In Defense of Iago

Author(s): Marvin Rosenberg

Source: Shakespeare Quarterly , Spring, 1955, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring, 1955), pp. 145-158
Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2866395

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Shakespeare Quarterly

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 In Defense of Iago

MARVIN ROSENBERG

WOULD like first to defend Iago against the charge that h

was a decent man-a man, that is, who injured others only
after he was provoked to do so. This libel against Iago's wick-
edness, first made in the late eighteenth century,1 has been
advanced on the grounds that the Ancient was unfairly de-
prived of promotion, that'he was really cuckolded by Othello,
or that he found it necessary to act as if one or both of these possibilities were
true, and somehow found himself doing wrong in spite of himself. In modern
times, Iago's apologists have become so tender that one described the rascal as
"an honest, charming soldier, a man of honesty and innate kindliness";2 an-
other felt "he might almost serve as an example of the Aristotelian hero, a good
man brought, like Oedipus, to commit enormities unforeseen";3 and a third,
"Iago . . . is a pitiful plaything of circumstance; there is, after all, something
pitiful in this man's final doom."4 I can't agree; Iago was not that good a man.
On the other hand, I want also to defend the Ancient against the more
frequent charge that he was a creature of subhuman evil, malignant without
any motivation, an embodiment of Satan himself. By one modern he has been
called "a black angel . . . the Spirit of Evil . . . with no passions and no habita-
tion . . .";5 by another, ". . . a monster, whose wickedness should lie far deeper
than anything that could be explained by a motive " 6 by still another, "a
devil in the flesh . . a fiend."7 Again I cannot agree; Iago was not that bad
a man.
A variant of the interpretation equating Iago with evil has come from
symbolist critics. One student of imagery finds serpent and devil references that
identify Jago "with the devil himself", and make his implicit diabolism ex-
plicit;8 another, more Freudian-minded, sees lago as an abstraction of the base
side of Othello: "Othello's is the human soul as it strives to be, and Iago is that

'"An Apology for the Character and Conduct of Iago," in Essays, by a Society of Gentlemen
(1796), pp. 395-409. See the Variorum Othello, pp.. 408-409, and Monthly Review, NS (1796),
XXII, 7.
2 Tucker Brooke, "The Romantic Iago," Yale Review, VII (Jan., 1918), 3-59.
3 J. W. Draper, "Othello and Elizabethan Army Life," Revue Ang.-Am., IX (April, 1932), 324.
' Allardyce Nicoll, Studies in Shakespeare (I927), pp. 94, 103.
5 John Jay Chapman, A Glance Toward Shakespeare (Boston, 1922), p. 47.
6 Lytton Strachey, Characters and Commentaries (New York, 1935), pp. 295-296.
7 E. E. Stoll, Shakespeare and Other Masters (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 231, 246.
8 Robert Heilman, "Dr. lago and His Potions," VQR, XXVIII (Autumn, 1952), 568-584.
(Heilman has a curiously different imagistic approach to the same problem in "The Economics of
Iago and Others," PMLA, LXVIII (June, I953), 555-57I.) S. L. Bethell ("Shakespeare's Imagery:
The Diabolic Images in Othello," in Shakespeare Survey (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 62-80) comes to
pretty much the same conclusion on the basis of the "devil" images.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
T46 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

which corrodes and subverts it from within";9 still another Freudian sees
Tago as all this and homosexual too;10 while an allegorist feels that Iago rep-
resents ". . . unlimited, formless villainy . . . the spirit of denial . . . undefined,
devisualized, inhuman. . ..911 The impressionists are entitled to their impres-
sions; but it seems to me that they fail to do justice to Iago's flesh and blood
qualities in seeing him as a symbol; he is a better dramatic character than that.
This last is an important point. Some modern critics, seeing neither essen-
tial humanity nor significant symbolism in Iago, conclude that he is simply
badly made: stupid and dull,12 one calls him; a poor and implausible character,18
says another; because of his stationary, toneless character, says a third, Othello
cannot stand beside Macbeth, Hamlet, and Lear."4 This I agree with least of
all. What I hope to show, after exonerating the rascal of charges of outraged
decency and Satanic or abstract evil, is that he was wonderfully shaped by
Shakespeare into a first-rate dramatic character, as well as a clearly recognizable
type of human being, with passions and frustrations-and even physical symp-
toms-characteristic of a type of troubled humanity common enough so that
psychologists in our time regularly encounter it. Shakespeare was not content,
in Iago, to load his play with yet another stock Machiavel, another version of an
old Morality figure,15 nor even one of the newer-fangled malcontents;16 he was
building much more than a "necessary piece of dramatic mechanism";17 with a
great playwright's searching insight, he was probing into the roots of human
wickedness to find-and show in the theater-how it was that a man really
could smile and smile and smile and be a villain.
Iago's first apologist, an eighteenth-century Exeter gentleman, argued that
the Ancient was respectable at the beginning of the play, but was badly treated
by Othello, suspected his wife of affairs with Othello and Cassio, and largely
for these reasons revenged himself. The apologist wrote: ". . . if vengeance can
9J. I. M. Stewart, Character and Motive in Shakespeare (London, 1949), p. io8. The split-ego
conception of Shakespearian heroes was first suggested as applying to Macbeth by Freud, after a
hint by Jekels (Sigmund Freud, Collected Papers (London, 1925), IV, 332. For Jekel's expansion of
the idea, see L. Jekels, "Shakespeare's Macbeth," Imago, V (1917-19), 170-195). It has been
applied several times to Othello. See also Derek Traversi, "Othello", The Wind and the Rain,
VI (Spring, 1950), 268-269, Bodkin (see note iI), Leavis (see note 17), T. F. Connolly, "Shake-
speare and the Double Man," SQ, I (Jan. 1950), 30-35, and Feldman, below. Burke (Kenneth
Burke, "Othello: An Essay to Illustrate a Method," Hudson Rev., IV (Summer i95i), x66-i68) seems,
in his curious and complex study of the play, to go one further and find that Othello, Iago, and
Desdemona are all expressions of one "inseparable integer".
10 A. B. Feldman, "Othello's Obsession," Am. Imago, IX (June, 1952), 151-I52, 156.
"1G. W. Knight, Wheel of Fire (London, 1930), pp. 127, I31. Maud Bodkin (Archetypal
Patterns in Poetry (London, 1934), pp. 220-221) follows Knight's imagery, although she also con-
siders the possibility of the split ego conception, of ". . . Iago as a projected image of forces present
in Othello...."
12 John R. Moore, "The Character of Lago," U' of Missouri Studies, XXI, I, 39-46.
15 Robert Bridges, The influence of the Audience on Shakespeare's Drama (London, 1
p. 23.
14 J. W. Abernethy, "Honest lago," Sewanee Review, XXX (July, I922), 336-344.
15 P. A. Jorgensen, "'Honesty' in Othello," SP, XLVII (Oct. I950), 557-568, sees lago as a
knave posing as the morality Honesty.
16 Theodore Spencer, "The Elizabethan Malcontent," in Joseph Quincy Adams Memorial Studies
(Washington, 1948), p. 530, suggests that lago had some qualities in common with Marston's
Malevole, and-for the convenience of classification-lists him as a "malcontent".
17 F. R. Leavis ("Diabolic Intellect and the Noble Hero: A Note on Othello," Scrutiny, VI
(December, 1937) 26i, 264), calls him this, partly in reaction to the impression the critic had from
Bradley that Othello was merely Iago's foil. Leavis makes Iago the auxiliary, and even suggests
(264) the split-ego conception noted above (see note 9).

