Othello was first performed not in the 16th century, but on November 1st, 1604. The oldest critical reception we have was written in 1693 by Thomas Rymer (1641-1713)[1].

In it, Rymer objects Shakespeare's choice to elevate a "moor" to a prominent place within Venetian society. He remarked on how improbable it would have been for the Venetians to have done so, since the moors were more probable to be muslims and fight for the Turks, Venice's enemies at the time. Moreover, a moor like any foreigner,would have found it rather hard to rise up to become a Genereal even in England, which had not conflict with the Turks at the time - much less would such a person be able to marry the daughter of noblemen.

Rymer further alleges that murdering his wife while letting someone else kill his supposed rival was comically out of place for a soldier.

Rymer's main objection however was with the person of Iago: ago was a soldier, too and Rymer noted how far the "dissembling, false, insinuating rascal" deviated from the "openhearted, frank, plain-dealing" image that the audience expected from such. Rymer proceeds to critique the significance of Desdemona's hankerchief as contrived and ends that "the tragical part (of the play) is, plainly none other, than a bloody farce, without salt or savour."

In context, Rymer was a classicist who followed the goal of having the theatre regulated much more strongly and he used Shakespeare as a cautionary tale of a playwright who had still too much freedom. Rymer also argued for the reintroduction of the chorus into plays, so that it may comment the tragedy for the audience.

Remarkably, Rymer almost immediately received quite a lot of criticism for his own critique. John Dennis (1658-1734)[2] replied to Rymer directly, observing Rymer's apparent and unwarranted disdain for Shakespeare's work in general.

Charles Gildon (1665-1724)[3] goes more into detail and addresses Rymer's critique of Othello in particular, starting with the latter's objection that Venice would employ a moor. Gildon observes that Venice regularly availed itself of the services of foreigners. Furthermore, "a Christian Moor, as Othello is represented by our Poet, for from such a Moor, there cou'd be no just fear of treachery in favour of the Mahometans." In fact, Gildon remarked: "(T)here is no reason in the nature of things, why a Negro of equal Birth and Merit, should not be on an equal bottom, with a German, Hollander, French-man, &c."

Rymer's "A Short View" as well as Dennis's and Gildon's reply all are steps, some back, some forward, in the debate about the reform of English drama. Atkins provided an in-depth history on this topic[4], a more focused review of the context of in which critics moved at the time can be found in the essay by Trolander[5].

Sources

[1] Rymer, Thomas. A Short View of Tragedy, it's original, excellency and corruption: with some reflections on Shakespear and other practitioners for the stage. London, Richard Baldwin, 1693.

[2] Dennis, John. The Impartial Critick, Or, Some Observations Upon a Book, Entituled, a Short View of Tragedy. London, R. Taylor,1693.

[3] Gildon, Charles. An Essay at a Vindication of Love in Tragedies: against Rapin and Mr Rymer. In: Miscellaneous Letters and Essays. London, Benjamin Bragg, 1694.

[4] Atkins, John William Hey. English Literary Criticism: 17th & 18th Centuries. London, Methuen, 1951.

[5] Tenger, Zeynep; Trolander, Paul. "'Impartial Critick' or 'Muse's Handmaid': The Politics of Critical Practice in Early Eighteen Century." The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats 28(1) (1995), p56.