Recent orders
play comprising
Name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
The Character of Iago in William Shakespeare Okello
Introduction
Othello is a play comprising of five acts written by William Shakespeare between 1603 and 1604. First published in 1623, the play borrows the plot from De gli Hecatommithi (1565) by Giambattista Giraldi, which Shakespeare was familiar with in the original Italian language. The play starts when Othello, a hero and black general service in Venice appoints Cassio as his Chief Lieutenant. Iago is furious about Othello overlooking him for the promotion devises a revenge plan. Iago is envious of Cassio and jealous of Othello’s success. He plans to bring Othello down by telling him that his wife Desdemona is having an affair with Cassio. With the assistance of his wife Emilia and Roderigo, he executes his plan. Overcome with jealously, Othello kills his wife, Desdemona. He learns too late that his wife was innocent and that Othello had tricked him, and eventually, he kills himself. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the character of Iago in the play Othello. Iago’s character is fascinating, amoral, proud, reliable and honest, and misogynistic and racist.
Iago is Fascinating
Iago is possibly the most heinous of all Shakespeare characters and his terrible actions paint him as a fascinating character. Iago does not have convincing motivation for the actions he carries out. In scene 1, Iago is angry at Othello for not appointing him as a lieutenant. By the end of the act, in scene three, Iago openly claims that Othello has slept with Emilia, his wife. The text says, “It is thought abroad that twixt my sheets/He has done my office.” Again Iago mentions his suspicion in scene one of act three. Iago proceeds to explain that he also lusts for Desdemona because he wants to get back at Othello for lusting after his wife Emilia (Xinhua, 67). Iago calls his plan “wife for wife.” Worth noting, none of the claims made by Iago seem to explain his deep hatred for his master Othello, and neither does it explain his inability to express the true motivation behind his actions which makes it even more terrifying. The story reveals Iago’s true character; he is willing to execute revenge on anybody that provokes him, including Othello, Desdemona, Roderigo, Cassio, and even his wife, Emilia. It is almost as if Iago enjoys the damage and pain he causes.
Iago is Reliable and Honest
In the play Othello, Iago has a reputation as a reliable and honest man. He is known for his direct speaking. Other characters in the play often refer to him as “honest Iago.” Iago managed to rise through the ranks of service through achievement and merit. For this reason, Othello, who possesses excellent military judgment, appoints him as ancient captain because of his outstanding qualities. Shakespeare uses Iago to demonstrate to his audience characters that act against his reputation. Although Iago turns out to be a deceitful character, it is possible that at one point, he was an honest man and something happened that made him abandon his virtues. He thought Othello would give him a promotion and appoint him as lieutenant, which was not the case. This was his turning point. He felt betrayed, and this made him seek revenge against Othello.
Iago is Misogynistic and Racist
Throughout the film, Iago comes off as a character that displays hatred for women and racist. Iago’s misogynistic character is revealed in scene 1 of act 2, where he is openly cynical. He only views women as mean-spirited, false, and inferior beings. This can be proven by the comment he makes that women “rise to play and go to bed to work.” This is a crude delineation of women and it signifies his narrow-mindedness and twisted egoistical nature. At the end of this scene is a soliloquy that leaves the impression of racism. The undertone in the soliloquy suggests that Iago does not approve of Desdemona. He refers to her as an aristocratic white woman that has settled for “poor trash of Venice.” The trash, in this case, is Desdemona’s husband, Othello, who is of black descent. It is evident that Iago is an egoistic man that goes the extra mile to disgrace those he considers worse human beings than himself (Abuzahra and Rami, 185). His misogynistic character is confirmed after he murder’s Emilia. Iago seems to have a general hatred for women. Worth noting, some readers opine that the real reason why Iago persecuted Othello was his homosexual preference for the general. Iago derived pleasure in turning Othello against his wife and preventing him from enjoying his marriage. Additionally, he demonstrates his love for Othello effusively and frequently.
Iago is Amoral
Iago lacks principles and moral sense, as demonstrated in the play. He uses Desdemona, knowing well that she is innocent, to exert revenge on Othello. Iago does not have any quarrel with Desdemona but rather her husband. He comes up with a plan full of deception knowing very well that innocent victims would get hurt. The plan ensures that innocent victims, including Othello, Roderigo, Emilia and Othello, get hurt in the process. Their only mistake was that they hurt Iago’s pride. He knows very well that Cassio is not having an affair with Desdemona, but that does not stop him from executing his plan. He succeeds in destroying Othello’s marriage and also the characters of two noble beings; his wife Emilia and Roderigo. Iago takes delight in his cunningness, which is witnessed in his soliloquy in scene 1 of act 2. Iago’s lack of principles is demonstrated in how he used Roderigo to “line his coat.” Additionally, Iago willingly accepts payment for a service knowing well that he cannot deliver.
