Francis Galton's 'Nature versus Nurture' theory and Shakespeare

 

                              Shakespeare’s Characters As a Prism to Francis

          Galton’s ‘Nature versus Nurture’ Theory

       Prothoma Purohit

“We live as if nature and

Nurture were equal parents

When the evidence suggests that

Nature has both the whip hand and the whip.”

- Julian Barnes

The ‘Nature-Nurture’ conflict has been a long-standing debate in the fields of psychology, philosophy, and biology. This debate is still ongoing and even the renowned psychologists feel that the depth of this topic is abysmal. ‘Nature’ refers to the multiple sets of genes which a child inherits from its parents while the term ‘Nurture’ indicates to the environment where a child is raised up. This argument has been evolved into a new phrase known as ‘Nativism versus Empiricism’ in recent times. According to the theory of nativism, human beings are always docile to their innate traits. On the other hand, the concept of empiricism states that an individual’s life can only be grown and flourished by dint of real life experiences.

The dichotomy regarding what forms the personality of a human being was strengthened in the 20th century through the ambivalent arguments of the two famous personalities, Charles Darwin and John Watson.

In the book The Origin of Species[1], Darwin has stated that human beings have been evolved through the five major stages of evolution to get themselves developed on the earth from their apelike ancestors. The stages are:

•    Mutation

•    Genetic recombination

•    Chromosomal abnormalities

•    Reproductive isolation and

•    Natural selection

Darwin has devoted several pages of his autobiographical book Autobiografia[2] to a discussion about his family members and their respective contributions to his education. He describes their efforts to tutor him and suggests that their diverse attempts have worked as an ample façade for him to learn in a prodigious way. Nevertheless, he attributes his intellectual progress to “nature”, not “nurture”. He expresses his beliefs precisely while talking about his brother Erasmus Darwin. He says,

“I do not think that I owe much to him intellectually, nor to my four sisters. I am inclined to agree with Francis Galton in believing that education and environment produce only a small effect on the mind of anyone, and the most of our qualities are innate.”

He firmly believes that intellectual behaviours develop from the primitive instincts of our non-human ancestors and the difference between human intelligence and animal intelligence is a matter of degree, not of kind.

On the contrary, the pioneer of behaviourism John Watson has always possessed a stark contradictory notion. He says, “Give me a dozen of healthy infants... and I’ll guarantee to take anyone at random and train him (or her) to become any type of specialist.”[3]

Francis Galton, an ardent figure in the popularization of the ‘Nature-Nurture’ debate

The alliterative phrase ‘Nature versus Nurture’ has been tremendously popularized by the Victorian polymath Francis Galton, the modern founder of eugenics and behavioural genetics, through the discussion of the influence of heredity and environment on social advancement. He was highly inspired by On the Origin of Species[1] written by his half-cousin, the evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin. In his book English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture[4] which was written based on the first large survey by questionnaire sent to the members of the Royal Society to enquire about their interests and affiliations, he claims that where nature and nurture are forced to compete, nature triumphs. External influences must make an impression without any doubt, but nothing can expunge the deep-rooted marks of an individual’s character. A diagram can be presented here to manifest Galton’s view more explicitly:

In the article “The History of Twins, As a Criterion of the Relative Powers of Nature and Nurture”[5], Galton describes his study of twins to substantiate his argument. This article was published in 1875 in Fraser’s Magazine[6]. It includes Galton’s use of twins to examine and distinguish between the characteristics people have at birth and the characteristics people develop from the outside world. In this article, Galton explicitly articulates why he has chosen twins to conduct his research. He states that he has examined twins who were very dissimilar in the beginning of their life and is determined to see that if they became more like-minded as they grew.

Galton’s definitions and classifications of twins

Galton provides two distinct definitions for the occurrence of twins in this article[5]. Firstly, he defines twins as beings more than one offspring who are born at the same time. He gives example of animals who give birth to multiple offsprings at the same time.

