Othello: Shakespeare's Aristotelian Tragedy

The great fourth-century Greek philosopher Aristotle described a tragedy as “an imitation of an action of high importance, complete and of some amplitude: in language enhanced by distinct and varying beauties…by means of pity and fear effecting its purgation of these emotions” (qtd. in Kennedy & Gioia 856).  He may very well have been describing the epic Shakespearean drama, Othello.  William Shakespeare’s famous play concerning the downfall of a Moorish general interweaves jealousy, suspense, intrigue, murder, and suicide to create a magnificent tragedy of the highest Aristotelian order.  Aristotle prescribed three main ingredients for a tragic drama recipe: hamartia, or a tragic flaw in the tragic hero’s character that brings about his downfall; katharsis, or a purgation of the audience’s emotions so that they feel that they have learned something from the play; and anagnorisis, or the character’s revelation of some fact not previously realized (Kennedy & Gioia 856-857). Shakespeare’s protagonist Othello fulfills all of Aristotle’s requirements for a tragic hero, as Othello is a character of noble status who falls from that position of power to one of shame because of his hamartia. Moreover the plot of Othello contains a powerful katharsis through its climax and conclusion, and an anagnorisis when Othello realizes that Iago and Desdemona are not who they seemed to be.

            First of all, Shakespeare’s protagonist, the Moorish general Othello, fits Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero.  According to Kennedy and Gioia, Aristotle states that a tragic hero must have three dominant qualities: he must be a person of high estate, he must fall from that position into unhappiness, and his downfall must be brought about by his hamartia, or his tragic flaw (856-857).  Othello is not only a successful general in the Venetian army but is also well respected, admired, and well liked.  Contrary to common assumption, “high estate” does not mean that the tragic hero must be royal or even noble; it simply “gives him a place of dignity to fall from and perhaps makes his fall seem all the more a calamity” (Kennedy & Gioia 856).  Since Othello enjoys a position of power and happiness at the beginning of the play, this status makes his downfall from beloved general to despised murderer infinitely more tragic and moving (Kennedy & Gioia 857-858).

            According to Aristotle, however, the tragic hero’s collapse cannot be a simple deterioration from success to misery.  The most distinctive feature of the Aristotelian tragic hero is hamartia; his downfall must be brought about by a character flaw or flaw in judgment that leads to his destruction.  “In Aristotle’s theory of tragedy,” explains The Cambridge Guide to Literature, hamartia is “the mistake or failing which brings about the hero's downfall.  ‘Tragic flaw’, the usual English translation, can mislead by its concentration on moral weakness - encouraging readers to view Hamlet's fate as a condemnation of his uncertainty, or Othello's as a condemnation of his jealousy - since hamartia can also be a matter of ignorance or mistaken judgment” (“Hamartia”).  Thus hamartia is more than a moral weakness; it is a crucial mistake on the part of the tragic hero that causes him to plunge from greatness to grief.  Othello’s mistake as a tragic hero is believing Iago’s treacherous lies about Desdemona’s unfaithfulness.  Instead of investigating the matter further, Othello rashly jumps to the worst conclusions about his wife and believes every lie that Iago whispers into his ear. Although the villain Iago is certainly to blame for bringing about Desdemona’s murder and Othello’s suicide, Shakespeare makes it quite clear throughout the play that Othello’s impulsive behavior and irrational naïveté are the main cause of his miserable end, as Iago himself states at the beginning of the play: “The Moor is of a free and open nature, / That thinks men honest that but seem to be so, / And will as tenderly be led by the nose / As asses are” (1.3. 376-379).  Iago recognizes that he can use these weaknesses of Othello’s to hasten his downfall. Therefore Othello fits Aristotle’s description of a tragic hero who has descended from high estate to destruction because of his hamartia.  

