Professor David Peimer
Image of the Arab in Shakespeare
Professor David Peimer - Jerusalem in Poetry and Myth
- So as we’re dealing with the Middle East and parts of it, thought it would be an interesting idea to focus on… If we imagine going back 500 years to Shakespeare’s time, and imagine in his time we know of the character of Shylock, of course, pretty well. I’ve given a couple of talks here, and many people know, obviously, of the character of Shylock very well in the play. Thought it’d be interesting to have a look, how did Shakespeare deal with his primary Arab characters in his plays, in his time, of course, you know, towards the end of the 1500s, beginning of the 1600s in England, and to see the perception of his times through him as, for me, the greatest writer ever, and what has lasted, what we can glean for today in our times, but obviously rooted in, you know, how he saw it in his day. And I find that there are a couple of really interesting parallels, which I think speak directly to our times. So I’m going to focus just a little bit on the image of the stereotype Arab persons in Shakespeare’s time itself, 1590s, early 1600s, and then I’m going to talk about Othello primarily, and a little bit about Aaron, who is an important character in “Titus Andronicus,” one of the very early Shakespearean plays where you can see, as a dramatist, he’s sort of enjoying flexing his dramatic muscles and finding out what drama can do, what it can’t do. It’s a jumpy, bumpy, bit of an unwieldy play, but if one edits it and looks at it today, it can have extraordinary resonance.
And I’m going to look at a couple of clips from Julie Taymor’s fantastic film of “Titus Andronicus” with Aaron in, especially the one scene, and Anthony Hopkins playing the Roman general Titus Andronicus, and Aaron, and then looking at “Othello,” a couple of clips from what I still think is one of the great productions ever done, and it’s Orson Welles’s film version where he plays Othello, and, you know, I looked at quite a lot for today to prepare for today, obviously the RAC, America, elsewhere in the world, Anthony Sher, you know, fantastic productions they’ve all done, but somehow this one of Orson Welles, somehow he always gets to me, and he’s able to transcend decades and decades. Anyway, I’m going to share that with us today as a specific, I think, interesting exploration. Then of course we have the question of, but not Cleopatra, and nobody, interestingly, there’s no scholarly reference, there’s no historical, and nobody has ever mentioned over 500 years of talking about Cleopatra as an Arab character, but of course she was, the queen of Egypt. Fine, she’s descended from the Ptolemy lineage, and Ptolemy was one of Alexander the Great’s most important generals, so it goes back, you know, a couple hundred years, but that’s the descent from the Greek general, but nevertheless, 300 years later we have Cleopatra. But it’s always Anthony and Cleopatra or the Egyptian, and also I’ve spoken about her in a fairly recent talk in terms of the play and Janet Suzman’s brilliant performance of it, you know, which is legendary.
So I’ve thought, for those reasons, focus on Othello and Aaron. The one most important thing I want to say at the beginning is that I think what links us today to these plays and what links us to Shakespeare is, and this is my main point looking at throughout today, is he is able to project, through his imagination, project into the mind of the other, the outsider, the foreigner, the non-citizen, the alien as it was called in his time and in our time. Shylock has endless references to, you know, alien and who’s an alien, who is a citizen of Venice, and Othello and Aaron, which fit that category as well. Obviously it’s Othello is an Arab character, Aaron is meant to be Black, Arabic, and so on, the Moors as they were called in Shakespeare’s time. Little bit there’s Caliban, but that’s a whole separate debate around Caliban. Very different kind of character, and I think more linked to parts of Africa specifically. So what’s fascinating is that there is a sense of how does Shakespeare manage to imagine the other, the outsider in his own culture. And of course, as Jewish people and many others around the world, it speaks directly to such an important and powerful phenomenon of our times.
So I’m going to look at these qualities, and Shakespeare is one of the few playwrights to really be, of his own generation and centuries after, to really be able to imagine what it’s like to be in somebody else’s shoes, but somebody who is so different culturally, religiously, perhaps colour of skin, and other, you know, so-called physical attributes of the various stereotypes, Jewish, Arab, and others, and Black, you know, and sort of “African savage,” if you like, in inverted commas, with the character of Caliban. And when you look back in the history of theatre, it’s not many characters at all, not many writers that take on such a challenge. And it’s the ability to simply put oneself in another person’s shoes, and imagine experiencing and seeing life through their eyes, which is a mark of a great playwright anyway, and the mark of Mr. Shakespeare. So I think we get that idea of the outsider, the alienated foreigner, who is trying to assimilate, not assimilate, caught on all those, the horns of those dilemmas, and belonging and not belonging, accepted partly but not partly. Times get tough. What do they resort to about the person? Kick them out, or how do they defame and degrade them? The other second point is Shakespeare, we get the most articulate writer of, is it the outsider because of race or religion or politics or nationality? And we know the classic tropes of in terms of being Jewish. You know, first the difference between being attacked in terms of nationality, then attack or religion, nationality and race. You know, obviously in the first half of the 20th century, that was the focus.
And we see our own times now where different tropes are used, which attack the race or the nationality and the religion of Jewish people and others, you know, around the world, but obviously Jewish people, very much so. Shakespeare, I think, subtly understands that triple distinction. And he knows, for example, in Shylock, the word “Jew,” Shylock is called Jew 33 times. He’s hardly ever called by his name, Shylock. And that means they called it, and the characters talk about the race, his tribe, you know, and his religion. So it would’ve been seen in terms of race and religion in Shakespeare’s time, the attitude towards the Jewish person, although of course, Jews were banned in Shakespeare’s time. So if he ever met a Jewish person, highly unlikely. But he could imagine, as a great writer can, as I said, being in the shoes of another, the outsider. And when he’s looking at the Arab characters of Othello and Aaron, I’m going to suggest it is obviously part of the race, but the religion is not ever really mentioned. The religion of Islam, which would’ve been known, of course, very well, or Muslim, is barely mentioned. The word “Moor” does carry connotations and meanings of all of these, including Muslim and religion, in Shakespeare’s time, but Moor would’ve been more what we call perhaps Arab today, especially of North Africa, and a distinction between Morocco and others, which I’m going to go into in a moment.