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IN DEFENSE OF IAGO I47
be vindicated by an accumulation of injuries, Iag
just." 18
In the next century, Iago's right to suspect Othello's relations with Emilia
was affirmed. To one critic, Iago was -really the jealous one-and he had a right
to be jealous. The unsuspected infidelity was a fact; Othello's part in it ex-
plained why Othello himself should have been so ready to suspect his own wife
of adultery.19 In the twentieth century, the attitude toward Iago as a wronged
individual with a double motivation has been refined: he was at least a rela-
tively decent man, his character flaws not emergent, until he was passed over
for promotion and his suspicion of the adultery was aroused; then only did he
plunge into a sea of iniquity, going in deeper at last than he would at first have
liked to do.20
Massive arguments have been summoned to prove both his motivations.
Of Othello's adultery with Emilia, we have been reminded that: i. Othello is a
fully sexed veteran soldier with a bent for erotic satisfaction, 2. Iago has no rea-
son to rationalize his suspicion, 3. Emilia is portrayed as a "lewd and filthy-
speaking harlot" who, in talking with Desdemona, does not indignantly repu-
diate the idea of cuckolding of her husband, and 4. Othello's conversation with
Emilia indicates his personal acquaintance with her as a subtle whore who will
kneel and pray.2'
In connection with Iago's other suggested motivation, that he is a soldier
wrongfully passed over, some research has been made into the Elizabethan
popular attitudes toward the military. It has been deduced that Iago was a
frontline soldier passed over for an example of the less popular type of book-
18 Essays, op. cit. (Note I), p. 409.
19 S. J. Snider, System of Shakespeare's Drama (St. Louis, i877) II, 97. J. A. Heraud (Shake-
speare, His Inner Life (i865), p. 270), says the adultery was "not impossible". Interestingly enough,
S. A. Tannenbaum ("The Wronged lago," SAB, XII (Jan. I937), 57, in expanding this argument,
noted that most critics were too squeamish to discuss the adultery issue, and added "From nineteenth
century critics nothing else could have been expected."
The Snider-Heraud interpretation of Iago, as a deeply jealous personality was, it seems to me,
a step in the right direction. It has been elaborated effectively by modern critics: John W. Draper,
"The Jealousy of Iago," Neophilologus, XXV (1939), 50-60; F. P. Rand, "The Over-Garrulous Tago,"
SQ (July, I950), I55-i6i; and Kenneth Muir, "The Jealousy of Iago," in English Miscellany, II
(Rome, I951), 65-83. Muir emphatically denies the possibility of a relationship between Emilia and
Othello; Draper and Rand are not certain.
20 Rand (p. s58) sees Iago's treachery as perhaps the sudden outbreak of what may have been
a predisposition: ". . . he could hardly have been the Iago we know when Emilia married him, or
during the years when he was becoming the 'honest Iago' to the Venetians." Jordan (H. H. Jordan,
"Dramatic Illusion in Othello," SQ (July, I950), 146-152) also finds lago, a brooding egoist, at
loose ends between wars, moved by his intelligence to desert a life of honesty to plunge into treachery
for the first time when he seems unfairly treated. Here Jordan follows Nicoll (pp. 94-97). Rand,
Jordan, and Nicoll take for granted, as do-among others-Kittredge (Othello, ed. G. L. Kittredge
(New York, 1941), p. x), Hallett (W. H. Hallett, "14onest, Honest lago," Fortn. Rev., NS, LXXIX,
275-286), Praz (Mario Praz in Proceedings of the British Academy, XIV (1928), p. 76), Lewis
(Wyndham Lewis, The Lion and the Fox (New York, n.d.), p. 197), Bowman (Thomas D. Bow-
man, "A Further Study in the Characterization and Motivation of lago," College English, IV (May,
1943) 460-469). Shackford (John B. Shackford, "The Motivation of lago," SNVL (Sept. I953), 30),
and Tannenbaum, Draper, Webb and Brooke agree (see following notes) that Iago was definitely
motivated to revenge by his loss of the appointment and/or the suspicion of Emila's infidelity with
Othello. Miller (Donald C. Miller, "lago and the Problem of Time," Eng. Stud. (June, I940),
97-I 5) argues that Othello had made a secret "contract marriage" with Desdemona well before
the play opened, and that lago suddenly realized, with the overt elopement, that he had been super-
seded by a man (Cassio) merely better able to act as an assistant in the courtship.
21 Tannenbaum (pp. 58-6o) catalogues the arguments. He adds a fifth point that contributes
nothing to the case.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
148 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

