I
Love, marriage, and relationships were common themes in Elizabethan England as they are today. William Shakespeare’s Othello epitomizes a classic tragic love story based upon the fatal consequences of an interracial marriage. Othello’s “blackness” and Desdemona’s virginal “white” innocence clash in the play, with devastating consequences. At the heart of this clash lies a square piece of cloth “spotted with strawberries.” This simple object-a handkerchief-conjures ideas of broken promises, infidelity, lecherous behavior, and stained bed sheets.
II
Desdemona responds to Othello’s demand for “ocular proof” of the missing handkerchief by saying, “I say it is not lost; but what an if it were?” (3.4.81). This naively defiant statement, though on the surface may seem innocuous, ultimately seals Desdemona’s fate. Desdemona does not realize Othello’s infatuation with the handkerchief, unwittingly subjecting herself to his jealousy and rage by casually dismissing the handkerchief’s absence. Shakespeare deliberately makes the handkerchief represent what Lynda Boose calls, a “potent love token” (266). The handkerchief serves as a token of trust and fidelity, a sort of insurance policy Othello maintains by giving Desdemona. The handkerchief’s “potency” mars Othello’s trust in Desdemona, altering their relationship into one based on ocular proof. Possession of the handkerchief guarantees Othello’s control over Desdemona. Possessing it guarantees chastity, fidelity, and trust. Losing it means infidelity, lascivious affairs, and spoiled love. The handkerchief thus symbolizes Desdemona’s bondage within her constrained marriage to Othello, demonstrating Shakespeare’s conviction that love is spurious.
IV
Iago offers the only significant description of the handkerchief when he asks Othello, “Have you not sometimes seen a handkerchief / Spotted with strawberries in your wife’s hand?” (3.3.493-494). Despite this seemingly vague description, Iago provides plenty of information which opens the door for symbolic interpretation of the handkerchief. The strawberry-spotted handkerchief exemplifies diametrically opposed depictions within the art world, ranging from pornographic art to depictions of the Virgin Mary. Lawrence J. Ross specifically discusses the role of strawberries in Elizabethan society. Among many different references to strawberries and femininity in Elizabethan literature, Ross emphasizes the arcane representations of the strawberry in art, especially in paintings of beautiful nude women. According to Ross, the juxtaposition of beautiful women with strawberries in Elizabethan art reveals “the generalization…that [strawberries] can represent ‘any show of goodness’, pleasurable to man’s corrupt nature” (231). Ross suggests that Elizabethan painters subscribed to the idea that strawberries epitomize hedonism and carnal desire. Ross later metaphorically attributes the white flowers, red fruit, and sweet smell of the strawberry to depictions of the spirit in religious art. Strawberries frequently appear in Scriptural imagery, Ross explains, especially in paintings depicting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden or paintings of the Virgin Mary. An excellent example of the Virgin’s association with strawberries is the painting “Madonna and the Child” by Schongauer, in which Ross describes the Virgin Mary’s strawberry-adorned crown as “the emblem of righteousness” (235). Strawberries in religious art now take on an entirely different meaning. Thus, Ross makes note of the apparent duality in the depictions of strawberries, simultaneously representing virginity and carnal desire.
V
In exhausting all the cultural symbolism of Desdemona’s handkerchief, Lynda Boose provides further evidence to suggest the emphasis on female sexuality in Elizabethan England. Boose argues that the strawberry-spotted handkerchief resembles a smaller version of stained marital bed sheets, the concrete proof of one’s properly consummated marriage. To prove that his wife was indeed a virgin at the time of consummation, the husband would display his bed sheets in public the morning after “deflowering” his wife. As Boose explains, this ritual practice of publicly displaying blood-stained bed sheets was a form of “ocular proof” that would have been well understood by Shakespeare’s audience. The appearance of the handkerchief represents a form of “visual reduction,” according to Boose, a dramatic technique that bridges the verbal aspects of the play with the visual. Thus, Boose argues Shakespeare deliberately created the handkerchief to recall this image of blood-stained bed sheets in order to enhance the visual experience of the play.