He also defines a second set of twins as more than one offspring born from double-yolk eggs that occur due to two germinal spots in the same ovum. Moreover, he classifies twins into three categories. These are:

⇒ The twins can be strongly alike

⇒ They can be moderately similar or,

⇒ The pairs of twins can be extremely dissimilar

The surveys and the observations from the surveys

After defining and classifying the terms, Galton states that he sent surveys to the twins. Though he received responses from eighty-five sets of twins, he has focused only on thirty-five cases which are most detailed.

Among the detailed responses, only a few disagreed about the complete similarity of the twins. According to Galton, most of the responses reported that the twins shared identical hair colour, eye colour, height, voice, strength, and intonation. They showed difference in their handwriting only. It was not easy for others to identify them if the twins did not give any hint. The other cases showed that the twins suffered from the same illnesses.

Galton provides anecdotes of several cases where parents failed to differentiate their twin children or children could not distinguish their twin mother-aunt emphasizing the fact that twins remain the same in their adulthood even after being exposed to different environments.

Among the thirty-five cases, Galton describes twins of sixteen cases as “closely familiar” and twins of the rest nineteen cases as “much alike” but subject to some specific differences. The differences are based on personality traits such as cowardice, fearlessness, gentility, calmness etcetera.

Finally, he observes from twenty cases which he has examined thoroughly that twins born with different genders never behaved in the same way even though they were brought up in the same environments. Thus, he reaches the conclusion that nature has a lager effect than nurture on development.

The study of heredity through the experimentation of twins’ cases has achieved a powerful insight just because of the momentous works of Francis Galton.

He has inspired scientists like Edward Thorndike, Hermann Werner Siemens. The writers Horatio Newman, Frank Freeman, and Karl John Holzinger have designated Galton as the “first investigator” to establish the likeness of twins as the basis of inheritance and heredity.

How does William Shakespeare justify Francis Galton’s argument?

“Literature adds to reality, It does not simply

 describe it.

It enriches the necessary competencies That daily life requires and

In this respect, it irrigates the deserts

That our lives have already become.”

This famous saying by C.S. Lewis reminds us that a good piece of literature is never a sheer description of a specific incident occurred in a specific time. Rather, a play, novel, or poetry should be written in such a way so that the readers irrespective of their class, cast, nation, or generation can derive pleasure and feel motivated from that piece of work. The themes which have a direct connection with life should be crafted in such a way and the characters should be given such subtle depth so that every single human being can dig the themes and reach the characters without facing much difficulty. If any litterateur aims at a particular issue or some specific people in his writings, then those literary pieces will fail to create a universal appeal and die out after a certain period of time. Moreover, the language of a writing should be lucid and the writer must not absorb himself in depicting the tumult of his personal life.

William Shakespeare is one of the mainstays of English language and literature whose works are appealing even in the 21st century. His works and characters are not stereotypical which target to achieve something solemn and big leaning to an esoteric and ostentatious subject. Bard has been exposed to criticism when the French philosopher, writer, historian, polemicist Voltaire finds flaws with Shakespeare’s characterization of Claudius in Hamlet[7] as drunkard. Dennis Hopper, an American actor, filmmaker, and photographer, is offended since Menenius, a senator of Rome, plays the role of a buffoon in Coriolanus[8]. Here, Samuel Johnson, the composer of the masterpiece ”Preface to Shakespeare”[11], defends Great Bard by saying, “His story requires Romans or kings, but he thinks only on men.” Johnson further adds, “His characters are the genuine progeny of common humanity. Shakespeare has no heroes, his scenes are occupied only by men.”

Shakespeare was born in the village of Stratford-on-Avon and belonged to a humble origin. So, he got a chance to observe the life of common people very closely. This huge opportunity of keen observation is conspicuous in the speech of Hubert in the play King John(act iv, scene ii)[9]. Hubert says, “I saw a smith stand with his hammer, thus, /The whilst his iron did on the anvil cool, /With open mouth swallowing a tailor’s news, /Who, with his shears and measures in his hand.”

The nurse in Romeo and Juliet[10] and the weaver Nick Bottom in A Midsummer Night’s Dream[12] are simply a reflection of some forgotten nurses and weavers whom Shakespeare met in his real life. His characters are from every walk of life such as kings, lords, soldiers, common people etcetera. They resonate the reality and people regard them as inspiration because they are very true to life. The characters are neither devils nor gods or goddesses bestowed with supernatural power. Hamlet’s dilemma, Macbeth’s greed and downfall, the struggle of Romeo and Juliet for love, activities of Rosalind with a view to establishing an individual identity in a gender-biased society, excessive pride of Lear everything is highly discussible in the fields of science, psychology, feminism etcetera.

