Geary writes: >This is interesting psychologically, but not morally. I forget what 'this' is. I hope you mean the _novel_. I don't distinguish between psychological and moral. >"Othello would be the farthest thing from an exemplar of vice. He was in fact portrayed as a noble soul, a true hero, but like all human beings he had a character flaw -- his being jealously -- that he lost control of and it destroyed him (and Desdemona). If there is an exemplar of vice in "Othello", it would be Iago who goaded and taunted and manipulated Othello's jealousy to his own end. But even Iago is not totally without merit." Okay, Yago then. I thought that the fact that Othello was a Moor was like an unredeemable trait. Shakespeare could be pretty politically incorrect (cf. portrayal of Robert De Niro in "Merchant of Venice" -- any redeemable features, there? >Have you joined forces with Lynne Cheney? >Artists have no moral obligations -- >they wouldn't be artists otherwise, but propagandists. Yes, part of the problem is the word. In Greek is 'tekhne' which turns the lot into craftsmen. I forget the Roman but the English word sounds too pretentious to me. >[Theophrastus] was not an artist. He was a propagandist. >propagandists preach, an artist artifies. You are right. I notice that I have catalogued Theophrastus as a philosopher, even. Again, craftsman crafts. I should revise the Latin there. Problem too is that there are many arts, and this is what the Greeks called "tekhne poietike" -- that the Romans were unable to translate, "ars poetica" (cfr. the irony of Ovid in "ars amatoria" -- surely love needs no artisan). Cheers, J. L. Speranza Buenos Aires, Argentina. **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)