Shakespearean Tragedy Part 38

In the scene (iv.) following the Temptation scene Desdemona sends to bid Ca.s.sio come, as she has interceded for him: Oth.e.l.lo enters, tests her about the handkerchief, and departs in anger: Ca.s.sio, arriving, is told of the change in Oth.e.l.lo, and, being left _solus_, is accosted by Bianca, whom he requests to copy the work on the handkerchief which he has just found in his room (ll. 188 f.). All this is naturally taken to happen in the later part of the day on which the events of III. i.-iii.

took place, _i.e._ the day after the arrival in Cyprus: but I shall return to this point.

In IV. i. Iago tells Oth.e.l.lo that Ca.s.sio has confessed, and, placing Oth.e.l.lo where he can watch, he proceeds on Ca.s.sio's entrance to rally him about Bianca; and Oth.e.l.lo, not being near enough to hear what is said, believes that Ca.s.sio is laughing at his conquest of Desdemona.

Ca.s.sio here says that Bianca haunts him and 'was here _even now_'; and Bianca herself, coming in, reproaches him about the handkerchief 'you gave me _even now_.' There is therefore no appreciable time between III.

iv. and IV. i. In this same scene Bianca bids Ca.s.sio come to supper _to-night_; and Lodovico, arriving, is asked to sup with Oth.e.l.lo _to-night_. In IV. ii. Iago persuades Roderigo to kill Ca.s.sio _that night_ as he comes from Bianca's. In IV. iii. Lodovico, after supper, takes his leave, and Oth.e.l.lo bids Desdemona go to bed on the instant and dismiss her attendant.

In Act V., _that night_, the attempted a.s.sa.s.sination of Ca.s.sio, and the murder of Desdemona, take place.

From all this, then, it seems clear that the time between the arrival in Cyprus and the catastrophe is certainly not more than a few days, and most probably only about a day and a half: or, to put it otherwise, that most probably Oth.e.l.lo kills his wife about twenty-four hours after the consummation of their marriage!

The only _possible_ place, it will be seen, where time can elapse is between III. iii. and III. iv. And here Mr. Fleay would imagine a gap of at least a week. The reader will find that this supposition involves the following results, (_a_) Desdemona has allowed at least a week to elapse without telling Ca.s.sio that she has interceded for him. (_b_) Oth.e.l.lo, after being convinced of her guilt, after resolving to kill her, and after ordering Iago to kill Ca.s.sio within three days, has allowed at least a week to elapse without even questioning her about the handkerchief, and has so behaved during all this time that she is totally unconscious of any change in his feelings. (_c_) Desdemona, who reserves the handkerchief evermore about her to kiss and talk to (III.

iii. 295), has lost it for at least a week before she is conscious of the loss. (_d_) Iago has waited at least a week to leave the handkerchief in Ca.s.sio's chamber; for Ca.s.sio has evidently only just found it, and wants the work on it copied before the owner makes inquiries for it. These are all gross absurdities. It is certain that only a short time, most probable that not even a night, elapses between III. iii. and III. iv.

(B) Now this idea that Oth.e.l.lo killed his wife, probably within twenty-four hours, certainly within a few days, of the consummation of his marriage, contradicts the impression produced by the play on all uncritical readers and spectators. It is also in flat contradiction with a large number of time-indications in the play itself. It is needless to mention more than a few. (_a_) Bianca complains that Ca.s.sio has kept away from her for a week (III. iv. 173). Ca.s.sio and the rest have therefore been more than a week in Cyprus, and, we should naturally infer, considerably more. (_b_) The ground on which Iago builds throughout is the probability of Desdemona's having got tired of the Moor; she is accused of having repeatedly committed adultery with Ca.s.sio (_e.g._ V. ii. 210); these facts and a great many others, such as Oth.e.l.lo's language in III. iii. 338 ff., are utterly absurd on the supposition that he murders his wife within a day or two of the night when he consummated his marriage. (_c_) Iago's account of Ca.s.sio's dream implies (and indeed states) that he had been sleeping with Ca.s.sio 'lately,' _i.e._ after arriving at Cyprus: yet, according to A, he had only spent one night in Cyprus, and we are expressly told that Ca.s.sio never went to bed on that night. Iago doubtless was a liar, but Oth.e.l.lo was not an absolute idiot.

Thus (1) one set of time-indications clearly shows that Oth.e.l.lo murdered his wife within a few days, probably a day and a half, of his arrival in Cyprus and the consummation of his marriage; (2) another set of time-indications implies quite as clearly that some little time must have elapsed, probably a few weeks; and this last is certainly the impression of a reader who has not closely examined the play.

It is impossible to escape this result. The suggestion that the imputed intrigue of Ca.s.sio and Desdemona took place at Venice before the marriage, not at Cyprus after it, is quite futile. There is no positive evidence whatever for it; if the reader will merely refer to the difficulties mentioned under B above, he will see that it leaves almost all of them absolutely untouched; and Iago's accusation is uniformly one of adultery.

How then is this extraordinary contradiction to be explained? It can hardly be one of the casual inconsistencies, due to forgetfulness, which are found in Shakespeare's other tragedies; for the scheme of time indicated under A seems deliberate and self-consistent, and the scheme indicated under B seems, if less deliberate, equally self-consistent.

This does not look as if a single scheme had been so vaguely imagined that inconsistencies arose in working it out; it points to some other source of contradiction.

'Christopher North,' who dealt very fully with the question, elaborated a doctrine of Double Time, Short and Long. To do justice to this theory in a few words is impossible, but its essence is the notion that Shakespeare, consciously or unconsciously, wanted to produce on the spectator (for he did not aim at readers) two impressions. He wanted the spectator to feel a pa.s.sionate and vehement haste in the action; but he also wanted him to feel that the action was fairly probable. Consciously or unconsciously he used Short Time (the scheme of A) for the first purpose, and Long Time (the scheme of B) for the second. The spectator is affected in the required manner by both, though without distinctly noticing the indications of the two schemes.

The notion underlying this theory is probably true, but the theory itself can hardly stand. Pa.s.sing minor matters by, I would ask the reader to consider the following remarks. (_a_) If, as seems to be maintained, the spectator does not notice the indications of 'Short Time' at all, how can they possibly affect him? The pa.s.sion, vehemence and haste of Oth.e.l.lo affect him, because he perceives them; but if he does not perceive the hints which show the duration of the action from the arrival in Cyprus to the murder, these hints have simply no existence for him and are perfectly useless. The theory, therefore, does not explain the existence of 'Short Time.' (_b_) It is not the case that 'Short Time' is wanted only to produce an impression of vehemence and haste, and 'Long Time' for probability. The 'Short Time' is equally wanted for probability: for it is grossly improbable that Iago's intrigue should not break down if Oth.e.l.lo spends a week or weeks between the successful temptation and his execution of justice. (_c_) And this brings me to the most important point, which appears to have escaped notice. The place where 'Long Time' is wanted is not _within_ Iago's intrigue. 'Long Time' is required simply and solely because the intrigue and its circ.u.mstances presuppose a marriage consummated, and an adultery possible, for (let us say) some weeks. But, granted that lapse between the marriage and the temptation, there is no reason whatever why more than a few days or even one day should elapse between this temptation and the murder. The whole trouble arises because the temptation begins on the morning after the consummated marriage. Let some three weeks elapse between the first night at Cyprus and the temptation; let the brawl which ends in the disgrace of Ca.s.sio occur not on that night but three weeks later; or again let it occur that night, but let three weeks elapse before the intercession of Desdemona and the temptation of Iago begin. All will then be clear. Ca.s.sio has time to make acquaintance with Bianca, and to neglect her: the Senate has time to hear of the perdition of the Turkish fleet and to recall Oth.e.l.lo: the accusations of Iago cease to be ridiculous; and the headlong speed of the action after the temptation has begun is quite in place. Now, too, there is no reason why we should not be affected by the hints of time ('to-day,' 'to-night,'

'even now'), which we _do_ perceive (though we do not calculate them out). And, lastly, this supposition corresponds with our natural impression, which is that the temptation and what follows it take place some little while after the marriage, but occupy, themselves, a very short time.

Now, of course, the supposition just described is no fact. As the play stands, it is quite certain that there is no s.p.a.ce of three weeks, or anything like it, either between the arrival in Cyprus and the brawl, or between the brawl and the temptation. And I draw attention to the supposition chiefly to show that quite a small change would remove the difficulties, and to insist that there is nothing wrong at all in regard to the time from the temptation onward. How to account for the existing contradictions I do not at all profess to know, and I will merely mention two possibilities.