But the tragic hero is not the only element required by Aristotle for tragedy. Neither is it the only component of Othello distinguishing Shakespeare’s play from a comedic drama.  A true Aristotelian tragedy also contains what the Greeks called a katharsis, or a purgation that leaves the audience feeling justified and uplifted.  As Kennedy and Gioia point out, this purgation is not necessarily always a positive one (857).  In a tragedy like Othello, where almost all of the characters wind up dead, the audience is certainly not expected to feel happy or cheerful about the play’s conclusion, but they do feel a sort of justification at the lessons learned by the play’s characters and satisfaction in the villain’s punishment.  Elisa Galgut states that, “The concept central to Aristotle’s theory of tragedy – katharsis – has been the subject of much debate, and the traditional readings are modeled on some type of cleansing, medical purging or religious purification” (14).  Moreover, these interpretations assume that the fear and pity aroused by tragedy is purged throughout the play, resulting in the state of katharsis. The overall idea behind katharsis, she concludes, is that tragedy effects some sort of transformation in the audience’s emotions, leaving them with a feeling of justification (15).

Aristotle said, “The tragic pleasure is that of pity and fear, and the poet has to produce it by a work of imitation” (qtd. in Galgut 15).  This implies that to feel the satisfaction of a good katharsis in a tragedy, the drama must arouse feelings of pity and fear in the audience and then expunge those feelings through a satisfactory conclusion.   In Othello, Shakespeare certainly moves the audience to feel pity for Othello, for Desdemona, for Cassio, and even for Iago. They also fear for the fate of the happy couple, and realize their worst fears when Othello smothers his innocent wife in a jealous rage.  Once more the audience pities Othello when he recognizes afterwards that Desdemona is innocent and stabs himself in remorse. Even though the play does not end “happily ever after,” the deaths of the unhappy couple and the punishment of the villain Iago bring a sort of closure to the drama.

The ultimate purpose of katharsis in a tragedy, as Kennedy and Gioia point out, is to purify our feelings, refining them into something more ennobling (857).  The audience may not come away from a production of Othello laughing or feeling particularly cheerful, but they will certainly feel as though they have learned something important and witnessed an epic drama that has affected them morally and spiritually.  This is the purpose of tragedy – to dramatize the weaknesses, despair, and failings of the human spirit and to demonstrate how to better ourselves through this experience.  Through this emotionally charged plot filled with intrigue and conflict, Shakespeare has certainly met all of Aristotle’s requirements for katharsis. 

The last element of Aristotelian tragedy found in Shakespeare’s Othello is anagnorisis, a sort of epiphany or revelation of fact that was previously unknown to the tragic hero.  John MacFarlane states that Aristotle’s literal Greek definition of anagnorisis consists of two parts; “The first part of the definition characterizes recognition as a change from ignorance into knowledge, leading either to friendship or enmity” (367).  Shakespeare brings out this particular feature of anagnorisis towards the end of the play when Othello realizes that his trusted friend Iago has trapped him in a web of lies and has deceived him into thinking Desdemona is unfaithful.  Iago’s wife Emilia cries out before she dies, “Moor, she was chaste. She loved thee, cruel Moor. / So come my soul to bliss as I speak true” (5.2.258-259) and suddenly Othello understands that it is Iago who has misled him, not Desdemona.  This anagnorisis causes Othello to cry, “Wash me in steep-down gulfs of liquid fire! / O Desdemon! Dead, Desdemon! Dead! O! O!” (5.2.289-290), to stab and wound the villain Iago, and then to kill himself in remorse.

The second aspect of the Greek word anagnorisis is its more superficial, general connotation.  According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, anagnorisis simply conveys “the startling discovery that produces a change from ignorance to knowledge. It is discussed by Aristotle in the Poetics as an essential part of the plot of a tragedy… Anagnorisis usually involves revelation of the true identity of persons previously unknown, as when a father recognizes a stranger as his son, or vice versa” (“Anagnorisis”).  It is the simple epiphany experienced by the tragic hero as he realizes something significant, like the fact that he has killed the woman he loves for no reason.