Shakespeare is such a versatile personality that any topic of any branch is relatable to his works. His works are, in fact, timeless and transcend all the boundaries. So, it is no wonder that Shakespeare’s legendary characters can be interpreted under the modern psychological theory ‘Nature versus Nurture’.

Before examining Bard’s characters from the perspective of Galton’s theory, it is important to clarify that the concept of human beings’ inherent nature was presumed to be the brute instincts or the ‘id’ (Freudian term) instead of genetic component in the 14th and 15th centuries because science did not thrive at that age. The knowledge of moral standards and the balance between the good and the evil were developed by education and one’s surrounding.

The ‘Nature-Nurture’ conflict and Hamlet

Hamlet is a Danish prince and a student of Wittenberg University. He is highly educated and motivated by the spirit of Renaissance. Let us have a look how Hamlet’s education and surrounding make him a great Renaissance man.

1. Dexterity at using mythological allusions

In the play, we have seen that Hamlet loves his father profoundly and curses his mother for marrying his uncle hastily forgetting his father. Hamlet eulogizes his father by comparing him with a bunch of powerful Greek gods. In act I, scene II, he mourns for his father and says,

“So excellent a king, that was to this

Hyperion to a satyr, so loving to my mother

That he might not beteem the winds of heaven

Visit her face too roughly.”

2.  Individualism and skepticism

Individualism and skepticism are the two predominant features of the Renaissance era which pushed an individual to throw doubt at anything before believing it submissively at that time. When Hamlet comes to know about his father’s ghost from Horatio, he expresses his doubt by saying, “All is not well, / I doubt some foul play.” Then he meets his father’s apparition and comes to know that his father has been murdered by his uncle. The ghost of his father commands him to take revenge for this “unnatural murder”. After hearing all these things, Hamlet does not rush to any decision out of fatherly love. Neither he seeks any help from anyone to overcome this insurmountable problem. Rather, he decides to put himself into ‘Antic disposition’. He says to Horatio,

“How strange or odd some’er I bear myself -

As I perchance hereafter shall think meet To put an antic disposition on.”

Hamlet also arranges the play The Murder of Gonzago[13] to catch the conscience of Claudius.

3.  Philosophical thoughts of Hamlet

Claudius appoints Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to keep an eye on Hamlet’s “crafty madness”. The Rosencrantz-Guildenstern pair makes a conversation with the prince in act ii, scene ii where Hamlet makes some crucial philosophical remarks. To Hamlet, Denmark is a prison. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern contradict Hamlet, he says, “For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” This quote of Hamlet reminds us the philosophy of the Greek philosopher Protagoras. The main point of Protagoras’s philosophy is “Man is the measure of everything”. According to Protagoras, belief is subjective. He has shown interest mainly in the nature of human beings and practical life. Philosophical discussions of the cosmos or about the existence of gods seem meaningless to him since these topics are ultimately unknowable. So, he rejects all the absolute definitions of truth, virtue, or justice. What is true for one person, may be false for another. Nothing is, in fact, inherently good.

Socrates has also urged people by saying, “Know thyself. An unexamined life is not worth living.” Through the ‘Dialectic Method’ of questioning, Socrates has helped people activate their reasoning sense, use logic, analyze a topic from various angles, achieve insights about different significant topics instead of perceiving anything as absolute truth. Though Socrates was misunderstood at that time by the church authority, he brought a tremendous change in people to develop a progressive mindset.

