Essays

Who is Jesus? (February 7, 2000)

The very first aspect Matthew presents of Jesus is that of his humanity. He is called the son of David and Abraham before Matthew mentions that he is conceived of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 1:1, 1:18, respectively). Even then, Matthew 1:18 refers to him as a child. Here, we get the picture of Jesus as helpless and dependent upon another human being for survival. Joseph was also commanded by God to carry the child into Egypt to protect him from Herod's plot to destroy him (Matt. 2:13). This also shows Jesus being subjected to a very vulnerable state.

Even in his adulthood, Jesus faced the same emotions and hardships we do. Jesus was tempted of the devil (Matt. 4:1). The very fact that Jesus could be tempted by the devil shows he shares a common bond with the rest of humanity. Matthew also lets us know that Jesus was capable of being hungry, another human desire (Matt. 4:2). When he heard of John the Baptist's death, he departed into a desert place away from everybody else (Matt. 14:13). Jesus needed time alone to cope with grief just as we do. In Gethsemane, Jesus said his soul was exceeding sorrowful to the point that he even uttered, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matt. 26:38-39). Here, Matthew paints the picture of a Jesus whose head is not always in the clouds, but, rather, a Jesus who faces extreme sadness and a fear of death. We see a Jesus who does not want to be crucified but one who wants to keep on living, despising the fact that his flesh must suffer. Jesus even asks Peter, "Could you not watch with me one hour" (Matt. 26: 40)? Here, Jesus appears to feel let down by one of his very close friends, a feeling we all have probably experienced at one time or another in our lives. On the cross, Jesus cries with a loud voice, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" (Matt. 27:46)? Here, Jesus feels totally abandoned by the one he has served his entire life. It is a point of utter despair and discouragement, a horror which is commonly felt by people who have seen their life's work go down the drain.

Though Matthew does refer to Jesus as the Son of God, recount his miracles, and reveal his power to forgive sins, Matthew is very careful to point out the humanity of Jesus by showing him in times of anger, rejoicing, sorrow, and many other very human emotions. He does this so that we can relate to Jesus on a human level instead of seeing him as some unfeeling, Zeus-like god who is power hungry and bent on human destruction.

Before reading Matthew, I always thought of Jesus as an unrelenting, cold dictator who would crush anybody who did not do his bidding. I imagined him to be a strict authoritarian who had no mercy on those who disobeyed him in the slightest infringement of the law. However, Jesus himself condemned the Pharisees for taking this unmerciful approach by mentioning how they bind heavy burdens grievous to be borne (Matt. 23:4). Jesus even ate with publicans and sinners, saying it was the sick who needed a doctor, not those who were well (Matt. 9:11-12). He commands us to love our enemies and to do good to those who hate us (Matt. 5:44). He was moved with compassion for the multitudes which were scattered abroad (Matt. 9:36). All of these instances paint a picture of a Jesus who cares about the sinner, wants to spend time with them, and loves them enough to grant mercy and compassion to them. Thus, Matthew presents a Jesus one would not mind serving because we see a Jesus who faces many of the same obstacles and emotions we face.

Astrophel and Stella: I (An explication) (February 28, 2000)

The first sonnet of Sir Philip Sidney's Astrophel and Stella is a powerful literary piece about the struggle between reason and emotion. Its' rhyme scheme is abab abab cdc dee. Its rhythm is iambic hexameter, with two anomalies in lines 6 and 8, in which there are thirteen syllables. The significance of these two anomalies will be discussed as the form and meaning of the sonnet is explained.

One key point which should be mentioned before continuing is that Astrophel means star-lover and refers to Sir Philip Sidney, while Stella means star and refers to Penelope Devereux, the one Sidney once wanted to marry. Here, Sidney sees Penelope as a great heavenly body that is beyond his reach yet admired greatly by him. As there were no means of space travel in his time, except through the imagination, Sidney is implying that for he and Penelope to be together is impossible. He can merely admire her from a distance as their marriage never came to fruition. Instead, she was forced to marry Lord Rich and live in misery while Sidney married Frances Wallingham. In the sonnet, the persona is Sir Philip Sidney himself.

The content of the sonnet deals with a poet who is madly in love with a beautiful lady, trying desperately to write a poem that will cause her to take notice of him. He wants her to feel sorry for him so that she might have mercy on him and possibly decide to be with him. After countless tries of trying to write impressive verse by studying and seeking for the most flowing, eloquent words, it finally dawns on the poet to write from the heart in order to conjure up the emotions he is seeking to express.

The form of the sonnet is a sheer work of genius. Sidney chooses to stress a lot of syllables that imply action, paint a strong mental image, or suggest powerful, intense emotion. Truth, fain, love, sought, fresh, win, fruit, up, fool, and heart are all stressed syllables which propel the sonnet forward so one can see the plight of the poet in his ordeal to produce a work worthy of the fair lady's acceptation.