So I think it’s less about, it’s not about religion. It’s more about race and politics. And it’s never about politics when it’s the Jewish character Shylock. It’s race, nationality, religion. That’s the tripod of the attack on the Jewish character, which Shakespeare gets it. With Othello and Aaron, it’s about race, colour of skin, whatever, and connotations of primitive and naive, but stupid and, you know, all of that. But it’s also politics. How come Othello in Venice is able to go from being an ordinary soldier to being an upstart top general, a general of the army in Venice. It’s crucial to the play. Shylock is no general. He’s seen as a merchant. He’s seen as a, you know, a usury, trader, this, that, all the stereotypes of the Jew we know. Othello is a general. He has reached the top of Venetian society, and he marries the white girl Desdemona. Shylock doesn’t marry a Christian woman. I mean, he can’t imagine it, you know, in the play. Shakespeare’s audience would’ve thought, this is insane, ridiculous, that you and a Christian, I mean, forget it. No. So he’s not only being bold as a playwright, he’s taking that big step, Shakespeare, and saying Othello, although his race is different, it’s because of the… But he’s able to get to the top of Venetian society, a general in the army, and a highly successful general and lauded, that he can get the girl, the white, the pure white girl as they keep talking about her, and these are references to the play when I use the word “pure.”
So the Black man, the Moor, the Arab, and the white marry. So it’s very important. What Shakespeare’s doing is pretty transgressive for his times, and probably even transgressive, perhaps even in certain countries around the world today. Imagine in some countries, you know, where with Sharia law, where an Arab marries a Jew, or, you know, an Arab marries… You can imagine, and all the rest of it. So I think these are the transgressive, remarkable qualities of this writer. Aaron is a different kind of character, which I’ll come to with “Titus Andronicus,” mainly on Othello. So these are, I think, some of the fascinating questions to look at. Can we go on to the next slide, please? Okay, this is a gentleman who was the main ambassador to Queen Elizabeth I’s court in London, and obviously she’s the primary ruler during Shakespeare’s time. Afterwards it’s James, James I. It’s around 1600, we think, that this portrait was done. And Shakespeare being part of the, eventually, the king’s men and all the rest, he might well have met this guy. And it’s an idea that a lot of scholars have thought, you know, this could have been a model for Othello. Obviously Othello’s a general, this guy’s an ambassador, but it is taken from Shakespeare’s time, and he would’ve been, and I’m using the word “Moor” in inverted commas because that’s the word used in Shakespeare’s time and in his plays. The North African, the Moor, and of the highest rank in Queen Elizabeth I’s court in Shakespeare’s time. And a lot of suggestive evidence that Shakespeare was basing it on perhaps a bit of knowledge of this guy. Interesting to see his clothing, his dress, his demeanour, of course the sword. But he’s an ambassador. He’s a diplomat at the Queen’s court.
Okay, and of course, there’s no such equivalent for any Jewish character ever. Rarely in this sort of way, you know, to be right at the top, cream of the crop. Okay, so I wanted to show this to just plant a seed of an idea. Now, a couple of important historical notes. In the 1550s, so we’re talking about 45, 48 years before Shakespeare’s main plays are written, is when the first sizeable appearance of Black people happened in England. Obviously they come across to work as slaves. English adventurers bring Black people to England. They sell some into slavery, their work, et cetera, and of course they’re taking them onto the new world. And there is evidence in the late 1550s, the first Black man marrying a white woman, which would’ve been, as we can imagine, hugely transgressive, but it happened in England in the late 1550s. And this is trying to set a precedence where an audience in his time, Shakespeare’s time could believe, you know, an Othello could marry a Desdemona. Arabs, who were there, the Moors in particular are from Morocco. Morocco has a special connection to England of Shakespeare’s time, and other Arabs from North Africa, but especially Morocco. And that’s where the word Moor is linked to, naturally. It’s a loose term, but in mediaeval Renaissance England, it could have meant Black and others, but primarily North Africa from the Morocco area, what we would call Morocco and that whole North Africa area today. But nevertheless, he remains a racial, cultural, political outsider, not a religious outsider, and that’s a huge difference with a Jewish character. Of course, the fantasies are activated, you know, that haunt, in inverted commas, “white society,” you know, the Black man or the Moor marrying the white woman and so on.
The alienation of Othello, who attains his position in Venice by merit, by being a superb soldier, a general, but nevertheless he can get to the pinnacle, but full assimilation is denied because of his race and political reasons about identity, not necessarily his religion and who he is, you know, born into in that context. So there’s that alienation, assimilation debate, which is obviously such an echo, resonant for Jewish people then and now, and through the character of Shylock completely. Morocco specifically, the relationship between Morocco and England was pretty friendly all the way through Elizabeth’s reign and then into James’s reign after, you know, she dies, is that which covers Shakespeare’s period. They’re pretty friendly. So of course the relationship between the Moors and the English is going to be pretty good, because there were friendly relationships between the two monarchs of Morocco and England. There was an Anglo-Moroccan alliance, which was strong, and they fought side by side in a major expedition, Cadiz, against the Spanish. The Spanish were the enemy of the Moors, of Morocco, North Africa and the English. Spanish Armada, we know all about that. The Moors were hated far less by Elizabethans than the Spanish or the French who were the eternal hate and bugbear of English, ‘cause obviously, you know, the Normandy, but the cross channel fights all the time, battles. Shakespeare also uses, of course, very intelligently as a dramatist, foreign and exotic settings. So you have a Moroccan, but he’s in Venice; you have Romans, but they’re in Egypt. And, you know, he’s aware that the audience needs to be kept excited with these exotic worlds to imagine. He was able to imagine life from the perspective of these others, which many of his fellow playwrights could not and did not.