This moment of revelation for Othello is the climax of Shakespeare’s play as everything comes together (or in Othello’s case, comes apart) before the tragic hero’s eyes and the full extent of Iago’s treachery and deceit is made clear to the him.  For the audience, the moment is especially climactic, because we have known the truth all along.  As Roger W. Herzel puts it: “When the man is Othello, a special kind of double vision comes into play: looking through our own eyes, we see the injustice of the action, but looking through the eyes of Othello we see its justice with equal clarity… In tragedy then, we witness an imitation of an action which has a terrible significance of which we are fully aware but the agent is not” (498).  The audience knows that Desdemona is innocent; thus, Othello’s baseless accusations and crime against her arouse special pity and loathing.  This makes the Othello’s anagnorisis at the end of the play exceptionally poignant.

How then does one distinguish a simple play of comedy from a great Aristotelian drama? Aristotle said three dramatic features provide this distinction: hamartia, katharsis, and anagnorisis (Kennedy & Gioia 856-858). Shakespeare’s great play depicting the downfall of a Moorish general through jealousy and deceit is such a tragic drama.   The Greek philosopher’s influence upon the sixteenth-century English playwright is evident in works such as Othello, as Sarah Dewar-Watson points out, “Discussion of Shakespeare's tragedies is still commonly framed in Aristotelian terms – the fall from greatness, the fatal flaw, the moment of catastrophe… It could be argued that Aristotle has had a hand in defining what is still generally regarded as the core of Shakespeare's tragic canon” (1). Through the character of Othello as a tragic hero with a fatal flaw, the purgation of emotion through the couple’s deaths and the punishment of Iago, and the epiphany Othello experiences at the end of the play, Shakespeare demonstrates with eloquence each and every one of Aristotle’s qualifications for tragedy. Othello is a tragic drama of epic proportions that has stood the test of time and continues to move audiences with its powerful themes of jealousy, intrigue, betrayal, faithfulness, death, and remorse.

References

Anagnorisis. (2013). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/22338/anagnorisis

Aristotle. (2010). Poetics. In X. Kennedy, D. Gioia, X. Kennedy, & D. Gioia (Eds.), Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing (p. 856). New York: Longman.

Dewar-Watson, S. (2004). Shakespeare and Aristotle. Literature Compass , 1 (1), 1-9.

Galgut, E. (2009). Tragic Katharsis and Reparation: A Perspective on Aristotle's Poetics. South African Journal of Philosophy , 28 (1), 13-24, 12.

Hamartia. (2000). In The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English. Retrieved from http://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.credoreference.com/entry/cupliteng/hamartia

Herzel, R. W. (1974). "Anagnorisis" and "Peripeteia" in Comedy. Educational Theatre Journal , 26 (4), 495-505.

Kennedy, X., & Gioia, D. (2010). Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing (6th Compact Edition ed.). (X. Kennedy, & D. Gioia, Eds.) New York: Longman.

MacFarlane, J. (2000). Aristotle's Definition of "Anagnorisis" . The American Journal of Philology , 121, 367-383.

Shakespeare, W. (2010). Othello, the Moor of Venice. Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing (6th Compact Edition ed.). (X. Kennedy, & D. Gioia, Eds.) New York: Longman.

       

A Brief Explanation of Capitalism

            I wrote this informative speech for my communications class last semester. Thanks to this blog, it was relatively easy to put together: I had already done most of the background research and expressed most of my views on this topic in my Classical Student posts. (That brilliant butcher analogy of mine might sound familiar.) Simplifying Capitalism But I thought a more comprehensive post that summarizes my personal definition might be interesting to read as well.

Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman said, “What kind of society isn’t structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system.” So much for capitalism’s purpose. But what is capitalism exactly?

