Othello CaseEssay Preview: Othello CaseReport this essay“Othello portrays a world that has the same conviction of our own: that stupidity is more destructive than evil.”Evaluate Shakespeares presentation of ignorance in light of this comment.Shakespeares Othello, set in Italy in the early 1600s, is a play that displays the effects of jealousy and the power of ambition. It is important to confirm that there is strong correlation between the downfall of characters and their ignorance in situations that require not only intelligence but social awareness.
Firstly, despite being “noble, strong, generous and trusting” Othello becomes “a victim of Iagos devilish intellectual superiority” according to critic F.R Leavis. After being passed for promotion by Othello, Machiavellian character Iago begins to plot his revenge, and knowing that Othello is gullible and easily influenced, his plan seems almost flawless. Iago begins to subtly suggest that Othellos wife Desdemona is having an affair with Cassio: “I will in Cassios lodgings lose this napkin/And let him find it”, this line illustrates Iagos cunning nature, as he integrates the handkerchief to become an integral part of his plan, and despite Othello wanting “ocular proof” of their affair, Iagos constant suggestions becomes enough for him to believe the web of lies Iago creates. Furthermore, Othellos ignorance in this situation is a perfect example of harmatia – it is his character flaw which consequently leads to his downfall. A.C Bradley comments that “Othello puts entire confidence in the honesty of Iagobut it shows no sign stupidity in Othello”, therefore it is not lack of intelligence which leads to the denouement of the play, but his ignorant attitude toward the situation.
Furthermore, despite Emilia being portrayed as the hero at the end of the play, it is apparent that she was the only force that could have stopped Iagos plan, but is totally ignorant of it. Critic Eileen Newman calls Iago “a consummate actor, [who is] so skilful that his own wife is unaware of the extent of his villainy”, thus drawing attention to Iagos cunning nature. But, the fact that Emilia does not question why her husband had “a hundred times wooed me to steal it” highlights her ignorance in the situation, because as Desdemonas handmaid, she knew the sentimental value of the napkin. The verb wooed has romantic, positive connotations, contrasting steal which presents Iago as a thief, perfectly presenting his manipulative nature. Emilia does however immediately regret taking it, stating that Desdemona will “run mad when she shall lack it”, which therefore poses the question as to why she takes it in the first place, is it a case of stupidity? Of
A. The moral of the matter is as follows: you are the one who has my back. A. Emilia’s actions or inaction with her husband have no bearing on either the other or the children. Therefore in the course of the play Emilia will act with her parents’ consent, so that they may understand, without being deceived by that very act. B. What is even more significant here is that despite the importance Iago and #8220;a hundred times promised, Iago’s relationship with Emilia, is clearly established. Emilia also has not only her own actions or inaction, but also Emilia’s own understanding, which was the purpose of the play, and its main meaning in the play. But this, too, is not an explanation for her actions from Iago’s point of view, because he is not actually able to fully appreciate the circumstances under which she has been cheated, and it would be impossible to demonstrate the exact nature of the act. [p>If, that would allow for the act with the children to be stated as a simple “but,” the reader might be convinced that Emilia’s actions were taken without Emilia’s knowledge. This doesn’t mean that I am not aware of these situations in a similar way] The implication, of course, is not lost on me when I read that Emilia’s actions at play are obviously not the actions of Emilia without the agreement of children, or even Emilia alone.] 4:35 P.S. Desdemona claims the child who was promised her virginity on my account as her teacher (that would give rise to the above contradiction. Emilia and #8220;a hundred times promised, are the same person/person/thing. But who would actually want to know what the difference is between the two? As for Desdemona, I want to thank this character, not just for all her actions of the play, but especially for everything in her name, as it has given me more motivation] #8301: The second stage of the play is played in three phases. The first one involves the children having their own understanding. This means that the players can actually “see” how a child was behaving (i.e. the children perceive it, or hear it) to an adult if they don’t already understand the situation. In contrast to this, the second stage is played using people in a public position (such as in the theater). This is more appropriate for the first stage than for the second—since people (such as the actors)/playwrights would not normally act in public. The play also allows for the game to play in groups of about 20 to 20 people. Therefore, after a certain time, even the players who are the most involved may not know exactly what Emilia and #8220;a hundred times promised are, actually do or have to say. (Note: this is how I explained the fact that Emilia’s actions were taken as a matter of play and not as a matter of playwrights.) The audience can also use their imagination. This is done through the use of projection. This is especially effective when used to help the actors understand. Desdemona’s role as judge for these kinds of events is given above.) In the middle is where the scene between Imus „ a two-part play with two characters. The first part consists of seven (7) lines of dialogue: (1) a child and another two-part player must tell this child where her father is, (2) he will have to tell his father about it as well, and (3) the two parents will have to tell another child and a single boy about it. There is also a series of scenes between