VI
As Boose and Ross have revealed, the handkerchief symbolizes female sexuality and virginity. That the handkerchief serves as a love token is therefore obvious because it represents the exchange of a woman’s virginity for her husband’s love. This idea of marital exchange certainly proliferated in Elizabethan England. Patricia Fumerton’s writing on cultural aesthetics offers some insight into the historical attitudes regarding marital gift exchange. According to Fumerton, “Elizabethan aristocratic society created itself in great part…through an imaginative re-creation of its practice of exchanging trivial things” (31). This very practice of exchanging trivial things, Fumerton argues, demonstrated civility in Elizabethan society. Marital gift exchange, therefore, was an obligatory custom because it was the “civil, aristocratic thing to do.” Fumerton makes this claim because she believes a gift “must be not only accepted, but also repaid with an equivalent gift”; thus, by receiving a gift, one person is indebted to another (32). A husband and wife exchange a wedding ring, for instance, to demonstrate their indebtedness to each other. This spousal debt can then be repaid by their mutual faithfulness and affection throughout their marriage.
VII
Shakespeare’s emphasis on love tokens does not extend only to strawberry-spotted handkerchiefs. Shakespeare originally used rings to represent marital exchange in The Merchant of Venice, written some ten years before Othello. The relationship between Bassanio and Portia exemplifies a classic dramatization of love subsumed under the guise of marital exchange. When Bassanio “wins” Portia’s hand in marriage, Portia gives him a ring, warning him, “Let it presage the ruin of your love / And be my vantage to exclaim on you” if he loses or gives away the ring (Merchant 3.2.173-174). Portia thus gives Bassanio a supreme warning-an admonition not to lose the ring or else. During Shylock’s trial, Portia under disguise as a lawyer saves Antonio from the flesh bond by reversing the bond onto Shylock. Bassanio consequently champions Portia’s efforts as a lawyer without recognizing the fact that she is in disguise. To reward her for her success in the trial, Bassanio candidly offers Portia (in disguise as the lawyer) the very ring she gave him. Bassanio’s eagerness and willingness to surrender the ring emphasizes Sigurd Burckhardt’s contention that the ring is the “bond transformed” (234). Burckhardt’s claim is that Bassanio assumes the position of Antonio, bound instead by a marital bond to Portia. Antonio broke the conditions of the flesh bond and became subject to Shylock’s wrath in much the same way Bassanio callously “breaks” the conditions of the marital bond by willingly offering to give up the ring. Similarly, Portia equates the ring with Bassanio’s fidelity: “A thing stuck on with oaths upon your finger / And so riveted with faith unto your flesh” (5.1.168-169). The ring symbolizes Bassanio’s faithfulness as a husband; he must be wearing it in order to verify his devotion to Portia.
VIII
In establishing the basis, context, and background for Othello, one can conclude that Shakespeare concocted a powerful symbol in the handkerchief. The handkerchief first appears during the “seduction scene” wherein Iago inculcates Othello with the idea of Desdemona committing adultery. Emilia facilitates Iago’s seduction by giving him Desdemona’s handkerchief, which she inadvertently drops on the floor. Consequently, Iago confidently lures Othello into his trap knowing beforehand Othello’s jealousy and rage. Othello’s transition from skepticism to certainty arises entirely from Iago’s mentioning of the handkerchief. Iago offers the handkerchief to appeal to Othello’s demand for “ocular proof.” Prior to Iago first bringing up the handkerchief, Othello did not take to heart Iago’s prevarication, saying things like “Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore” (Othello 3.3.411). This contrasts heavily with Othello’s statements after Iago introduces the handkerchief into the equation: “O, blood, blood, blood!” (3.3.511). Othello’s attitude completely changes from skepticism to murderous rage simply because Iago seemingly provides Othello with the necessary ocular proof. The question remains: why is Othello so obsessed with the handkerchief?
IX
Othello’s obsession with the handkerchief stems from its magic properties and rich history. Othello’s retelling of the handkerchief’s history mirrors Portia’s speech to Bassanio when she first gave him the ring, replete with warnings and even threats. In retelling the story, Othello discusses the consequences of losing it or giving it away:
That handkerchief
Did an Egyptian to my mother give.
…………………………….
But if she lost it,
Or made a gift of it, my father’s eye
Should hold her loathed, and his spirits should hunt
After new fancies.
…………………………….
