2016 > Вісник Дніпропетровського університету ім. Альфреда Нобеля. Серія: Філологічні науки. — Вип. 1 (11), Дніпропетровськ, 2016. — С. 161–167

Comparing Othello with other Shakespeare’s great tragedies, a number of scholars underlined – in different terms – its unique structure. A.C. Bradley distinguished Othello from other great tragedies as “the least symbolic” and “the most masterly in construction” [1, p. 185]. One of the leading figures in British “new criticism,” F.R. Leavis, in his essay Diabolic Intellect and the Noble Hero called this play “the simplest one” of all Shakespeare’s great tragedies [2, pp. 136–159]. J.C. Maxwell considered Othello to be a “well-made play” [3, p. 202]. Leonid Pinsky wrote about Othello’s “exclusiveness” [4, p. 158]; Alexander Anikst considered this play to be “the most perfect of all Shakespeare’s tragedies in construction” [5, p. 448], and so on.

That uniqueness can be noted even in the spatial and temporal construction of the Venetian tragedy. Its chronotope¹ is marked by the least conventionality and the greatest historic and geographic concreteness in comparison with other tragedies. Calling Othello “a drama of modern life” [1, p. 180], A.C. Bradley went too far, of course, but the tragedy’s closeness to the reality of the time when it was created is beyond doubt.

Quite exact is Naum Berkovsky’s opinion that this tragedy is free from the “narrow historicism” [6, p. 106], which is apparent, for instance, in the contamination of the plot motifs originated from Geraldi Cinthio on the one hand and from the later concrete historic associations on the other. Nevertheless, the most historic and geographic concreteness of the play in comparison with Hamlet or King Lear is obvious. It was the single tragedy founded on the contemporary story, written by Shakespeare’s contemporary [7, p. 114].

The unity of the tragedy’s inner world seems to be broken by the quite sharp and irrevocable change of the place of action from the first act to the following four acts.

The exploration of the tragedy’s spatial and temporal construction convinces of the certain contentional and formal autonomy of the first act. That Venetian act can be examined as a little independent drama with all the main elements of dramatic structure. Speaking in the normative theory’s terms, we can find here an exposition (the dialogue between Iago and Roderigo), a beginning (Brabantio’s anger), a climax (the speeches in the Senate) and even a dénouement (Duke’s and Senate’s decision) can be observed.

Meanwhile, the drama limited by the frame of the first act is a tragedy neither in content nor in form. The first act is to a great extent an epical one, but the tragedy itself begins later in the Cyprus scenes. It is not accidental that the second act opens with the storm, which is, though, rather kind to the characters of the play. G. Wilson Knight, who had investigated the symbology of this scene, showed that it foreshadows – in analogy and in contrast – human storms with tragic ends and at the same time plays the structural part of the beginning [8, pp. 109–111]. Definition of this scene as a beginning already emphasizes the presence of some border between the first act and the four others.

The comparative independence of the first act is caused not so much by the place of action as by its own collision, which does not coincide with the main conflict of the whole tragedy. Development of “the tragedy of subjective passion” (Hegel’s expression [9, p. 197]) in the first act is not even declared, though it determines all the action in the following acts. A.C. Bradley had some reason to state that “the conflict begins late” [1, p. 177] speaking of the tramline conflict, but he ignored the special conflict of the first act completely. Meanwhile, this conflict determines the dynamics of action in the first act, and it is quite apparent in the opposition of Othello to the Venetian Republic. As N. Berkovsky observes, this collision is “the starting point of the tragedy” [6, p. 71].

Undoubtedly, the opposition “Othello – Venice” could not exist before the romance of Othello and Desdemona. Iago’s remarks, as well as the scene in the Senate, prove that Othello’s position and behaviour break “the hierarchic conception of society” [10, pp. 73–84], which was established in Venice. Having become widely known, the romance of Othello and Desdemona uncovers and at the same time catalyses this inevitable clash.