soldier, and that Othello's action in this appointment, a

sick" attitude, would suggest to the Elizabethans that h
and is inviting the disaster that comes.22
At the extreme of these apologist attitudes an almo
Thus one modern writes: "It is evident, I think, that Shakespeare imagined
Iago a man of warm, sympathetic qualities," a kind of Falstaff who, through
no real fault of his own, goes wrong.23 This critic feels the Elizabethans would
find Iago distinctly attractive, and so does another, who argues that Iago would be
regarded as a kind of central figure in a thesis play on the military code of martial
honor, that he would arouse more interest and sympathy than Othello in many of
Shakespeare's spectators because they could identify with him as one of their
own class.24
This is the crux of the extreme apologists' case. If an injured Iago has been
given due cause for vengeance, if he is a wronged man, then he must almost
certainly arouse some sympathy in an audience. Was he wronged? Does he
arouse sympathy? We cannot answer this simply by hunting the text for bits
and scraps of lines from which to deduce the nature of the characters. The lines
give us only one of the character's dimensions. For depth, to get an adequate
test of a character's implications in the round, we must examine the possibilities
of the play as it comes to performance in the theater. Meanings that cannot be
made apparent in some way through words, voice, and action on the stage are
unlikely to have been intended by the playwright. For instance if Othello had
an affair with Emilia before the play opened, or after, this must be com-
municable in a theater. Now it is not in the lines, as such; true, Emilia is cynical
about marital fidelity, true, Othello throws harsh words at her, but there is no
evidence of an illicit connection between them. To establish such a connection,
we would have to see the Moor engage in some sort of by-play with her-or
perhaps refuse to, now that he is married. But there is no remote suggestion of
this in the lines, and it is difficult to conceive of it integrated into any consistent
Othello characterization. By the measure of totality of effect-of the unity of
poetry, speech, and action in living drama-such an interpretation seems im-
possible.
The same seems true of Iago's complaint about being unfairly treated in his
military position by Othello. If he was, there must be more than his word to
show it; but nowhere in the lines or implied action is it suggested that Othello,
either consciously or unconsciously, is less than fair to his ensign. In fact, the
dramatization of the play demands that he go out of his way to show his respect
and friendship for Iago.
Again, the interpretation of Iago as suddenly turning from decency to un-
pleasantness seems incompatible with a theater performance of the role. His
cruel exploiting of Roderigo is clearly a habitual thing with this Ancient; thus
does he ever make his fool his purse, and the butt of his angry wit. Even more
22 H. J. Webb, "The Military Background in Othello," PQ, XXX (Jan. I951), 40-51. For more
on the title subject, see J. R. Moore's answer to Webb, "Othello, Iago, and Cassio as Soldiers," PQ,
XXXI (April, 1952), I89-I95; and J. W. Draper, "Honest Iago," PMLA, XLVI (Sept., I93i), 724-
737, "Captain General Othello," Ang. Zeit. fur Eng. Phil., LV (Halle, i93i), 296-3io, and Shack-
ford. (See note 24 below.)
23 Brooke, pp. 351-359. See also Nicoll (p. 103) for the "conception of Iago as a character
to be pitied."
24 Draper, "Othello and Elizabethan Army Life," pp. 324-326.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IN DEFENSE OF IAGO 149

