In 1693 Thomas Rhymer remarked in his Short View of Tragedy that Othello’s narrative seemed do improbable as to only be able to “delude our senses, disorder our thoughts, addle our brain, pervert our affections, hair our imaginations, corrupt our appetite and fill our head with vanity, confusion, Tintamarre, and Jingle-jangle” (Rymer 2:254-5). What Rhymer finds so unbelievable is that Othello puts so much weight on the handkerchief. He goes on to say that the “handkerchief is so remote a trifle, no Booby . . . cou’d make any consequence from it” (Rymer 2:251). In using the word “trifle,” however, Rhymer is appropriating the language of Iago in an effort to rationalize and estrange the magical elements within the play. Though this instance may be extreme, it does point to a tendency among critics disregard the veracity and believability of Othello’s magical elements, elements clearly believed within the fiction of the play. Brabantio believes that Othello has used “charms,” “spells,” “medicines,” and “witchcraft” on his daughter. And Desdemona treats the handkerchief as if were a sacred object or talisman, kissing and talking to it. According to Emilia, she:
so loves the token—
for he conjured her she should ever keep it—
That she reserves it evermore about her
To kiss and talk to. (3.3 293-6)
After she misplaces it, she concludes that “sure, there’s some wonder in this handkerchief” (3.4 101). Like Othello, she asserts her belief in its magical power. The point is not that we should simply accept the napkin as potentially magic within the play, but that we understand that magic played a very different role in early modern England.