The conflict “Othello – Venice” is not solved in the first act: Duke’s and Senate’s decision is dictated by the political and military situation, and Othello receives an order to leave for Cyprus, which “the Turk with a most mighty preparation makes for.” The famous Russian theatrical director Konstantin Stanislavsky caught this nuance precisely, emphasizing in his prompt-book that there is no solution of the conflict, but only the compromise at the end of the first act [11, p. 117]. The unsolved collision was also noticed by Grigorij Kosintsev [12, pp. 166–168].

The solution of the conflict “Othello – Venice” is as though delayed, and therefore this contradiction, which is moved aside to the margin of the audience’s interest, exists in the tragedy implicitly, becoming apparent closer to the end of the tragedy.

The further development of this conflict is prophesied, to say more exactly – forecasted by Iago in the first act. His forecasts are made even before Brabantio’s appeal to the Senate. The first one sounds in the first scene:

…for I do know the state, –
However this may gall him with some check, –
Cannot with safety cast him; for he’s embark’d
With such loud reason to the Cyprus wars, –
Which even now stand in act, – that for their souls,
Another of his fathom they have none
To lead their business… (Act I, Scene 1) [13].

This statement of Iago contains not the slightest doubt. The conjuncture solution (in fact, mis-solution) of the problem is foretold quite exactly. But in the second scene of the same act, Iago offers another prognostication, and although not all his words sound sincere (he addresses Othello!), the second forecast is even better grounded. This time the victory is predicted for the Venetian nobility, since the Senate will be more attentive to Brabantio’s appeal:

…be assured of this,
That the magnifico is much beloved;
And hath in his effect, a voice potential
As double as the duke’s: he will divorce you… (Act I, Scene 2) [13].

The unsolved and moved-aside conflict reminds of itself in the fourth act by the arrival of Lodovico and by his mission in Cyprus. When Lodovico informs Othello that he is discharged, it is not the act of punishment for the Moor’s killing Desdemona but the decision which the Venetian powers had come to before Lodovico’s departure from Venice:Your power and your command is taken off,
And Cassio rules in Cyprus… (Act V, Scene 2) [13].

Certainly, Venice, which is opposed to the protagonist, is not represented only by Brabantio, but also by Iago, Roderigo, Gratiano, Lodovico, and so on. It is difficult to agree with Yuri Shvedov, who exaggerated the scale of Emilia’s “rebellion” in the last act [14, pp. 231–232]. It is evident that Emilia’s resistance is motivated only psychologically, but not ideologically or socially.

The Venetian society is represented in the tragedy not so differentially. Except only Desdemona, who once performed a real action, moving through the border of the semantic field (in terms of Yuri Lotman [15, p. 282]), all the society of Venice in Othello is homogeneous and, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, is opposed to the protagonist.

The conflict “Othello – Venice” is unsolved not only within the limits of the first act; it cannot be considered solved even in the limits of the whole tragedy. “The tragic nature of political power” is completely realised neither in the first act nor in the others. The playwright does not idealize the Venetian state at the beginning of the play, and Lodovico’s mission adds more scepticism concerning the Duke’s and Senate’s role in Othello’s life. But this role is revealed quite slightly and just when the conflict “Othello – Venice” is moved aside and the development of action is exclusively dictated by “the tragedy of subjective passion.” The conflict, which is expressed in the opposition “Othello – Iago” as well as in the struggle of different, sometimes contrary trends in the conscience of Othello himself, appears to be the main tragic conflict of the play, which is completely developed and solved in the plot of the work.

However, the collision of the first act is not dissolved in the main conflict of the tragedy; these are two correlated but different conflicts. Considering one of them while fully ignoring the other, we can considerably water down the dramatic work’s sense.

When Georg Brandes stated that Othello was a tragedy of family life [16, p. 106], he narrowed the semantic range of the work; nowadays this point of view seems to be outdated. As modern critics showed quite distinctly, the noble Moor’s drama is rather tightly connected with the fate of the Venetian Republic.

Nonetheless, modern scholars write that Othello is more a chamber play than any other of the great tragedies. That is the opinion of the prominent Russian Shakespeare scholar of the 1950–80s:

“…The personal motif prevails in Othello. The fates of Venice and Cyprus do not depend on the noble Moor’s family drama. In other tragedies, it is always underlined that the characters’ fates are linked with the state’s fate…” [17, p. 514].