significant, though not adequately recognized in

ward his wife. Before others, he treats her at b
with her, as when he tears the handkerchief from
her business, he snarls orders at her as if she we
meant to be clear, in the theater, that Emilia's is
Iago's sharp tongue, as on the Cyprus quay, she has had painfully to bear his
suspicion of her adultery with Othello, she has been made by this time very
cynical about loyalty to husbands, as is obvious from her conversation with
Desdemona in the "willow song" scene. So Iago has long been vicious by habit,
and the audience seems meant to sense this in his appearance with subordinates
on the stage.
Finally, is it at all possible that Iago, on the stage, might draw compassion
as a wronged or erring man? However Shakespeare mixed frailty into the
character of Othello and Desdemona-and Cassio and Emilia-surely they are
unmistakably the ones meant to capture audience sympathy. Could Iago, on
the stage, possibly draw the good will of a normal audience-when almost his
every line with its implied action is an invitation to hate and fear him? An
apologist who believes Shakespeare was trying to ". . . raise an element of
sympathy in the audience for this 'villain"' sees Iago as not meaning to rouse
Othello to such a fury, and as hesitating after he sees the storm he has caused;25
another view finds Iago recoiling from his villainy after the scene when Emilia,
in Desdemona's chamber, voices her suspicion that "some eternal villain, some
cogging, cozening slave" has made Othello jealous.26 Considering the subse-
quent wickedness Iago initiates, a considerable exercise of the imagination is
required to accept the conception of a conscience-stricken villain. It seems utterly
incompatible with any stage performance, where Iago appears clearly intended
to plunge steadily deeper into crime. And surely class has nothing to do with
this villain's character as has been suggested; Iago was no George a Greene;
he was, as the Folio unmistakably identifies him, a "Villaine."
To go on-was he more than this? Was he the devil himself? Was he evil
incarnate? Or perhaps the symbolic representation of what the devil stands
for-of destructiveness, of nothingness, of the baser side of Othello himself ?
The outright Satanists, who see Iago as indeed the foul fiend, have two
large problems to face: one theoretical, one practical. The theoretical difficulty is
this: if Iago is the Prince of Darkness, why does he seek, in his soliloquies,
human motives for his evil? Why does he not sail straight ahead, passionless,
25 Nicoll (p. i02) finds that Iago evinces, after setting Othello aflame, ". . . a hesitation which
betrays a certain fear . . . that he has gone too far...." But in performance Iago seems to gain
assurance as he goes along. It is Iago after all who urges Othello on to "strangle her in her bed",
and who brings the Moor back to the murderous purpose when he wavers momentarily (IV. i),
remembering Desdemona's gentle qualities.
26 Brooke (p. 358). Goddard (H. C. Goddard, The Meaning of Shakespeare (Chicago, 195i),
pp. 481-485, also suggests that after this scene, and Desdemona's pathetic appeal to him, lago, pro-
foundly disturbed, his power sapped, goes haltingly to his end. Goddard cites as his chief support
the scene following with Roderigo, where ". . . we see lago for the first time at his wit's end,
unable to devise anything by way of answer to Roderigo's importunities." As customarily staged,
the scene points in the other direction. Iago is more disdainful than ever of Roderigo, until the gull
threatens to go to Desdemona, whereupon lago promptly-and with some humor-flatters him
again into temoprary submission. Surely lago is shown as never more resourceful and purposeful
than in the opening scene of the fifth act, where, pressed at last to take a hand in the violence he
has initiated, he almost kills Cassio, does kill Roderigo, and blames the whole thing on Bianca with
hardly a stop for thought.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
150 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

doing his worst? The only answer, if there is one, is that he is making up his
humanity, hunting about for motives. It is not a good answer, and the Satanists
tend to talk around the point.27 Of course they have the right, on the theoretical
level, to count on the validity of their own impressions; if, reading the text,
they visualize Iago as a demon, then a true demon he is to them. On the practi-
cal level, however, we must question interpretations of character that do not fit
the artistic medium in which the playwright functioned. Shakespeare wrote for
the theater. His effects are the effects that could be communicated from a stage.
Given this play, the most recognizably domestic of all his tragedies, if the play-
wright intended to develop as a central figure a cloven-foot devil, would he not
have made his intention effective in terms of language and action? Can Iago be
presented on the stage as a fiend in human form?
I have seen something of the sort tried in a performance wherein Iago
appeared as an ugly, twisted, gnomelike creature, clinging like a dirty shadow
to Othello. Visually the thing was interesting; but there was no humanity in it,
no sense of friendship betrayed; Iago's own claims of frustration and hate
sounded meaningless in a devil's mouth, and the lines about his honesty and
friendliness seemed to belong to another play. The performance did not stir the
pulse by a flicker.
In the better performances of Iago I have seen, it seemed unquestionable to
me that the closer the actor came to a projection of Iago as a thwarted human
being, the more powerful was the total impression of tragic life being played
out. A great tragedy might certainly be written on the betrayal of a noble man
by a devil-a devil real or symbolic, Satan himself or the personified expression
of the evil in the hero's character; but Othello is not that play as it must be done
in the theater for which Shakespeare designed it. If it is something different in
the limitless imagination of a critic, it is only because the critic disregards the
conditions which determined the mode of expression of Shakespeare's creative
fantasy. The critic is then, in effect, transmuting Shakespeare's work into a dif-
ferent art form, and his judgments may be only obliquely relevant to the
original play.
Perhaps the best evidence of this comes from the experience of one of the
most imaginative of the symbolic interpreters of the tragedy, Wilson Knight.
In a first study of the play, Knight described the characters in this manner:
". . . on the plane of personification, we see that Othello and Desdemona are
concrete, moulded of flesh and blood, warm. Iago contrasts with them meta-
physically as well as morally: he is unlimited, formless villainy. He is the spirit
of denial, wholly negative. He never has visual reality . . . (he) is undefined,
devisualized, inhuman." I
It is instructive to turn from this estimate to the cri
time after his first study, Wilson Knight produced and
cedure strongly recommended to any who would discuss critically a Shake-
spearian play. Knight's experience changed his attitude toward the tragedy.
There is a considerable softening of the impressions he had first reported, of
"ugliness, hellishness, idiocy, negation";28 and though the critic again spoke of
another level of meaning: "Othello, Desdemona, and Iago are Man, the Divine,