Sidney succeeds in an ingenious use of personification to give the sonnet a sense of dramatic action. When he pens "pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know", one gets the sense that pleasure and reading are rough characters trying to force the object of his affection to read and know his intense feelings for her. Then he goes on to say, "knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain". Here, there is a sense that knowledge must struggle to win pity as opposed to knowledge suffering loss, which could imply the lover might adopt a coldness and hardness to the poet after obtaining the knowledge of the poet's love for her. If pity is to obtain grace, it is almost as if pity has a lofty goal to which it is reaching. Thus, the reader can see pity going on an epic quest to obtain the grace of the one loved by the poet. It is also interesting to note that the object of each of the first three entities personified becomes the personified immediately afterwards. Pleasure might cause her to read but then reading might make her know. Then knowledge, which was previously the object, becomes the personified when it might have a chance of winning pity. Pity, if won by knowledge, becomes the personified and could possibly obtain grace. It is as if each one breathes life into the other and builds in intensity.

There are also other vivid examples of personification in Sidney's sonnet. When Sidney speaks of words halting forth, it shows a glaring portrait of the writing block the poet is experiencing. One can see his crippled and limited vocabulary at this point to pen what he really feels. Invention, the acceptable figures of speech in rhetoric manuals, flees from study's blows. Here is an image of hand-to-hand combat in which study is violently trying to attack invention but invention gets out of the way. The implication, however, is no matter how much the writer studies, he can not produce anything from examining the figures of speech acceptable in his time. When the poet mentions others' feet seeming but strangers in his way, there is a sense of not knowing anything about the other poet's lines or style. Here again, there is the compounding of this distressed lover never being able to write anything down.

Sidney's rhythm structure points to the main overbearing theme of the sonnet. It is no accident that lines six and eight contain thirteen syllables instead of the twelve the other lines contain. The reason these two lines contain thirteen syllables is to draw attention to them and set them apart from the rest of the sonnet. Line six shows an action the poet takes, which is studying rhetoric manuals to find acceptable figures of speech. Line eight shows the desired result of this action, which is fresh and fruitful showers flowing upon his sunburned brain. The thirteenth and last syllable in line eight is brain. Studying, the first word mentioned in line six, is an effort to feed and strengthen the brain. Both of these verses show the great effort the poet is going through to rely on reason and logic to produce the intended emotional response from the lady he loves. Referring to his brain as sunburned is a significant word choice by Sidney. A person who is not sunburned has a fair complexion and purity is often connected with this concept, such as a fair maiden or virgin. Sunburned implies a state of being weathered and worn, such as farmers who have toiled and labored all day in the heat. Through the exacting labors of his brain to write the right thing, the poet has lost his ability to produce pure and original thoughts. Finally, in verse fourteen, his Muse tells him to look in his heart and write. This sonnet is strongly implying that no amount of reason, logic, studying, or other cerebral exercises can produce or express the emotional entity of love.

One final element that will be discussed concerning Sidney's poem is the use of imagery coupled with symbolism. Sidney uses this imagery to really telegraph to his audience the vehement longing of his soul to produce an adequate work for his love. When the poet speaks of seeking fit words and often turning others' leaves, the reader can see him diligently thumbing through tomes of great literature and manuals in order to hit upon some great gem of inspiration. The sunburned brain creates an image of this vital organ frying under an intense sun. This image is symbolic, however, of that which was discussed in the preceding paragraph. The prospective author being great with child to speak paints a picture of a lady in labor who can only groan and cry as opposed to uttering intelligible words. This again is symbolic of the author's inability to think of any fitting words to ascribe on paper to the one he wants so desperately. When he bites his pen and beats himself for spite, you can see a man almost going mad with despair and anger because he seems to find no direction, though he seeks it greatly. Though he might be engaged in the literal process of biting his pen, the reference to beating himself comes across as symbolizing the inner turmoil he has of producing fruitless results with all of his taxing efforts to write a love poem.

Thus, Sidney's Astrophel and Stella is a sonnet which expresses a common frustration humanity faces today. The inability to express our feelings to the one we love or feeble attempts at impressing them often lead to this utter despair the poet faces in Sidney's sonnet. All can relate to this hopelessness of trying to think of ways to woo those we want so desperately but to no avail. The sonnet so eloquently expresses that trying to win the heart of those we desire should come from the heart and not from the head.

Character Analysis of Iago (March 13, 2000)

