An essay written for Shakespeare, The Later Plays about the structure of Iago’s lies and fictions in Othello. I compare the structure of Iago’s fictions to proofs by contradiction, and muse about possible takeaways that would apply to fiction more broadly.
Some of the most fascinating characters in our plays have been liars, or brilliant storytellers—or both. Using one character as a case study, describe the relationship, be it moral, ethical or psychological, between fiction and falsehood.
In Shakespeare’s Othello, Iago causes tragic betrayals through manipulation and deception. Although there is no doubt that Iago is a talented liar, he is also an able storyteller, often relying on stories to further his causes. Iago’s stories are carefully structured in a logical format reminiscent of a mathematical proof by contradiction. Rather than attempt to convince his audience of a false premise, Iago’s stories begin by reaffirming the listener’s preconceived notions about the world and proceed to lead them to draw unfortunate conclusions. In this way, Iago’s fictions are readily accepted and acted upon because the fictions confirm the beliefs of the listeners and are internally consistent.
Before examining the set of stories and lies that Iago tells, it is important to have some broader context in which to think about the particular structure of some of his stories. Fiction is the telling of imaginary and untrue events. Fiction is, by definition, dependent on falsehood. A completely true story is not a fiction. In general, there are many ways in which stories could be false. For instance, science fiction focuses on imaginary science and its consequences. Historical fiction imagines false historical events. Some of Iago’s stories are simply stories about events that never occurred. That is, these stories claim events have happened which have not. For instance, Iago tells Othello that “In sleep I heard him say, ‘Sweet Desdemona, let us be wary, let us hide our loves!’ and then, sir, would he gripe and wring my hand, cry ‘O sweet creature!’ then kiss me hard” (III.3.419-421). The audience has no evidence and no reason to suspect that this statement is objectively true. However, not all of Iago’s stories are fiction because they claim fake events to have happened. Some of his stories utilize falsehood in a different manner.
While there are instances where it is clear that the Iago is lying, there are some cases in which it is difficult to determine the exact veracity of Iago’s stories. One particular case occurs when Iago gives Cassio advice after Othello has just discharged him. Iago tells Cassio to plea to Desdemona so that she will convince Othello to reinstate him to his previous post. The result, Iago says, is that “This broken joint between you and her husband entreat her to splinter; and my fortunes against any lay worth naming, this crack of your love shall grow stronger than it was before” (II.3.309-313). The advice Iago gives to Cassio is logically sound, a sentiment that Iago himself expresses. He says, “And what’s he then that says I play the villain, when this advice is free I give and honest, probal to thinking, and indeed the course to win the Moor again?” (II.3.324-327). Yet, despite Iago’s claim that his story is logically plausible and the best course of action, it is clear to the audience that the story is still fiction. However, this fiction does not claim certain events have occurred. Rather, this fiction claims that certain events will and must occur. Thus, despite the soundness of the logic, the conclusion Iago makes Cassio reach is a misguided one.
These two aspects of Iago’s stories, that they consist of logical truths and false conclusions, present a seeming contradiction. If the logical connections that Iago makes are all true and consistent, then it should be impossible for the conclusion to be false, must like a mathematical proof. In a way, Iago’s advice to Cassio operates much like a proof by contradiction, in which one assumes a set of assumptions, explores the logical results of those assumptions, and arrives at absurd conclusions. Typically, the goal of a mathematical proof is to demonstrate the set of assumptions to be false. Iago spells this out for the audience. The assumption that Othello will listen to Desdemona will turn out to be false, as Iago will “pour pestilence into his ear” (II.3.344). Thus, Iago’s advice to Cassio is fictitious in that the premises that it assumes are false and, as a result, the conclusions must be as well despite how logically sound the internal logic is.
Iago employs this proof by contradiction structure in some of the most critical stories he tells others, including the story he tells Rodrigo in order to convince him to sell his belonging and go to Cyprus. Most notable is the story Iago tells Othello which ignites Othello’s suspicion of Desdemona. It begins with the possibility, not even certainty, that Desdemona is cheating on Othello with Cassio. “I speak not yet of proof. Look to your wife; observe her well with Cassio” (III.3.196-197). Iago implies that Desdemona will reveal her treacherous behavior through her behavior towards Cassio. Iago then traces out the logic that leads him to suspicion. “She did deceive her father, marrying you; and when she seemed to shake and fear your looks, she loved them most” (III.3.206-208). Iago’s logic is clear—Desdemona is deceptive and she is deceiving you by pretending to love your looks. The audience knows this to be false. In this story, the premise here is false and the logical conclusions are as well.