27 See, for instance, John Palmer, Studies in the Contemporary Theatre (1927), p. 78.
28 Wheel, p. 129.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IN DEFENSE OF IAGO 151

and the Devil .'2 he followed this with a most

bolic effects," Knight wrote, "are all in the poet
with hell's forces and often says so, while Desdem
cally with Divinity. But [the italics are mine] the
to interfere with the expressly domestic and hum
get disaster."
This makes splendid sense. The symbolism of t
alter ego, or whatever, is in the poetry-for those
the body of Shakespearian criticism has been e
subjective interpretation by the symbolists. But
tially private; it does not have a natural place on
for; to repeat the words of the critic, "the mom
interfere with the expressly domestic and huma
get disaster." You get disaster because, as far as w
speare was not creating personifications, but people-the people of drama-
people communicated with such reality within the limits of the art form that
their troubled emotions would deeply involve watching audiences. We would
not spare much pity for the troubles of Divinity; but we weep for the frail and
lovely woman who was Desdemona; and in the same way we are strangely
stirred by the wickedness of the man Iago.
For there is some curiously compelling fascination in Iago, something that
brings us back to him, and that results in the wide range of criticism I have
reviewed. What it is, I think, is the wonderfully contrived projection, in him, of
emotional drives that run deep in humanity generally. In Iago the playwright
was showing these drives as they may be deformed in personality under the
pressures of life.
To test this suggestion, let us try to examine Iago afresh, forgetting previous
attitudes toward him. Shakespeare needed a wicked man for a play he wanted
to do involving the betrayal of one man by another. I think it is quite possible
that Shakespeare was drawn to this story because it was one of betrayal; the
theme was one of his favorites, and at the point when he was ready to write
Othello I believe he had a particularly personal motivation toward it. However
this may be, he needed a wicked man, a betrayer, a villain. He needed one be-
cause his borrowed story called for one; but it was this plot function only that
he borrowed for Iago. The rest is Shakespeare's.
What we know about Shakespeare's lago appears in two aspects: his exter-
nal appearance, as he reacts with others, and his inner life, as revealed by the
soliloquies. If we neglect what we learn from the soliloquies for a moment, and
examine only the face that Iago turns to others during the play, we observe a
clever, ambitious man coolly manipulating others for his own ends. In conver-
sation with his confidant he is outspoken about his overt philosophy; he denies
the reality of loving feelings-they are only a lust of the blood, a permission of
the will; he asserts the supremacy of the will and intelligence, and their power to
efface emotions so that desired ends may be achieved; he idealizes the self-sufficient
man-the one who knows how to love himself. In Iago's actions with others this
philosophy has obviously long since hardened into expert practice, as already
observed. Toward those he can exploit openly, he is domineering and brutal. But
29 G. W. Knight, Principles of Shakespearean Production (1936), p. 57.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
152 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
in accordance with his ideal of supremacy of the self-seekin
is with his superiors in station, his true emotions are al
down below the surface, his actions seem guided by the wo
culating will. He makes a near-perfect pretence of being
fellow during most of his time on stage with others; almo
passion is when he is so sad about Cassio's drunkenness, or
Othello's honest rage with what seems sympathetic anger o
plete is his control that only in momentary slips do we see
about him. Without the soliloquies, we get in Iago a pict
moves almost passionlessly from crime to crime; and as far a
is complete.
Now this brings up a point worth dwelling on. Read the play through
omitting the soliloquies and you discover that the soliloquies are actually not
necessary to the dramatic action at all, that without them, in fact, there is an
increased suspense and tightness of plot. The plans Iago reveals in his discussion
with Roderigo are enough to make the lurking menace clear; the apprehension
is whetted by the uncertainty of what is to come, and the surprise executions of
the villainy are received with more of a jolt. For instance, when Iago first gets
the handkerchief, if he did not tell us how he was going to use it, the subsequent
revelations of his villainy with it, as they come out in the action, would have
even more impact. And the whole play moves faster.
The playwright must have been aware of this. He knew long before the
dramatic value of planting a bare hint of villainy and letting the audience imagi-
nation work; recall, for instance, Aaron hiding the bag of gold without explana-
tion and the shock value of the trick he plays with it; or remember Richard III,
after only an intimation of his intention, manipulating Hastings' doom. For that
matter, how effective it is when Iago himself, in the fifth act, improvises so
brilliantly to throw the blame on Bianca for Cassio's brawl. On the stage the
threat of a hidden villainy that may break out in a new form without prepara-
tion is a powerful dramatic weapon.
Yet Shakespeare was content to lose some of the effect of surprise by intro-
ducing Iago's soliloquies. Probably one reason he did this was that it was the
tradition of the art form he had grown up in, and inevitably there are traces of
the conventional villain in Iago. However, if a repetition of the conventional
had been Shakespeare's only purpose, he could have let Iago, as a devil or man,
merely outline the villainy to come and gloat over it. But the conventional was
not enough for Shakespeare. If it had been, we should not be so interested in
him today. That he understood and dramatized the hidden working of the
soul hardly needs to be said; generation, after generation has been helped to
understand its own behavior through Shakespeare's poetry. Surely he was not
doing this accidentally, or by tacking pieces of convention together; nor, surely,
was he a kind of innocent genius who had brilliant insights without knowing
what he was doing. He was too good a craftsman, too adept at getting the most
out of his human and dramatic materials, so much more than his contemporaries.
When he made Iago he was at one of the peaks of his art, he was dealing with
a wicked man-a kind of humanity in which he had considerable interest-and
he seems to have made deliberate use of the soliloquies to show what went on
behind the surface of this kind of man.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IN DEFENSE OF IAGO 153

