Kara Ireland
Dr. Bowers
ENGL 4340
March 26, 2019
“Heca” Plagiarism in Othello
The source of Shakespeare’s Othello is Giraldi Cinthio’s “Hecatommithi.” Upon initial research, it was discovered that Giraldi Cinthio is only an alias, and the author’s full name is Giovanni Battista Giraldi. Cinthio is an Italian novelist and poet, native to Ferrara, Italy. He lived from November 12, 1504 to December 30, 1573. Cinthio wrote nine tragedies throughout his lifetime. “Hecatommithi” was amongst the latter of his prose works, published in 1565 as a collection of stories. It drew inspiration from “The Decameron” by Giovanni Boccaccio. Shakespeare has merely fallen in line with a history of adaptations, by that measure.
Hecatommithi was received in its time period largely in Boccaccio’s shadow. Hecatommithi was widely embraced by its initial audiences because of its semblance to Boccaccio. Cinthio’s style includes multiple entertaining speeches, moral and political doctrine, and judgments, much like prevalent themes in Boccaccio’s prose (Resta and Ramirez). Resta and Ramirez propose that Cinthio’s endeavors seemed to demonstrate the “instability of the boundaries between the brief narrative and the dramatic representation” (105). Tanya Pollard continued to acknowledge how well Cinthio’s works were received, noting that he “achieved considerable popular success with [tragicomics]” (9) He accumulated successes by engaging the imaginations of his audiences (Pollard 9). A tragicomic is any work that manifests both tragic and comedic elements. This genre heavily influenced Shakespeare’s art as several of his plays involve complex, sometimes overlapping, themes. While various consumers enjoyed Hecatommithi, the poetic nature of the prose reminded many of Boccaccio’s writing style (Resta and Ramirez).
Despite receiving an abundance of praise, Cinthio did encounter some criticisms for his work. Cinthio allegedly had dissonance between maintaining his ideas and adhering to Aristotle’s instruction to consider the audience (Pollard 7). (Elaborate) Several of Cinthio’s plays were criticized for their “blatant eroticism and ... shocking novelty,” (elaborate here > mak new sentence) serving as the only adverse receptions of his time period (Pollard, 9).
Shakespeare’s handling of Hecatommithi has been revered by most for completing the story with missing details. Kenneth Muir has described Shakespeare as a “hard-reading man of letters, as well as a poet and dramatist of original genius” (qtd. in Sisson 585). Maurianne Adams succinctly captures Shakespeare’s utilization of the source by stating that he sped up the action and condensed the plot (234). His most notable accomplishment with Hecatommithi was “transfiguring the commonplace attitudes toward an interracial marriage presented in the source into a tragedy of love” (Adams 234). CJ Sisson notes that the characterization in Othello is a conglomerate of “emotional insecurity, philosophical incompetence, and incompleteness of love;” these are all themes borrowed from Hecatommithi (585). Muir also validates Shakespeare’s “authenticity of signature” and offers him praise for his execution of Othello, marking it as a separate entity from Hecatommithi (qtd. in Sisson 585). To that note, Adams suggests that “the poetic interplay of words and images in the verbal fund of his drama had no parallel in the verbal fund of his source,” thus praising him for his artistry (234). Adams ventured to say that Othello “neglects its source entirely ... merely footnoting the verbal parallels as they appear” (234). She also grants it merit, marveling at how Shakespeare “could have created so much out of so little” (234).
Shakespeare’s use of his sources is largely complimentary of the source itself. He demonstrates a deep understanding of the source material because he has figured out the strengths and weaknesses of the original plot. With consideration to “Hecatommithi,” Shakespeare has scrutinized the text to find the overarching themes. He then dissects his findings and searches for ways to exploit the plot through excess details; those details vary amongst his content, but Shakespeare incorporates backstory and introduces new characters to fill the plot holes left by the original authors of his sources. Shakespeare is known for capitalizing off of his predecessors, but his own artistry should never be removed from the equation. Although he has a relative concept to base his own works off of, he is still reinterpreting what already exists so it can be suited for a stage. To Muir’s credit, there is some stroke of genius in the way he takes concise stories and adapts them into plays. Shakespeare’s talent is capturing grand stories and manipulating the details to enhance it visually. In working with his sources, he is synthesizing everything for its strengths and weaknesses. With those strengths, he builds speeches and character interactions that may or may not take place in the original sources. For what is lacking in the sources, he creates himself. The latter is evidenced in how fleshed out his character development is in comparison. Shakespeare takes care of his narrative and ensures that all missing details are present, and every interaction is purposeful. All art is inspired from another, and Shakespeare is not completely at fault for interpreting something anew from what he was originally presented with.
