To what extent is the character Othello represented as both a noble tragic hero

and an ignoble fool?

Shakespeare presents the character Othello, in some ways, as an ignoble fool,
insolent and paranoid, undeserving of what he has due to his easily persuaded mind
and violent, primal reactions. He can also, on the other hand, be seen as a tragic
hero, a victim of the goals, anger and jealousy of others, not just his own. An
important question is: Are we meant to feel catharsis as we are with many tragedy
characters? Certainly we should for Desdemona, but do we feel sorry for his being
deceived and murdering the one he loves, or do we only curse him for his
ignorance?
In the first act of the play, Iago refers to Othello as an old black ram, typifying him
as not a man, but a brutish animal who reverts to primal rage and instinct when
confronted, incapable of decent actions and rational thought. Shakespeare uses this
implied flaw of reverting to type, to present Othello as an ignoble fool, and it is
possible that he is making racist implications, given that he is called specifically an
old black ram, and thus may be in the eyes of many of that era- more prone to
uncouth violence and debauchery.
He is also accused by Brabantio of weaving sorcery upon Desdemona, assuming
that because he is black, the only way he could woo the pure, white Desdemona is
through shamanic, tribal power, claiming that she must be driven to find out
practices of cunning hell. Although it is proven otherwise by Desdemonas
testimony, later in act three, scene four, Othello tells Desdemona that the
handkerchief has magic in the web of it, that it was given to his mother, and
twould make her amiable and subdue my father entirely to her love; but if she lost it
or made a gift of it, my fathers eye should hold her loathly. In this he is saying that
she gave her a handkerchief which has the magic to woo a lover, after being
accused of doing just that, such that, if he had said this before Brabantio, he would
almost certainly have been seen to be further at fault, a treacherous fool who has
resorted to black magic to get what he wants. It is interesting, then, that he believes
himself to be deeply in love with Desdemona, yet when she loses it, he does indeed
hold her loathly. It is possible that he describes the handkerchief in this way as a lie,
to make her afraid and realise the grave implications of the loss of it, or possibly as
an excuse to have his brutal way with her and blame the dark forces which he was
accused of using.
In act three, scene three, he further justifies Brabantios suspicions, as in a blood
rage he cries: Arise, black vengeance, from thy hollow cell! Yield up, o love, thy
crown and hearted throne to tyrannous hate! He calls upon vengeance and hate
from the darkness, asking black spirits to fill him with the will to murder her. In his
eyes, though, this is justice, this is the act of a noble hero, sparing the world of the
predations of the harlot. He is, after all, only doing this because the deceptive words
of Iago caused him to believe that she was false and evil. Is it not reasonable that

evil be punished? Perhaps, but the extent to which he wishes to go is too great, for
harlotry, though a terrible sin, is no sin worthy of execution on the whim of an
infuriated man. It is as though, once again, the primal beast in him is showing
through, and later in act four scene one, after listening in on the conversation
between Iago, Cassio and Bianca, he says: o, she will sing the savageness out of a
bear. How fitting that he should, then, surpass even the savageness of a bear, and
battle through her pleas for mercy to slay her. If he were to do this to a truly evil
woman -just as in the 2 Kings, 9:33, where Jehu called for Jezebel to be dropped,
and despite her previous actions and influence, she was dropped and died- it would
likely be seen a noble act, but because we know that he was deceived in ways which
he could easily have seen through were he to simply ask anyone other than Iago, it
is unlikely that many would feel catharsis for him, as he appears to be nothing but an
ignoble fool who murders out of bestial rage and is easily influenced by those who
would wish to use him, just as a hunter would use a hounds natural abilities to
accomplish his goals with greater ease.
A crucial fact of this whole accusation is that it was he who caused it to be lost, after
Iago works his primary deception upon him, he pushes the handkerchief away, and
it falls. This is, of all things an indication that a great deal of his downfall is created
by his own actions, ignorant of what he is doing at that most delicate of moments,
when he first sees her after being subtly convinced that she is false. He had only to
remember this one thing and it is likely that a lot of his reasons for suspicion would
have been lifted, and although it might be argued that this was simple forgetfulness,
it is clear that he did not think hard for some other reason that the handkerchief
might be missing, and was already convicted of the fact that she had given it to
Cassio, convinced by Iago of it. He then tells Iago in act three, scene three: Even so
my bloody thoughts, with violent pace, shall neer look back, neer ebb to humble
love, till that a capable and wide revenge swallow them up. Had he been truly
trusting, he would have thought hard and likely remembered what had happened to
the handkerchief, thought of his love for Desdemona and trusted her, of the reasons
he placed Cassio in high position, but instead he had the nerve to call those who he
was so quick to distrust disloyal, and even believe that it was his place to kill them in
what he in some ways thought of as penance from God, but more likely just to sate
his lust for revenge.
Shakespeare also uses biblical reference to create an image of Othello, along with
Desdemona and Iago, as an unwitting part of a prophetic event, depicting Othello
once more as a ravening beast. The tragedy of Othello is synonymous with the
beast and the harlot, specifically Revelation 17:16, which states: And the ten horns
that you saw, and the wild beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her
devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her
with fire. Othello, although preserving her body, makes her devastated and murders
Desdemona, who in his eyes is an evil harlot feeding off of the anguish of others.
This twisting of role is interesting, as in the bible, the beast is unwittingly enacting

Gods punishment on the harlot. In this case, he believes that he is doing so, but is in
fact murdering an innocent. Iagos part in this would to be that of the dragon, who in
Revelation 13:2 gave to [the beast] its power and its throne and great authority. It is
Iago who gives Othello the reason and incentive to murder Desdemona, who
deceived him and played him for the ignoble fool we may see him as. Although the
lies Iago wrought could have been broken with just a question and trust, it implies
that he is against the force of the devil himself, and as such the tragedy is enhanced
by the fact that although it is a faade easily broken, it is made impossible to do so
by Iagos clever planning. In this light, it would be reasonable to see Othello as a
victim of Iagos maliciousness, a mistreated hero whose fight for justice was turned
against itself and brought his own downfall.
In conclusion, it would be reasonable to say that, at first, Othello could indeed be
seen as a noble hero, one who intends to do good and fight for righteousness and
the good of the state, but later is too easily convinced that Desdemona and Cassio
are disloyal, showing that he is not nearly as trusting as he should be, and is played
for an ignoble fool, taking the problem too far and resulting in the death of
Desdemona, Emilia, Roderigo and himself.