Similar judgements are met in the works of British critics. For instance, L.C. Knights writes that:

“Othello, although a poetic drama, comes closer than any of the other tragedies to what is commonly understood by ‘revelation of character’ and its focus is on individual and, we must say, the domestic qualities…” [3, p. 233].

But having noticed this “focusing on the individual” in the Venetian tragedy, many Shakespeare scholars of the second half of the XX century emphasized the importance of social and political context, which in many respects determines the development of personal motifs. H.B. Charlton calls Othello a tragic figure in the tragic world [7, p. 123].

Deepening the characterological analysis of Shakespearean hero’s life, M. Prior admits, though, that Othello degrades under the influence of “events and circumstances” [18, p. 233], and those circumstances are found by the scholar outside the sphere of private relations of the characters. So the importance of the first act’s collision is indirectly admitted by various authors.
It is quite possible to suppose that the determination of the action by two conflicts can lead to some severance in the tragedy, to violation of its unity. The wish to avoid this severance and preserve the work’s artistic unity often makes literary critics and theatrical directors concentrate on only one of these two conflicts. As a rule, the conflict “Othello – Venice” is reduced.

Konstantin Stanislavsky keenly felt the inadmissibility of ignoring that conflict, and it was registered in his prompt-book of the tragedy’s first act:

“…Stanislavsky saw the conflict of Othello in the clash of two romantics – Othello and Desdemona – with the world of Venice with its cold calculation, aristocratic arrogance, predatory individualism and ‘private interest’” [19, p. 369].

It is noteworthy that the Russian director was even inclined to some overstatement of this opposition’s role, which was apparent in his wish to represent the Venetian Senate stratified, where Brabantio could be an emblem of the reactionary forces and his relations with the more liberal Duke were rather complicated. But this conflict is developed by Stanislavsky only for the first act. The “dotted” appearance of this conflict in the fourth and fifth acts is not noticed by the director. In the 2nd–5th acts, “the tragedy of the betrayed trust” was the most important and interesting for him.

Co-existence of these two very different conflicts within one play creates some “bifurcation,” which is overcome later during the development of the tragedy’s action. Such overcoming is possible due to the participation of the same characters (mainly the protagonist and antagonist) in both conflicts.

Undoubtedly, Othello is the main participant in both collisions. Just in his opposition to Venetian powers in the first act, Othello convincingly reveals himself as the noble Moor, demonstrating the best qualities of his outstanding personality. As far as “the tragedy of subjective passion” is concerned, here the strong and rich nature is destroyed up to the sorrowful finale, when the hero reaches “the greatness of soul” for the last time. If there is no such disclosure of the great nature in the first act, the further development of the tragic theme would be meaningless.

In the process of overcoming that “bifurcation,” of immense importance is the figure of Iago, “the greatest intriguer in the world of Shakespeare’s tragedies” [4, p. 160]. It is Iago who is the initiator of both intrigues and their interlacing. He is a skillful director of Othello’s clash with Venetian nobility as well as of Othello’s private tragedy. The second plan is already born in Iago’s head in the first act, right after the temporally unsuccessful result of the first attempt. This circumstance makes perfidious Iago, equally with Brabantio, Duke, and senators, a representative of that Venetian Republic, which delays giving its sentence to the noble but foreign Othello only for some time. An artful ensign keeps the threads of both intrigues in his hands, and this circumstance especially assists in overcoming the seeming severance of this bifocal play.

Several other characters of the Venetian tragedy bear a relation to both conflicts, of course. However, except Desdemona and Lodovico, all others (Cassio, Roderigo, Emilia, and others) are included in those spheres mediately – through their links with either the protagonist or the antagonist.

Thus, the inner connection of various and strictly differentiated conflict situations is realized through the system of characters. This connection helps the first act’s conflict to be revealed in the chain of the following acts’ events and makes the central conflict more socially determined.