Christopher Marlowe’s play “Jew of Malta” is brilliant, but, my God, if you ever want to see, to read an evil, vicious, vindictive character, it’s, you know, “The Jew of Malta,” and the title says it. So he’s trying to be bold by saying, “I can, as a writer, imagine myself looking at life in the shoes of and through the eyes of the other,” which would’ve been a major other in his own time. In “Titus Andronicus,” Aaron is called an inhuman dog, an unhallowed slave. Aaron is a Black slave who’s seen as savage, primitive, stupid, inferior, bottom of a pile. You know, that’s classic almost in terms of the African character. But the Arab character is not just that. And I want to argue in Othello, is that he’s so naive that he believes Iago, and it’s the jealousy and all the story that we know. It’s the naivety of the Arab, of the Moor. And he’s called “the Moor.” He’s never called “the Muslim.” He’s never called “the Islam.” It’s “the Moor” all the time. So it’s a racial slur and a political choice because of these reasons that I’ve mentioned. And of course there are elements of stereotype of the Moor, but, you know, he tries to make him more human. Interestingly, in Shakespeare’s time, a lot of plays were written about Turks, who were also seen as Moors but called Turks, often. Raging Turks, good Turk, voluptuous Turk, treacherous, Black Moor, noble Moor, noble Turk, and so on. So of course, Blacks and Moors and Spanish and French and Irish would’ve been seen as villains, plotters.
And of course, you know, the men of England would’ve been seen as the courageous defenders of country and queen. These are all political choices linked with a bit of race, with some race. They’re not about something much deeper that the three-pronged angle I mentioned about Shylock and the Jew, the Jewish character. In addition, if you look back at the staging in Shakespeare’s time, North African Moors fared pretty well on the London stage. They were quite popular characters. Audiences came, they liked it, they enjoyed it. They could see, “Oh.” It’s exotic because he’s a Moor, North Africa. You know, they can only imagine. They haven’t gone further, you know, 10, 20, 30 miles from London if they’re lucky, you know, horses, carts, all that. So it’s an exotic setting, which he cleverly introduces for his audience as well. So it’s not just, you know, a little dive, a bit set down the road in London for these characters. It was the political element, and the racial element partly, and that was crucial in representing the other about the Moor, as opposed to Shylock, as I said earlier. The other is represented in race, nationality, religion, and of course controlling everything, money, obsession, financial, all of those things go with it. The Moor is presented as either cunning, deceitful, or naive, but virile and strong like Othello. He’s a general, a soldier who’s done good, go all the way up to… He’s virile, he’s strong.
Can not only get the white girl, but he can lead an army. Crucial. Can’t imagine him writing at the time a Jewish guy leading an army in Shakespeare or any of the other playwrights. So he couldn’t of course oppose the political line of the period because of this friendship between Morocco and England that I mentioned. There was one other really important writer, Robert Greene, around Shakespeare’s time who ended up penniless and in jail. And Robert Greene was imprisoned. His manuscripts were burnt because they were seen as anti James I, anti the king, because he chose to push the political angle much more. Shakespeare holds back, obviously, smartly. I sense in the play a profound alienation in Othello, despite the fact that he’s arrived at his position on merit, the top of Venice, but he’s required to deny a part of himself, which is that he is a Moor. And partly because of that, Iago could use it to twist the mind of Desdemona, to twist Othello’s and other minds, plant seeds of deceit and question and doubt as to what Othello really is. Iago can use all the qualities and especially the race, sorry, of being a Moor. So in the army, and I think it’s really important that the play is set in the army, and he is a general preparing for a war. And his main officer is Iago. But Iago tricks him into believing that his wife Desdemona is having an affair with his lieutenant Cassio.
That’s the crux of the whole play. So an officer, let’s call it, in our times it would be a lieutenant, a major, a captain maybe, anyway, has managed to influence the mind of his general. “Hey, general, your wife Desdemona is having an affair with your lieutenant, who’s an underling under you. What are you going to do?” And drive the jealousy, drive the envy, drive everything in this virile soldier character to the extreme of killing Desdemona and himself at the end of the play. So Othello kills her out jealousy, strangles her. Only then afterwards, of course, in classic Shakespearean irony, after killing her, he realises that she was faithful all along. She never had an affair with his lieutenant Cassio in the slightest. And when he realises that, his world collapses, his ability, his attempt to assimilate, his attempt to integrate is finished, and he commits suicide, Othello. The word Iago uses is a word barbary, or barbarian, which was the classic word coming from ancient Rome about any of the provinces and tribes that challenge Rome. And of course he’s called the Moor, he’s called a lascivious Moor, he’s called the devil. So it’s linked to religion and the devil of Christianity, but not in the same way anyway near, and not nearly as often as Shylock in “The Merchant of Venice.” Iago says, tells Brabanzio, another one of the army guys, that “that old black ram,” meaning Othello, “old black ram is tupping your white ewe.” E-W-E.
So that old black ram, Othello, is tupping your white ewe, is cuckolding the young white, naive, pure, you know, pretty white girl, of society, of course. So I think these are important. So race is brought in and politics, but very minimally, as I said earlier, religion, not near to the Jew. Nicholas Hytner is, for me, a fantastic director in London, and fascinating production, which was set in Cyprus in a military compound, where the soldiers are in an operational setting. There’s an impending war, and I think he’s right. Because why does Iago begin all this? Because Iago is overlooked for promotion. He wants to become the main number two with Othello. He wants to become Othello’s main captain or major or lieutenant, whichever. You know, Caesar had his, and Mark Anthony was his main number two. And he wants to become the main number two for Othello, and he’s overlooked, and Casio gets the job. And he thinks it’s outrageous, it’s ridiculous, and that’s what starts the whole premise of the play, that envy, 'cause he didn’t get promotion, the other guy did. So it’s in an army camp, where of course you have, you know, the values of heroism, bravery, loyalty, but also a breeding ground for rivalry and jealousy and violence. And Iago’s jealousy is followed on Cassio, 'cause he is favoured by Othello to go up. Cassio is above Iago’s station. Why? And the resentment and the jealousy starts to kick in with Iago. The resentment poisons Iago. His schemes are to get revenge. It spiralled out of control and become deadly, as I mentioned.