The philosophy of existentialism is also conspicuous in Hamlet’s most famous soliloquy “To be or not to be.” In this soliloquy, the tragic hero expresses his feeling of helplessness and focuses on suicide and death. He cannot understand whether he should suffer the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” or to take “arms against the sea of troubles”. This indecisiveness of Hamlet is a stark indication to the “existential angst” which was highly dominant in people’s life after the havoc of the two Great Wars. People had suffered greatly from nihilism at that time because everything seemed futile to them. They lost faith in God and all the established norms. The mouthpiece of Friedrich Nietzche, Zarathustra, boldly remarks, “God is dead” in the book Thus Spoke Zarathustra[14]

According to the famous existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, human beings are not born with pre-destined goals designed by God. Rather, an individual must shape and define himself on his own. One must set the goals of their life by themselves. That’s why, the philosophical insight which Sartre offers to us is “Existence precedes essence.”

4.  Hamlet’s precise sense of acting

A troupe of players arrives at Elsinore and Hamlet suggests them to act precisely and in a balanced way so that the whole performance can be soulful.

He says, “Nor do saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently. Be not too tame neither, but let your discretion be your tutor. Suit the action to the word, the word to the action.” (act iii, scene ii)

Hamlet has been greatly inspired in the regard of natural and balanced acting by Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero had played a significant role as an actor in many of the vital political events of his time. He has extensively written on many subjects but best-known for his writings and speeches which include influential expositions of liberty, republican government, and justice. Cicero is considered as the preeminent ‘Master of Latin prose’ for the incorporation of unique freedom, clarity, and directness in the writings.

5.  Hamlet and eschatology

In the bedchamber scene of Hamlet[7], Polonius overhears the conversation of Hamlet and Gertrude hiding himself behind the curtain. Hamlet kills Polonius on impulse mistaking him with Claudius. When Claudius wants to know about Polonius’s corpse and asks, “Now, Hamlet, where’s Polonius?”, Hamlet makes a witty remark. He says, “Not where he eats, but where he is eaten. A certain convocation of politic worms are e’en at him. We fat ourselves for maggots. Your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service- two dishes, but to one table. That’s the end.” Here, Hamlet presents the concept of eschatology. The term ‘Eschatology’ refers to the study of last things. It is the branch of knowledge where the study of the ultimate destiny of every individual is pursued and that ultimate destination of every human being is death. After death, all the dead bodies will become the food of maggots. Maggots are absolutely indiscriminate about the dead bodies of a king or a beggar. Hamlet tells that Claudius’s death is also imminent and he will be able to meet Polonius in the hell.

6. Renaissance thoughts of Hamlet

Claudius sends Hamlet to England considering Hamlet as a “threat” after the murder of Polonius. On the way to England, he meets the troop of Fortinbras which is heading toward Poland in order to regain a small piece of land. Fortinbras has decided to fight for that infertile piece of land because his royal blood spurs him to fight for right. This encounter motivates Hamlet hugely and he produces his last soliloquy which is a pure reflection of Renaissance thoughts. The prince throws a big question at the definition of human beings. He asks, “What is a man, /If his chief good and market of his time, /Be but to sleep and feed? /A beast, no more.” In Hamlet’s view, human beings must fulfill the “godlike reasons” using their sense of logic instead of eating and sleeping only. Though Hamlet has “will”, “strength”, and “means”, he is oblivious to his responsibility of taking revenge and thus he is making the revenge “dull”. The Norwegian prince is fighting for an “eggshell”. On the contrary, Hamlet’s “bestial oblivion” is obstructing him from taking any action against the person who has killed his father, stained his mother, and hampered their royal prestige.

7. Sophisticated manner of articulation through the natural use of puns, metaphors, hyperbole and other rhetorical devices

Hamlet has used a powerful range of figurative terms in his speeches throughout the play accordingly. We can assume the level of Hamlet’s subtle mindset from his way of articulation. Some examples of Hamlet’s use of figures of speech are given below:

⇒ Pun

Example: “A little more than kin, and less than kind.” (act i, scene i)

Hamlet uses this pun for Claudius to imply the idea that his relationship with Claudius has become a bit special as Claudius has married to Gertrude. However, Hamlet is determined not to give his father’s position to anyone and he is absolutely disgruntled with his mother for this marriage. So, this pun is used by Hamlet to express his dissatisfaction in a suave manner.

⇒ Metaphor

Example: “I’ll speak daggers to her, but use none.” (act iii, scene ii)

Hamlet is confirmed about the murder of his father by Claudius after the performance of The Murder of Gonzago[13]. Now, he decides to reveal the truth to Gertrude and wants to give her a tirade for her ignominious decision of marrying Claudius. Hamlet is not going to do any harm to his mother using any real dagger, but he will impugn her.

 ⇒ Hyperbole

Example: “I love’d Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum.” (act v, scene ii)

Though the relationship of Hamlet and Ophelia is turned into a fiasco because of Hamlet’s misogynist attitude after his mother’s incestuous marriage with his uncle, Hamlet professes in Ophelia’s funeral that his love for Ophelia is compact. He uses the hyperbole to express the density of his love.

From the above discussion, it is clear that Hamlet is a storehouse of knowledge, acumen, wit, reason, prudence, and sharpness. He has been able to nurture all these qualities for being a student of Wittenberg University and the occurrences of his surrounding have influenced him a lot to think in such a way. Hamlet does not kill Claudius when Claudius is praying to God. Otherwise, Claudius will be sent to the heaven.

In spite of being a tremendously powerful embodiment of Renaissance, Hamlet cannot suppress the trigger of the id till the end. He takes the decision of participating in the duel with Laertes hastily defying Horatio’s advice. Horatio forbids Hamlet to take part in the duel since Hamlet is not “fit”. So, he might die. Hamlet says, “Not a whit. We defy augury. There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now; ’tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all.”

In the duel, Gertrude dies after drinking the poisonous wine which has been kept for Hamlet. When Hamlet comes to know about this truth, he impetuously kills Claudius both with the poisonous sword and drink. Laertes hurts Hamlet with the poisonous sword. Hamlet, too, stabs back Laertes with the same sword. Thus, the play ends with the tragic death of all the major characters. It is noteworthy that Hamlet could survive if he did not rush to the decision of taking part in the battle and plan to punish the criminals with the help of law. The prince has not taken any such decision and welcomed his destruction on his own since his rooted nature has indulged him to do so.

Who is the real victim of the bite of nature in The Tempest? Is it Caliban or Prospero?

In The Tempest[15], Shakespeare tells us the story of Prospero, the magician. He was the rightful duke of Milan. But his brother Antonio has exiled him along with his daughter Miranda. Prospero always remained absorbed in the study of “liberal arts”. So, he could not carry out his responsibilities as a duke. Antonio has grabbed the chance of this situation and usurped his dukedom.

Now, Prospero and Miranda live in an island. Prospero has enslaved a supernatural spirit Ariel to perform his arcane tasks and Caliban, a deformed inhabitant of this island, to fetch wood and do all the other chores. Prospero addresses Caliban as “tortoise”, “poisonous slave”, “abhorred slave”, “hag-seed” etcetera throughout the play. He says, “Filth as thou art with humane care and lodged thee in my own cell, /Till thou didst seek to violate the honour of my child.” Miranda “took pains” to make Caliban speak. But Caliban has learned how to curse only. This “demi-devil”, “misshapen knave” Caliban contrasts with Ferdinand, the prince of Naples. Ferdinand agrees to do the labour-intensive and base job of bearing and burning logs to win Miranda whereas Caliban expresses a strong repugnance to do this task. When Miranda wants to help Ferdinand, Ferdinand’s decent nature resists him to let Miranda do that. Ferdinand says, “I had rather crack my sinews, break my back, / Than you should such dishonour undergo.” He also wants to untie Miranda’s “virgin knot”. However, he respects the cautionary signal of Prospero when Prospero makes clear distinction between love and lust by saying, “If thou dost break her virgin-knot before, /All sanctimonious ceremonies may, /With full and holy rite be ministered, /No sweet aspersion shall the heavens let fall, /To make the contract grow; but barren hate.” So, Ferdinand plans to marry Miranda. On the other hand, Caliban has tried to rape Miranda and he has no repentance for that. Rather, he says to Prospero, “Thou didst prevent me, /I had peopled else this isle with Calibans.”

In the battle between Caliban and Ferdinand, Ferdinand wins and nurture takes the position of victor because he gives priority to the moral standards as a civilized prince. Austrian psychologist Sigmund Freud has written in his book An Outline of Psychoanalysis[16] that the id (instinctual part of mind that contains sexual and aggressive drives) will grow weaker and weaker when the ego and the superego (ethical standards) prevail strongly. It is obvious that Caliban has given priority to his lecherous nature and fails to develop his “third eye” of knowledge. That’s why, Prospero says about Caliban, “Whom stripes may move, not kindness.”

Caliban’s character is easily explainable from his obvious activities and speeches. But if we explore the subtle layer, it will become clear to us that the trigger of the id is also undeniable in the character of Prospero. Prospero is both an usurper and usurped. He has colonized a foreign land although he is a knowledgeable and civilized person. In the essay, “The Best Way to Kill Our Literary Inheritance Is to Turn It into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order”[17], Stephen Greenblatt argues that it is very difficult to look at The Tempest[15] without thinking about colonialism. The postcolonial critics have focused on Caliban as a subjugated victim of colonial domination. Caliban says to Prospero out of fury, “This island’s mine by Sycorax, my mother, /Which thou tak’st from me.” In the book Shakespeare’s Caliban: A Cultural History[18], Virginia Mason Vaughan and Alden T. Vaughan say, “Caliban stands for countless victims of European imperialism and colonialism. Like him, colonized people were disinherited, exploited, and torn between their indigenous culture and the culture superimposed on them by their conquerors.”

Michael de Montaigne, one of the most influential writers of French Renaissance, has also supported the barbarous inhabitants of the New World and implied that these “plain ignorant fellows” are superior to the Europeans who “smother” nature and “corrupt” the innocent people.

Prospero’s greed for domination supersedes all his educational values. To encapsulate, the triumph of “nature” can be seen through the characters of both Caliban and Prospero although Prospero depicts the victory of nature in an implicit way.

Is Iago’s justification about Othello as “erring barbarian” authentic? Or, Iago is the actual gothic under the veil?

The play Othello[19] was written by William Shakespeare in 1604 based on the life of a Moorish general named Othello of the Venetian army. Othello marries a young, beautiful Venetian lady named Desdemona. Desdemona has been fascinated by his great articulation style of the stories of his virility and elopes with him against her father Brabantio’s will. Brabantio never accepts this marriage since Othello is a black Moor. When Othello promotes Cassio to the position of lieutenant, his officer Iago wreaks havoc in his life out of rage.

In the 16th century, Venice was the “jewel of civilization” of Italy. We are all familiar with the influence of the famous Medici family of Italy and the generous contribution of this family to the development of art, science, and literature during the period of Italian Renaissance. Giovanni de Medici, Cosimo de Medici, Lorenzo de Medici, and others financially supported the pioneering artists of that time such as Masaccio, Michelangelo, Raphael, Donatello, and Leonardo da Vinci. Moreover, they supported Brunelleschi to rebuild the Basilica of San Lorenzo.

As the Medici family was a huge admirer of science, they helped Galileo Galilei invent the telescope. Galileo also worked as a tutor of the Medici children.

So, it is no wonder that Venice was a temple of incredible richness of literature, painting, and architecture at Shakespeare’s time which were flourished during Renaissance and all the people were highly inspired by the illuminating approach of the sophisticated Venetian culture.

Othello is a black African of sub-Saharan origin and he lacks of the sophistication required to understand the Venetian customs. So, Iago uses some denigrating terms to describe Othello. Iago’s terms and expressions are, in fact, the general view that the Venetians possess about black people even in this century. In the opening scene of the play, Iago describes Othello as “thick-lips”, “erring Barbarian”, “black ram”, and “Barbary horse.” He says to Brabantio, “Even now, now, very now an old black ram is tupping on your white ewe! / You’ll have your nephews neigh to you.” The white people have always thought that the black are “uncivilized”, “boorish”, “philistine”, “uncultured”, “imbecile”, and “bovine” because their skin colour is black and their history lacks any revolutionary movement like the Industrial Revolution and regarded them as slaves. That’s why, the white rulers have exercised “hegemony” on the native black inhabitants. In the words of Edward Said, “Colonial people were rarely seen or looked at, they were seen through, analyzed not as citizens, not even as people, but as problems to be solved.”