     Perhaps one of Shakespeare’s most well developed and intricately designed characters is that of Othello’s Iago. Iago comes across as an angel of light but is, in actuality, a devil in disguise. This essay will examine the motivations, outlooks, strengths, and flaws of this most diabolical character.
     Iago is driven by a vast array of motivations including power, justice, wealth, and revenge. Iago is extremely upset that he was denied the position of lieutenant by Othello, Iago’s general, and proceeds to list all of the reasons as to why he should be lieutenant. He refers to Cassio, the one chosen to be lieutenant, as an arithmetician, one who merely has a theoretical knowledge of war but no field experience. He then speaks of his, that is Iago’s, great military exploits at Rhodes, Cyprus, and other grounds. Iago professes how he was Othello’s standard-bearer but Cassio is merely a bookkeeper (1.1.9-34). Iago’s continual harping about why he should be lietenant clearly shows his desire for position and power. Here lies also a strong case for Iago’s dogmatic belief in justice as he feels only those who have adequately proven themselves should be promoted. This idea is reiterated by Iago when he professes, “’Tis the curse of service; preferment goes by letter and affection, and not by old gradation, where each second stood heir to th’ first” (1.1.36-39). Iago truly believes one should climb up the ranks of service and not be chosen because he is well liked and influential with the leaders who hand out the promotions.
     There can be no doubt that wealth is a strong motivation of Iago’s for in the very first lines, Roderigo says Iago has Roderigo’s purse as if the strings were his (1.1.2-3). Iago uses Roderigo’s uncontrollable desire for Desdemona, Othello’s wife, to drain Roderigo of his wealth. When Desdemona is put in the care of Iago as Othello goes off to fight the Turks, Iago really puts the squeeze on Roderigo. At this point, Iago convinces Roderigo that he will see to it that Desdemona will finally be his. However, Iago makes at least eleven references to money by such phrases as “Put money in thy purse”, “Make all the money thou canst”, and “Go, make money” (1.3.327-360). Iago is making it clear to Iago that it is going to cost him greatly if he is to have Desdemona. Iago’s motivation is definitely not a love for Roderigo because shortly before Roderigo’s death, Iago says, “Live Roderigo, he calls me to a restitution large of gold and jewels I bobbed from him as gifts to Desdemona” (5.1.14-17). These lines plainly show Iago does not want to pay back all of the wealth he swindled from Roderigo.
     Revenge is perhaps the greatest motivation Iago possesses as he uses its’ vices to weave a complex web of treachery and deceit that brings the eventual downfall of Othello, Emilia, and Desdemona. Iago unreservedly declares his desire for revenge against Othello in his soliloquy at the end of the first scene of the second act. He emphatically states, “Now, I do love her (Desdemona) too, not out of absolute lust – though peradventure I stand accountant for as great a sin – but partly to diet my revenge for that I do suspect the lusty Moor hath leaped into my seat, the thought whereof doth, like a poisonous mineral, gnaw my innards; and nothing can or shall content my soul till I am evened with him, wife for wife, or failing so, yet that I put the Moor at least into a jealousy so strong that judgement cannot cure” (2.1.267-278). Iago refuses to rest until Othello suffers severely for supposedly sleeping with Iago’s wife. His reference to the thought of Othello sleeping with his wife gnawing his innards like a poisonous mineral shows the seething hatred and disgust he has towards Othello for supposedly committing such a hideous act. Iago also fears Cassio has been sleeping with his wife and seeks to slander his name before Othello so that Othello will thank him, love him, and reward him instead of Cassio (2.1.281-284). Iago’s heated desire for revenge leads him to feel he must kill Cassio to keep Othello from telling Cassio that Iago feels Cassio has been sleeping with Desdemona (5.1.18-22). When Iago’s wife, Emilia proceeds to unfold his revenge infested plan, Iago unmercifully kills her (5.2.244). Iago’s revenge, like a fire never satisfied, also consumes the precious life of Desdemona as Othello smothers her thinking she has been unfaithful to him because of Iago’s lies (5.2.86-90). When Othello realizes that he killed an innocent woman who was merely an object of Iago’s revenge, he kills himself as well (5.2.370). Thus, Iago’s revenge works its’ magic quite well save in the fact that Cassio becomes Lord Governor and has the charge of sentencing Iago (5.2.378-380).
     It is interesting to note how the outlook of Iago changes throughout the course of the play. To begin with, Iago’s outlook is one of extreme confidence that his evil plot will ripen into fruition. In the last soliloquy of the first act, Iago boasts of how he will deceive Othello into believing Cassio is too “familiar” with his wife (1.3.375). Then he wholeheartedly affirms, “The Moor is of a free and open nature, that thinks men honest that but seem to be so, and will as tenderly be led by the nose as asses are” (1.3.378-381). Here, Iago is confident that Othello will fall for his lies because Othello apparently has a flaw for taking men at their word and seems to look for only the good in people. Iago further demonstrates his confidence when he concludes the act with “Hell and night must bring this monstrous birth to the world’s light (1.3.382-383). He does not say it may bring it to light, indicating a possibility of failure, but that it must bring it to light as if there are no other alternatives to the successful completion of his heinous plot. However, at the end of the first scene of the second act, Iago concedes the possibility of failure at being evened with Othello “wife for wife” (2.1.274-275). At this point, Iago sees the need of instituting a backup plan of putting the Moor “at least into a jealousy so strong that judgement cannot cure” (2.1.275-277). Yet, his overpowering confidence still seems to have the upper hand when he says that he will have Michael Cassio “on the hip” (2.1.281). This is spoken with as much confidence as Lucifer possesses when he says, “I will exalt my throne above the stars,” in the fourteenth chapter of the book of Isaiah in the Christian Bible. Only slight tinges of doubt have begun to cloud Iago’s mind at this stage of his plan. Iago’s outlook receives another powerful boost when Othello falls into a trance after Iago causes Othello to picture Cassio on top of Desdemona. Iago boastfully states, “Work on, my medicine, work! Thus credulous fools are caught, and many worthy and chaste dames even thus, all guiltless, meet reproach” (4.1.42-45). His words express his unwavering conviction that Othello is at last convinced of Desdemona’s infidelity. However, after he kills Roderigo and wounds Cassio in the leg, Iago’s outlook plummets from extreme confidence to fearful uncertainty. He makes the very pointed and powerful statement, “This is the night that either makes me or fordoes me quite (5.1.131-132). Here, even Iago is not sure of his fate and knows he must work cleverly and quickly if his plan is to unfold to his liking.