To lose’t or give’t away were such perdition
As nothing else could match. (3.4.65-66, 71-74, 78-79)
A mysterious Egyptian gave the handkerchief to Othello’s mother. The implication here is that the Egyptian person is some kind of sorcerer or charmer because of the properties of the handkerchief Othello reveals later on. The crucial point of this speech, however, is Othello’s warnings. Losing or giving away the handkerchief reverses the “spell,” rendering the handkerchief useless. If Othello’s mother loses the handkerchief, his father will no longer love her. Thus, the handkerchief in inducing the love “spell” must always be in Desdemona’s possession otherwise Desdemona will fall out of love with Othello. Othello threatens Desdemona with perdition, or “eternal damnation,” should she lose or give away the handkerchief much like Portia threatens Bassanio by “exclaiming her vantage.” That Othello threatens Desdemona with perdition demonstrates his strong conviction that Desdemona ought to keep the handkerchief at all times or else. Othello also discusses the magic properties of the handkerchief, describing how the red dye was “conserved of maiden’s hearts” (3.4.87). Lynda Boose notes the similarity between the marital blood-stained sheets and the description of the handkerchief’s dye. Boose claims the “maiden’s blood” is the blood of virgins-the blood spilled on the night of consummation. Andrew Sofer, moreover, points out an interesting continuity, or what he calls “a cunning move on Shakespeare’s part,” when Othello speaks about the handkerchief (212). Sofer notes how Brabantio’s accusations of Othello relying on magic to “enchant” his daughter prove valid. Brabantio accuses Othello of using nefarious means to win his daughter’s affection in Act 1 when he exclaims, “Damned as thou art, thou hast enchanted her!” (1.2.81). Based on Othello’s description of handkerchief and its properties, Othello seems to be conceding that he did win Desdemona’s affection with the help of supernatural forces. Sofer believes Othello’s obsession with the handkerchief must come from the fact the handkerchief is such a powerful tool.
X
Harry Berger, however, contends that Othello has a strange, fetish-like obsession with the handkerchief. Berger believes the handkerchief induces Othello’s rage because he believes Desdemona is trivializing the handkerchief as something less than a powerful gift. As Berger puts it, Othello accuses Desdemona of misusing “the generous gift of power he bestowed on her, the apoptropaic power to ward off the contamination of their coupling by moderating the sexuality she arouses” (238). Thus, the handkerchief represents Othello’s dominion over Desdemona; by dropping it, Desdemona tacitly breaks free of her husband’s control. Berger further claims that Othello’s concern over Desdemona’s alleged affair is in actuality a guise by which he attempts to reassert his control. Berger believes Othello’s obsession with the handkerchief must be the result of his chauvinistic desire for control over his wife. Furthermore, Berger radically claims that Othello deliberately “misremembers” Desdemona dropping the handkerchief moments earlier so that he can accuse her when she cannot produce it. The exchange between Desdemona and Othello when Othello demands Desdemona to produce the handkerchief demonstrates Berger’s contention that Desdemona fuels Othello’s rage by acting defiant and repeatedly mentioning Cassio. Desdemona does seem to inadvertently contribute to Othello’s rage when she says, “I pray, talk me of Cassio” after Othello yells, “The handkerchief!”(3.4.106,109). “Desdemona’s heated exchange with Othello displays an interest in keeping him angry,” Berger argues, even though Desdemona is unaware of Othello’s jealousy (241). The fact that Othello and Desdemona engage in this heated diatribe about a handkerchief exemplifies their spurious infatuation with the love token.
XI
Othello’s obsession with the handkerchief ultimately demonstrates his obsession with Desdemona’s purity. Othello is so overly concerned with his wife’s chastity that he cannot see past Iago’s lies nor can he quell his own murderous rage. When Othello promises to kill Desdemona, the image of the handkerchief parallels Othello’s reference to the bed: “Thy bed, lust stained, shall with lust’s blood be spotted” (5.1.39). The handkerchief is Othello’s only means of accessing Desdemona the way he wants to. Othello’s fixation for Desdemona’s sexual behavior lasts even after her kills her when he says, “Cold, cold, my girl? / Even like thy chastity”(5.2.326). Stockholder perfectly encapsulates Othello’s infatuation with Desdemona’s purity when she writes, “He sees her as a symbolic representation of perfect goodness, not as a figure who embodies…ideals of fidelity, purity, and loving submissiveness” (262). Desdemona clearly cannot meet Othello’s high expectations. Even though she does not have an affair with Cassio, Othello still finds her flawed and imperfect. Othello wants Desdemona to be a kind of “trophy wife.” The handkerchief emerges as Othello’s only means of keeping her perfect because it proves Desdemona is loyal to him. The handkerchief represents what Berger and Stockholder deem to be a kind of leash. If Desdemona does not have the handkerchief, then she is in effect breaking out of Othello’s reigns.
