The Preventible Ending of Othello

Both the titular character and others in Othello speak of the jealousy that compels Othello to murder as an unstoppable force, impenetrable to reason. “They are not ever jealous for the cause, but jealous for they’re jealous,” says Emilia, for instance, suggesting that envious people like Othello would not turn away from their suspicions if convinced they were groundless (Shakespeare, 322) In his declaration, “To be once in doubt is to be once resolved,” Othello insinuates that his initial moment of doubt determines the course of all his actions, from which a reader may deduce that once this doubt is instilled, the conclusion of the play is inevitable (293).

If this inevitability ever arises, it does so at the point at which no character‘s will could prevent the conclusion. However, this hinges on the amenability of Othello to rational argument brought about by Emilia’s will, which the play leaves in doubt I contend that because Othello admits he has wrongly killed Desdemona only after Emilia reveals the truth about the handkerchief, the play’s conclusion is never completely determined, as Emilia could have chosen to provide this information sooner and dismantled Othello’s trust in Iago over Desdemona.

The middle scenes of the play give the strong impression that Othello would never stop his course toward murdering Desdemona, after learning that Cassio possesses Desdemona’s handkerchief. He tells Iago, “Like to the Pontlc Sea, whose icy current and compulsive course, ne’er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due on even so my bloody thoughts shall ne’er look back,” using deterministic language to show his supposedly unwavering commitment.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified

Proficient in: Epistemology

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The context of this declaration reveals the importance of the evidence of the handkerchief to Othello‘s resolution, as he only declares, “Now do I see ‘tis true,” after Iago claims to have seen Cassio with it, This demonstrates that the handkerchief is so crucial to Othello‘s doubts that, despite his previous demands for nothing less than “ocular proof,” he accepts lago’s mere word about it as justification for Cassio‘s and Desdemona’s deaths.

For this reason, however, Othello contradicts his resolution when Emilia explains, after Desdemona‘s death, “that handkerchief thou speak’st of I found by fortune, and did give my husband”  This revelation is the one variable relevant to the evidence of Desdemona’s innocence that changes before Othello begins his speech in which he asks Lodovico to speak “of one whose hand threw a pearl away richer than all his tribe,” most likely alluding to Desdemona as the pearl. Though Othello never directly repents his murder or attributes this repentance to Emilia’s evidence, the timing of his decisions to mourn Desdemona and kill himself, especially after having proudly taken responsibility for her death to Emilia, means he admits Desdemona‘s innocence because of Emilia’s word about the handkerchief specifically, From this information, the text shows that Othello was capable of retracting his suspicion if Iago’s role in the origin of the handkerchief’s misplacement were clarified. Further, because Emilia witnesses Othello’s interrogation of Desdemona as to the location of the handkerchief, after which Desdemona calls attention to “some wonder in this handkerchief,” Emilia knows that this misunderstanding underlies Othello’s rage against her, thus she is in a position to explain to Othello why he is mistaken before he commits murder.

A plausible objection to the applicability of this conclusion to an earlier moment in the play 7 which would suggest that Emilia could have averted Desdemona‘s death by telling the truth before it occurred — is that Othello rejected Emilia‘s word before, dismissing her as “a simple bawd that cannot say as much”. It is possible that the circumstances in which Emilia convinces Othello at last, independent of the evidence she provides, differ from any of those before the conclusion such that Othello would not be receptive to any argument outside of such circumstances An ambiguous line that lends credence to this interpretation is Othello’s statement to Lodovico, “That’s he that was Othello: here I am,” as if the person “Othello” is in the past of this moment (392) If some force other than Emilia’s claim that Iago conspired against Desdemona changed Othello into a new self, based on this quote, that self would absolve Desdemona in a way of which Othello may not have been capable when he was his old self, This force could be the visual proof of Iago‘s murder of Emilia, which Othello interprets as an admission of guilt from Iagoi.

The text does not directly refute or confirm this view, but Othello’s quick willingness to arrange Cassio‘s and Desdemona‘s deaths casts doubt on the supposition that he would condemn Emilia‘s murder, if he believed Emilia were lying about Iago just as be supposed Desdemona lied to him In light of the power of the handkerchief “evidence” Iago provides to make Othello resolve to commit murder, the explanation that the loss of this evidence is sufficient to convince Othello of his guilt is more parsimonious Othello’s tendency to hold inconsistent standards of evidence at different times, as seen in the dissonance between his claims, “I’ll see before I doubt,” and, “’Tis a shrewd doubt, though it be but a dream,“ Indicates that it is not certain Emilia could have convinced him earlier than she actually does (294, 308) Nonetheless, this unpredictability of Othello’s character is precisely that which permits the possibility that he could have changed his mind, which becomes probable by the above argument. As Emilia shows herself capable of and willing to convince Othello of Desdemona’s innocence, using evidence she holds relatively early in the play, and no factor is evident that would render.

Othello uniquely open to persuasion in the conclusion, the misfortunes of Othello are never determined beyond human prevention, This perspective adds a tragic layer to the story, because even though Emilia may have had sympathetic reasons for withholding the truth from Desdemona or Othello until it was too late, such as fear of lago’s retribution, this View underscores the potential and reason she had to prevent multiple murders with such a simple piece of information. Emilia may well have decided that to offer her evidence to Othello would have been futile earlier, but the contradiction between this decision and her defense of Desdemona’s fidelity referenced above, combined with this potential, calls into question the consistency of her motives. By placing the power to avoid tragedy in the hands of a character who may not understand the extent of that power early in the play, assuming she had Desdernona’s best interests in mind, Shakespeare compounds that tragedy further while also critiquing fatalismr.