     Iago’s strengths are a well-fortified arsenal of weaponry capable of bringing down even the most noble of men. A few will be discussed in the following lines. He knows what will get under a person’s skin and plays his cards well so as to stir up the raging anger that even the meekest of souls possess. Many times, Iago stirs this anger by painting images in the minds of those to whom he is talking. Since humans tend to remember things easier when they see them, this tactic of causing people to visualize what he is saying gives Iago a powerful foothold on their mind. After Roderigo awakens Brabantio, Iago plays on the prejudices Brabantio has against Moors by painting the image of a black man having sexual intercourse with his fair daughter. He lets Brabantio know that an old black ram is tupping his white ewe (1.1.90-91). He further taints this disgusting animalistic image by letting Brabantio know his daughter and the Moor are making the beast with two backs (1.1.116-117). Iago keeps referring to Othello as the Moor to keep Brabantio focused on the black skin, a tactic that keeps adding fuel to the fire of Brabantio’s racism. Brabantio displays his racism when talking to the Duke and referring to Desdemona’s marriage to Othello as a feat against all rules of nature (1.3.100-108). Iago brings Brabantio’s racism to a boil by injecting thoughts of sexual intercourse between Desdemona and Othello into Brabantio’s mind. Iago never lets Brabantio know his identity and flees before he can come down and see him. In the 1995 Castle Rock production of Othello, Kenneth Branagh portrays this subtle quality well by hiding behind a column so no one can see him. From the start of the production, Branagh has already impressed on the audience’s mind how Iago works through sly means by this subtle choice of how he chose to present Iago.
     Iago arouses Othello’s anger against Cassio and Desdemona by painting an image of them engaging in sexual intercourse by casually saying, “With her, on her; what you will” (4.1.34). These words automatically cause Othello to think of Desdemona copulating with Cassio. This effect is presented very well in the film by the way it quickly switches to different scenes of Cassio and Desdemona in bed and the ensuing looks of anger and dread on the face of Othello. Othello is so angered, he wishes for Cassio to be hanged before he confesses rather than the traditional method of confession before hanging (4.1.37-38). Thus, the otherwise generous and gentle Othello is slowly and methodically being transformed into a confused and raging mad man by the overwhelming persuasiveness of Iago.
     Another strength of Iago’s is his ability to make people feel he is concerned for his fellow man when, in actuality, he is undermining the person for whom he seems to be so concerned. After Iago gets Cassio drunk and Cassio wounds Montano in his drunken stupor, Iago pretends to express such love and concern for Cassio. He begins by telling Othello he would rather have his tongue cut from his mouth than to do offense to Michael Cassius (2.3.196-197). However, Iago then goes on to tell how an angered Cassio with drawn sword was chasing a man. Iago then tells how Montano stepped in to stop Cassio while Iago gave chase to the man Cassio was originally chasing. When Iago returns, he says he saw the end result of Montano being wounded and Cassio being close to him. He never explicitly says that Cassio wounded Montano but tells the story in a way that hints at Cassio giving into rage and wounding a man. This is a clever method that still affords Iago the opportunity to play both ends down the middle with Othello and Cassio. Iago then expresses how even the best of men make mistakes as if he is trying to take up for Cassio (2.3.198-220). However, the damage to Cassio’s reputation has already been inflicted. Iago’s tactic of appearing concerned for Cassio while actually undermining him works well for Othello believes Iago is watering down the story of what happened with Cassio because he loves him so much. Unfortunately, this does not stop Othello from taking away Cassio’s position of lieutenant (2.3.221-224). Iago’s tactic works quite well in this matter to bring Iago closer to his goal of his revenge against Othello and Cassio.
     He then carries this façade of concern for Cassio one step further by acting as if he wants to help Cassio regain his position as lieutenant. Iago convinces Cassio that if he entreats Desdemona and confesses himself freely to her, he will regain his position and Othello’s love for him will be stronger than ever before (2.3.273-281). In actuality, Iago is merely advising Cassio to do this so he can convince Othello that Cassio is having an affair with Desdemona.
     Iago lets the audience in on his plot when he explicitly states, “For whiles this honest fool (Cassio) plies Desdemona to repair his fortune, and she for him pleads strongly to the Moor, I’ll pour pestilence into his ear, that she repeals him for her body’s lust; and by how much she strives to do him good, she shall undo her credit with the Moor” (2.3.306-312). Here, Iago is making full use of another one of his strengths. Iago is a good judge of character and knows how to use a person’s own strengths as well as their weaknesses against them. He knows Desdemona will not stop asking Othello to restore Cassio to his position as lieutenant until Othello gives in. Iago will make Othello think Desdemona’s concern for Cassio is driven by her lust for him, thereby causing Othello to turn against both her and Cassio. By using Desdemona’s virtue to his own advantage, Iago hopes to kill three birds with one stone. He will have revenge for Othello supposedly sleeping with his wife, he will destroy Desdemona’s credibility with Othello, and he will guarantee that Cassio will never be restored to his position, thereby making Iago the most likely candidate for lieutenant of the army. This plot is further expounded upon when Iago says, “So will I turn her (Desdemona’s) virtue into pitch, and out of her own goodness make the net that shall enmesh them all” (2.3.313-315). Iago plans to use Desdemona’s strongest quality, her virtue, to bring about the downfall of her, Othello, and Cassio.