       Today you are going to come away from my speech with a full grasp of the definition “capitalism”. I will demonstrate, first of all, the literal definition of the term capitalism, along with a real-life example of what this system would look like on a practical level. I will also relate a brief history of capitalism, and finally contrast and compare capitalism to its opposing economic system, communism.    
      Capitalism has always been an interest of mine since my dad read George Orwell’s Animal Farm to us when we were young, and I’ve been studying the contrasting economic systems of Animal Farm’s socialism and its opposing system capitalism every since. I’ve also explored the topic through my writings on my blog and in my personal reading. I’m fascinated by its basic principles of free choice, non-intervention, and individual initiative.
      One way to understand a concept is through its definition. We will look at a definition of capitalism by Milton Friedman, a real-life example, and an alternative explanation.
      Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman defined capitalism and its role in society when he said: “The role of competitive capitalism is the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market – it is a system of economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom” (Friedman, 1962, p. 4). Wow... these words are all very grand and imposing, but what does this definition look like on a day-to-day basis? What is the practical picture behind this fine-sounding economic jargon?
      Well, picture me as the owner of a butcher shop. You need meat, so you come into my butcher shop. I provide you with the resources, (meat,) and skills, (preparing and packaging the meat,) that you cannot provide for yourself, because you don't have the resources, skill, or time. In return, you give me money, which I can then use to provide for myself the things I need. I go to the bakery and buy bread with that money, because I don't have the resources (flour, ovens, bakers, etc.,) or the time, or the skills, to bake bread myself. Thus you have provided me with something I don't have, and I have provided you with something you don't have. That is a mutual exchange. This is capitalism in its purest and most basic form. 
      Maybe another butcher opens a similar shop down the street. Maybe he has a larger variety, or cheaper prices, or better quality of meats - so you go to him to buy meat instead. That's free choice. You can decide which butcher you like better. I want more money so I can buy bread for my family, so I lower my prices to bring in more business. That's competition. Does this competition hurt you, the customer? On the contrary, it lowers prices and improves quality/quantity for you, which is very beneficial for you. These laws - the laws of mutual exchange, free choice, and competition - are the basic tenets of capitalism. Adam Smith called these natural laws "the invisible hand" of the market.    
      Now that you have a clearer picture of what capitalism looks like on a daily basis, let’s look at an alternative definition from Robert P. Murphy, Ph. D. and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. He summarized capitalism this way: it is a system where people can use their property however they want – it’s also known as the free enterprise system because people have the freedom to choose their own jobs, the products they want to buy, and the products they want to sell (Murphy, 2007, p. 1).   
      But we can’t fully understand the definition without understanding where it came from – entire economic systems do not come out of a vacuum. Capitalism had a definite history, beginning with the end of the feudal system and the rise of the middle class, and continuing into the pages of today’s modern economic story. To better understand capitalism we will take a look at its brief history.
      The basic tenets of capitalism go all the way back to the Torah, where hard work, individual initiative, and private property were valued components of God’s economic system. God commands us in both Exodus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 5:13, “Six days you shall labor and do all your work” and as Rabbi Spero pointed out in his Wall Street Journal article, with work a person becomes comes to understand that he has to be productive, and that success is not just an entitlement (Spero, What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism, 30 Jan 2012: A.15). (I recommend you read the full article, as it's excellent - here.) This is a fundamental principle of capitalism as well. Of course, as Spero says, the Bible “has nothing to say about financial instruments and models such as private equity, hedge funds or other forms of monetary capitalization.” But it does demand “honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a borrower's collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, and empathy” for those less fortunate than ourselves (Spero, What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism, 30 Jan 2012: A.15) 
      So capitalism’s principles were laid down in ancient times through the Torah – but modern capitalism was introduced into the world by Adam Smith. The popular economic system of the day was mercantilism, which he challenged in his revolutionary book The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. “It was Adam Smith who noticed that mercantilism was not a force of development and change, but a regressive system that was keeping the world from advancing. His ideas for a free market opened the world to capitalism” (Beattie, The History of Capitalism: From Feudalism to Wall Street, October 14^th, 2011). After Adam Smith popularized “laissez-faire” (“do what you want”) economics now known as capitalism, the era of the industrial revolution dawned. As Beattie stated, this new industrial capitalism was the first system that carried benefits for all societal levels instead of just for the nobles. The standards of living were raised which led to the formation of a middle class that grew larger and larger as more people from the lower classes rose to prosperity (Beattie, The History of Capitalism: From Feudalism to Wall Street, October 14^th, 2011). 
      Today’s version of capitalism is quite different from the Biblical models of Moshe and also quite different from Adam Smith’s “laissez faire” economic system. But the basic principles are the same. Modern capitalism still emphasizes the ideas of individual initiative, working hard to receive rewards, and getting to keep those rewards – Americans believe that these are inherent rights and American capitalism is a reflection of those basic beliefs.
      Yet another way to understand a concept is to contrast and compare it with something else (Foreman, 2013, p. 10). Let’s take a look at capitalism’s nemesis, communism.  
      A basic definition is that communism is a form of society in which the means of production and sustenance belong to the community (O’Leary, Communism, 2007) Communism, which puts the power into the hands of the state, stands in stark contrast to capitalism, which generally gives the state the role of referee, rather than player. Communism votes for working for the common good of the whole community sharing both labor and profit – capitalism relies on individual initiative and personal rewards for an economy to run smoothly. (On a side note, it is obvious form the examples of Russia and China that communism often leads to totalitarianism while capitalism generally promotes free trade, free enterprise, and political freedom in general – but that’s a topic for another speech.) As economist Milton Friedman said, “There are only two ways or coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion… the other is voluntary co-operation of individuals – the technique of the market place” (Friedman, 1962, p. 13). Communism vs. capitalism.