So We come to the soliloquies. Wh

that is different from what his exte
seemed a cool, controlled villain, usually the complete master of his feelings,
and indeed he boasted of his power to control emotion. If we were left with only
this side of him, we might be content with the classic estimate of Bradley and
Granville-Barker,30 inherited, from the nineteenth century, of Iago, the cold,,
passionless designer of tragedy in real life; or we might see him, with the
Satanists, a devil who of course needs no passion.3l But there is another aspect
to Iago, his inner life; a look into this, and we know how little, actually, he is
what he is. The moment he is alone and the mask comes off, all the passions
hidden behind the smooth, subordinate surface suddenly boil up. Far from
being passionless, this inner Iago is one great fury of passion, the more furious
because so much of his passion is smothered when he is with people. Anyone on
whom his thought lingers becomes an object of some spurt of passion-hate,
envy, jealousy, lust, fear. His superior, his superior's wife, his military com-
panions, his gull, his wife-in the existence of all of them he finds some tor-
ment, some threat to his own ego. His wife and his gull take up relatively little
of his imaginative fury, because he exploits them with satisfying sadism in actual
life; but the others, Othello, Cassio, and Desdemona, to whom he must out-
wardly turn a pleasant, social face, are, for their real or imagined superiority,
intolerable to him, and he needs to crush them in his mind. When the thought
of their decent or noble qualities forces itself into his awareness, it automatically
evokes a counter-thought of hostility-the Moor, of a free and open nature,
must be led by the nose; fruitful Desdemona must have her virtue turned into
pitch; Cassio, a proper man, must be overthrown. The contempt lago shows for
others is fierce and tireless; but we learn at last that behind it is a searing con-
tempt for his own self, when the thought rises to his consciousness that Cassio
... hath a daily beauty in his life
That makes me ugly ....
Mostly he defends himself from the awareness of this self-contempt by trans-
ferring his hostility into furious fantasies of his great power: he is clever, very
very clever, indeed he has superhuman cunning, he is above-or below-the
common sentiment and morality of those he resents and needs to despise. It is
not any single need that frustrates Iago-the passed-over lieutenancy, the
fantasied passion for Desdemona, the imagined cuckolding by Othello; it would
do him no good to be satisfied on all these points-indeed, when he does get
the lieutenancy, it does nothing to satisfy his fury. What we are shown in the
inner Iago is a bottomless, consuming passion that feeds on all life around it.
Let me sum up, briefly, the inner and the overt manifestations of lago's,
personality. On the surface he gives this impression:
He believes in the omnipotence of will, of intelligence, and reason, while
denying the power of emotional forces and showing contempt for them; he
S0 Bradley (A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy (1929), p. 224) is frankly bewildered to find
that lago ". . . has less passion than the ordinary man, and yet he does these frightful things."
Bradley accepts in principle the suggestions of Hazlitt and Swinburne (p. 228), and he accepts
Coleridge's "moove-huntiing" figure too (p. 226); Bradley's point is that Coleridge's estimate does
not equate with "'evil for evil's sake" Barker (H. Granville-Barker, Prefaces (Princeton, 1947), pp.
98ff.) allows lago the emotion of hate, but even this is seen as cold.
31 For the Satanist view-of lago's -lack of passion, see Chapman, Stoll, p. 247, and Palmer.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
154 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
has an essential disrespect for others, their dignity, and the
only concern being his subordination of them; he thinks of
to be exploited, he is proud of his ability to exploit them,
crook, working with anything at hand-money, sexuality, f

This fairly well describes Iago from the observable actions

provided. Is this the picture of a kind of human being? It is; no
certainly, but one so common in society that in psychological
find it charted as a type. In fact, the preceding paragraph abo
stract, almost word-for-word, of the description by a disting
medical psychologist of a familiar neurotic pattern. lago m
model for the study. And the pattern of Iago's overt activity is
recognizable drives of his inner life. Here is another abstract,
from a description of the motivations of such a neurotic type:

His main motivating force in life is his need for vindictiv

he cannot tolerate anybody who knows or achieves more
wields more power, or in any way questions his superiority
he has to drag his rival down or defeat him. Even if he sub
self for the sake of his career, he is scheming for ultimat
being tied by feelings of loyalty, he easily can become tre
drive for a triumphant mastery of life ... with the unsati
accompanies it, becomes a monster, more and more swall
ings ... [and covering] the self-hate and self-contempt that a
their dimensions. Love, compassion, considerateness-all h
felt as restraints on the path to sinister glory . . . he must
worth to himself. And he can prove it to his satisfaction only
to himself extraordinary attributes, the special qualities of w
mined by his particular needs. . . Having smothered positi
can rely upon only his intellect for the mastery of life. Hen
his intellectual powers reaches unusual dimensions, pride i
outwitting everybody, in foresight, in planning.... [A] fre
of [his] tendency to deprive or exploit is an anxiety that he
or exploited by others.... He gives free range, at least in h
ample supply of bitter resentment ... [though the outward
vindictiveness may be checked by the considerations of prud
ency. . .. In order to understand why his process of crushin
sists ... we have to take a look ... at his imagination and hi
future. He is and will be infinitely better than "they" [the
will become great and put them to shame. He will show th
have misjudged and wronged him. He will become the gre
(the great) persecutor.... Driven by .. . a need for vindica
and triumph, these are not idle fantasies. They determine th
life. Driving himself from victory to victory, in large or sm
lives for the "day of reckoning."33

32 Karen Horney, Self-Analysis (New York, 1942), pp. 56ff. See also, by the
Quest for Power, Prestige, and Possession," and "Neurotic Competitiveness,"
sonality of Our Time (New York, 1937), pp. i62-206.
The neurotic personality manifests itself in various ways, some marked by
aggression. In this abstraction from Horney, and in the following one, I ha
from many pages, the psychologist's descriptions of one "expansive" manifesta
33 Karen Horney, Neurosis and Human Growth (New York, 1950), pp
I think, was reaching for some such explanation for Iago's humanity in