And Iago is self-aware. He talks about being psychologically imprisoned by what he calls the green-eyed monster, which feeds on him. The green-eyed monster of jealousy is feeding on Iago himself, but he cannot stop it. He’s compelled to ride that horse of jealousy to the end. Because he’s self-aware, he gets our sympathy, of course, as a character, as all characters who are self-aware do. Iago would manipulate, deceive to get what he wants. You know, as Chekov, the great great Russian playwright once said, “Tell me what you want and I’ll tell you the kind of person you are.” Beautiful understanding of how to write character and human nature. Iago manipulates, deceives. He plays Othello, casually plants seeds of Desdemona’s so-called unfaithfulness in the Moor’s mind. Othello appears. He’s a man about to marry. He’s the leader in the army. He’s confident. He effortlessly commands thousands of soldiers. And he’s a Moor. Gets respect from the soldiers. He’s virile, he’s a man’s man, a lady’s man. Tells all the exotic stories of adventures, of military campaigns, and that wins over the white girl Desdemona. But Iago compressed the button of jealousy because his underling is having an affair with his wife, so he thinks, and so that’s the idea planted in Othello. So as the imagined evidence against Desdemona and his wife accumulates, his trust in her disintegrates, and Othello disintegrates with that. Everything he believed is called into question. He’s tormented by doubt. He becomes neurotic, crazy, obsessed. I suppose we use the word today, obsessed with it all. Every word he senses, every action. He looks at the bed sheet, everything, you know, evidence of her infidelity. Finally, his mental desperation leads to Othello killing her.
And when then Iago’s malicious lie is revealed, and then we see Othello crumble, to become pitiful, a pitiful creature. And at the end, Iago, interestingly with Shakespeare, refuses to explain why he did it. Is it just because he was overlooked for promotion? The end, right at the end of the play, Iago says, “Demand me nothing. What you know, you know. From this time forth, I never will speak a word.” He refuses to explain, to justify anything. It’s one of the fascinations of this character. Is it pure evil? Is it envy? Coleridge, we all know the wonderful poet, he called it a motiveless malignancy with his obsession with jealousy. Iago hates first and then invents reasons for his hate. People just hate, or people are just jealous, and then something comes along. There’s no motive. I don’t agree. I think Coleridge misses it. Because when jealousy starts with something, I know it may seem very insignificant here, overlooked for promotion, but they were soldiers together, they were in the trenches together, they fought, you know, they were at each other’s back, Othello and Iago. They protected, comrades in arms. We’ve all seen “Band of Brothers,” et cetera, et cetera.
Do anything to protect your brother in the army. They’ve been through hell, inferno of war together. Because he’s overlooked for promotion, he causes the death of all of these and everything? I wouldn’t underestimate being overlooked for promotion. It would go so deep, I think, into a character who’s already prone for jealousy. Not necessarily motiveless, as Coleridge suggests. So Iago, what’s interesting to me is that because he understands jealousy perfectly, he talks about the green-eyed monster that feeds upon him. Iago, his brilliance, and how he’s able to infect Othello’s mind can only come from someone who really understands, maybe experienced jealousy himself. Thwarted ambition and thwarted affection I think can be very powerful motivators in human nature. Okay, I want to show the first clip, please, From Orson Welles. And this is the trailer from Welles’s movie. Thanks, Hannah.
[Narrator] There was once in Venice, a Moor, Othello, who for his merits in the affairs of war was held in great esteem. It happened that he fell in love with a young and noble lady called Desdemona, who, drawn by his virtue became equally enamoured of him.
[Iago] I hate the Moor. I’ll poison his delight. So beware my lord of jealousy. Look to your wife.
Dost thou in conscience think that there be women do abuse their husbands in such gross kind? Wouldst thou do such deed for all the world?
Why, would not you?
No, by this heavenly light!
[Emilia] I might do it as well in the dark.
Sweet woman. I’ll chop her into messes. Cuckold me?
Are his wits safe? Is he not light of brain?
[Iago] He is that he is.
Okay, I’m going to hold it here, 'cause this hasn’t come out that well, but I think the next clip will be better. If we can go onto the next clip, please, Hannah, which shows Othello and Iago. This is one of the great scenes, I think, filmed.
Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore, be sure of it. Give me the ocular proof, or by the worth of mine eternal soul thou hadst been better have been born a dog than answer my waked wrath!
Oh, grace!
Make me to see it, or at the least so prove it, that the probation bear no hinge nor loop to hang a doubt upon, or woe upon thy life! Never pray more. Abandon all remorse. For nothing canst thou do to damnation add greater than that.
Oh, monstrous world. Take note, take note, oh world, to be direct and honest is not safe.
By the world, I think my wife be honest and think she is not. I think that thou art just and think thou art not. I’ll have some proof. Her name that was as fresh as Dian’s visage is now begrimed and black as mine own face. Would I was satisfied.
Oh satisfied, my Lord? Would you, the supervisor grossly gape on, behold her topped? Where’s satisfaction? It is impossible you should see this, were they as prime as goats, as hot as monkeys.
Give me a living reason she’s disloyal.
I lay with Cassio lately, and being troubled with a raging tooth, I could not sleep. There are a kind of men so loose of soul that in their sleep will mutter their affairs. One of this kind is Cassio. In sleep I heard him say, “Sweet Desdemona, let us be wary, let us hide our loves.” And then, sir, would he gripe and wring my hand, cry, “Oh sweet creature!” and then kiss me hard, as if he plucked up kisses by the roots that grew upon my lips, then laid his leg over my thigh and sighed and kissed, and then cried, “Cursed fate that gave thee to the Moor!”
I’ll tear her all to pieces.
[Iago] Tell me but this. Have you not sometimes seen a handkerchief spotted with strawberries in your wife’s hand?
I gave her such a one.
Such a handkerchief, I’m sure it was your wife’s, did I today see Cassio wipe his face with.
If it be that-
If it be that or any that was hers, that speaks against her with the other proofs.
Now do I see it is true. Oh, that the slave had 40,000 lives. One is to poor, to weak for my revenge.
Yet be content.
Blood, blood, blood!
Patience, I say. Your mind perhaps may change.
Never, Iago. Like to the Pontic sea, whose icy current and compulsive course ne'er keeps retiring ebb but keeps due on to the Propontic and the Hellespont. Even so my bloody thoughts with violent pace shall ne'er look back, ne'er ebb to humble love till that a capable and wide revenge swallow them up.
Witness that here Iago doth give up the execution of his wit, hands, heart, to wronged Othello’s service.
Within these three days let me hear thee say that Cassio’s not alive.
My friend is dead. 'Tis done at your request. But let her live.
Damn her, lewd minx! Oh, damn her! Now art thou my lieutenant.
I am your own forever.
