic Intellect and the Noble Hero, The Common Pursuit
(Harmondsworth, 1962), pp. 259-283
Turnitin receipt ID: 261453398
A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy (London, 1950), p. 175-207
T. S. Eliot, Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca, Shakespeare Association,
(London, 1927)
E. Schwartz, Stylistic Impurity and the Meaning of Othello, Studies in English
Literature, (Spring, 1970), pp. 297-313
J. Harding, T. S. Eliots Shakespeare, Essays in Criticism
J. Arthos, The Fall of Othello, Shakespeare Quarterly, (Spring, 1958), pp. 93-104
M. Doran, Good Name in Othello, Studies in English Literature, (Spring, 1967), pp.
195-217
W. Hazlitt, Characters of Shakespeares Plays, (1817), Othello
E. Smith, Approaching Shakespeare, Oxford University, (2010)
Shakespeare, William, and Norman Sanders. Othello. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire:
Cambridge University Press, 1984. Print.