Well, since you think so, here is the first half of it I left out of the previous posting to you...
The Drama Complex
The traditions of Greek tragedy as in Oedipus Rex are based upon the religious traditions of the Greeks - - the idea of destiny or a preordained fate subject to the whims of the gods.
Socrates saw this fallacy in Plato’s Euthyphro, when he asked Euthyphro what was pleasing to the gods and how could someone be pious to the gods when they all wanted something different than the others. It made no sense to observe the divinity of one god and ignore the demands of another god. How could a person know what it was to be in accordance with the will of the gods in this respect?
The origins of drama come from the esoteric ideals directly related to religion. Religious ritual is psychodrama designed to conjure up images in the mind of the viewers and/or participants. This is illustrated no better than by the Greek traditions of using masks in their plays. The actor can hide himself behind the illusion of a character’s mask, the audience can focus not on the actor, but on the image of the character represented - - one form of idolatry, among others in pagan Greek polytheism.
The Greeks were idolaters, they were pagans. The images in their drama was a representation of something. What did Oedipus represent?
There are a number of examples in Oedipus Rex that show some similarities to Judaic tradition. Moses was also cast off into the world like Oedipus as an infant. They were taken into royal households to become kings. Both could have claimed the kingdoms of two nations. Ultimately, neither of them did. Moses was forbidden entry into the promised land and declined to take the crown of pharaoh in the kingdom of Egypt.
Job, like Oedipus, was subjected to many afflictions beyond his control. He was also a figure of mythology that was a victim of a destiny or the will of some divine interventions. (There is a debate among Judaic scholars about the origins of the book of Job. Some say it was written by Moses, others claim it was a story more ancient than Abraham.)
To the pagan Egyptians, the pharaohs were gods. Each had their own special privileges of divinity. The pagan Egyptians had their own pantheon of gods like the pagan Greeks, several of which the Greeks adopted. (Set and Typhon are convenient examples.) The pagan Egyptians were also idolaters like the Greeks; their temples, architecture and art are replete with sacred idols. They both practiced human sacrifice. (These practices extended to the pagan Romans as well.) Is Oedipus representative of the pharaoh Akhnaton?
The parallels to the story of Oedipus and to the pharaoh Akhnaton are remarkable. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky ignited some historical debate that is yet to be resolved by historians concerning the chronology of the reign of Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton). The actual dates of history are fluid since we know about so little, except for the artifacts and remnants of literature left behind. However, as the debate rages, Oedipus and Akhnaton; Myth and History shows some compelling ideas related to the topic.
Akhnaton effaced all of his father’s names from the records, in the temples, and changed his name. To the Egyptians this destruction of someone’s name was akin to murdering their soul, robbing them of their eternity.
One of Sigmund Freud’s earlier followers, Karl Abraham, contributed an essay to the first volume of Imago, published by Freud in 1912, entitled Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton). This was of interest in that the essay talks about how Akhnaton did not entomb his mother Tiy next to her husband after her death, and that Akhnaton’s rivalry with his father for possession of his mother extended beyond death.
Velikovsky goes farther to say Akhnaton actually did possess his mother. But, ignoring this, focus on the figurative implication:
In this connection it is interesting that Oedipus, whose parentage is regularly ascribed to Laius, is also called in some ancient sources the son of Helios (sun i).1 Oedipus’ descent from Laius is a vital element in the legend; such an unmotivated change in the parentage of the legendary hero seems strange but is understandable if the prototype of the legendary hero was Akhnaton.A royal son and descendent of the god Ra, like other pharaohs before him, his claim to divinity soon demanded an equality with his father, Aton, the sun.i
"Thou art an eternity like the Aten, beautiful like the Aten who gave him being, Nefer-kheperu-ra (Akhnaton), who fashions mankind and gives existence to generations. He is fixed as the heaven in which Aten is."2
So wrote his foreign minister in a panegyric to the king. Next Akhnaton insisted that he had created himself, like Ra. Of Ra-Amon it was said he was the "husband of his mother." The "favorite concrete expression for a self-existent or self created being (was) ‘husband of his mother.’"3
He claimed to be Ra-Aton, and in this spirit he also took over his father’s name, Nebmare (Neb maatre), as if he himself was his own father. (Velikovsky, p 71-72)
1. "Auch ein Helios wurde als Vater des Oedipus genannt." L.W. Daly’ in Pauly-Wissowa, Real- Encyclopädie der classichen Altertumswissenschaft, article "Oedipus," Vol. XVII, Col. 2108. Cf. Also W.H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, article "Oedipus" by O. Höfer, Vol. III, Cols. 703, 708.
2. The Tomb of Tutu (Davies, the Rock Tombs of el-Amarna, VI, 13).
3. W.M. Flinders Petrie, Egyptian Tales (XVIII-XIX Dynasties) (1895), pp. 125-126. More properly translated "bull of his mother."