Othello has achieved the position of commander-in-chief of the Venetian army by showing his excellence, efficiency, and prudence in the battlefield. He is always mettlesome. Still, his gullible and headstrong nature outweighs his vigour and valiance in the end of the play. Shakespeare might have drawn such conclusion for two-fold reasons. These are:

# To explore the black from the white’s angle

# To unmask the reality of the white people who use the black to “shield” their heinous nature

The concept of geography plays a major role in Shakespeare’s Othello[19]. The occurrences of the whole play have taken place in two markedly different locales of Venice and Cyprus. The major characters, especially Iago, are forever transformed by their journey through these two disparate worlds. This transformation prove the old maxim “People change places and places change people” true.

Iago makes all the degrading remarks about Othello in front of Brabantio’s palace in Venice. Then the characters move to Cyprus which is a claustrophobic and barren military encampment and totally opposite to the civilized Venice. As a result, Cyprus is the breeding ground of Iago’s unrelenting psychological assault. The fine Venetian principles cannot deter him from being turned into a villain.

Fred West says, “Iago is an accurate portrait of psychopath who is void of conscience with no remorse.” He is a keen observer of the other characters and catches their psychology to bring them under his control with his persuasive speeches. He says to himself, “Othello’s soul is so enfettered to Desdemona’s love that she may make, unmake, do what she list even as her appetite shall play the god with his weak function.” He uses Desdemona and Cassio as his “pawn” to trigger Othello’s jealousy, fabricate a lecherous relationship between Cassio and Desdemona, and destroy the well-tuned relationship between Othello and Desdemona. He knows very well that the ignorant Moor will easily believe him because Othello does not have any reasoning power. In the famous “Divinity of hell” speech, he says,

“And what’s he then that says I play the villain?

When this advice is free I give and honest,

His soul is so enfettered to her love

That she may make, unmake, do what she list,

Even as her appetite shall play the god

With his weak function. How am I then a villain To counsel Cassio to this parallel course Directly to his good? Divinity of hell!

When devils will the blackest sins put on

They do suggest at first with heavenly shows As I do now.”

He decides to make an “unholy alliance” with Othello.

Iago is the perfect representation of the real life white hypocrites. When Columbus made his second voyage to the New World in 1493, a contact party ransacked a desolate village in Guadelop and got four or five human legs, arms, and bones. The shipboard doctor presumed that they must be in the land of Caribe, the flesh-eater of Arwak legend. This account was elaborated, embroidered, and spread widely. The myth of Cannibalism was born. Though the Europeans spread the myth of Cannibalism, they practiced cannibalism in a more systematic way. Human flesh, bones, and blood were widely used as medicine and consumed by the aristocratic figures including King Charles II, Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle etcetera. Frank Lestringant records in his book Cannibals: The Discovery and Representation of the Cannibal from Columbus to Jules Verne[20] how a Protestant was killed around 1580 by the Catholics and his heart was “chopped into pieces, auctioned off, cooked on a grill, and finally eaten with much enjoyment.”

Desdemona mistakenly drops her handkerchief and Iago grabs this opportunity to plant the “seed of suspicion” in Othello’s mind. He says to Othello, “I know not that, but such a handkerchief, / I am sure it was your wife’s did I today, /See Cassio wipe his beard with.”

Othello considers the handkerchief as an outward sign of Desdemona’s fidelity and becomes obsessed with the whereabouts of the handkerchief. Desdemona’s appeal for Cassio makes Othello’s suspicion stronger and makes a breach in their relationship.

Othello’s demand for ocular proof is the ultimate turning point. Iago improvises the sense of “door of truth” instead of the real truth because Iago knows very well that the unsophisticated Moor will not be able to differ between the huge gap of “truth” and “door of truth”. Iago tells Othello to stand apart and observe Cassio’s body languages. Thus, Othello will understand “where, how, how oft, how long ago and when” Cassio has made an illicit relationship with Desdemona. This manipulative scene bears a serious organic importance. Though Othello’s eyes are active here, his ears are totally inactive. So, a big gap of understanding is created here. Othello fails to understand that Iago and Cassio are talking about Bianca, not about Desdemona.

