To understand Shakespeare’s presentation of Cassio in “Othello”, it is necessary to understand his role
and significance in the play, and what Shakespeare is using him to express. Throughout the course of
the play, Cassio is used as a tool by Shakespeare to expose male inability to comprehend female
complexity and to challenge many of the racial prejudices prominent during much the Elizabethan and
Jacobean eras. Despite critics such as Watts referring to Cassio as a “courtly gentleman”, this is
evidently not the case due to his treatment of his mistress, Bianca. Additionally, although critically
interpreted by Spencer and Walker to be a dramatic foil to the protagonist and anti-hero Othello, this
is highly disputable since the two characters have more in common than is initially presented. Finally,
Cassio’s intellect is argued by Hopkins to be “hollow”, and limited to books, enabling Iago to
manipulate him, which contributes to the play’s tragic ending.
Firstly, at the start of the play, Iago experiences extreme jealousy towards Cassio’s intellect. He
claims that his intelligence is only theoretical rather than practical, referring to Cassio as “a great
arithmetician”, with a “bookish theoric”, implying his brains are limited to book smarts rather than
street smarts. Despite the possibility that Iago is wrongly claiming these things in order to degrade
Cassio (as this would be likely due to his Machiavellian role in the play), there is lots of evidence to
imply that Iago’s claim is in fact accurate. Hopkins supports Iago’s claim by explaining that Cassio
means “hollow” in Italian. Since Shakespeare is known to choose his characters’ names carefully, this
must be reflective of his character. Hopkins’ concept can be interpreted to suggest that his intelligence
is “hollow” and “bookish”. This is communicated by Shakespeare in the play, as, despite his
reputation as educated, smart and sophisticated, Cassio is victim of cunning manipulation from Iago.
As a result, it is arguable that his intellect is hollow as Cassio remains oblivious to Iago’s plan: Iago
says to Roderigo that he plans to put “Cassio in some action that may offend the isle”, and proceeds to
convince Cassio to drink some wine. During Act 2 Scene 3, Cassio eventually cheers “to the health of
[the] general”, becomes drunk, and embarrasses himself, tainting his reputation. This causes both the
contemporary Jacobean audience, and a modern one, to question and challenge black stereotypes.
This is because, as Leo Africanus highlights, black men were stereotyped to be highly gullible and
“believe matters impossible”. However, in this case, both Othello (a black man), and Cassio (a
respected, upper-class white man) are equally as gullible as each-other as they are both are equally
susceptible to Iago’s Machiavellian manipulation. As a result, Shakespeare prompts the audience to
question these “stereotypes” - this would have been a controversial message to deliver back in the
Jacobean era, hence it is subtly intertwined into the plot.
Secondly, Shakespeare further presents Iago’s jealousy of Cassio at the start of the play. Iago states
that “mere prattle without practise is all [Cassio’s] soldier-ship”. Thorough a Marxist critical
perspective, this presents Iago’s jealously of Cassio’s army rank as he suggests he is underqualified,
while also presenting again his “bookish” intellect rather than any real practical skill. To reinforce
this, when Cassio shows little knowledge on the war, Iago calls him a “spinster”. Through a feminist
critical perspective, Shakespeare exposes the sexist views of the Elizabethan era; being
unknowledgeable was considered a feminine trait. As Roderigo highlights, “wit” is not as valued as
her “duty” and “beauty”, and as a result, Iago feminises and emasculates Cassio by stating his lack of
martial knowledge makes him womanly. Hence, Shakespeare uses both Cassio and Iago’s relations to
expose societal views on women, racial stereotypes, and present Cassio’s “theoric” and “bookish”
intellect.
Thirdly, Spencer and Walker both argue that Cassio and Othello are dramatic foils. However, it is
arguable that in many ways that this is not the case: the two characters have too many similarities to
be considered foils. Cassio comes from Florence, meaning that he is an outsider to Venice. From a
post-colonial critical perspective, we can see Othello as an outsider too: Loomba states how “a Moor
cannot fully become a part of Venice”. As a result, both Cassio and Othello can be seen as outsiders to
the play’s setting. Similarly, Florentines were highly respected within Elizabethan society, meaning
that once again, there are many parallels to Othello who is respected due to his status as general.