Dr. Velikovsky is not without critics, but his assertions are most profound. I attribute much of this to the ancient conflict between the pagan and the Judaic that still rages, although the pagan civilizations of Greece and Egypt are long since dead. This conflict was represented in Othello and in Death of a Salesman. Here with Oedipus, it is represented in the arguments over historical chronology.
‘By the Prickings of My Thumbs, Something Wicked This Way Comes’
Iago as an archetypical devil and his role in Othello mirrors the ancient psychodrama of the pagan Egyptian gods. Iago’s line here in this soliloquy also suggests a parallel to the function of Set in the esoteric and pagan Egyptian cosmology.
Iago:
Divinity of Hell!
When devils will the blackest of sins put on,
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows,
As I do now. (Othello II, III, 340)
Egyptian Book of the Dead:
Behold, I am Set, the creator of confusion, who creates both the tempest and the storm throughout the length and breadth of the heavens. (Naville, p. 39)
Iago serves this role as Set, the Destroyer, who kills his brother Osiris out of jealousy for his popularity. Plotting and weaving a tangled web of deceit, Iago creates confusion, a storm of intrigue that ensnares his victim, Othello. Much like the bejeweled chest of precious wood that Set used to trap Osiris at a feast under the guise of playing a game, Iago also delights in luring victims into a sparkling illusion that imprisons them so that he can manipulate others into serving his desires of destroying them. The entrapment of Othello in a prison of his own delusions of purity and nobility, the manipulation of Cassio under the cherished promise of regaining Othello’s favor, and the treasure of Desdemona used to tempt the ever stupid Rodrigo, all fit this model of esoteric cosmogony.
The idea of Iago as an archetype is not new. In Magic in the Web; Action and Language in Othello, Robert B. Heilman writes:
…we move into the symbolic dimension and use the word archetype to describe that compression of possibilities which is so inclusive that all other characters of the same order seem but partial representations of the original idea. Iago is this kind of character; he is infinitely more than the skillful manipulator of a stratagem… (Heilman, p. 12)
Not far from this, we can also see the intent to cast Iago as the Satan of the Judaic, Christian, and Muslim mythoi. A clue to this is where Iago says; "I am not what I am." (Othello I, I, 65) as opposed to the biblical phrase "I am that I am," representing the Judaic God (Exodus 3:14). More imagery and figurative language used in Iago’s dialogues with other characters, symbolic interactions with them, is also another way to see Shakespeare’s intentions concerning the character.
Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim, according to primary dictionary definition in most college editions.)
The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.
Interestingly, "Setebos" was the Patagonian god or devil, alluded to by Shakespeare through Caliban in the Tempest:
Caliban:
His art is of such power
It would control my dam’s god, Setebos,
And make a vassal of him. (Tempest I, II)
This is a curious reference by Shakespeare that is indicative for a pattern of etymology outside of established acceptance.
Iago:
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 th’nose
As asses are. (Othello I, III, 392)
There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic in Othello. The father of Othello was an Egyptian. The term "asses" in this soliloquy is a literary allusion to this often-bloody conflict between these forces.
The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass – an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word.
Othello’s instruction to Desdemona about the handkerchief is also telling. Ponder the actions of Iago in the play and Othello’s words to Desdemona: " ‘Tis true: there’s magic in the web of it." (Othello III, IV, 65)
What does all this have to do with Shakespeare and Othello? Consider the period of time in which William Shakespeare lived, his oft criticized and "unconventional" use of spelling, punctuation and terminology in a time where there was an effort to standardize the English language. King James I acceded to the throne. He published the detailed treatise Daemonology, because of his concern about witchcraft in Britain (this did have an effect on the presentation of Macbeth and other plays).
There is the matter of the King James Bible to consider. There was pressure from the Church and open condemnation concerning secular drama. (English theatres were actually shut down for 18 years prior to 1663 when a Puritan government came to power.) Latinii was used in the churches, composed the language found in Bibles, hymnals and was frequently used by the nobility in matters of state affairs. Often history has been colored by the occlusion of religious concerns; translations were subject to interpretation not always in the interest of accuracy.
Camille Paglia, professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, artfully depicts the dynamics at work in her book Sexual Personae; Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson:
Spenser, Shakespeare, and Freud are the three greatest sexual psychologists in literature, continuing a tradition begun by Euripides and Ovid. Freud has no rivals among his successors because they think he wrote science, when in fact he wrote art. Spenser, the Apollonian pictorailist, and Shakespeare the Dionysian alchemist, compete for artistic control of the English Renaissance. Shakespeare unlooses his metamorphic flood of words and personae to escape Spenser’s rigorous binding…" (Paglia, p. 228)
Unless the whole of the professor’s book is taken in as a scholarly commentary on pagan beauty and it’s relation to sex, culture, politics and art or literature, there is some confusion for most readers concerning the analogies being made here…
Spenser’s radiant Apollonian armouring becomes Milton’s louring metallic daemonism, militant and misogynistic. Satan’s legions gleam with hard Spenserian light. Milton sinks when he sings of the foggy formlessness of good. His God is poetically impotent. But his noisy, thrashing Spenserian serpents and monsters; his lush Spenserian embowered Paradise; his evil, envious Spenserian voyeurism: these are immortal. Milton tries to defeat Spenser by wordiness, Judaic word-fetishism, tangling the Apollonian eye in the labyrinth of etymology. Shakespeare succeeded here by joining words to pagan sexual personae…" (Paglia, p. 228-229)
This "Judaic word-fetishism" from the above is most illustrative. Like the complexities of the Elizabethan court protocols (relaxed under King James I), the use of language, definitions, etymologies, and the recording of history has also suffered a suppression by those with an interest to keep some things hidden. This is why I will assert that despite authoritative and scholarly denials, William Shakespeare had privy to occult knowledge not commonly available to others in his time, as well as a powerful English King’s ear and patronage.
Iago as the Setian, or Satan does not separate him from being human, but does indicate Iago as both devil and human (Antichrist), the embodiment of ‘original evil.’ (Heilman, p. 41)
Iago represents an inherent, autonomous evil, not a developing one as in the character of Macbeth. Desdemona unknowingly contributes to Othello’s willingness to eat the poison pome, tricked by the perspicacious serpent that is Iago. The Garden of Eden represented by Desdemona’s purity is plowed asunder with the sins of sanctimonious delusions, Othello murders her and takes upon himself the power to render his God’s divine judgement. Satan conquers the human spirit with Othello’s seppuku.
The Iago evil is redefined for us: his method is planned confusion, The metamorphosis of opposites, the use of "shows" that keep things from being seen in their "true colors. (Heilman, p. 65)
This idea of ‘planned confusion’ from Heilman shows the analogy I made earlier with the Egyptian Book of the Dead and these same lines of the soliloquy. The bejeweled chest of Set’s game to trap Osiris, the weaving of a web, an illusion, the storm of intrigue and the tempest prior to Othello’s arrival in Cyprus. The purity of Desdemona is also a subject Iago continues to assail…
Iago:
So will I turn her virtue to pitch." (Othello II, III, 350)
These images of color are a tool used to portray the darkness, iniquity or evil all throughout Othello as are other references employed to contrast against the divinity and virtue of the Judaic mythoi. Just as the ideas of the heavens being blackened by the gathering storm, the bright daytime sky is always darkened by foul weather. Much of the play projects the imagery as occurring during the night. There is a metaphorical divergence at work as a dramatic device illuminating a contemplative audience to the spiritual battle between the sacred and the profane, of Providence’s divine light and the primordial darkness of Chaos.
When dominated by the Spectre, the self becomes a hermaphroditic Selfhood, whom Blake calls Satan or Death……Incestuous self-insemination: the grappling duo is a new Khepera, the masturbatory Egyptian cosmos-maker. Actors and audience are a sexual octopus of many legs and eyes.
The contest between male Spectre and female Emanation is archaic ritual combat. I find homosexual overtones in the betrayal of the self into a queasy spectral world ruled by dark, deceiving male figures. Note the elegance with which Blake’s Spectre theory fits Shakespeare’s Othello. A conspiratorial Spectre, Iago, is homoerotically obsessed with splitting Othello, through jealous fears, from his Emanation, Desdemona. (Jealousy and fear are the Spectres’ regular weapons.) Othello, cleaving to his Spectre instead of casting him off, destroys himself. He ends by not killing his Spectre but his Emanation." (Paglia, p. 287-289)
Iago also represents homoeroticism in Othello from the beginning. Not just in his obsessive hatred for Othello but in a seeming contempt for heterosexual relations as evidenced by his reference of Cassio being "A fellow almost damned in a fair wife." (OthelloI, I, 21) There is the opening act, the masturbatory fever pitch and sexual imagery of Iago’s speech.
It should also be noted in reference to the pagan Egyptian mythos, Set had a battle with Horus, son of Osiris, where he was emasculated. Set managed to tear out one of the god’s eyes.
Iago also seems to have this sexual impotence about him, an inborn hostility for women and disgust for heterosexuality as a result. Iago also feels rendered impotent that he was passed over for position by Othello in favor of Cassio, as well as by his own rage. This rage could also be construed as a sadomasochistic component to Iago’s character.
In addition, the description to Othello by Iago about Cassio’s nocturnal speech conjures up a homoerotic imagery. It is also interesting to contemplate the prohibition of women being on the stage, where men in drag portray female characters.
Iago also sets out to mutilate Othello’s spirit, much the same as Set dismembering Osiris. Iago as Set, declaring war, plucks away at Cassio, Othello’s ‘favorite son,’ who’s vision is partially taken away by drink. Cassio does rise to take Othello’s place as governor of Cyprus. Horus accedes to the throne of the heavens. Wounded, the Setian is bound and tortured in the Abyss…