     Iago also uses his knowledge of Othello’s character to his advantage. Knowing that Othello is a generous and unsuspicious person, Iago will use this to feed the lies of Cassio topping Desdemona. Iago knows he can lead Othello to believe these untruths just as readily as asses are lead by the nose (2.1.378-381). He compares Othello to an ass because they are dumb and naïve animals and this is how Iago views Othello. Othello’s simple, trustful nature will be the key to his undoing as Iago molds it in his hands as skillfully as a potter forms clay into a vessel of his own design.
     Despite his adequate supply of strengths, Iago does have flaws that eventually lead to his downfall, the major one being his quick temper when things do not go his way. When this anger takes over, it unleashes another one of Iago’s flaws, the inability to think rationally and calmly when he is put on the spot. In the moments when his plans are about to unravel right before his very eyes, Iago tends to lose his sense of reasoning and composure, often making very quick and illogical decisions. When Roderigo confronts him in the second scene of act four, Iago knows very well that Roderigo is losing his patience and will not fall for his charade much longer. Iago promises Roderigo Desdemona within two days by saying, “If thou the next night following enjoy not Desdemona, take me from this world with treachery and devise engines for my life (4.2.213-215). As no amount of reasoning or flattery seems to calm Roderigo before this point, Iago practically has to make this promise to buy some more time. Yet, Iago knows there is no way for him to deliver Desdemona into Roderigo’s hands, so he decides to kill Roderigo as he does not wish to repay all of the wealth he has stolen from him (5.1.14-17, 5.1.63-34). Although he never mentions Roderigo’s death when revealing his plot to bring down Othello and Cassio, Iago’s promise made to Roderigo in a moment of weakness forces him to take Roderigo’s life. The movie conveyed this point quite well. When Roderigo puts the knife to Iago’s throat, Kenneth Branagh’s expression of extreme fear as if he were about to lose his life and the tone of desperation in his voice portrays Iago’s promise as a quick means to save his own life. Thus, when unexpected obstacles seek to thwart Iago’s plans, he does not seem to be able to deal with them as effectively as he orchestrates his premeditated masterpieces of deception.
     Iago’s inability to maintain his composure is further and even more dramatically illustrated in the last scene of the play. After Desdemona is smothered by Othello, Emilia calls Iago a liar in front of Othello, Gratiano, and Montano for telling Othello that Desdemona was false. Immediately, Iago tells her to charm her tongue (5.2.185-190). Yet, Emilia then goes on to accuse Iago of villainy. Iago, fearing his plot is about to be exposed, accuses Emilia of being mad and charges her to go home (5.2.197-201). His quick temper is causing him to show his anger in front of everyone present. Those looking on probably have begun to question within themselves whether Iago is truly honest or not. The smooth talking snake charmer is now turning into a boisterous and domineering husband, regressing back to his primal instincts. As Emilia makes repeated efforts to unmask Iago’s true nature, he commands her to hold her peace and to get home. When Emilia refuses to go home, Iago draws his sword upon her (5.2.225-231). Gratiano is shocked that Iago would resort to such an abusive act. Iago’s quick temper has now revealed that he is not the caring, concerned friend of all mankind but rather a ruthless animal who will resort to any means to have his way in a matter. This weakness of giving into his anger so easily, coupled with his irrational responses to an unexpected turn of events, is the Achille’s heel that brings Iago to his knees. When Emilia reveals that Iago begged her to steal the handkerchief given to Desdemona by Othello, Iago proceeds to call her a whore and a liar. Like an avalance gaining momentum as it barrels down a mountain, so does Iago’s anger propel him into the vile act of killing his own wife and then fleeing like a fugitive (5.2.232-245). In heated moments when Iago sees the rudder of control slipping from his hands, his marvelous and crafty mind is replaced with a brutality that knows no reason or logic. Iago works marvelously behind the scenes but when he must take center stage and face the glaring spotlight, he becomes totally and completely unglued. Othello and the others present now see Iago for the treacherous villain he really is. This leads Othello to stab the one he once referred to as honest Iago (5.2.295). Afterwards, Iago’s fate is placed into the hands of Cassio (5.2.378-382). Like a cancer working ever so slowly to bring down the strongest and healthiest of men, so Iago’s weaknesses eventually surface and bring about his downfall.
     In conclusion, Iago’s statement in the very first scene of Othello in which he says, “I am not what I am,” is perhaps the best summation of this very complex and interesting character. He swears by Janus, the two-faced god of the Romans, further indicating his hypocritical nature (1.2.33). Throughout the course of the play, he is called honest by Othello, Cassio, and Desdemona, yet he is the most dishonest character in the entirity of the play. He seems to look out for the needs of others and encourage their advancement, yet he only seeks to exalt himself and fulfill his own desires. It is not until Shakespeare masterfully pens the closing scene of this epic tragedy that the other characters truly see that Iago is not what he seems.