You can hold it there, please. So, “Thou art my lieutenant.” “I’m yours forever.” He clinches the deal, Iago. One of the great classic scenes in Shakespeare, and for me, in the film. So what is he doing, Iago? He says, “I heard in a dream Cassio mentioned Desdemona, and kissing her and loving her and holding her.” Complete nonsense. Made up. He just happened to hear a dream of Cassio’s. And then, “Remember that handkerchief, she had the strawberries on. Remember…” These tiny little things that we all know in life, but actually are big. So Iago doesn’t pick on, you know, sort of huge rhetorical flourishes of Cassio or imagined. He picks on the tiny little details, and he knows how to get right inside the naive Othello. It’s how to appeal to his sense of virility, of manhood, everything, with these tiny little things which you can’t prove yay or nay. A dream? How can you prove, you know, of somebody else? Words they say in a dream? Anything. But what’s extraordinary is that Othello doesn’t question it. The Moor character Shakespeare is playing, he doesn’t question.
He goes along with it. Iago knows not only how to press the buttons and get inside Othello’s mind to more than disturb it, you know, create total doubt and rage and desire to destroy. He knows how to plant the little things of life inside a person and just leave it at that, not go further. For me, it’s beautifully acted between the two of them and beautifully planted. You know, these little moments of life, which actually, you know, echo huge in our imagination, 'cause then the imagination takes over. It’s, for me, it’s the idea of the outside of the other who’s tried so hard to get to the top, Othello, and yet these little things he’s missing may not understand in Venetian society or this or that. And Iago, is as he calls him, honest, he’s honest Iago, his trusted guy, says, “Well, these little things, this, this, this, this, and this,” and he believes it. One of the big things I think Shakespeare’s saying about the other, in this case, the Othello character, he’s naive. He doesn’t have the intelligence, the duplicitous, the subtle deceptive qualities necessary to be a real general of war, this or that, everything. Not enough to just be a big bold, you know, sort of, I suppose patent character in stereotype, but, you know, got to be much more subtle as well. So it’s this sense of naivety, not quite intelligent enough, that is placed on the character of Othello, the Moor, even though he’s achieved top status. Fascinating about human jealousy, human nature, and the idea of how to get inside the mind of the other in this case. Okay, I think also there’s thwarted, I said thwarted ambition for Iago.
Thwarted affection. He’s furious. But in one stroke he realises, “Ah, I can get them both.” Cassio, make up a dream, make it up that Cassio and Desdemona are having an affair and destroy them both, hence destroy Othello. I think he’s an opportunist, Iago. Richard III is much more cunning, calculated villain, thinking everything through, Richard, 'cause, you know, this will almost link with that kind of character. He says at the beginning, “I’m determined to prove a villain,” and I don’t know, and he loves and revels in creating destruction and mayhem, and deceiving everyone through jealousy and everything. Iago is almost discovering on the hoof, by chance. Ah, an opportunist. Classic chancer opportunist, can find this, find this, get inside the mind of the naive, not quite intelligent enough Moor. That’s the attitude to the Moorish character that speaks. The other one, Aaron in “Titus Andronicus,” the other as the Moor is much more the brutal savage who will do, just killing and physical, you know? So we get these two types, if you like, in Shakespeare’s time. So different from the other outsider, the Jewish character. And there are other outsiders as well, Caliban and others, but very different to how Shylock is treated by the society of Venice.
So, “I’m yours forever,” he says at the end here. “I’m yours forever.” It’s almost like a vow. You know, “I will be your wife. I will replace Desdemona. I’m yours forever. You own me. I’ll do anything now, 'cause of course I’ve got you.” So all of these things are done, and Iago fundamentally believes that people are… The two philosophies in the play, and it speaks to the other as well. Iago believes that humans are just animals; the weak suffer, the strong survive. Othello and Desdemona believe in loyalty, love, virtue, nobility, and Shakespeare sets up these two worldviews and shows which one will win, but the price is so huge at the end. So inside it is this worldview of the other and the Iago character, who’s of course the Venetian. Okay, the next film clip I want to show is a fascinating one which shows, it will deconstruct how Orson Welles made the film so evocative by using closeups, long shots, lighting, and so on. It’s a fascinating, very brief film analysis of how he’s able to evoke, Olson Welles, able to evoke such emotion in a movie. Okay, if we can play it, please. No, it should be the next one, I think. The next clip. This one. Yep. With the close up. Okay, if we can hold it there, please. Thanks, Hannah. So these are just a couple of examples to show the brilliance of Orson Welles as a film director. When it’s a silhouette, when it’s a closeup, when it’s a low shot, when it’s a high shot, when it’s a long shot, all can be composed in the same image or couple of images as well, all of it to do one thing: to evoke as much emotion in, of course, us the audience as possible. It’s a fascinating, this goes on much longer, of course, example for me.
We have to remember that in this play, Desdemona is also a white woman who flouts the established social order and hierarchy of the time. I mean, we have to imagine from her point of view also, what she’s actually doing then. The biggest question for me comes in the end. Is it showing jealousy, and only a play about investigating how far jealousy is and what jealousy does, and envy, and how powerful it is as a human emotion? We can think of Melanie Klein’s book “Envy and Gratitude,” you know, remarkable book on psychology of envy. And Othello’s jealousy, I think it’s not only that. I think it’s that trust is also part of the real tragedy. How far do you trust someone? How far can we trust A or B or C, in work, in home, in friends, in whatever situation in life, you know, in a nation, a group of people, another group, you know, how far can we trust? Can we trust our own military? Can we trust our own business, or trust whatever? Is the idea of trust itself completely naive? And I think it’s trust and jealousy that are two sides of the same coin, and that’s what Shakespeare’s exploring on a human nature level, and about the outsider and the insider. And the insider knows, I can always work you around the area of trust and jealousy. And the outsider cannot be quite sure understanding the full codes of the culture he’s trying to assimilate into, what is trust and what is jealousy. Perhaps Shakespeare, I think, is hinting at that in the play. It’s human nature and this other aspect I’m mentioning, because you can’t be seen as naive and primitive in that way and not trusting like a kid almost.
And he ends up being like a collapsed, you know, almost like a pathetic kid, almost, at the end of the play. So that’s the image of the Moor, not only of the character, but it’s an image of a Moor. You know, well, he’s from North Africa. Yeah, he doesn’t know exactly how to work our systems and so on. We can get him on trust. That’s the key, because he doesn’t understand the real depths of human nature. We know everything is a jungle, everything is animals, and that’s it. It’s that kind of way of thinking, I think Shakespeare’s alluding to. So there are quite a few, you know, scenes and phrases from the play which I’m going to hold, because this I want to give a sense of some depth to the play, 'cause it’s important, compared to Shylock. And now just briefly I want to mention “Titus Andronicus” and the character of Aaron, the Moor, as he’s called. And Aaron is not the main character. Obviously Titus is a Roman general. I’m not going to go into the detail, but basically there’s a huge amount of… It’s an early play of Shakespeare. He’s playing with melodrama, revenge, tragedy, all these classic genres popular at the time in “Titus Andronicus.” And he’s such an important character of… He is the primitive, savage, outsider, other, and he’s physical and primitive and will do anything. He’ll kill, he’ll slaughter, he’ll rape, he’ll maim, anything to get his way, which is the other perception of the Moor character that we get, I think, primarily in Shakespeare. It’s one of the two.
And, you know, yeah, it’s that kind of stereotype in a way. We get that. So there we have a sense of race but not religion. The religion’s not mentioned at all, yet we get a sense of race and some politics involved, 'cause Titus is the Roman general, and obviously he’s got to end up with killing this guy. There are so many murders, so many gruesome, terrifying scenes. If you ever get a chance to watch the brilliant Julie Taymor’s film of “Titus Andronicus,” fantastic American director, and Julie Taymor, it’s the best with Anthony Hopkins in, it’s a remarkable production of Shakespeare’s “Titus Andronicus,” early play by a young up-and-coming playwright. We can see it’s unwieldy, but it’s got all the elements that come later. Are humans just a bunch of savages who, you know, its all the jungle, man-eat-man, the weakest, you know, are toast and strongest survive, or are we able to aspire towards a moral, a human set of values and so on, you know, set up there early on in the play. And of course the outsider and the insider shows that Shakespeare was obsessed with it very early on in his writing career, because Aaron is the Moor, in this case, the dark, the black-skinned Moor. Shakespeare’s playing with the attitude towards the foreigner, which was of course popular at the time, you know, savage, primitive, stupid, but a ruthless killer, slaughterer, rapist. Okay, if we can show the last clip here, please, which is, this is Aaron being the last one in the list here.
This is Aaron who has been sentenced to death by Titus and is ascending the scaffold. And he’s asked, “Do you have any regrets?” And when he’s asked, “Do you have any regrets?’ he says, "I have only one, that I had not done a thousand more. Kill a man or devise his death; ravish a maid or plot the way to do it; accuse some innocent; set deadly enmity between friends; set fire on bonds at night, and bid the owners to quench them with their own tears. I’ve done a thousand dreadful things as willingly as one would kill a fly, and nothing grieves me except that I cannot do ten thousand more dreadful things.” He revels in being a villain. He revels and relishes like Richard III in being the embodiment of the evil. Okay, if we can show, this is the last speech in the play. This is Slide #8, I think. It’s not this one. It’s the one after. Not this one, the one after. This one. Yeah, thank you, thank you.
[Lucius] Art thee not sorry for these heinous deeds?
[Aaron] Ay, that I had not done a thousand more. Even now I curse the day, and yet I think few come within the compass of my curse. Wherein I did not some notorious ill as kill a man, or else devise his death, ravish a maid or plot the way to do it, accuse some innocent and forswear myself, make poor men’s cattle break their necks, set fire on barns and haystacks in the night, and bid the owners quench them with their tears. Oft have I digged up dead men from their graves, and set them upright at their dear friend’s doors, even when their sorrows almost was forgot. And on their skins, as on the barks of trees, have with my knife carved in Roman letters, “Let not thy sorrow die though I am dead.” I have done a thousand dreadful things as willingly as one would kill a fly, and nothing grieves me heartily indeed, but that I cannot do ten thousand more.
We can freeze it there.
Bring down the devil; for he must not die-
We can freeze it there. Thank you, Hannah. So, “I have done a thousand dreadful things as willingly as one would kill a fly. Nothing grieves me more that I cannot do ten thousand more.” And laughing, relishing the evil. Richard III to come, the character Iago to come as well. What’s fascinating, and I think it speaks to us in our times today. There’s no remorse. There’s no guilt. How much of the last century, and even our own century, is ever real remorse really expressed? What happens during the Second World War, before and after. No guilt, no real guilt, no real remorse expressed, even for all of that. I think it is a symptom of our times, last century and this, is the individual who not only revels and relishes doing all the evil, but quietly is pleased. There is no sense of real remorse, no sense of regret, nothing. Of course theatrically this is pushed. He’s laughing, he’s joking, ‘cause he is killed so many, and he welcomes death to take him now. But the idea behind it for me is so powerful, of, you know, what is a villain? What is evil? What is it to do all these terrible things, villainous? You know, he’s responsible for setting up rapes and murders and slaughters, too many to go into in the plot of the play. So just as a final thing to pull it together, what is the image of the Arab character? We have these two main ones. This is about race, and about being “primitive,” in inverted commas, which is deceitful, lying, cheating, a killer, a slaughterer who has no remorse whatsoever, basically a savage animal. The other one is much more subtle, the Othello, which is why it’s much greater play, because all the ideas I mentioned. He’s reached the top of Venice society.
He’s the general, but he’s still the Moor. He marries the white girl. All of the things I mentioned, but he trusts too easily. Aaron, here in “Titus,” has no illusions about trust, because we see him from the beginning as a savage animal. Shakespeare has evolved, and become much more sophisticated, you know, and it’s naive in Shakespeare’s world for the ruling elite of Venice to think people trust each other. They really trust? Come on. And I’ll find a way to plant the seeds where you don’t even trust your own wife, that she’s having affair with your number two. All lies, all made up. But the ways to do it with these tiny little things. So it’s the other, because he doesn’t quite understand all the codes of a culture, I can manipulate, I can change, and get inside the mind and poison it like the green-eyed monster that feeds on itself that Iago speaks about. And we have sympathy and empathy for Iago, and for even for Aaron, because they share moments where they talk to us, the audience, like Richard III’s soliloquies, where they reveal, “I am a villain and determined I will be.
I’m determined to prove a villain.” In Richard’s case, it’s much easier. You know, he’s a hunchback. His deformity, his disability is the prime stigma that disables him from being “accepted,” in inverted commas, by the society of the time. But it’s a disability. It’s nothing about his religion. Richard’s religion, Richard’s race, Richard’s national identity. Here the stigma is not a physical deformity, it’s a physical characteristic, skin colour or the Moor darker skin, so it has to be about other things. And that’s what I said. It’s not religion and it’s not even nation. It’s about some physical quality of race together with a political need to destroy, Othello and here even with Aaron. So for me, that’s a huge distinction of how the other, the Arab other is portrayed compared to the Jewish other of Shylock and “The Merchant of Venice,” where it’s race, it’s religion, and it’s national identity. It’s all of it. And Shakespeare, for me, is so intelligently aware of these subtle distinctions amongst the other, and how the outsider, the foreigner, who partly assimilates, partly doesn’t, can ultimately be treated. Okay, I’m going to hold it there, and we can go into questions.
Q&A and Comments:
Thank you.
Q: From Jan: “Hi. Are you sure These are Arab characters? Isn’t Othello Black, a blacker Moor, Caliban and Ariel original natives?”
A: Yes, I agree. This is a great question, Jan. And there’s a lot of debate, because he’s, you know, the Moor, they’re called the Moor all the time, Aaron and Othello. And that would’ve been seen as the Arab character from North Africa, particularly Morocco, and of all, you know, as I’ve explained here. It might’ve been seen with darker skin, a blacker Moor, but blacker Moor also would mean deceitful, lying, deceptive kind of person, not only necessarily colour of skin. Caliban I purposely left out, because Caliban is more a strange creature, half human, half animal, and meant to be physically acted like that. So Caliban is part of a, let’s call it semi, a completely other world. 'Cause let’s go back the end of the 1500s, they’re discovering new worlds, countries, animals, creatures all over the globe, you know, and mixing the idea of exotic image creature, you know, with human. So Caliban, I think, would be more there, or he might be closer to Black Africa. But this is North Africa, which would’ve been Moor, I think, Moor specifically. And to you, I’ve used the contemporary word “Arab,” but that’s why the word would’ve been Moor, it was in both these play I’ve looked at today. But great question. And it’s a debate, absolutely.
Sally: “Cleopatra is quite decidedly not in an Arab country.” She’s, I know, from Ptolemy Egypt, as I mentioned. “Arabs are not in Egypt during Roman times. Perhaps the closest would’ve been…” Yeah, exactly. “…desert merchants in the Middle East.” Yeah, but there would’ve still been somewhere around there. But it has thrown up a question in contemporary scholars and contemporary thinking, you know, how come Cleopatra is never, it’s never even hinted at, you know, or any of her soldiers or any of the others, et cetera. 'Cause she is about 300 years after Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt, and Ptolemy is one of his main generals, becoming the pharaoh, the ruler. But there would’ve been intermarriage with all the locals, all of that over 300 years to, let’s say, the Egyptians. So it was only a small group of Greeks, you know, under Ptolemy 300 years before Cleopatra, and a huge number of, let’s say, Egyptians at the time. It remains a fascinating question, which is now being explored by, you know, a lot of scholars.
Great question. It’s from iPad. “I agree, 'cause the Greek Ptolemy is when they took over the royal family following the Egyptian royal tradition of intermarriage.” Yes. “And the families were Greek. Cleopatra’s both Greek and Egyptian,” et cetera.
Judy, absolutely. So there was a mix, you know, but we have a similar thing with Jews, don’t we? When Alexander conquers the Hellenistic period, and the Jews, you know, we have Aramaic, we have different languages. The intermarriage, wherever Alexander went, really, and others. So it’s, 'cause I never like to say there’s any pure sort of race anywhere. It’s always the mix of who conquers who and who colonises, and how, you know, all of this gets a mix. So there’s no such thing, of course, pure English or pure Arab or pure Egyptian or any of all that.
Okay. Sheila, thank you. Yeah, “When she lived in Egypt or geographically in Africa, bordering on Arabia, but it was central to the Roman Empire.” That is a very important point, Sheila, because the Romans really wanted Egypt as a province. They had to conquer it. It was one of the bread baskets for them. You know, Carthage had to be conquered because that was the big, the real superpower opposition. So Hannibal and Carthage conquered. Then Egypt, they had to have, because it was often seen as the bread basket and grain sent across, of course, to Rome. So it was vital, and of course it had huge, you know, numbers of men for the army, and it had the sense of a civilised ancient culture. From Arabia. Yeah. And so then, and then Egypt later becomes. Exactly. But also remember we were looking at Shakespeare’s time in the end of the 1500s, 1590, early 1600s. So I’m trying to look at it through his eyes and his times, looking back at those times.
Q: Okay, Francine. “Why is Othello interpreted as a Black man when Moroccans are white and Black population,” et cetera.
A: Yeah. I think because for the first time, a great question, Francine, for the first time, you know, English ships are going out all over the world, bringing people back, trade, goods, piracy, everything happening. It’s a pretty rough and tumble wild time. They are seen as white, but with a slightly darker skin, you know, like, I suppose they saw people from India as well. You know, they had to make some distinction, so they can still keep their superiority sense, and Moroccan just a little bit inferior maybe, you know? And of course there would’ve been intermarriage and mixing between Black people coming up from Africa into North Africa. I mean, some of the pharaohs, Black, or what we’d call Black today or not. A Roman emperor, later one of them, you know, is Black from Africa. So all of this is happening. During Roman time, the ancient times, they were all called barbarians. The Romans defined every anybody else as barbarians. When you read Caesar and many of the others’ diaries and and histories, and they have the names, but overall they’re barbarian. They’re the barbarians. All these extra distinctions are not made as much as in Shakespeare’s time, when they start to be made much more.
Q: Elliot and Lynn, “Is it known if Shakespeare ever travelled?”
A: Ah, great question. No. All that’s known is that he travelled between London and Stratford, probably three-day horse ride, three, four-day horse ride, give or take. All that we know is that. But because London at the time, end of the 1500s, 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. So this is 100 years later. They would’ve… Discoveries of all new worlds, islands, places, creatures, cultures, foods, spices, everything. So peoples from all over the world at the time would’ve been brought by pirates, smugglers, the navy, the merchants, through London perhaps. And I can imagine taverns, meeting here, meeting there, slave, not a slave. And the other kind of person would’ve been those who were part of the court of Queen Elizabeth. That’s why I wanted to show the picture of that one guy who was the prime Arab character or Moor, whichever, in Shakespeare’s time, to use his word, Shakespeare’s word. He was very well known as part of Queen Elizabeth’s court, as an important ambassador.