       Through the literal definition of the term “capitalism”, a look at a simple form of capitalism in practice, the history of capitalism, and a contrast/comparison of another economic system besides capitalism, you now have a basic understanding of this very important and influential economic system.

      Capitalism’s literal definition is an economic system that promotes individual initiative, free trade, free choice, minimal governmental interference, (except to enforce rules), mutual exchanges, competition, personal profits, and personal property. To borrow, yet again, Friedman’s way of expressing capitalism; its central feature is that it prevents one person from interfering too much with another – the consumer’s protected from coercion by the seller because there are other sellers with whom he can deal – the seller is protected from the consumer because of other consumers with whom he can deal. Moreover, the employee is protected from the employer because of other employers for whom he can work (Friedman, 1962, pp.14-15). This is how capitalism is supposed to work on a practical level in our daily, economic lives.

References

Beattie, Andrew: “The History of Capitalism: From Feudalism to Wall Street”, October 14^th, 2011, Investopedia, http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/capitalism-history.asp#axzz2CDmqGLvC.

Brearton, Steve: “A Brief History of Capitalism”, June, 2008, “Report On Busines Magazine”, The Globe & Mail division of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., Canada.

Foreman, Mark: Prelude to Philosophy: Thinking Critically About Foundational Beliefs, 2012, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.

Friedman, Milton; Friedman, Rose D.: Free to Choose, 1980, 1979, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York and London.

Friedman, Milton: Capitalism and Freedom, 1962, The University of Chicago

Press, Chicago Ltd, London.

Murphy, Robert P., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, 2007, Regnery Publishing, Inc.: Washington D.C.

O’Leary, Zina. Communism. (2007). In The Social Science Jargon-Buster. Retrieved fromhttp://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.credoreference.com/entry/sageukssjb/communism

Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 1945. Secker and Warburg, London.

Smith, Adam: Wealth of Nations. 1776 W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London.

Spero, Aryeh. What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism. Wall Street Journal. 30 Jan 2012: A.15; New York, N.Y.