An Analysis of the Narrator of Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart (April 3, 2000)

The narrator of “The Tell-Tale Heart” is a mentally disturbed character, who has trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality and is vexed with several psychological disorders. To begin with, he says, “I heard all things in heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How, then, am I mad?” Any man who makes a supposition that his hearing is so powerful he can hear everything in heaven and earth and many things in hell has to be out of his right mind. The ability to simultaneously hear billions of human voices, the cries of multiplied billions of birds and animals, the sounds of various elements of nature, and all of the other acoustical reverberations known to man would require godlike abilities.

The reasons he uses to disprove his madness actually prove it. He could have just as easily said, “My heart is beating. I am breathing. How, then, am I alive?” The narrator is living in a state of denial, for he is trying to convince himself that he is not mad, although, in actuality, he is mad. He says the idea of killing the old man haunted him day and night. This further proves his psychological instability because he admits to having an obsessive-compulsive disorder, which is any kind of action, thought, or behavior that unceasingly plagues an individual. Obsessive-compulsive disorders stem from a guilt complex in which an individual is trying to rid himself of the guilt. His uncontrollable longing to murder the old man hints at a foul deed lodged in his past that will not let go of its strong grip on his conscience. He feels that taking the old man’s life will rid him of this guilt.

Another sign of his sick and depraved mind is when he tells of how he stuck his head in the man’s bedroom door and says, “Oh, you would have laughed to see how cunningly I thrust it in!” Only someone as depraved as him would laugh at the thought of him sticking his head in the door, knowing his very intent was to kill the old man.

He says he could not kill the man for seven nights because the eye was always closed. He says it is not the man who troubled him but his “Evil Eye.” He is treating the man’s eye as a separate entity, as though it is some vile being that is out to destroy him. Only an insane person would make such an accusation. Here, one can also see an inconsistency in his thinking. If he really believed the eye was evil but the man was good, why didn’t he just pluck the man’s eye out and let him live? He tries to convince us he loved the man, but a man does not kill someone he loves. Maybe it was the man he wanted to kill so he could have his gold. Maybe the man did insult him and the narrator was avenging himself by murdering the man. Maybe the old man did wrong him. If he was lying when he said, “I loved the old man,” he could have been lying when he said, “He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire.”

The inconsistencies in what he is telling the reader can also be seen when he starts out by telling the reader he is “very, very dreadfully nervous” and then, a few sentences later, tells the reader to observe how calmly he tells the story. A person that nervous does not calm down in a matter of seconds. It takes a while for a man’s heartbeat and rate of breathing to return to normal when he is extremely nervous. Later on in the story, when he tells how he “heard the man’s heart beating,” he says, “I have told you that I am nervous: so I am.” Here, he refutes his earlier claim of being calm. His mind seems to wander from one thought to another in a very inconsistent manner. The narrator then makes an absurd remark about how the man’s heart is beating louder and louder and the neighbors are sure to hear it. He is clearly living in a fantasy world to believe that a person’s heartbeat can be heard so far away.

Although the narrator is mad, he does have a clever mind. When he kills the man, he cuts him up into pieces and buries him under three planks in the chamber. He catches all of the blood in a tub. Yet, once more he tries to convince us this is proof he is not mad, for he says, “If still you thank me mad, you will think so no longer when I describe the wise precautions I took for the concealment of the body.” He seems to be under the delusion that as long as man is able to think in clever ways, there is no way he can be mad. The narrator’s burial of the old man is a classic example of one of the basic qualities of mankind – the tendency to try to hide what is done rather than to confess it.

The narrator’s extreme depravity is further seen when he takes the officers of the police all through the house and has them sit down in the room where the old man is buried. He then plops his chair over the spot where the old man is buried. It is as if he is saying, “Look at what I did, fellows. I murdered a man and you don’t even know it. I’m so clever, I’m letting you sit in the very room where I disposed of the body and you don’t even realize it. Ain’t I so smart?” The narrator appears to be gloating over the fact that he killed the old man and wants to take a while to glory in the “flawless” execution of his master plan.