Furthermore, both characters share a deep-rooted desire for a honourable reputation. Watts says that
since Cassio is considered to be a “courtly gentleman”, and Johnson says he aims to remain “brave,
benevolent and honest”, it is obvious that he is highly concerned about his reputation and status
and significance in the play, and what Shakespeare is using him to express. Throughout the course of
the play, Cassio is used as a tool by Shakespeare to expose male inability to comprehend female
complexity and to challenge many of the racial prejudices prominent during much the Elizabethan and
Jacobean eras. Despite critics such as Watts referring to Cassio as a “courtly gentleman”, this is
evidently not the case due to his treatment of his mistress, Bianca. Additionally, although critically
interpreted by Spencer and Walker to be a dramatic foil to the protagonist and anti-hero Othello, this
is highly disputable since the two characters have more in common than is initially presented. Finally,
Cassio’s intellect is argued by Hopkins to be “hollow”, and limited to books, enabling Iago to
manipulate him, which contributes to the play’s tragic ending.
Firstly, at the start of the play, Iago experiences extreme jealousy towards Cassio’s intellect. He
claims that his intelligence is only theoretical rather than practical, referring to Cassio as “a great
arithmetician”, with a “bookish theoric”, implying his brains are limited to book smarts rather than
street smarts. Despite the possibility that Iago is wrongly claiming these things in order to degrade
Cassio (as this would be likely due to his Machiavellian role in the play), there is lots of evidence to
imply that Iago’s claim is in fact accurate. Hopkins supports Iago’s claim by explaining that Cassio
means “hollow” in Italian. Since Shakespeare is known to choose his characters’ names carefully, this
must be reflective of his character. Hopkins’ concept can be interpreted to suggest that his intelligence
is “hollow” and “bookish”. This is communicated by Shakespeare in the play, as, despite his
reputation as educated, smart and sophisticated, Cassio is victim of cunning manipulation from Iago.
As a result, it is arguable that his intellect is hollow as Cassio remains oblivious to Iago’s plan: Iago
says to Roderigo that he plans to put “Cassio in some action that may offend the isle”, and proceeds to
convince Cassio to drink some wine. During Act 2 Scene 3, Cassio eventually cheers “to the health of
[the] general”, becomes drunk, and embarrasses himself, tainting his reputation. This causes both the
contemporary Jacobean audience, and a modern one, to question and challenge black stereotypes.
This is because, as Leo Africanus highlights, black men were stereotyped to be highly gullible and
“believe matters impossible”. However, in this case, both Othello (a black man), and Cassio (a
respected, upper-class white man) are equally as gullible as each-other as they are both are equally
susceptible to Iago’s Machiavellian manipulation. As a result, Shakespeare prompts the audience to
question these “stereotypes” - this would have been a controversial message to deliver back in the
Jacobean era, hence it is subtly intertwined into the plot.
Secondly, Shakespeare further presents Iago’s jealousy of Cassio at the start of the play. Iago states
that “mere prattle without practise is all [Cassio’s] soldier-ship”. Thorough a Marxist critical
perspective, this presents Iago’s jealously of Cassio’s army rank as he suggests he is underqualified,
while also presenting again his “bookish” intellect rather than any real practical skill. To reinforce
this, when Cassio shows little knowledge on the war, Iago calls him a “spinster”. Through a feminist
critical perspective, Shakespeare exposes the sexist views of the Elizabethan era; being
unknowledgeable was considered a feminine trait. As Roderigo highlights, “wit” is not as valued as
her “duty” and “beauty”, and as a result, Iago feminises and emasculates Cassio by stating his lack of
martial knowledge makes him womanly. Hence, Shakespeare uses both Cassio and Iago’s relations to
expose societal views on women, racial stereotypes, and present Cassio’s “theoric” and “bookish”
intellect.
Thirdly, Spencer and Walker both argue that Cassio and Othello are dramatic foils. However, it is
arguable that in many ways that this is not the case: the two characters have too many similarities to
be considered foils. Cassio comes from Florence, meaning that he is an outsider to Venice. From a
post-colonial critical perspective, we can see Othello as an outsider too: Loomba states how “a Moor
cannot fully become a part of Venice”. As a result, both Cassio and Othello can be seen as outsiders to
the play’s setting. Similarly, Florentines were highly respected within Elizabethan society, meaning
that once again, there are many parallels to Othello who is respected due to his status as general.
Furthermore, both characters share a deep-rooted desire for a honourable reputation. Watts says that
since Cassio is considered to be a “courtly gentleman”, and Johnson says he aims to remain “brave,
benevolent and honest”, it is obvious that he is highly concerned about his reputation and status