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IN DEFENSE OF IAGO 155

It is not necessary here, as it was for the psych

stresses that twist the normal human drives into
find in a man's childhood the conditions that mak
drive him to seek omnipotence in a fantasy. For u
exists only as a more or less valid reflection of life in the dramatic art form.
What is important here is that Shakespeare saw and worked out dramatically, as
the psychologist did in textbook.observation, how these things could be-how
intimately related were the need for vindictive triumph and the need to deny
positive feelings, how pervasive and powerful was the resulting misdirected hos-
tility, how dangerously and poisonously the hostility fumed beneath the surface
when it was further compressed by the outward need to appear pleasant and
subordinate.
It is no longer surprising to us that Shakespeare sensed complexities of hu-
man motivation that psychologists are still trying to explain. Freud long ago
paid tribute to him for that. But it is interesting to see how deep his insight
could go, as in the case 'of Iago. For having shaped the true mental and emo-
tional qualities of his vindictive man, the playwright added a distinctive physical
illness that unmistakably belongs to lago. It was an illness that plagued Iago
savagely, and one that, in his revenge fantasies, he hoped to fasten onto Othello.
The illness is common today-it is almost expected to occur among those
individuals who burn with resentment and hostility that they try to suppress. It
feeds on internalized rage. In lago it occurs when, out of the deep well of his
self-contempt, he dredges up a fantasy upon which to center his furious resent-
ment-specifically when he tortures himself with the thought that Othello had
sexual relations with Emilia.

. . . The thought whereof

Doth, like a poisonous mineral, gnaw my inwards....

Iago does, that is, burn inwardly from a familiar, severe functional disorder,
a disorder that eats a man away within when his nerves flay his stomach. Modern
medical studies show that emotionally Iago is curiously like the type that suffers
from the psychosomatic stress which abrades the "inwards" and frequently leads
to the painful, persistent ulcer. The ulcer "type", as these studies show, can be
from any field of activity, but however diverse the occupations and environment
he is likely to be a person who was driven, to quote one study, to evolve
"6. ..a life pattern of being self-sufficient, independent, or the 'lone-wolf."'
This pattern was ". commonly accompanied by feelings of resentment and
hostility."34
The case studies show that ulcer patients frequently take out some of their
aggressions on exploitable underlings; this was an accompaniment to the
smothered resentment and hostility fantasies they suffered in their relations
with persons they could not manipulate.
Ancient's urge to "plume up my will" (Bradley, pp. 229 f.), Bradley saw, too, that lago did not
understand the power of love; but the critic stopped short of the further insight that it was some
repression of the passion all humans share, and not the utter lack of it, that accounted for the power
of lago's characterization. Perhaps a greater tolerance for seeing Othello in the theater would have
helped Bradley here. Kittredge, though he tended to justify lago's actions on the basis of external
provocation, sensed more acutely the "raging torment" within the Ancient.
84 B. Mittelman, H. G. Wolff, and M. Scharf, "Emotions and Gastroduodenal Functions,"
Psychosomatic Medicine, IV (1942), 5, i6.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
156 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

lago, who is ceaselessly on fire with suppressed hostility against those he

cannot openly exploit, represents excellently the typical host for this gnawing,
poisonous mineral of an illness; and if he mistakes its physiological nature, he
knows well enough what causes it in him. A thought, a conceit, like his sus-
picion of Emilia's infidelity, is enough to set the sharp teeth biting at his gut;
and it is precisely such a conceit that he hopes to feed Othello, for

Dangerous conceits are in their nature poisons ...

which ...
... with a -little act upon the blood
Burn like the mines of sulphur.

Iago knew the feeling well. The imagery is so sharp that one wonders how
well Shakespeare himself might have been acquainted with the problem. Cer-
tainly Renaissance psychologists knew the signs of it, little as they understood its
location or its causes in detail; thus, a late sixteenth-century treatise explained:
"But the envious body is constrained to bite on his bridle, to chew and to devoure
his envy within himselfe and to lock up his owne miserie in the bottome of his
heart, to the end it breaks not foorth and show itself... ." 5 Iago indeed chewed
and devoured his envy within himself, and locked up his misery in the bottom
of his heart-or in that approximate location.
If this characterization I have proposed is consistent with Shakespeare's in-
tention, it should be able to stand the same test I applied to the other interpreta-
ions: is it communicable in the theater? I believe it is. Indeed, in my view its
value for criticism would be seriously limited unless it did have meaning in
terms of the art form in which Shakespeare worked. This does not mean a belief
that Iago-or any complex Shakespearian character-can or should be presented
in any rigidity patterned way from the stage. One of Shakespeare's greatnesses
as a dramatist was his sense of the flexibility of the art in which he worked, and
particularly its demands for language and characterization that could fit, like
a loose but always shapely garment, the widely varying creative approaches in-
evitable when different actors play the same role. Actors of many sizes, shapes,
temperaments, and cultural backgrounds have shown, and will show, Iagos with
different surfaces: one more brooding, another more mercurial, or more genial,
or more sardonic. But the character is most powerfully communicated on the
stage, it seems to me, when its nucleus is the conception of humanity I have
outlined.
The two sharply contrasting, yet complementary sides of lago give a sus-
penseful unity to the role on the stage. A constant tension surrounds the Ancient
in his outward seeming, it emerges from the impression not only of his cynical
hypocrisy but also of his continuously holding his emotions down. When he
smothers his deep hostility, and appears, without any show of hypocrisy--even
to the audience-the true friend and subordinate of Othello, we know he is
more than a coolly calculating pretender; he is a dangerous high explosive. We
get a glimpse of his passion when he is exploiting Roderigo, and a hint of its
heat in his treatment of Emilia. Probably Shakespeare meant the mask to slip
momentarily in other company, too: as when Cassio kisses Emilia on the Cyprus
quay, and lago, after a flashing look of hate, covers with the line of sadistic
35 Peter de la Primaudaye, The French Academy, trans. T. B(owes) (1586), quoted in
Lily B. Campbell, Shakespeare's Tragic Heroes-Slaves of Passion (Cambridge, 193(), p. 153.