Denise: “Shakespeare didn’t, but Edward de Vere.” Yep. He certainly. And many believe it was the real Shakespeare. It’s possible. And that’s a great question. That’s a whole separate debate, whether de Vere was the real Shakespeare or whether it was Mr. William.
Denise, yeah. The Orson Welles. It’s fantastic. And there are a couple of other shots I was going to show, but we get enough of a taste of how Orson Welles and so many filmmakers completely have stolen, taken from Orson Welles, that film and others of course, you know, ‘cause his brilliance was the ability to combine three or four approaches to shooting film in one shot, you know, so not just a closeup or a long shot. But he could see, keep this close and that in the distance, a long shot, silhouette here, not silhouette there, light here, don’t light there. You know, Kubrick worked in the same way. So he’s able to bring all these elements into individual frames. I think that’s part of how he really works as a craft of filmmaking.
Pat: “Iago, huge ego and jealousy go hand in hand.” Yeah, that’s great. I agree completely. Thank you. And huge ego and insecure ego maybe.
Q: Monty: “Should Othello still be performed today,” Yes. “In the cultural, political climate?”
A: Great questions. I think, without a doubt. I mean, you know, if we can imagine, these plays are 500 years old. I mean, it’s extraordinary. A 500-year-old play? Some of the ancient Greek plays, two and a half thousand years old. And I think definitely, you know, we live in a cultural political climate. That’s why I wanted to focus on the one production of Nick Hytner, 'cause he did focus primarily on the idea of jealousy, trust, how that works, getting promotion, not getting promotion. And he focused less on the racial aspect, which I think is good, 'cause it’s implicit in the play, 'cause of the words used in the play. You don’t have to hit the audience over the head. So I agree, Monty. I think there are ways of doing it. These plays are rich enough to choose what you want to focus on more and leave it subtle. The audience picks it up covertly.
Ron: “Hi. Hope you’re well. Your talk called to mind the exquisite exhibition at the Royal Academy of Art.” Yep. Ah, okay, great. “Art colonialism changed.” Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you for that reminder, Monty. Ron, sorry. Hope you’re well there.
Rita, thank you. Very kind. Sally, thank you.
Karin: “I think Othello is a brilliant example of how a particular narrative can take hold, and everything then seems to conspire to affirm it.” The narrative, yes. “Shakespeare shows it’s almost impossible to change the narrative once Othello has become convinced.” And I think what’s interesting is that Richard III appears much more thinking three, four chess moves ahead, but Iago is more of an opportunist, a chancer. I’ll try. This doesn’t work, I’ll try that. Then I’ll try, then I’ll try, then I’ll try. And he finds the thing. It’s the dream, it’s the handkerchief, a few other little things. That’s the way to get into Othello’s mind and poison it with the green-eyed monster of jealousy, and show him up to be a naive, you know, guy who trusts too easily. Let me find more evidence. Ask this one, ask that one. Get a whole lot more. He doesn’t. He trusts the one, you know, and I think that’s a very specific attitude of human nature, but also Shakespeare’s sophistication to understand the Moor character more. It’s great.
Rita: “Resonates with reading the writings of Camus.” Well, I love the writings of Camus, absolutely. And in one of Camus’s poems, he speaks about the invincible summer of the heart. And I wish everybody to have an invincible summer of the heart.
Ron: “I can only regret that I have but one life to give to my country.” Yep.
James: “Solzhenitsyn argues ideology makes crime seem good and natural in the perpetrator’s eyes.” Exactly. I agree. No perpetrator ever is going to think really they are evil and terrible and dark, you know, but they can show remorse or guilt. They can show a kind of dawning realisation of regret, a little bit of remorse maybe, but there’s none. There is in Othello. He has terrible remorse for what he’s done, but not in Iago. Iago just said, “I’m not going to speak about it again.” That’s it. Finished. Fascinating end. I don’t have to talk about it, to justify it. Nothing. Maybe Shakespeare was in a hurry to get finished the script, so he just put that in as well for the character.
Q: Bobby: “What explains the absence of guilt and remorse in those who commit?”
A: Well, that is one of the great questions, and I think it would be fantastic to have, you know, maybe a couple of sessions and to hear your thoughts, Bobby. I think it’s a great question. You know, the absence of guilt, absence of remorse, lack of empathy, lack of ability to understand something from being in another person’s shoes. The inability to understand the other as a human being, that’s all, and thus an indifference. That’s it. So it can just be a number. It can just be a file in a bureaucrat’s computer. It can just be a file, a number, a name. Doesn’t mean anything. Whether you live or die, whether you are sentenced to this or that doesn’t matter. You’re just a number, you’re just like a Kafka thing almost. You’re just a number, you’re just a creature, and you’re not a human. I think it’s the ability which Shakespeare has brilliantly to try and humanise the other. But if society does not humanise the other, or people don’t, then they can do anything to the other. I think it was Elie Wiesel who said, “The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference.” And I think indifference in this way enables those to not express guilt and remorse as you’re saying, Bobby, and can commit any crime small or big.
Okay, thank you very much. Couple of comments there. Paula, thank you.
Q: Denise: “Are you going to do another lecture on Shylock?”
A: Great there. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I’ve done a couple of them on Shylock, and we’ll, I guess. discuss and see. Thank you. Denise, thank you.
Maria: “Caravaggio.” Yes. “Indiscriminately brilliant artist.” Yes.
Q: Lorna: “ Do you think trust is particularly important in the military?”
A: Yeah, I think it’s very important in most areas of life: family, work, military. It’s very hard once that erodes to really then believe in doing what one is asked to do or does. I think some element of trust needs to be there. Otherwise why do it for anything, other than maybe just abject fear. So I think trust and jealousy are two sides of the same coin and how they are played together.
Okay, so thank you very much everybody. Really appreciate. And I know next week we’re going to aspects of South Africa. And thank you. Hope you have a great rest of the weekend. And Hannah, thank you.