Senise 1

Universiteit Utrecht

STATEMENT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Utrecht University defines "plagiarism" as follows:

If, in a thesis or some other paper, data or parts ofa text produced by someone else are used without
the source being identified, this counts as plagiarism. Among other things, plagiarism may entail
thefollowing:
— cutting andpasting textfrom digital sources such as encyclopedias or digitaljournals, without
using quotations marks and references; cutting andpasting any textfrom the internet without using
quotation marks and references; copyingfrom printed material such as books, journals or
encyclopedias without using quotations marks and references; using a translation ofthe above
texts in your own work, without using quotations marks and references;
—paraphrasing the above texts without using references. A paraphrase should never consist
ofmerely replacing some words by synonyms;
— usingpictures, sound recordings, or test materials produced by others without references, so that
it appears that this is one 's own work;
— copying work by other students andpassing this offas one 's own work. In case this is done with
the other student's consent, the latter will be an accomplice to the plagiarism; even in cases where
plagiarism is committed by one ofthe authors collaborating on a paper, the other authors are
accomplices to plagiarism ifthey could or ought to have known that the first-mentioned author was
committing plagiarism; submitting papers acquiredfrom a commercial source (such as an internet
site offering summaries or complete essays) or written by someone else for payment.

I have read the above definition of "plagiarism," and I hereby state that I have not committed
plagiarism in the appended essay or paper.

Signature:
 Senise 2

Niccolò Senise

7131666

The Shakespeare Industry

American English

7 November 2021

2700 words
INSERISCI CITAZIONI, REFERENCES TO THE AUTOHORS AND CORREGGI LA
GRAMMATICA

In Shakespeare's Othello, a character who captures the reader's interest for his inexplicable charm is
Iago. Iago is one of the most controversial and debated Shakespearean antagonists. Many are the
critics who, over the years have tried to understand and comprehend the motivations behind his evil
actions. Having discarded the hypotheses according to which he acted out of envy of Cassius or out
of jealousy regarding Emilia, Amany Abdelrazik tried in her essay to offer insight and explanation
behind his evil deeds under modern eyes. In fact, she suggests that motives arise in Iago from an
unconditional sense of narcissism and social revenge. On the other hand, according to a more in-
depth reader-oriented approach, the meaning that might explain Iago's unfounded wickedness can
be found in the reading of Kant’s Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone in which the German
philosopher states that the human being when is faced with the possibility of choice tends to be evil
and to apply a subjective morality according to which to act. To this ontological vision that could
provide an explanation for Iago's wickedness is also added the thought of Nilay Erdem Ayyildiz
who suggests how Iago's manipulation skills can also be analyzed by reading Machiavelli's Prince
who could have influenced Shakespeare himself in the creation of this character. Therefore, Iago
seems to have no motivation for his evil actions, and yet according to Kant and in part Machiavelli,
he can be justified or at least understood. Indeed, in Apologetics of the Evil, Richard Raatzsch
suggests that Iago can be interpreted and analyzed as a concept since Iago beyond the character
itself represents the concept of evil. Therefore, while Abdelrazik tries to offer a modern explanation
to Iago's unmotivated malice by accusing him of narcissism and social revenge, on the other hand a
free reading of Machiavelli's Prince and of Kant's morality offers support for his actions to the point
of defending but not justifying him.
Paragraph 1
Shakespeare through Iago is able to create a complex and emotionally detached character who acts
as the perfect villain between appearance and reality. His ruthless and unfathomable character keep
the audience spellbound rendering him a compelling Machiavellian character. His ruthless
intellectualism, his inherent evil and his cold, calculating manipulation staggers the audience. Iago
is the classic example of an artistic, brilliant villain in a revenge tragedy. He very skillfully manages
to utilize the weaknesses of every character to weave a web of lies and deceit without anyone
noticing until the very end. At the beginning of the play he complains about being ordinary when
Cassio is promoted to officer “Preferment goes by letter and affection and not by old gradation
where each second stood heir to th’ first” (Act1.1 lines 34-36) but Iago enigmatic character
managed to get everyone including his superiors in his malefic plan. This destructive malignant
 Senise 3