His maddened condition comes to the forefront in striking revelation when he says he grated his chair upon the boards where the man was buried to try to stop the loud beating of the man’s heart, which he is sure the officers heard. He says the officers smiled and continued talking happily. The officers more than likely would have subdued him and taken him to an institution for the insane rather than smile at him. Finally, the narrator admits he killed the old man. His reason for admitting the deed is the fact that everyone could hear the old man’s heart. If a man is dead, his heart does not beat. Here, once more, we see the narrator’s inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Although his mind is clever, it does not always operate in a logical fashion. He clearly has committed a crime and gotten away with it, but then, he admits his guilt simply because he says he hears a heart beating louder and louder while the police are flashing hypocritical smiles at him. Clearly, “The Tell-Tale Heart” is replete with examples that point to the psychological disturbances of the narrator and his inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

It is important that we hear the story from this narrator’s point of view for several reasons. First of all, if we heard it from the old man’s point of view, we would not have the end of the story. It would end with the old man’s death. If it were told from an omniscient point of view, it would take a lot of mystery out of the story, as all the information about the character would most likely be factual and reliable. The whole thrill and excitement of reading “The Tell-Tale Heart” is trying to discern truth from error. Poe does an outstanding job of evoking an air of uncertainty about what actually happened to the old man and what provoked the narrator to kill him. If the story were told in a straightforward manner, with nothing being left to the imagination of the reader, the story would be mundane and not have the mystery and psychological elements Poe wished for the story to have.

The title of the story itself, “The Tell-Tale Heart,” lends itself as possible evidence of Poe’s intent in writing this story. The reader is given the story of a man whose depraved heart is telling a tale. When children are caught in the act of telling tales, they will tell other lies to cover up the first lie. Eventually, inconsistencies will be found in what they are saying which prove they are lying. There is some measure of truth in the child’s story but there are also some lies. This same thing is seen in “The Tell-Tale Heart.” In conclusion, Poe’s very selection of a depraved and psychotic narrator who tells the story in an inconsistent manner is what makes “The Tell-Tale Heart” such a masterpiece of the Gothic genre.

How do humans know anything? (April 24, 2000)

How do humans know anything? The truth is humans really can not know anything for sure. From religion to science, from the beginning of life to what happens after death, humans can only speculate on what limited experiences their senses, both inner and outer, perceive. In a world of constantly evolving theories and observations, what was concrete years ago may now only be an obsolete relic of the past.

Time and time again, literature does a thorough and fascinating job of probing into the belief that we really can not know anything for sure, whether it is the integrity of an individual society places so much stock in or just the workings of the world in which we live. Shakespeare’s Othello is a tragic reminder that appearances can be deceiving and we can not always trust what we see with our eyes and hear with our ears. Iago informs the audience at a very early point in the play that he can not be trusted for he says, “I am not what I am (1.1.67). Yet, Othello deems Iago as being most honest even after Iago informs the audience of his diabolical plan to bring Othello to ruin by getting even with Othello for supposedly sleeping with his wife or at least putting him “into a jealousy so strong that judgement cannot cure (2.3.6, 2.1.274-278).

As masterfully as an artist weaves a stunning portrait using varying shades of the spectrum with very deft strokes of the brushes at his disposal, Iago takes great pains by using various means to paint a convincing “reality” to Othello with the vast knowledge he has at his command. When Cassio rather hurriedly leaves the presence of Desdemona after entreating her to intercede to Othello on his behalf that his position in the army might be restored, Iago uses this situation to his advantage to make Othello think Cassio is taking sexual liberties with Othello’s wife. When Othello questions Iago as to whether Cassio just parted from Desdemona, Iago responds with, “Cassio, my lord? No, sure, I cannot think it, that he would steal away so guiltylike, seeing you coming” (3.3.38-41). Injecting such thoughts into the mind of Othello while emphasizing such words and phrases as guiltylike and steal away is one trick of the trade Iago uses to deceive Othello. Iago further compounds this deception when he lures Cassio into talking rather coarsely about Bianca, declaring he will not marry her even though she wishes it to be so. However, Othello believes Cassio is talking about Desdemona and believes his wife has a lech for Cassio. Othello’s supposed knowledge of Desdemona’s infidelity is further augmented when Bianca gives Cassio Desdemona’s handkerchief, an indisputable proof of her unfaithfulness, as Desdemona was never to let that handkerchief out of her possession lest it show her adulterous ways (4.1.106-148). However, in reality, Iago’s wife found the handkerchief after Desdemona dropped it and gave it to Iago, who saw to it that Bianca would bring it to Cassio. Everything Othello saw through his physical senses, coupled with his reasoning speared on by Iago, gave him undeniable proof that Desdemona was cheating on him. He just “knew” it. However, what Othello thought he knew, in actuality, was not true.

How do we really know the truth? How can we know if the one we consider our closest and dearest friend is really as loyal as we think. They may perform countless sacrificial deeds to edify us and exalt us to dimensions we never even dreamed, but what if it is a means to an end to bring glory to themselves. What if they are setting us up for the fall? Judas, handpicked by Jesus to herald the gospel to the masses, a man whose hands were fused with the power of Almighty God to heal the sick and cleanse the lepers, a man who spoke words of comfort to the depressed and downtrodden, lifted his heel against his master and brought about his crucifixion. When Judas relinquished his place at the table in the furnished upper room to steal away into the night and sell Emmanuel for thirty pieces of silver, the other disciples thought he was merely going to buy that which was needed for the feast. The disciples just “knew” Judas was a righteous and holy man, so much so that they trusted him with the money bag. Yet, their knowledge was clouded by what they perceived with their eyes and felt in their hearts. How can we really know?