XII
The handkerchief from its definition in Act 3 embodies the forced marital bond. The handkerchief, according to Othello, charms people into love. Othello’s parents fell in love because of the handkerchief’s powerful spell. Othello and Desdemona fell in love because of the handkerchief’s powerful spell. Yet, the handkerchief leaves the audience with neither the implication of free will nor mutual, genuine love. In both “handkerchief relationships,” both parties unite not in love, but rather in bondage. Shakespeare masterfully creates the handkerchief as a love token, which at its core represents bondage. The Merchant of Venice embodies this idea of love tokens as a form of bondage especially well. The entire play focuses on the flesh bond between Antonio and Shylock. The marital bond between Portia and Bassanio demonstrates a similar form of bondage. Burckhardt drew the parallel between Shylock’s bond and Portia’s bond, noting how both Antonio and Bassanio are subsumed under the bond. Bassanio must safeguard the ring in order to maintain the marital bond he shares with Portia in just the same way Desdemona must safeguard the handkerchief in order to maintain her marital bond with Othello. Portia’s remarks to Bassanio at the end of the play encapsulate the idea of love tokens as bondage when she describes the ring as “a thing stuck on with oaths upon your finger / And so riveted with faith unto your flesh” (5.1.168-169). The ring is “riveted with faith” unto Bassanio’s flesh as if the ring and Bassanio’s finger are one and the same. Like shackles, Bassanio cannot remove the ring because he is imprisoned by it. Both Portia and Othello identify their respective love tokens as a form of control. Desdemona’s dropping of the handkerchief and Bassanio’s willingness to forfeit the ring symbolize breaking free from the constricting marital bond. Both the handkerchief and the ring thus symbolize the union of two people who are not in love, but rather in a deeply constrained relationship.
XIII
Shakespeare’s ultimate conviction then, must be that genuine love seldom exists. The handkerchief as a form of bondage recalls images of blood-stained sheets, pornography, and conformity in Elizabethan society. Othello gives Desdemona the handkerchief to signify their loving union. However, true love does not exist in their relationship. The handkerchief becomes a symbol of control instead of a symbol of love. The ring supposedly symbolizes the circle of trust and love. Yet Bassanio’s willingness to give it way proves the ring means nothing to him. It also proves Portia’s insecurity about their relationship; she needs to know Bassanio is wearing the ring to ensure the control is still in place and to ensure Bassanio still loves her. How does possession of a handkerchief or a ring prove that a person loves another person? Shakespeare’s answer is that true love requires no physical emblems. Large diamond-studded wedding rings do not mean two people are in love; love transcends all physical bounds.
Works Cited
Berger, Harry. “Impertinent Trifling: Desdemona’s Handkerchief.” Shakespeare Quarterly 47 (1996): 235-250. JSTOR: The Scholarly Journal Archive. 27 Apr. 2006 .
Boose, Lynda E. “Othello’s Handkerchief: ‘the Recognizance and Pledge of Love'” Othello. Ed. Edward Pechter. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004. 262-275.
Burckhardt, Sigurd. “The Merchant of Venice: the Gentle Bond.” Shakespearean Meanings. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1968.
Fumerton, Patricia. Cultural Aesthetics. Chicago: University of Chicago P, 1991.
Ross, Lawrence J. “The Meaning of Strawberries in Shakespeare.” Studies in the Renaissance 7 (1960): 225-240. JSTOR: The Scholarly Journal Archive. 27 Apr. 2006 .
Shakespeare, William. “The Merchant of Venice.” The Merchant of Venice. Ed. Kenneth Myrick. New York: Penguin Books, 1998. 3-100.
Shakespeare, William. “The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice.” Othello. Ed. Edward Pechter. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004. 3-117.
Sofer, Andrew. The Stage Life of Props. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan P, 2003.
Stockholder, Katherine S. Egregiously an Ass: Chance and Accident in Othello.” Studies in English Literature 13 (1973): 256-272. JSTOR: The Scholarly Journal Archive. 27 Apr. 2006 .