The pace of Hecatommithi is extremely quick, and Shakespeare makes an effort to slow it down. While Cinthio introduces a character and immediately submerges them into a scene with little to no explained relevance, Shakespeare provides insight to that character and their role. Because plays typically do not have an ingrained layout for exposition, he masterfully incorporates exposition into the lines of the characters. He provides context through dialogue. Cinthio, however, had the space for adequate exposition and passed on the opportunity. There are some instances in which Shakespeare trusts his audience to interpret scenes between the lines as well, but he strives to give context for most scenes.
Shakespeare had a penchant for detail, and for that I am making a case for his use of Hecatommithi. He breathed life into Ensign as Iago with his asides and interactions with the other characters. Through this example, Shakespeare made the Ensign’s character much more sinister than what Cinthio was able to portray. Those details are what helped boost Othello’s storytelling mechanisms. For every instance of Cinthio’s showing versus telling, Shakespeare showed as he told. By explicitly stating that “the wicked Ensign ... fell passionately in love with Disdemona,” Cinthio creates distance between the audience and the narrative itself (2). Cinthio makes several endeavors to characterize Ensign with adjectives, rather than action. The recurring adjectives used are “wicked” and “villain,” which precede the character’s execution (Cinthio 3). Alternatively, Shakespeare portrays Iago’s wickedness on stage through his lines and character interactions. Shakespeare establishes the nature of Iago’s character by illuminating his contempt for Othello, then subsequently his interest in Disdemona. Iago’s disdain towards Othello is palpable in his initial conversation with Roderigo; it becomes clear that he is a wicked man based on how he speaks. Shakespeare simultaneously insinuates Iago’s interest in Disdemona and scorn for Othello by inquiring about Othello’s marriage, wondering if they were “fast married” (1.2.11). Iago’s soliloquies also grant considerable insight into his motives.
Cinthio’s execution of the resolution was unsatisfying because he did not adequately prepare his audience. Including the detail that the wife “knew the whole truth ... but dared not ... disclose a single circumstance” insinuates a larger role for her, but she does not reappear until the end (Cinthio 5). The wife brought together the entire story, but Cinthio neglected to mark her importance as such. Hecatommithi’s ending was packed with detail in such little space, the ending was jarring. Shakespeare’s adaptation made the wife’s role more active in unveiling the details; he also slowed the pacing. Emilia had some insight into the shortcomings of her husband, and veritably reached her conclusion. With the details Shakespeare included throughout the play, including direct lines and character placement, he sufficiently prepared his audience for the ending.
There are some details I would not have included in Othello, such as the quarrel between Iago, Roderigo, Cassio, and Montano, because I believe it did not drive the plot. It struck me as a superfluous scene, when there were other indicators to get Cassio speaking to Desdemona. It was an intricate detail to make the situation more convoluted, but it was substantiated without that factor. To that point, I deemed most of the second act unnecessary. Unlike Cinthio’s example, I would have granted Othello more reason to distrust his wife than mere hearsay. That was the most unbelievable factor amongst both stories that discredited the premise of it. I would have incorporated more direct conversation between Othello and Desdemona about his grievances; the only conversations he held with her were passive aggressive and evaded the nature of his contempt.
If I were reinterpreting “Hecatommithi,” I would have taken the same approach as Shakespeare when it comes to providing details. “Hecatommithi” was a short story, but it was almost too concise for a greedy reader like myself. Shakespeare provided the much-needed backstory and bridged the gap between the plot and the resolution. He used his own wits to create new enough characters, despite his use of a borrowed plot. While I disagree with capitalizing off of someone else’s ideas, Hecatommithi was made better by Shakespeare’s interpretations. However, such blatant plagiarism would not be as widely accepted and defended today. There are ways around it, and Shakespeare made use of none of them. Reinterpretation does not always have to be plagiarism; in reinterpreting, one should take concepts and themes from a work, not quotes and characters. Holistically, Shakespeare’s work is plagiarized, when it should have been a reinvention of his sources. I would have tried to invent work from the essence of my sources, rather than copying and building from them.
Works Cited
Adams, Maurianne. “"Ocular Proof" in Othello and Its Source.” Modern Language Association, vol. 79, no. 3, June 1964, doi: https://www-jstor-org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/stable/pdf/461024.pdf?refreqid=search%3A61445646a8d7b858a377322f8f71bb0c
Cinthio, Giraldi. “Hecatommithi.” Desire 2 Learn, January 2019, https://kennesaw.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/1688222/viewContent/25044386/View
Pollard, Tanya. “Tragicomedy.” The Oxford History of Classical Reception in English Literature, Vol. 2: 1558-1660, ed. Patrick Cheney and Philip Hardie (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 419-432.
Shakespeare, William. “Othello.” The Bedford Shakespeare, Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014, pp. 1104-1198.
Sisson, CJ. “Reviewed Work(s): Shakespeare's Sources. I: Comedies and Tragedies by Kenneth Muir and William Shakespeare.” Modern Humanities Research Association, vol. 52, no. 4, Oct. 1957, doi: https://www-jstor-org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/stable/pdf/3719126.pdf?refreqid=search%3Ad4473356e3d80c22dac86ac46aeaa664