is not Shakespearean.  With him the differences of period, race, nationality and locality have little bearing on the inward character, though they sometimes have a good deal on the total imaginative effect, of his figures.  When he does lay stress on such differences his intention is at once obvious, as in characters like Fluellen or Sir Hugh Evans, or in the talk of the French princes before the battle of Agincourt.  I may add that Iago certainly cannot be taken to exemplify the popular Elizabethan idea of a disciple of Macchiavelli.  There is no sign that he is in theory an atheist or even an unbeliever in the received religion.  On the contrary, he uses its language, and says nothing resembling the words of the prologue to the Jew of Malta: 

     I count religion but a childish toy,
     And hold there is no sin but ignorance.

Aaron in Titus Andronicus might have said this (and is not more likely to be Shakespeare’s creation on that account), but not Iago.

I come to a second warning.  One must constantly remember not to believe a syllable that Iago utters on any subject, including himself, until one has tested his statement by comparing it with known facts and with other statements of his own or of other people, and by considering whether he had in the particular circumstances any reason for telling a lie or for telling the truth.  The implicit confidence which his acquaintances placed in his integrity has descended to most of his critics; and this, reinforcing the comical habit of quoting as Shakespeare’s own statement everything said by his characters, has been a fruitful source of misinterpretation.  I will take as an instance the very first assertions made by Iago.  In the opening scene he tells his dupe Roderigo that three great men of Venice went to Othello and begged him to make Iago his lieutenant; that Othello, out of pride and obstinacy, refused; that in refusing he talked a deal of military rigmarole, and ended by declaring (falsely, we are to understand) that he had already filled up the vacancy; that Cassio, whom he chose, had absolutely no practical knowledge of war, nothing but bookish theoric, mere prattle, arithmetic, whereas Iago himself had often fought by Othello’s side, and by ’old gradation’ too ought to have been preferred.  Most or all of this is repeated by some critics as though it were information given by Shakespeare, and the conclusion is quite naturally drawn that Iago had some reason to feel aggrieved.  But if we ask ourselves how much of all this is true we shall answer, I believe, as follows.  It is absolutely certain that Othello appointed Cassio his lieutenant, and nothing else is absolutely certain.  But there is no reason to doubt the statement that Iago had seen service with him, nor is there anything inherently improbable in the statement that he was solicited by three great personages on Iago’s behalf.  On the other hand, the suggestions that he refused out of pride and obstinacy, and that he