Senise 1

Universiteit Utrecht

STATEMENT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Utrecht University defines "plagiarism" as follows:

If, in a thesis or some other paper, data or parts of a text produced by someone else are used
without the source being identified, this counts as plagiarism. Among other things, plagiarism may
entail the following:
— cutting and pasting text from digital sources such as encyclopedias or digital journals, without
using quotations marks and references; cutting and pasting any text from the internet without
using quotation marks and references; copying from printed material such as books, journals or
encyclopedias without using quotations marks and references; using a translation of the above
texts in your own work, without using quotations marks and references;
—paraphrasing the above texts without using references. A paraphrase should never consist of
merely replacing some words by synonyms;
— using pictures, 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 and passing this off as 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 of the authors collaborating on a paper, the other authors
are accomplices to plagiarism if they could or ought to have known that the first-mentioned author
was committing plagiarism; submitting papers acquired from 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

2714 words
Kant and Machiavelli in favor of Iago
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,
 Senise 3

free reading of Machiavelli’s Prince and of Kant’s morality offers support to his amoral and evil

actions.

Iago, the perfect antagonist in a revenge play, is one of the most divisive and debatable

villains created by Shakespeare. His heinous and inexplicable nature makes him a fascinating figure

who manages through a manipulative and convincing rhetoric, and complete lack of morals to ruin

the lives of others. Iago embodies the typical example of a clever but cruel antagonist who deftly

uses the weaknesses and insecurities of each character in order to make them argue and clash with

each other. At the beginning of the play, he appears immediately unsatisfied as he complains about

Cassio promotion 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). However, his evil mind managed to device

everyone in his malefic plan. In the character of Iago, the theme between appearance and reality

stands out, offering an opportunity to analyze and evaluate his malign perversion. Indeed, when he

says: “I am not what I am” (Act1.1 line 63), he is admitting and declaring his true essence, which is

masked and hidden by false courtesies and wrong advice. However, there is a certain mystery

surrounding Iago because his true motives beyond such immoral deeds are incomprehensible to the

audience. In fact, many critics, among these stand T.S. Coleridge, have accused him of possessing a

‘motiveless malignity.’ (qtd. in Abdelrazik 686).

Nevertheless, Abdelrazik tried to offer an alternative to the argument of ‘motiveless

malignity’ by Coleridge, analyzing Iago’s behavior through a 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 states that a narcissistic person does not love himself but rather the reflection on

himself. (qtd. in Abdelrazik 687). 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
 Senise 4

delivery of certain documents and calls Iago “A man he is of honesty and trust” (Act 1.3 line 281)

or later “Iago is most honest” (Act 2.3 line 7). Even Desdemona has a positive consideration of him

“O, that's an honest fellow” (Act 3.3 line 5). 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 evilly by destroying the life of

anyone who presented himself to him as a threat to his image. (Abdelrazik 688). Moreover,

Abdelrazik, quotes Charles Tylor in her essay, who suggests that within a society in order to satisfy

the ambitious desire to have a life worth living and admirable one must seek a sense of fullness

(689). This ambitious feeling often acts as an inspiration and motivation for an individual who is

part of society. However, to achieve this sense of fullness that fills an inner void, not everyone acts

according to common morality. For example, Iago has always implicitly affirmed his emptiness and

vacuity by saying “I am not what I am.” (Act1.1 line 63). 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 fullness and superiority over their failure. (Abdelrazik 690). Therefore, Abdelrazik’s

perspective gives an understanding that Iago may have acted for purely narcissistic reasons and a

sense of social affirmation.

However, according to Grimm’s interpretation of Kant’s morality, Iago’s inherent evil is not

unmotivated and can even be understood and comprehended in its irrationality. Stephen Grimm

argues Kant’s doctrine of radical evil and he analyzes how in Religion within the Limits of Reason

Alone, 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. (160-61). Iago embodies the example

of the man who acts not out of a common sense of duty but by respecting his true nature. In

Grimm’s reading of Kant, he sees 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 common morality. (161).
 Senise 5

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 universal and objective

law, the moral law. However, in Grimm’s interpretation of Kant, he observes how the 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. (162). 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. (qtd. in Grimm 166). 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, he becomes 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. (qtd in Grimm 167-68). Iago unable to accept his social condition and his position

decides to act accordingly. Nonetheless, according to Grimm, 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. (171-73). The

German philosopher, adopting another anthropological approach, studies how the human being has
 Senise 6

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. (qtd.

in Grimm 170). Therefore, 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 pleasures or needs

somehow justifies his actions, as man acts according to nature, and in nature, desires are not

classifiable as moral or immoral. (Grimm 170-71). 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 lie in Grimm’s reading of Kant in which man is perpetually split between

his desires and his reason. (173). However, in Iago there is not a moment of moral reflection in the

entire work, this in fact could lead to thinking that he acts only by virtue of his instincts. Therefore,

man is partly constituted by instinct and rationality and, 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.” (Grimm 171). Finally, Kant

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. (qtd. in Grimm 171). 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 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. (Grimm

173). 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 7

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.

Moreover, the expression, ‘the end justifies the means’ erroneously attributed to Niccolò

Machiavelli but which synthesizes 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,

Ayyildiz notes how 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 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.”

(Machiavelli 27). Therefore, Ayyildiz observes how in order to be able to successfully carry out his

plans and ambitions, 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. (1037-39). 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. The actions of an

ideal ‘prince’ are disconnected from ethical and religious values, in fact, a valid ruler possesses a

series of virtues which also include some vices such as cunning, the ability to simulate, and ferocity.

(Ayyildiz 1038-39). Therefore, according to Ayyildiz beyond political teaching, Machiavelli’s

manual offers a new perception of human nature. (1048). Thus, 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
 Senise 8

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 mentioned 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 the hoax. (qtd. in Ayyildiz 1041). In fact, when people begin to doubt 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 in Ayyildiz’s essay, 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. (1038).

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, 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.

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).

According to Raatzsch, the absence of motivations suggest that Iago should not be read as a normal

literary character but must be approached differently, as a concept. (2). 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
 Senise 9

to understand the hidden meaning of the play. (33). 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 evil actions can be partly defended and understood. Abdelrazik

offers a modern analysis of Iago’s character, describing him as a narcissistic 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 immoral actions because as

Raatzsch highlights in his book, Apologetics to the Evil, Iago does not represent only a literary

character, but he embodies a concept, that of unconditional and immoral evil.

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.

 Senise 10

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

no.2, 2002, pp 160-177.

Machiavelli, N. (2009). The Prince. Trans. Marriot W. K. Toronto: Prohyptikon Publishing Inc.

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.