Possibly, as Mr. Daniel observes, the play has been tampered with. We have no text earlier than 1622, six years after Shakespeare's death. It may be suggested, then, that in the play, as Shakespeare wrote it, there was a gap of some weeks between the arrival in Cyprus and Ca.s.sio's brawl, or (less probably) between the brawl and the temptation. Perhaps there was a scene indicating the lapse of time. Perhaps it was dull, or the play was a little too long, or devotees of the unity of time made sport of a second breach of that unity coming just after the breach caused by the voyage. Perhaps accordingly the owners of the play altered, or hired a dramatist to alter, the arrangement at this point, and this was unwittingly done in such a way as to produce the contradictions we are engaged on. There is nothing intrinsically unlikely in this idea; and certainly, I think, the amount of such corruption of Shakespeare's texts by the players is usually rather underrated than otherwise. But I cannot say I see any signs of foreign alteration in the text, though it is somewhat odd that Roderigo, who makes no complaint on the day of the arrival in Cyprus when he is being persuaded to draw Ca.s.sio into a quarrel that night, should, directly after the quarrel (II. iii. 370), complain that he is making no advance in his pursuit of Desdemona, and should speak as though he had been in Cyprus long enough to have spent nearly all the money he brought from Venice.

Or, possibly, Shakespeare's original plan was to allow some time to elapse after the arrival at Cyprus, but when he reached the point he found it troublesome to indicate this lapse in an interesting way, and convenient to produce Ca.s.sio's fall by means of the rejoicings on the night of the arrival, and then almost necessary to let the request for intercession, and the temptation, follow on the next day. And perhaps he said to himself, No one in the theatre will notice that all this makes an impossible position: and I can make all safe by using language that implies that Oth.e.l.lo has after all been married for some time. If so, probably he was right. I do not think anyone does notice the impossibilities either in the theatre or in a casual reading of the play.

Either of these suppositions is possible: neither is, to me, probable.

The first seems the less unlikely. If the second is true, Shakespeare did in _Oth.e.l.lo_ what he seems to do in no other play. I can believe that he may have done so; but I find it very hard to believe that he produced this impossible situation without knowing it. It is one thing to read a drama or see it, quite another to construct and compose it, and he appears to have imagined the action in _Oth.e.l.lo_ with even more than his usual intensity.

NOTE J.

THE 'ADDITIONS' TO _OTh.e.l.lO_ IN THE FIRST FOLIO. THE PONTIC SEA.

The first printed _Oth.e.l.lo_ is the first Quarto (Q1), 1622; the second is the first Folio (F1), 1623. These two texts are two distinct versions of the play. Q1 contains many oaths and expletives where less 'objectionable' expressions occur in F1. Partly for this reason it is believed to represent the _earlier_ text, perhaps the text as it stood before the Act of 1605 against profanity on the stage. Its readings are frequently superior to those of F1, but it wants many lines that appear in F1, which probably represents the acting version in 1623. I give a list of the longer pa.s.sages absent from Q1:

(_a_) I. i. 122-138. 'If't' ... 'yourself:'

(_b_) I. ii 72-77. 'Judge' ... 'thee'

(_c_) I. iii. 24-30. 'For' ... 'profitless.'

(_d_) III. iii. 383-390. '_Oth._ By' ... 'satisfied! _Iago._'

(_e_) III. iii. 453-460. 'Iago.' ... 'heaven,'

(_f_) IV. i. 38-44. 'To confess' ... 'devil!'

(_g_) IV. ii. 73-76, 'Committed!' ... 'committed!'

(_h_) IV. ii. 151-164. 'Here' ... 'make me.'

(_i_) IV. iii. 31-53. 'I have' ... 'not next'

and 55-57. '_Des._ [_Singing_]' ... 'men.'

(_j_) IV. iii. 60-63. 'I have' ... 'question.'

(_k_) IV. iii. 87-104. 'But I' ... 'us so.'

(_l_) V. ii. 151-154. 'O mistress' ... 'Iago.'

(_m_) V. ii. 185-193. 'My mistress' ... 'villany!'

(_n_) V. ii. 266-272. 'Be not' ... 'wench!'

Were these pa.s.sages after-thoughts, composed after the version represented by Q1 was written? Or were they in the version represented by Q1, and only omitted in printing, whether accidentally or because they were also omitted in the theatre? Or were some of them after-thoughts, and others in the original version?

I will take them in order. (_a_) can hardly be an after-thought. Up to that point Roderigo had hardly said anything, for Iago had always interposed; and it is very unlikely that Roderigo would now deliver but four lines, and speak at once of 'she' instead of 'your daughter.'

Probably this 'omission' represents a 'cut' in stage performance. (_b_) This may also be the case here. In our texts the omission of the pa.s.sage would make nonsense, but in Q1 the 'cut' (if a cut) has been mended, awkwardly enough, by the subst.i.tution of 'Such' for 'For' in line 78. In any case, the lines cannot be an addition. (_c_) cannot be an after-thought, for the sentence is unfinished without it; and that it was not meant to be interrupted is clear, because in Q1 line 31 begins 'And,' not 'Nay'; the Duke might say 'Nay' if he were cutting the previous speaker short, but not 'And.' (_d_) is surely no addition. If the lines are cut out, not only is the metre spoilt, but the obvious reason for Iago's words, 'I see, Sir, you are eaten up with pa.s.sion,'

disappears, and so does the reference of his word 'satisfied' in 393 to Oth.e.l.lo's 'satisfied' in 390. (_e_) is the famous pa.s.sage about the Pontic Sea, and I reserve it for the present. (_f_) As Pope observes, 'no hint of this trash in the first edition,' the 'trash' including the words 'Nature would not invest herself in such shadowing pa.s.sion without some instruction. It is not words that shake me thus'! There is nothing to prove these lines to be original or an after-thought. The omission of (_g_) is clearly a printer's error, due to the fact that lines 72 and 76 both end with the word 'committed.' No conclusion can be formed as to (_h_), nor perhaps (_i_), which includes the whole of Desdemona's song; but if (_j_) is removed the reference in 'such a deed' in 64 is destroyed. (_k_) is Emilia's long speech about husbands. It cannot well be an after-thought, for 105-6 evidently refer to 103-4 (even the word 'uses' in 105 refers to 'use' in 103). (_l_) is no after-thought, for 'if he says so' in 155 must point back to 'my husband say that she was false!' in 152. (_m_) might be an after-thought, but, if so, in the first version the ending 'to speak' occurred twice within three lines, and the reason for Iago's sudden alarm in 193 is much less obvious. If (_n_) is an addition the original collocation was:

but O vain boast!

Who can control his fate? 'Tis not so now.

Pale as thy smock!

which does not sound probable.

Thus, as it seems to me, in the great majority of cases there is more or less reason to think that the pa.s.sages wanting in Q1 were nevertheless parts of the original play, and I cannot in any one case see any positive ground for supposing a subsequent addition. I think that most of the gaps in Q1 were accidents of printing (like many other smaller gaps in Q1), but that probably one or two were 'cuts'--_e.g._ Emilia's long speech (_k_). The omission of (_i_) might be due to the state of the MS.: the words of the song may have been left out of the dialogue, as appearing on a separate page with the musical notes, or may have been inserted in such an illegible way as to baffle the printer.

I come now to (_e_), the famous pa.s.sage about the Pontic Sea. Pope supposed that it formed part of the original version, but approved of its omission, as he considered it 'an unnatural excursion in this place.' Mr. Swinburne thinks it an after-thought, but defends it. 'In other lips indeed than Oth.e.l.lo's, at the crowning minute of culminant agony, the rush of imaginative reminiscence which brings back upon his eyes and ears the lightning foam and tideless thunder of the Pontic Sea might seem a thing less natural than sublime. But Oth.e.l.lo has the pa.s.sion of a poet closed in as it were and shut up behind the pa.s.sion of a hero' (_Study of Shakespeare_, p. 184). I quote these words all the more gladly because they will remind the reader of my lectures of my debt to Mr. Swinburne here; and I will only add that the reminiscence here is of _precisely the same character_ as the reminiscences of the Arabian trees and the base Indian in Oth.e.l.lo's final speech. But I find it almost impossible to believe that Shakespeare _ever_ wrote the pa.s.sage without the words about the Pontic Sea. It seems to me almost an imperative demand of imagination that Iago's set speech, if I may use the phrase, should be preceded by a speech of somewhat the same dimensions, the contrast of which should heighten the horror of its hypocrisy; it seems to me that Shakespeare must have felt this; and it is difficult to me to think that he ever made the lines,

In the due reverence of a sacred vow I here engage my words,

follow directly on the one word 'Never' (however impressive that word in its isolation might be). And as I can find no _other_ 'omission' in Q1 which appears to point to a subsequent addition, I conclude that this 'omission' _was_ an omission, probably accidental, conceivably due to a stupid 'cut.' Indeed it is nothing but Mr. Swinburne's opinion that prevents my feeling certainty on the point.

Finally, I may draw attention to certain facts which may be mere accidents, but may possibly be significant. Pa.s.sages (_b_) and (_c_) consist respectively of six and seven lines; that is, they are almost of the same length, and in a MS. might well fill exactly the same amount of s.p.a.ce. Pa.s.sage (_d_) is eight lines long; so is pa.s.sage (_e_). Now, taking at random two editions of Shakespeare, the Globe and that of Delius, I find that (_b_) and (_c_) are 6-1/4 inches apart in the Globe, 8 in Delius; and that (_d_) and (_e_) are separated by 7-3/8 inches in the Globe, by 8-3/4 in Delius. In other words, there is about the same distance in each case between two pa.s.sages of about equal dimensions.