How can we even know if The Holy Bible is divinely inspired by God? Is it possible that the men who wrote the Bible or even translated it could have made glaring mistakes? For instance, in Genesis, God tells Adam, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen. 2:16-17). However, after Adam and Eve eat of the tree, they do not die the very same day but rather, they are punished by God (Gen. 3:6,16 -19). In fact, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years (Gen. 9:5).

A rather interesting point is that the serpent told Eve the truth. He told Eve, “Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:4-5). They did not die and they did know good and evil for they saw they were naked and hid themselves (Gen. 3:10). God implied they received the knowledge of their nakedness because they ate of the tree for he says, “Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (Gen. 3:11). In The Gospel According to Saint John, Jesus says the devil is a liar, yet he did not lie in this particular instance.

After God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden, Eve bore Cain and Abel (Gen. 3:1-2). After Cain killed Abel, he went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod (Gen. 4:16). The very next verse says “Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch” (Gen. 4:17). Where did his wife come from? Was it his sister? Yet there is no recounting of God creating anyone else or even of Eve baring a daughter at this point. In fact, for God to have created another being would contradict the verse that says Eve “was the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20).

These are just a few of the points that could be argued to question whether The Holy Bible is inspired of God. How do we know some aspiring writer with a wild imagination or even a group of aspiring writers over time did not write it? How can we be sure it is more authoritative than the Koran? Muslims are just as dogmatic in their belief of the divine inspiration of their sacred texts as Christians. Can we put any deity in a test tube and prove his existence so that we know for sure the validity of his supposed statements? We simply can not know for sure.

How can we know for sure when someone is telling us the truth? In Edgar Allan Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart, the narrator is telling us a story, yet we do not know what is true. He says he killed the man because of his eye that resembled a vulture. However, there are other things he says that makes the reader wonder if this is really true. When referring to his idea to kill the old man, he says, “It is impossible to say how first the idea entered my brain; but once conceived, it haunted me day and night.” If it was really the presence of the eye that caused him to kill the old man, he would have known how the idea first entered his brain. He proceeds by giving a list of reasons why he feels he should not kill the man but then shifts gears by saying, “I think it was his eye! Yes, it was this!” It is as if he really had no reason to kill the man but he had to come up with a reason after the fact. It is almost as if he is trying to justify his reason for killing the man and the poorest excuse he can come up with is that he killed the man because of his eye.

Perhaps one of his reasons for murdering the man is found in the list of reasons he gives for not killing the man. He says, “Object there was none. Passion there was none. I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire.” We really do not know if he is telling us the truth. If the reader would take the exact opposite of what the narrator was saying, he could arrive at a motive that incorporates all of the aforementioned elements. Perhaps the old man insulted the narrator for doing poor work and wronged him by refusing to pay him the wages originally agreed upon. This could have given the narrator a desire for the old man’s gold and the only way he felt he could safely obtain the old man’s gold was to kill him. This would thus be the object of the old man’s murder. The narrator could have hated the old man for what he did and this could have instilled a burning passion in him to kill the old man.

Sometimes, when people say something, it is the exact opposite of truth, and they are saying it because they are trying to convince themselves and every one else that what they are saying is true. Many times, they are successful in deceiving their own selves. Therefore, they do not even know the truth. For example, someone might say, “I do not have anything against John but it was wrong for him to take the position at work I longed for so much.” In reality, the person probably does have something against John, else he would not have brought the subject up. This could have been the same situation with the narrator of The Tell-Tale Heart when he tries to convince us that he loved the old man even though he probably hated him since he killed him.

Yet, much of what has been discussed in this essay is pure speculation backed up by statements gleaned from the literary texts covered in this course. It can not be said that the opinions, conclusions, and interpretations mentioned in this essay are the absolute truth. It is possible that there are variables which have been overlooked or yet to be discovered that would change the entire outlook of that which was previously discussed. One might argue that the narrator of The Tell-Tale Heart really loved the old man and killed him for that very reason. Another might argue that Iago and Judas were honest and be able to present a case for this argument citing examples from the same texts used to disprove their honesty. Who is to say who’s right and who’s wrong? Future discoveries in psychology, science, and many other disciplines might shatter all we hold true and dear today. Countless religions abound and even Christianity is splintered into many varying sects that use the same sacred book but interpret it differently. One can only speculate as to what happens after death, but no one knows for sure. Therefore, we really can not know anything.

In conclusion, it can be argued that man lives by faith. The evolutionist lives by faith that man descended from lower beings. The scientist lives by faith that the laws of science are unerring and unchanging. The Christian lives by faith that Jesus Christ died for his sins and washes away all of his sins by his blood shed at Calvary. We have faith in those we consider to be dear friends even though we can not know for sure if they really are our true friends. We have faith, however, that they will not sell us out. Faith is believing something is so without having to have conclusive proof. In other words, faith is accepting something without having to know for certain that it is true. As we can not know anything, faith is our basis for existence, no matter what our beliefs or religious affiliation, if any.
>

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws