# data[].attributes.body
‘And Wash the Ethiop White’ is a reference to a fable where a white slave-owner suspected that his slave was neglected or ill-treated by his former owner, so tries to bathe him to make the blackness come off. Much of what Newman writes about in this essay is related to the fact that Othello and Desdemona could not have had a long-lasting love because Othello is a moor.

Similar to Coleridge’s argument: ‘It would be something monstrous to conceive this beautiful Venetian girl falling in love with a veritable negro’, Newman felt that Othello and Desdemona’s relationship was futile from the start, due to the difference in their skin colour.

‘The union of Desdemona and Othello represents a sympathetic identification between femininity and the monstrous which offers a potentially subversive recognition of sexual and racial difference.’

# data[].attributes.body
Algernon Charles Swinburne (5 April 1837 – 10 April 1909) was a poet and playwright himself. After his death in 1926, his views on Othello were published in The Four Plays, as well as numerous news and magazine articles around England. In all honesty there was very little on Swinburne, but I have managed to find a few points:

He claimed that othello was a "collision of passion and intellect", and that no one, now, can ever rival the author, not even some of the greatest poets or playwrights of the time (or even after).

Swinburne also stated that "we get the pure poetry of personal and natural emotion, unqualified by the righteous doiby and conscientious intelligence which instigate and impede the will." This draws on Swinburne's later claim that othello is a combination of King Lear's poetic language and Hamlet's philosophical and dark undertones. The poetry from King Lean is reflected in Othello through Iago's somewhat over the top but beautiful speeches. The darkness and philosophy from Hamlet come through in Iago's "intelligence which instigate and impede the will" - in other words, Iago takes charge and controls all situations.

Swinburne also poses an interesting debate. He claimed in a later excerpt that he wonders "why, Shakespeare". There was a scene in Cinthio's original (of which Shakespeare based Othello) where Iago finds himself having to use his baby infant child in order to get Desdemona's handkerchief back. Swinburne asks why Shakespeare chose to leave this section out - was it because that would've made Iago too evil? Did Shakespeare want some level on humanity to remain in Iago?

# data[].attributes.body
(Rymer: A short View on Tragedy)

Rymer was one of Othello’s first critics. He speaks of the play in a rather negative manner, strongly based around the idea of the play being a ‘Fable’. He considers the events of the production can be used to teach lessons to the audiences whom attend it.

Rymer takes the view of the play’s main meaning to be; the consequences of actions performed without parental consent. He talks about the betrayal of Desdemona to her father. How she is wed in secret to Othello, a keen friend of the Venetian senator. Leaving Brabantio feeling an utmost resentment toward Othello. Rymer warns that ‘All maidens of quality how, without their parents’ permission, run away with Blackmoors’. He uses one of Othello’s stories that he tells Desdemona as evidence, expressing that Othello’s charm was used to capture her heart making Othello an equal in class or making him ‘white’ as seen in ‘This was sufficient to make Othello the Blackmoor White’ as though Othello was using her for his own gain in political and social class.

Another point made by Rymer is the fact that Othello is made a Venetian General, yet we never see anything done by him. Not one notion or message passed to him by a lower class solider, nor any war related tales concerning him and no attempt on his life (other than the act of killing himself) is made, despite him being this all powerful figure of the Venetian army. Rymer sees Othello’s lust and jealousy shouldn’t be the feeling of a high ranked general. ‘His Love and his Jealousie are no part of a Souldiers Character, unless for Comedy’

He then goes on to critique Desdemona’s character, as well as the other females in the play. ‘Of what flesh and blood does our Poet make thes nobles?... Women without Brains or Sense?’. I believe that Rymer is directly critiquing the Venetian culture as a whole. During the time 1600’s in Britain the morals and class divide was extremely prominent. The marriage of a high-class member of society to a member of a lower class wouldn’t happen, or never even dream of a wedding between races. This display’s Shakespeare’s ability to camouflage himself from censorship, he is able to create such controversial situations without being prosecuted by the laws of Britain.
Overall i would agree with Rymer. His views at that time were perfectly acceptable, it was very rare for interracial marriage to occur and women didnt have a voice or any sense of freedom in that time, so for Desdemona to go against her parents wishes was seen as a very strange occurrence.
Of course now the times have changed and society is far more liberal with views surrounding Race and Sexes. But Rhymer#'s critique is perfectly understandable, judging the period it was written in and the morals the society of that time held.

# data[].attributes.body
'In the early 90s Marilyn wrote that Iago manages to convince Othello so easily because they share male patriarchal value structure where women are seen as superhuman and divine or subhuman and beastly'. In this she is presenting the idea that because it is a male dominated society it is easy to convince Othello because he hasn't had anyone else's opinion and at that time women were seen as objects. In addition to this Iago knows it is easy to overshadow Othello's love with jealousy, he loves Desdemona so much but he has little faith in her because of the society they are in.

Venice is not just a place, it is an influence and this is portrayed in the characters themselves - Othello and Cassio are not native Venetians but they have the strong influence of Venice within them.

The scenes in Venice present the male principle in two aspects. The senate scene shows it at its finest yet it has a feminine aspect to it in it's protective and consolatory inclinations.

The city is dominated by reason, and the council scene (I, iii) exemplifies reason in action, whether the issue is a set of conflicting reports of an enemy's movements or a father's hysterical attack. Control is essential to a culture which views natural humanity as depraved and vicious: thus Hamlet values Horatio, and Polonius lectures Laertes. It is also essential to a culture which views natural humanity as bestial and voracious, which is closer to the view of this play. The shocked Lodovico laments:

'Is this the noble Moor whom our full Senate. Call all in all sufficient? Is this the nature. Whom passion could not shake? whose solid virtue
The shot of accident nor dart of chance. Could neither graze nor pierce? (IV, i, 264-8)'

# data[].attributes.body
William Hazlitt 1817

“Lago is an example of the typical stage Machiavel who personifies rationality, self-interest, hypocrisy, cunning, expediency and efficient ‘policie’ , he is an amoral artist who seeks to fashion the world in his own interest.

Characters of Shakespeare's Plays, is book of criticism wrote by William Hazlitt in 1817.

William Hazlitt refers to Lago as Machiavel otherwise meaning Machiavellian. This means that Lago is cunning and dec ei tful in this general conduct. The word s source comes from the Italian Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote Il Principe. Lago is referred to in this way by William, as he is very scheming in the play, he manipulates situations to his own advantage.Willaim also describes Lago as some one who only cares about himself "self interest" Lago is very selfish and has no emotions for other people, including his wife, whom Lago kills.William also believes that largo is self centred and selfish."seeks to fashion the world in his own interest." By "fashioning" the world, Lago would like to change the world to his personal specification. I agree with William Hazlitt that Lago is a Machiavelli, as Lago only thinks of himself and vengeance caused, jealousy, a dominant theme in the play.

William also says this about Shakespeare chara cter Lago,"The character of Iago is one of the supererogation's of Shakespeare's genius." William uses the word "supererogation's" this means that William believes the character Lago created by Shakespeare was greater than what had been expected or asked for.William thinks of the character as cunning and selfish, however, the character is admired by William, ra ther than loathed.William also compliment Shakespeare himself as referring to his as a genius.However William also judges Lago." his villainy is without a sufficient motive" William comments on lago's cruelty by using the word "villainy" is describes Lagos villainous behaviour. William also comments on the characters lack of motives for this territory and betrayal in the play.This is supporting evidence that L a go may be a psychopath.

"his depraved appetite, sickly and insipid" In this quote William talks about Lagos actions ruining Desdemona's life.In the quote William uses the words "depraved" and "appetite". Using the word d epraved William describes Lago as morally corrupt, and wicked however, using the word appetite concludes that Lago has a hunger to be corrupt and wicked.I also agree with the chose of words used and their meaning.Largo's only motive for causing such devastation is jealousy, Lago losses more then he gains in the play. Lago is also described as sickly and insipid, William clearly thinks of Othello as week and unappetizing. This I agree with William Hazlitt's opinions of the character Lago.Largo is cruel and only his his own int e rests at heart, making him very selfish, Lago is also very Machiav el, cunning and manipulative in his schem ing and plotting.He uses people like Cassio and Desdemona to his advantage without taking a moment to reflect on the emotional corruption and devastation his actions cause.

# data[].attributes.body
F.R Leavis's general argument consists of the following:

That Othello's love for Desdemona is composed largely of ignorance of self as well as ignorance of her.

As well as: "Othello didn’t really know Desdemona, and Othello acquiesces in considering her as a type - a type outside his experience - the Venetian wife."

I would argue against Leavis's analysis by citing the fact that the pair of them grew to know one another via Othellos' visits to Brabantios home, in which he spent a considerable length of time charming and wooing his daughter, Desdemona, showing signs of a very legitimate, organic love.

"Which ever as she could with haste dispatch, She'd come again, and with a greedy ear Devour up my discourse..."

It's clear that Othellos visits were either frequent or over a long period as he was able to recount countless events from his life, detailing "From year to year - the battles, sieges, fortunes, That I have passed." As a result, Desdemona and Othello must have spent a long period together, building the foundations of their future relationship.

Alternatively it could be argued that it seems Desdemona only fell in 'love' with Othello for his stories of valiance and bravery, rather than something deeper and centered upon emotional connection. Furthermore, Othello and Desdemona are world's apart with Othello living a life based upon violence, danger and destruction whereas Desdemona hs left a sheltered and wealthy and existence within the deepest depths of Venetian luxury. Othello may have simply been attracted to her as she enabled him to move away from his position as someone 'socially inferior' and was simple to charm. Similarly, Desdemona may have wished to overthrow the dictating command of her father and seek something beyond her cushioned life. As a result, it can be argued the pair become deeply entwined over the shared aspiration of fulfilling themselves rather than one another, as the traditional aspects of love would illustrate.

"I am hitherto your daughter. But here's my husband, And so much duty as my mother showed To you, preferring you before her father, So much I challenge that I may profess Due to the Moor lord.

The references of "Moor" and "Venetian Wife" makes the marriage seem dependent on class and status rather than love and compassion

I would also agree with Leavis's argument that Othello shows no true character development or realisation upon murdering his innocent wife.

His "weak character" and severe susceptibility to Iagos' claims render him a self indulged and jealous man. It's clear that if he had a truly stable and well structured relationship, Iago's claims, as well as himself, could be easily dismissed by Othello. Alas, he is so indulged with himself, he is easily one over and thus kills his innocent wife. But he doesn't acknowledge his character flaws and merely kills himself, a somewhat cowardly way out. Even as he utters his last lines he praises himself.

"Soft you; a word or two before you go. I have done the state some service and they know't."

Overall I agree with Leavis that the relationship seems to be founded on self-gain rather than mutual compassion and unification of the soul. Personally, I believe that the love seems too overly passionate to be anything more than false, as too people are blinded by their false love rather than acknowledging each others character flaws (jealous nature or naive mindset) and appreciating one another anyway.

# data[].attributes.body
Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote in his own copy of Shakespeare’s ‘Othello’ (1603), “The motive-hunting of motiveless Malignity,” As he writes about Iago in Act 1 scene 3 speaking to Roderigo. (The speech soliloquy beginning “Thus do I ever make my fool my purse.”)

The quote I was given was, “A being next to the Devil—only not quite the Devil—and this Shakespeare has attempted, executed, without disgust, without scandal!” Many believe that this because Coleridge thought that Iago doesn’t have a reason for his dishonourable intents, he only does what he does because he is evil. I agree with this idea, that Iago is so evil that he can be compared to the most evil being imaginable. Although it does seem that he does have a basis for being foul. Being passed/looked over by someone who he considered a friend/equal for many years could have been a large blow to Iago. It was obviously much unexpected by him. However, it could still be said that the extent that Iago took his sinister plans was incredibly evil and that he did not need to go that extent go gain revenge.

However, Coleridge in an entry he wrote for ‘Omniana’, a collection published by Robert Southey in 1812.

“119. Motives and Impulses.

It is a matter of infinite difficulty, but fortunately of comparative indifference, to determine what a man's motive may have been for this or that particular action. Rather seek to learn what his objects in general are!--What does he habitually wish? habitually pursue?--and thence deduce his impulses, which are commonly the true efficient causes of men's conduct; and without which the motive itself would not have become a motive. Let a haunch of venison represent the motive, and the keen appetite of health and exercise the impulse: then place the same or some more favourite dish, before the same man, sick, dyspeptic, and stomach-worn, and we may then weigh the comparative influences of motives and impulses. Without the perception of this truth, it is impossible to understand the character of Iago, who is represented as now assigning one, and then another, and again a third, motive for his conduct, all alike the mere fictions of his own restless nature, distempered by a keen sense of his intellectual superiority, and haunted by the love of exerting power, on those especially who are his superiors in practical and moral excellence. Yet how many among our modern critics have attributed to the profound author this, the appropriate inconsistency of the character itself!  (Shorter Works and Fragments 1: 310)”

Here we see Coleridge believes that Iago’s malicious intents are that he loves power play and that Iago is actually incredibly intelligent and that in Iago’s rational mind his objectives are rational. This could also show that there is a slight craze behind the man and what he is trying to achieve. I agree with Coleridge’s view to the extent that he obviously enjoys being incredibly powerful and it only drives him to do more (hence why almost everyone ends up dead and why at the end Iago, upon being taken for torture says, “Demand me nothing. What you know, you know. From this time forth I never will speak word.” As he knows he has ‘won’ in his battle for revenge and power). I also agree with Coleridge’s idea that to Iago, his ideas are rational in his own mind.