Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: June ::
Re: Iago
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1183  Thursday, 8 June 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 07 Jun 2000 08:50:38 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1175 Re: Iago

[2]     From:   Brian Haylett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 06 Jun 2000 19:56:28 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1159 Re: Iago

[3]     From:   Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 07 Jun 2000 13:44:34 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1175 Re: Iago


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 07 Jun 2000 08:50:38 -0700
Subject: 11.1175 Re: Iago
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1175 Re: Iago

Marti Markus argues that:

> Contrary to other "stage machiavells" mentioned by Don Bloom, Iago has
> no real goal. Gloucester wants to become Richard III, Barrabas wants
> revenge.  Iago has no chance to become a duke, or a general, or whatever
> else one could imagine that he might possibly want to become - and he
> has got no reason for revenge, either. He has no possibility to raise in
> the hierarchy of the virtual world of the play he lives in. He is just a
> "bad guy".

On the contrary, Iago wants to be Othello's lieutenant.  And he gets a
lieutenancy, of sorts, in assisting Othello's ill-advised revenge.

By the way, I think that "I am that I am" (what God actually says in all
Bibles available to Shakespeare in English) is rather different from "I
am what I am".  The second is merely a statement of identity, whereas
the first makes identity a consequence of being.  Not "I am I" (which R3
says syllopsistically, in some texts, before Bosworth), but "I am by
virtue of being".  The distinction may seem subtle, but where Iago is
protesting a distinction between essence and existence, God is claiming
(I think-it's always hard to tell what he's claiming) that it is his
essence to exist.  The two statement aren't, if I'm right, clear
opposites of one another.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.