character is the epitome of the theme of appearance in contrast with reality, indeed he claims, “I am
not what I am” (act1.1 line 63). He always appears so courteous and caring offering plausible
advice yet in reality he is evil inside. However, there is a certain mystery surrounding Iago because
his true motives or such degradations of people’s morals are unclear. In fact, critics, among these
stand T.S. Coleridge, have accused him of possessing a ‘motiveless malignity.’
Paragraph 2:
Nevertheless, Abdelrazik tried to offer an alternative to the argument of ‘motiveless malignity’ by
Coleridge, analyzing Iago's behavior through modern lens. In fact, although Shakespeare has chosen
not to characterize Iago with evident psychological traits, like Hamlet, a modern analysis of Iago
highlights in his character a disproportionate narcissism followed by an insane social ambition. His
narcissism is evident in his concern for the opinion of others. Indeed, Sam Vaknin (qtd in) states
that a narcissistic person does not love himself but rather the reflection on himself. Hence, Iago's
concern for others is not a sign of appreciation and caring towards them but just a mere
manipulation to enhance his ego and self-love. A clear example can be seen in the consideration that
Othello has of Iago, when he must designate someone for the delivery of certain documents and
calls Iago “A man he is of honesty and trust” () or later “Iago is most honest” (). Even Desdemona
describes it in good words “O, that's an honest fellow.” These considerations only increase his self-
esteem and preserve a good image in the eyes of those who are near him. However, in Othello's
choice to promote Cassio as an officer, Iago feels his pride attacked and his image questioned.
Therefore, to this humiliation and threat to his pride Iago feels he has to respond in an evil way by
destroying the life of anyone who presented himself to him as a threat to his image.
Moreover, Abdelrazik suggests that within a society in order to satisfy the ambitious desire to have
a life worth living and admirable one must seek for a sense of fullness. This ambitious feeling often
acts as an inspiration and motivation for an individual who is part of a society. However, to achieve
this sense of fullness that fills an inner void, not everyone acts according to a common morality. For
example, Iago has always implicitly affirmed his emptiness and vacuity by saying "I am not what I
am"; "I am nothing, if not critical". His sense of inferiority is immediately evident from the
beginning of the play and his envy of Othello's social success is proof of this. Hence, to feel
satisfied, Iago tries to ruin the lives of others because in seeing them suffer, he feels a sense of
superiority over their failure. Therefore, Abdelrazik's perspective gives an understanding that Iago
may have acted for purely narcissistic reasons and a sense of social affirmation.
Paragraph 3:
Tuttavia secondo kant invece …machiavelli aggiunge che per raggiungere certi fini amoralità(IL
FINE GIUSTIFICA I MEZZI)metti quotes.
However, according to Kant, Iago's inherent evil is not unmotivated and can even be understood
and comprehended in its irrationality. In fact, in Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone he
analyzes how the human being, faced with the possibility of choice, tends to be evil and therefore to
act purely for selfish purposes without considering the moral law. Iago embodies the example of the
man who acts not out of a common sense of duty but respecting his true nature. Kant begins by
saying that the human being is often prone to moral corruption because sooner or later he will act
for his own interest and not according to a common morality. Shakespeare does not provide any
kind of background information regarding Iago, thus leaving the reader unaware if he has always
been evil or if a particular event has led him to such inclinations. On the other hand, in order to do
good, man must act in accordance with a universal and objective law, the moral law. However, the
 Senise 4