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IN DEFENSE OF IAGO 157

humor aimed at his wife; or when the Ancient is talking to Roderigo a bit later
about the plot to ruin Cassio, and in his furious envy lets his passion get away
from him, and he runs on and on: "Besides, the knave is handsome, young, and
hath all those requisites in him that folly and green minds look after; a pestilent
complete knave, and the woman hath found him already."
When Iago is in the very midst of lecturing Roderigo on the philosophy of
the supremacy of reason and will, his suppressed emotion seems meant to show,
as when he dwells more than he needs to on erotic love. Probably there is not a
scene where the rumble of Iago's inner passion is not meant to be sensed be-
neath the controlled surface.
Then, the moment Iago is left alone, we look into the volcano itself: the
resentment wells up, and he rages down the stage, fantasying revenge and
triumph. The sudden contrast is first rate theater, and it adds the necessary deep
shadows to the characterization of the surface man. Each soliloquy sharpens the
audience sense of the controlled hostility that must be so carefully hidden at
other times, and makes more dramatic the mbment when the hostility shows.
The better Iagos I have watched have seemed to sense, whether consciously or
not, the constant emotional smoldering of the character, and have deliberately
damped the fire during Iago's scenes with others, and masked it with biting
humor, to let it blaze out in the soliloquies. There the diffuse character of Iago's
pervasive hostility is emphasized. No one passion is seen to dominate him, but
all that can crowd in, jealousy, envy, pride, fear, humiliation, hate, self-contempt.
These are no made-up emotions, either; they shake Iago fiercely; yet as he
moves through his stormy theater life it is clear, from the fair treatment he is
seen to get from others, that the source of his torment is not outside him. It is
seen in perspective to be within, where the denial of positive feelings has diverted
his emotions into a fountain of hostility that must release itself in all the furious
fantasies he can manufacture. To the end he tries to deceiver the outer world
about his inner life, just as he is himself obviously deceived about his power to
subdue his own emotions. Finally, when all is lost, when the others have lifted
the curtain on his secret world, and he murders his wife in a sudden release of
hostility, he immediately re-asserts the strenuous rein on his rebellious emotions,
and tries for the last time to seal off his feelings from the sight of others. These
mortals cannot make him speak, though his heart were in their hand.
What is compelling about this kind of Iago in the theater is his unmis-
takable humanity. He does not draw our sympathy, because he is a very wicked
man; but he evokes our fear, because we know wicked men do exist, and here
is a shockingly real reflection of how their twisted emotions work; and he
evokes some other nameless kind of terror, a terror of recognition, for he is com-
pounded of deep human motives that run through all of us. I believe it is this
uncanny echo in Iago-uncanny in the Freudian sense-that has made him so
fascinating and puzzling to so many audiences and critics.
Tle critics who have sought to explain Iago's humanity were certainly on
the right track; if their studies were incomplete-as this one may similarly be-
it was perhaps because they did not go far enough behind Iago's jealousy, or
pride, or envy, or other manifestations to his broad-based affinity with mankind.
The apologists have generally sought an outside provocation for Iago's wicked-
ness because they felt that only this could justify his humanity; and perhaps this

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
158 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
feeling also prompts those who find Iago a veritable devil bec
bring themselves to accept as human the flood of hostility th
The devil has for a long, long time, either as a figure of real
taken the blame for human wickedness. I think we understand by now the
impulse to unload human evil on spiritual and allegorical scapegoats.
This impulse may have lain in Shakespeare's unconscious, and if so the
symbolists have made a discovery for us; but there is no sound evidence that
Shakespeare meant consciously to find responsibility for the evil that men do
anywhere but in men themselves. Largely his greatness as a dramatist for times
beyond his own lay in his recognizing and revealing the purely mortal forces
that move people to action-or inaction. In Iago, he went deep into the nature
of thwarted humanity; we can try to go no less far in confirming the accuracy
of his portrait.
The aggressive drives we have learned to recognize as a badge of humanity
are twisted and magnified in Iago, but we cannot disown them. Even in people
we call normal, those who learn to channel their forces into socially useful re-
leases, resentment rises at real and fancied wrongs, hostilities sometimes build
up at obstacles in the life path. Decent persons living under the inner tension
this kind of life produces find flitting through their thoughts momentary wishes
that harm, disease, or death will come to rivals or enemies, while they fantasy
triumph for themselves. In the neurotic, hopelessly unsatisfied with reality, the
hostile wishes and glory fantasies take on more and more importance, as they are
charged with the full force of the repressed libido, and sometimes the fantasies
are even translated recklessly into action. It is this kind of human being, when
he is driven to change the form of reality to fit his vision of omnipotence, who
makes tragedy, in life or in the drama; I believe it is this kind of human being,
with his uncanny attraction for endless audiences and readers, that Shakespeare
with surpassing technical skill and insight reflected in Jago.

University of California

This content downloaded from

218.188.146.2 on Tue, 17 May 2022 03:52:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms