As in my previous post, I introduce a discussion of the praise and excuses offered by critics to the character of Cassio with a few excerpts from my copy of the first Arden edition (published 1924 by D.C. Heath & Co., Boston, edited by C.H.Herford and revised by Raymond MacDonald Allen). All quotes and parentheses are as in Herford/Allen. Brackets are mine. Selections are from an introductory section entitled ‘The betrayal of Cassio. Cassio’s character.’ [v]
{C} Cassio has conceived a worshipping adoration of the exquisite character of Desdemona, while she gives him warm friendship in return. [xix]
{D} There was as little thought of disloyalty on his [Cassio’s] part as on hers [Desdemona’s]; but both were naturally frank, she through innocence, he by his ardent and impulsive temperament. [xix]
In {C}, Herford/Allen desexualize the relationship between Cassio and Desdemona by re-fashioning it into ‘worship’ on the one hand and ‘warm friendship’ on the other. Again, if these critics believe Cassio’s ascension at play’s end to be just and reasonable, then they must argue that Cassio is a ‘proper’ man and never coveted his general’s wife. This reading, perpetuated by generations of critics, makes Desdemona less human, less earthly, more ideal, more virginal – restoring / re-imprisoning her character to her father’s conception.
Just as reading an ideal Cassio makes Iago even more contemptible, so does reading an ideal Cassio make Desdemona even more disembodied and spiritually perfect.
In {D} the critics take it up a notch further; Desdemona and Cassio are yoked as ‘naturally frank’. Apparently, Cassio’s choice to get drunk on duty and run through the streets with a drawn sword is just part of being ‘ardent and impulsive’, as is flirting with Emilia in front of her husband. His indiscretions are just part of being naturally frank.
These are, I hope you see, servant criticisms of upper-class youths. I read Herford / Allen as writing in a tradition that has not yet been destroyed by the World Wars and the Great Depression; in the English country-house and Oxbridge tradition, these critics are tutors to upper-class youths. They do not dare to condemn a man described as rich, young, courtly, woman-wise, up-and-coming; just such a crowd is their audience, their customer-base, and to insult the children of wealth and privilege, the children of tuition-paying parents, would have been financially unwise.
Just as a brief contrast, do not picture Cassio drunk in the barracks. Picture him drunk in the RV with the Borat character in the 2006 movie, ‘Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan’. Then picture yourself being paid by Cassio’s dad to write about Cassio’s behavior in the RV. Best to term it ‘naturally frank’. Best to term it ‘ardent and impulsive’. Best not to dwell too much upon the equivocations. Best, instead, to condemn Borat for getting Cassio drunk in the RV and recording his drunken rants. Best to suggest that, eventually, Borat will end up in jail and Cassio in an executive suite as a CEO. Best, if you want to keep your job working for Cassio’s dad.
Just so has the play been read by critics, students, and stagers in and out of academia. Who, given the option, would back the man who ends up in the cage or the man who kills his wife? Better to back the man who ends up in charge. Better to praise Cassio, condemn Iago, and worship Desdemona.
And so they did, and so they do.
Soon…