이아고에 대한 비평 개관

Abstract

The focus of critical commentary on Othello during the past four hundred years has been on the characters of Iago and Othello. Critics have debated which of them bears greater responsibility for the tragic catastrophe in the play. Until recently, Iago has received special critical attention. Samuel T. Coleridge, renowned critic in the 19th century, regarded Iago as almost a devil: “[Iago’s soliloquy], the motive hunting of motiveless malignity--how awful! In itself fiendish; while yet he was allowed to bear the divine image, too fiendish for his own steady view. A being next to devil, only not quite devil.” Coleridge regarded Iago as an inhuman personification of evil who presents “motiveless malignity” behind his diabolical behavior. Coleridge’s description of Iago remains one of the most important critical comments on the characters of the play. However, such 19th century critics as William Hazlitt, William Maginn, and Charles Swinburne rejected Coleridge’s argument that Iago has no specific motivation for his wicked schemes. They drew attention to Iago’s talent for creativity, his self-deception, and his intense passion for the power of manipulating other characters. A. C. Bradley, the most famous critic in the 20th century, also rejected Coleridge’s view of Iago and argued that Iago is motivated “not by the love of evil for its own sake” but by a sense of pride. He emphasized Iago’s pride and egotism, his self-control, his powerful intellect and will, his passion for risk taking, and the consummate artistry of Iago’s villainy. In the 20th century, Iago has been depicted as a conventional stage villain, a practitioner of Machiavellianism, a racist, a misogynist, a creative genius, or a symbolic representation of evil. In this paper, the critical commentaries on the character of Iago will be surveyed with special attention to the arguments of Coleridge and A. C. Bradley.