Iago is Proud
The play demonstrates Othello’s pride as surrounded by sly vindictiveness. Iago becomes furious when he suspects that Othello has twisted his sheets (Cressler, 73). His anger is founded because he loves his wife Emilia and he could not bear the thought of another man being better than him. His feelings emerge in line 270 of scene 1, act 1. Iago states that his soul will not be satisfied until he gets back at Othello’s wife for wife. Iago’s pride is also witnessed when Iago makes it clear that he is angry about Cassio’s promotion to the position of Lieutenant. Iago speaks to Roderigo and refers to Cassio as a “bookish theoric” who does not have any practical experience in war. He insists that the promotion system is unjust and vows to execute revenge on Othello and Cassio for bruising his ego.
Conclusion
Iago is the main protagonist in William Shakespeare’s play Othello. The play centers on Iago’s revenge plan against Othello for failing to promote him to the position of Lieutenant. Iago felt more deserving of the promotion than Cassio. He is hurt by the move and vows to seek revenge against Othello and Cassio. With the help of his wife Emilia and Roderigo, Iago manages to turn Othello against his wife by convincing him that she is having an affair with Cassio. Othello kills Desdemona before committing suicide. In this play, Iago comes of a proud reliable, and fascinating character. Additionally, Iago is misogynist and racist as demonstrated in how he kills his wife Emilio and refers to Othello as poor trash of Venice because he is black. Iago lacks morals as depicted in how he devises a deceitful plan knowing very well that innocent people would get hurt in the process.
Works Cited
Abuzahra, Nimer, and Rami Salahat. “Analyzing Iago’s Speech in Shakespeare’s Othello.” Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2.2 (2018): 185-203.
Cressler, Loren. “Malcontented Iago and revenge tragedy conventions in Othello.” Studies in Philology 116.1 (2019): 73-100.
Xinhua, F. A. N. G. “An Analysis of Iago’s Ethical Selection in Othello.” Comparative Study of Cultural Innovation (2019).
Applicable Law, Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens
Discussion 4.1
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Tittle
Professor’s Name
Date
Applicable Law, Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens
Jurisdiction denotes a court’s power to hear particular types of cases. Whereas there are numerous kinds of jurisdictions, general and specific personal jurisdiction are the most common. General jurisdiction signifies the authority a court of law has over a wide-ranging array of court cases. In contrast, specific jurisdiction signifies a court of law’s capacity to hear a lawsuit in a state other than the defendant’s home state if that defendant has fewer contacts in the state where the suit will be tried. The difference between general and specific personal jurisdiction is that specific jurisdiction needs a relationship between the defendant’s in-state contact and the claim, while general jurisdiction is all-purpose jurisdiction which denotes there is no need for a relationship between the contact and the claim. State courts are an excellent example of courts of general personal jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction is a little more complicated.
A dismissal based on forum Non-conveniens is a discretionary power that permits courts to dismiss a case whereby another forum or court of law is much better in hearing that case. On the other hand, one lack of jurisdiction is whereby the court lacks the power to make decisions affecting the defendant personally. In this dismissal, the court lacks the power to rule on controversy. Dismissal based on forum Non-conveniens does not stop a plaintiff from re-filing his or her case in the more suitable court.
A court can apply to form Non Conveniens when a particular alternative forum is in a foreign country. Forum Non-Conveniens is usually distinguished from the transfer. Additionally, a court will classically only invoke forum non conveniens if it meets a two-step test: it is a seriously not appropriate forum, and if there is a more appropriate court that is available for the plaintiff’s claim.
Plato’s Phaedo
(Name)
(Instructors’ name)
(Course)
(Date)
Plato’s Phaedo
In the Phaedo Plato highlights the immortality of the soul by invoking arguments from recollection, opposites and scattering. In this account, it is argued that true philosophers should not fear death but look forward to it. According to Socrates, the purpose of leading a philosophical death is to free one’s soul of the body’s needs. The account indicates that a philosopher should see the moment of death as an achievement of his or her goal. To him, the body will survive death because it is immortal, unlike the body. The philosopher goes on to provide four arguments for supporting his argument that the soul is immortal. These include the argument of opposites, the theory of recollection, argument from affinity and the theory of forms. This paper will base its arguments on the second argument that supports the immortality of the soul, the theory of recollection.