This simple story is the most important and critical story in the play because it marks the points in which Othello begins his rapid descent into betrayal. Furthermore, the story alone changes Othello, a point evident in Othello’s language before and after the story. Before hearing the story, Othello proclaims his love of Desdemona, stating, “Excellent wretch! Perdition catch my soul but I do love thee!” (III.3.90-91). Following Iago’s story, Othello proclaims his belief that Desdemona is cheating on him, saying “What sense had I in her stol’n hours of lust? I saw’t not, thought it not, it harmed not me” (III.3.338-339). It is clear from Othello’s language that he has already accepted Desdemona’s unfaithfulness as a plausible possibility. Although Othello demands Iago provide him with ocular proof of Desdemona’s betrayal, it is evident that the damage has been already been done. As discussed later, simply accepting the idea that an event is possible can drive characters to action.
In this analysis of the structure of Iago’s stories, there is still a critical missing link that has not yet been discussed. If the premises to their stories are all false, then it is still not clear why any of the listeners should believe the stories themselves, especially if the premises are false. Stated tautologically, Iago’s listeners believe the premises Iago states because they believe the premises. That is, Iago chose the premises of his stories to be ones that his listeners already accept. Othello believes that Desdemona could be lying to him because Othello is acutely aware of his outsider status. After all, Brabantio begins the play by accusing him of using magic to spellbind Desdemona. Rodrigo holds a similar belief. Iago uses this outsider premise to convince Rodrigo to sell his belongings and go to Cyprus. The key quality of Iago’s stories is not that they reveal a belief to the listener—Iago choose beliefs that his listeners already hold—but that they reveal the seemingly necessary conclusions of that belief. That is, if one believes in this premise, one must also believe in these conclusions in order to be consistent.
In addition to the logical consistency of Iago’s stories being convincing, it is evident that stories do not need to convince their audience that they are true. Rather, it is sufficient to convince the audience that their events are possible. This is demonstrated by the stories Iago tells Rodrigo, Cassio, and Iago. In addition, this fact is acknowledged outright by Iago himself. In a monologue in Act I, Iago describes part of his motivation for conspiring against Othello. He suspects that Othello has slept with his wife Emilia saying, “I know not if’t be true, but I, for mere suspicion in that kind, will do as if for surety” (I.3.380-382). Iago will later suspect that Cassio has slept with Emilia as well, despite a lack of evidence for that claim as well. In this monologue, Iago openly acknowledges the lack of proof for this claim. It is sufficient for Iago that these claims, though they find no basis in evidence, are possible. This situation is different from the previous stories that were discussed in that Iago openly admits that there is no evidence and it is unclear to the reader what preconceived notions Iago holds. Despite this, Iago still acts as if possibility were equivalent to reality. This is a demonstration of the reduced conditions for a story. A fiction does not need to convince a listener that events have happened. A fiction only needs to convince a listener that events could happen.
Shakespeare, through these stories and characters, has portrayed a human, psychological tendency. Listeners consider stories in terms of their own understanding of the way the world operates. Stories may then lead listeners to explore some possible outcomes of a premise. Furthermore, it is enough for stories simply to plant ideas as possibilities inside the head of observers. After an idea has been deemed plausible, there is a natural tendency to conflate those stories with reality. It is difficult to treat possibility in a way that sufficiently contains it to an imagined reality.
At this point, it is important to consider whether it is possible to apply these conclusions more broadly to the fictions described here. This is difficult because, in general, many audiences of fictional works have the foreknowledge that they are observing a fiction. An audience in Shakespeare’s time would have known that Othello is a fictitious play. This is unlike Iago’s audiences in Othello who did not know that Iago was telling them a fictitious story. Audiences of any known fictitious work must suspend their disbelief in order to accept the narrative at hand. The many fictions found within Othello suggest that there is some degree of belief that the audience must have in a fiction in order to be moved to action. It is unclear whether or not knowing that a story is fictitious is sufficient to distance oneself from the psychological persuasiveness of stories. However, there is a clear benefit of knowing that a story is false. As discussed, Iago’s stories in Othello operate much like proofs by contradiction, where the listener does not realize that the premises are false. However, proofs by contradiction are not meant to be deceptive. They are meant to reveal some truth about the world by demonstrating the problems of accepting some falsehood of the world. Even knowing that Othello is a fiction built on falsehoods, the events described seem plausible and possible given the chaos of the real world. Thus, Iago serves as a warning to Othello’s readers that preconceived notions about the world may ultimately lead to undesirable results. Iago and his stories also demonstrate the psychological justifications audiences make to themselves in order to reach that conclusion.
Shakespeare, W. (2001). The tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice (R. McDonald, Ed.). New York: Penguin Books.