adherence of the will to this law is not necessary as he is affected by the power of freedom, a power
that allows the will to free itself from the moral law and act incorrectly. This is what happens to the
character of Iago, who, faced with the possibility of acting either in helping Othello or in
complicating his life, let himself be guided by his principles and feelings, ending up choosing the
most tortuous and amoral path. Therefore, evil exists in man because he is free and has the power of
the will; evil is a free act attributable to man and at the same time an innate tendency that precedes
the use of freedom. Nevertheless, Wood contradicts Kant by stating that evil emerges in the human
being when, within a society, he interacts with other individuals and his natural desire to dominate
others appropriates. In fact, he states that originally man lives in a state of moderation and pleasure
but when he is socially in competition with others, he becomes evil. Wood calls this phenomenon
unsociable sociability. This theory formulated by Wood reconnects to Abdelrazik's thought
according to which Iago acted for social ambitions. In fact, when the human being lives alone, far
from civilization, it has no sense of ambition and social affirmation and therefore he has no evil
aspirations. Only when he comes into contact with other men and begins to compare his life with
that of others, does he become prone to evil. Hence, according to Wood the happiness or
unhappiness of any human being depends primarily on self-control and acceptance of one's
condition. Iago unable to accept his social condition and his position decides to act accordingly.
Nonetheless, Kant would disagree with the notion of unsociable sociability as he believes that man
is originally evil before he interacts with other individuals. Indeed, he believes that man, albeit in
isolation, far from any human being does not act according to a moral law but always and only
commanded by his own senses.
The German philosopher, adopting another anthropological approach, studies how the human being
has two natural predispositions according to which he acts daily: predisposition to animality, in
which man follows his own primary instincts of survival, reproduction of the species and life in
community, and predisposition to humanity in which he compares his life with that of others.
Therefore, according to Kant, the origin of evil lies in the irregular prevalence that man gives to
these animalistic instincts and inclinations. The desire to satisfy and content one's own pleasures or
needs somehow justifies his actions, as man acts according to nature, and in nature desires are not
classifiable as moral or amoral. Shakespeare, in depriving Iago of any psychological cue, gives the
reader free will in judging and trying to understand his actions. A possible solution could in fact lie
in Kant's assertion that man is perpetually split between his desires and his reason. However, in
Iago there is not a moment of moral reflection in the entire work, this in fact could lead to think that
he acts only by virtue of his instincts. Therefore, man being partly constituted by instinct and
rationality when he is faced with a situation that requires a decision, these two components collide
with each other, and reason must somehow deal with the instinct which is the component that
emerges first. “The moral law must first adjust to the demands of our established and sensational
animal inclinations.” Finally, he declares that the ultimate cause for which man chooses to subject
the moral law to the animal instinct is incomprehensible and inscrutable, since the deep and true
explanation according to which man chooses to be evil goes beyond his own intellect. In fact, just
beyond Iago's intellect lies the real reason for his actions, which many critics have debated. Taking
Wood's theory into consideration and comparing it with Kant's latest anthropological study, it can
be said that the origin of evil in man arises from a collision between instinct and rationality;
subsequently, when he is inserted in a society and immersed in a cultural context, a dimension of
evil, perhaps even more diabolical is added than in the human being. Hence, when reason shapes
man's animal desire and subsequently confronts it with another individual, radical socio-cultural
evil arises. Therefore, although Shakespeare does not characterize the character of Iago through
soliloquies and inner monologues, it can be understood how he originally always relied on his
 Senise 5

instincts and desires, which eventually made him a bad character. Finally, the confrontation with
Cassius and Othello has questioned his reputation and his honor within the community, thus adding
to the original evil another even more diabolical and malignant layer that will see the ruin of all.

Moreover, the expression, ‘the end justifies the means’ erroneously attributed to Niccolò
Machiavelli but which serves as a synthesis of his book The Prince, suggests an explanation for
Iago’s evil actions. There is no evidence that Shakespeare read Machiavelli’s prince nor that he was
inspired by the creation of some of his characters referring to the fundamental principles of the
book. However, Iago's evil manipulation bears interesting similarities to the tactics Machiavelli
advises a ruler to follow in order to gain and maintain power. The book was born as a guide to
follow in order to maintain power and was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici, governor of Florence at
the time. Machiavelli advises to abandon any kind of virtuous values and moral rules and to focus
on one's own safety: “Accordingly, to maintain rule, a ruler needs to lie, cheat, deceive, or even kill,
that is, he breaks all his ties with morality.” Therefore, in order to be able to successfully carry out
his plans and ambitions according to Machiavelli, a man must need virtue, which has a different
meaning from Christian virtue since the Machiavellian one excludes values such as moral integrity.
However, at the same time, he must not let himself be hated by the people but through his hypocrisy
and his own cruelty he must be able to keep his subjects compact and loyal. Like a manual for the
good ruler, The Prince does not cynically preach that every unscrupulous action is acceptable but
that sometimes, if necessary, a monarch also needs to do evil. Hence, Machiavelli does not justify
the rooted evil of man as right but only cruelty applied by choice of self-preservation or necessity.
Therefore, the actions of an ideal prince are disconnected from ethical and religious values, in fact,
a valid ruler is one who possesses a series of virtues which also include some vices such as cunning,
the ability to simulate, and ferocity. Therefore, beyond political teaching, Machiavelli's manual
offers a new perception of human nature.
Therefore, Iago is a character who embodies all these Machiavellian characteristics even if his
unmotivated cruelty does not make him a perfect ‘prince’. Through the weaknesses and insecurities
of the other characters he manages to carry out his evil plans. His cunning and subtle rhetoric help
him plant the seeds of jealousy in Othello’s head. In fact, without explicitly declaring Desdemona’s
love affair with Cassius, he evokes, through deceptive words, distorted images in Othello. Indeed,
he tries to make Othello jealous, not by forcing him, but in a very treacherous and deceptive way by
adding false evidence and insinuations about Desdemona’s infidelity and Cassius’ disloyalty. As
quoted by Machiavelli, Iago knows that people are easily mutable, and as easy as it is to deceive
them, the real challenge lies in trying to hold them into hoax. In fact, when people begin to doubt
about their false beliefs, they must be induced to believe them. Iago, like a real Machiavellian
character, uses this tactic to his advantage by taking advantage of Desdemona’s forgetfulness of his
handkerchief. He also reassures him when Othello becomes enraged, trying to behave as a good
friend: “Oh, beware, my lord, of jealousy! It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock. The meat
it feeds on.” (Act 3.3 lines 163-65). Therefore, as mentioned previously, an excellent ruler must
maintain a good reputation and be appreciated by his subjects. However, at the same time, he must
be ready for any kind of situation and be able to be emotionally detached from moral issues. In fact,
he does not hesitate to kill his wife Emilia in order to prove his false innocence and maintain a good
reputation. However, Ayyildiz ends his essay by stating that Iago, having no motives that justified
his actions, he only acted out of pure malice, hence against the Machiavellian principles, according
to which a good ruler should not be carried away by his evil tendency but use it only in case of
need.
 Senise 6

In fact, as suggested by Raatzsch, Iago should be interpreted as a concept, and precisely the concept
of radical evil, rather than as a classic villain. In fact, he asserts that “‘Iago’ is a proper name and at
the same time the name of a concept. It is a name of the character in the play, because the character
exists only in the play, he personifies something general, that is a concept” (6). The absence of
motivations suggests, according to Raatzsch, that Iago should not be read as a normal literary
character but must be approached differently, as a concept. In addition, he adds that the more the
audience is inclined to accept the scarcity of evidence in Iago’s deeds, the easier it will be to
understand the hidden meaning of the play. Therefore, he concludes by stating that Iago is a pure
schemer who acts only out of a sense of pleasure: “Rather, whether he achieves one objective rather
than another is of only marginal interest to him. Scheming, for him, is a passion, rather than a
means to an end, and a passion that constitutes his entire being” (68-69).
In conclusion, Iago's unconditional evil will always remain a mystery that only Iago himself is able
to solve, however through the observations of various critics and with the help of some
philosophical and literary texts his actions can be partly defended and understood. Abdelrazik offers
a modern analysis of Iago’s character, describing him as a narcissist person who aspires to social
revenge. Instead, according to an intertextual reading of Kant’s Religion within the Limits of
Reason Alone, it can be understood the birth and transformation of Iago’s unconditioned evil.
Moreover, a reading of Machiavelli’s Prince partially justifies his amoral actions. In fact, as
Raatzsch highlights in his book, Apolegandtics to the Evil, Iago does not represent only a literary
character, but he embodies a concept, that of unconditional and amoral evil.
 Senise 7

Works cited
Abdelrazik, Amany. “Iago and His Motives under Modern Eyes”. International Journal of English

Literature and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 4, Sept. 2018, pp. 686-92,

doi:10.22161/ijels.3.4.28.

Ayyildiz E., Nilay. “An Evaluation of the Evil Characters in Shakespeare's Four Main Tragedies in

terms of Machiavellian Principles.” Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, vol.18,

no.3, 2019, pp. 1037-1049.

Grimm, Stephen R. “Kant’s Argument for Radical Evil.” European Journal of Philosophy, vol.10,

no.2, 2002, pp 160-177.

Raatzsch, R. (2009). The Apologetics of evil: The case of Iago. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton

University Press.

Shakespeare, William. Othello. The Norton Shakespeare, 3rd ed., edited by Stephen Greenblatt,

W.W. Norton & Company, 2016, pp. 2084-2158.