The second argument of Socrates, that is, the theory of recollection argues that learning is usually an act of recollecting pieces of information that we had before we were born but lost them, as a result, of forgetting. Socrates argued that true knowledge is the knowledge of the unchanging and eternal forms that determine perceptible realties. For instance, we are able to comprehend that two sticks are different in width but equal in height, or vice versa, because we have an in build understanding of the form of equality. This is to mean that individuals have an in built understanding or perceptions of what it means to be equal even when we know in reality that no two things are equal. Since we can understand this form of equality even though we had never encountered it, the ability that we have to grasp this must be because of the recollection of some immortal knowledge we had before we were born and forgot. This then argues or shows that a part of us, or the soul, must have existed before we were born, which in turn shows that the life of the soul extends beyond the life of a body.
These arguments of the immortality of soul presented through recollection of knowledge relate in some way to the theory of Socrates of forms. According to Socrates, a form, unlike other qualities factors in the world, does not admit its opposite and is perfectly itself. For instance, the form of beauty does not allow any ugliness in it. In addition to this, a beautiful person might be extremely beautiful in comparison to other people but would not seem as beautiful or beautiful at all when compared to gods, and this Socrates concluded that form is perfectly itself. On the other hand, the form of beauty is utterly and perfectly beautiful. The soul is what makes us human beings, and we are alive because we have it. This indicates that the soul is intimately connected to the form of life. The form of life does not allow its opposite, death, and, therefore, death cannot tarnish the form of life, and this is why he concludes that the soul is immortal because it death cannot reach or affect it.
The arguments made above that the soul is immortal because of the argument of recollection and the theory of form claim that certain conditions have to be sufficient for recollection to occur. These conditions are as follows. One condition is that recollection must be of some knowledge or information that we knew previously. Another condition is that this recollection must be initiated by sense perception, the perception of something not similar or equal to something that is recollected. This serves to differentiate recollection from the normal recognition or from re- learning. However, I find it increasingly unlikely for these claims to be true. I, for example, find his argument that one forgets death and all the knowledge he or she previously had before death because of the trauma of death, but I find it unlikely that one would forget such an event.
From Plato’s arguments on recollection, he gives examples of the existence of absolutes such as equality and beauty, and gives this as evidence that a nonmaterial soul exists because a person possesses knowledge of these absolutes in the physical world even though there are no absolutes prevalent in the real physical world. Nevertheless, since Plato imagines and emphasizes on the partition of the spirit from the deceased and the existence of the soul in a realm that is non-realm, why is it not possible for him to believe in the existence of absolutes? That is to mean, why is it that the soul has to leave the body for it to gain knowledge, disregarding the concept of recollection? Plato does not seem to establish adequately evidence for the necessity of the afterlife. If there were enough evidence, it would seem that one could sensibly give an account of death when they are alive, which would support the preceding theories and arguments.
A revised claim about the sufficient conditions for an act of recollection would not require the soul to leave the body to recollect knowledge. This revised claim would not be subject to the same criticism because when someone defines an absolute using the revised claim, they would not seem like they had the knowledge before they were born, but they would seem like they are describing the absolute through simply stating their opinions of what they understand or think as beautiful or equal, thus taking their views and opinions to be the description of an absolute, something that is possible in real life, unlike the explanation offered by Plato.
One can, therefore, change the arguments of Socrates that we recollect or understand things because of some knowledge we held before, to argue that we recollect and understand things because we have the ability to imagine and have one’s own opinions about what things are. This argument does not succeed in establishing that we come by knowledge about equity through acts of recollection because the new argument refutes the claims and the need for the soul to be separate from the body to attain knowledge. All we need is one’s opinions and an imagination to understand equality.
We, therefore, cannot accept the theory of form of Socrates because it is unlikely that the existence of absolutes depends on the immortality of the soul, and its separation from the body, rather one’s understanding of these absolutes can be from the imagination. Since Plato argued that the trauma of birth deletes the memory of an individual upon their birth, he leaves a chance to argue that what these individuals know is from their imagination, and I suggest that imagination may also be present for the concept of absolutes like life and beauty.