Now, Othello is fully convinced about Desdemona’s frailty and plans to murder both Desdemona and Cassio. He asks Iago for suggestions. He says, “I’ll chop her into messes, tear her into pieces! Get me some poison Iago this night. This night Iago”. But Iago suggests not to kill Desdemona with poison. Rather, he suggests Othello to strangle her in her bed because she has “contaminated” the bed too. Othello agrees with Iago and calls his “sweet Desdemona” “whore”, “strumpet”, “devil”, “naked in bed” etcetera. Finally, Othello murders Desdemona by smothering her.

The “unholy alliance” has transformed the loving husband into a murderer. Everything has happened due to the vengeful motive of Iago who is pushed by his intrinsic dark nature. Revenge is absolutely forbidden in Christianity as it is destructive. In Christianity, it is said, “Vengeance is mine saith Lord.” Still, Iago cannot resist himself from being turned into an “incarnation of Lucifer.” He plays the role of a “smiling assassin” throughout the play and consistently maintains a delicate veil of friendship with Othello to hide his sinister intentions indulged by hatred. Destroying the life of Othello is like a “sport” to him. His inner hidden beast wins.

The most notable figures of the Western philosophy have already drawn a line of divergence between ‘Rationalism’ and ‘Empiricism’. Among them, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, John Locke, George Berkeley, Gottfried Leibniz, Georg Hegel are the most influential. Plato, Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley eulogize the power of a bodiless world where the mind of a person reigns. In contrast, Aristotle, Locke, and Hegel uphold the importance of an external world which defines human beings in true sense. John Locke says, “No man’s knowledge here can go beyond his experience.” But the philosophy of empiricism cannot ensure victory in Great Bard’s characters. William Shakespeare has perfectly justified the principle of Francis Galton through his most powerful characters. Human beings have to be submissive to the demands of their nature no matter how much they nurture high-altitude thoughts. Many other fields of study can be explained under the light of Shakespeare’s works because in Ben Jonson’s words, “He was not for an age, but for all time.”

References

[1]  Darwin, Charles. 2011. The Origin of Species. Collins Classics. London, England: William Collins.

[2]  Darwin, Charles. Autobiograf´ıa Charles Darwin. Editorial Norma, 2007.

[3]  Watson, John B. “Psychology as the behaviorist views it.” Psychological review 20.2 (1913): 158

[4]  Galton, Francis. English men of science: Their nature and nurture. Routledge, 2018.

[5]  Galton, Francis. “The history of twins, as a criterion of the relative powers of nature and nurture.” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 5 (1876): 391-406.

[6]  Galton, Francis. “The history of twins, as a criterion of the relative powers of nature and nurture.” Fraser’s Magazine 12.71 (1875): 566-576.

[7]  Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Penguin, 1998.

[8]  Shakespeare, William. The tragedy of Coriolanus. Vol. 28. Methuen, 1922. [9] Shakespeare, William. King John. Penguin, 2000.

[10] Levenson, Jill L., and William Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet. Manchester University Press, 1987.

[11] Johnson, Samuel. Preface to Shakespeare. Good Press, 2019.

[12] Shakespeare, William. A midsummer night’s dream. Sheba Blake Publishing Corp., 2022.

[13] Bullough, Geoffrey. “The Murder of Gonzago.” The Modern Language Review (1935): 433-444.

[14] Nietzsche, Friedrich, and R. J. Hollingdale. ”Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” The Routledge Circus Studies Reader. Routledge, 2020. 461-466.

[15] Shakespeare, William, and Louise Homfrey. The tempest. NSW Department of Education Division of Guidance Special Education., 1968.

[16] Freud, Sigmund. An outline of psychoanalysis. Penguin UK, 2003.

[17] Greenblatt, Stephen. ”The best way to kill our literary inheritance is to turn it into a decorous celebration of the New World Order.” The Tempest: A Case Study in Critical Controversy (1991): 113-117.

[18] Vaughan, A. T., Vaughan, V. M. (1991). Shakespeare’s Caliban: a cultural history. Cambridge University Press.

[19] Shakespeare, William. “othello.” Othello. De Gruyter, 2021.

[20] Lestringant, Frank. Cannibals: The discovery and representation of the cannibal from Columbus to Jules Verne. University of California Press, 1997.