Desdemona's handkerchief

There was a great deal of attention on this handkerchief. I couldn't help thinking so what, it's a handkerchief, the default present for uncles at Christmas. I remembered, from reading Henry Mayhew's London Labour London Poor, that handkerchiefs used to be quite valuable objects; hence Fagin's boys stealing them in Oliver Twist. It still seemed like a McGuffin, using Alfred Hitchcock's phrase. Then I read in the introduction that it had been dyed with mummy goo (nice), which might allude to bloodied sheets on a honeymoon night. Othello's father gave it to his mother. It was a very big deal. Was she allowed to blow her nose in it? To me the whole handkerchief thing seemed like an unsatisfactory plot device.

Surely the triviality of the handkerchief shows the depth of Othello's jealousy?

I could understand it better if it was a jewel that Othello had given Desdemona, one that his father had given his mother perhaps. But then a jewel is not something you just drop. It would be a brooch, necklace, ring or earrings. It seems unlikely to me that a woman in Desdemon'a position would give her lover the jewel her husband had given her. That would be dangerous. It also seems unlikely that Iago could beg his wife to pinch something as obviously valuable as a jewel. It seems like Shakespeare chose the handkerchief as the plot device because it had relatively little monentary value, but huge sentimental value, and would be easier to drop or steal.

I think you have answered your own question, kev. It might have been a ring like in "The Merchant of Venice", but there the ring was actually given, while Desdemona didn`t give her handkerchief away, it was obtained in an indirect way.

I get the impression that Othello going on about how it was a very special handkerchief is all rot, just trying to give himself an excuse for being so angry and hurt.

I am not the first person to pick up on the handkerchief. Thomas Rymer in 1693 also found fault with the plot device (link). It was not the only thing he did not like about the play.

As if for the first year or two, Othello had not been jealous? The third Act begins in the morning, at noon she drops the Handkerchief, after dinner she misses it, and then follows all this outrage and horrible clutter about it.
:
But the Hankerchief is brought in at last, to stop all holes, and close the evidence. So now being satisfied with the proof, they come to a resolution, that the offenders shall be murdered.
:
o much ado, so much stress, so muchpassion and repetition about an Handkerchief! Why was not this call'd the Tragedy of the Handkerchief? What can be more absurd [...] Had it been Desdemona's Garter, the Sagacious Moor might have smelt a Rat: but the Handkerchief is so remote a trifle, no Booby, on this side Mauritania, cou'd make any consequence from it.
:
Desdemona dropt the Handkerchief, and missed it that very day after her Marriage; it might have been rumpl'd up with her Wedding sheets: And this Night that she lay in her wedding sheets, the Fairey Napkin (whilst Othello was stifling her) might have started up to disarm his fury, and stop his ungracious mouth. Then might she (in a Traunce for fear) have lain as dead. Then might he, believing her dead, touch'd with remorse, have honestly cut his own Throat, by the good leave, and with the applause of all the Spectators. Who might there upon have gone home with a quiet mind, admiring the beauty of Providence;fairly and truly represented on the Theatre.
:
Here we see the meanest woman in the Play takes this Handkerchief for a trifle below her Husband to trouble his head about it. Yet we find, it entered into our Poets head, to make a Tragedy of this Trifle.


I think if Shakespeare had run the play past me, I would have suggested replacing the handkerchief with some strands of Desdemona's hair. Some strategically placed strands of golden hair on Cassio's jerkin could have been very incriminating.

Gentlemen, have a look at this:
"Regardless of time and place, handkerchiefs have always been a means of communication between lovers. Waving a handkerchief, showing it close to the nose or throwing it on the ground all have different meanings between lovers.

Handkerchiefs were the secret language of love and lovers. It was a means of communication between them. A handkerchief with a burnt corner indicated passionate love. A girl sent a handkerchief that she made herself to her lover, and all the embroidery had a different meaning. These handkerchiefs were not used but kept for remembrance. When lovers sent handkerchiefs to each other it meant their love had faded. If a girl showed a handkerchief to her lover holding from the middle, it meant: "I am waiting for you tonight." Meanwhile, waving a handkerchief meant "all right."

When a girl threw a handkerchief from her window, it was a declaration of love. If the man stopped and took the handkerchief and carefully folded it and put in his pocket, then it meant he also loved the girl. Throwing a handkerchief on the ground in parks meant the girls wanted to meet the man she loves.

A white handkerchief meant: "I love you," while a lilac-colored handkerchief meant: "Wait for me at your window tomorrow, my love, I will give you a letter." A light green handkerchief referred to being cautious and a purple one meant: "I really like you." Also, a handkerchief with pink corners meant: "I cannot live without you," a yellow one: "I was sick for the last few days, I could not go out." A handkerchief with green corner meant: "I will always remain loyal to you," a red one: "I love you with my whole heart," a blue one: "You are not grateful, I am in sorrow," and a green one meant: "I sent you a letter and am awaiting your answer."
https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2...nguage-of-love
In stealing Desdemonas handkerchief Iago was referring to the tradition of the handkerchief as love token. There are several articles on it in the net