Othello likely survived the creative licenses of  post-restoration theatre companies because of the way in which it uniquely addressed a society that, for the first time in its history, maintained a standing army of cavaliers to keep the peace. Virginia Mason Vaughan points out that “Othello represented aspects of the era’s dominant ideologies” in that “Othello… [was played as] a noble hero of military experience and aristocratic bearing,” whilst Iago “represented… the forces of anarchy that seek to destroy the social order.”[7] Its plot intact, Othello made its first appearance on the post-restoration stage in 1660 with minimal changes to its dialogue (the King’s Company emphasized its hero’s nobility by excising “references to “Othello’s age, unattractiveness, or his ferocious passions.”) 

When Pepys first saw Othello, theatre companies were only performing plays that had been written before the interregnum. However, at the time of Pepys’ second entry, theatres were more consistently producing new plays. One of the earliest of these new genres was that of the rhymed heroic play. Full of “highly honorable heroes and happy endings, the Homerian epic, the chivalric romance, contemporary French drama (notably Corneille), Shakespeare, and court masques,” these allegorical plays were overt in their support of the monarchy, and were very popular with theatre-goers in the 1660s and 70s. The declining quality of performances that Pepys remarks upon suggest that, towards the end of the 1660s, performers in Othello may have altered their acting styles to better fit with the conventions of the rhymed heroic play, as, with little alteration, the character of Othello could easily fit the mold of a hero “set apart by the nearly superhuman quality of their character and virtue” who allows an “unjust and self-serving” usurper (Iago) to influence his judgement.

In his memoir, Actor and playwright Colley Cibber offers details about other ways in which the theatre changed in the latter decades of the seventeenth century, making particular note of how technological advances in the construction of theatres created new opportunities for competition between different companies. In its efforts to rival the King’s Company (whom Cibber admits had better actors and plays), the Duke’s company:

was forced to add Spectacle and Musick to Action; and to introduce a new Species of Plays… all set off with the most expensive Decorations of Scenes and Habits, with the best Voices and Dancers. This sensual Supply of Sight and Sound coming in to the Assistance of the weaker Party, it was no Wonder they should grow too hard for Sense and simple Nature, when it is consider'd how many more People there are, that can see and hear, than think and judge. So wanton a Change of the publick Taste, therefore, began to fall as heavy upon the King's Company as their greater Excellence in Action had before fallen upon their Competitors.[12]

Cibber’s comment suggests that the spectacle of theatre became as important as the substance of the plays themselves. When the Duke’s Company and the King’s Company merged to form the United Company in 1682, the company put greater emphasis on the productions’ use of scenery, music, and dance; the actors were no longer the audience’s sole focus. For all its detail, Cibber’s memoir shows a surprising lack of interest in analyzing the roles in which he and other actors performed. Instead, he places greater emphasis on how the audience responded to various performances, and offers critical insight into how the audience’s understanding of the role of the actor evolved. In his biographies of the principal actors of the United Company, Cibber demonstrates that actors were often constrained to roles within broad character archetypes, like heroes, villains, clowns, etc.[13] However, unlike pre-restoration actors, who may have specialized in certain kinds of roles, Cibber’s biographies reveal that audiences associated the actor with his archetype, which often prevented them from playing other character types. Samuel Sandford, the actor who took over the role of Iago from Mohun, is particularly relevant to our purpose, as it demonstrates the way in which Othello’s audiences began to conceive of Iago as a character who was explicitly villainous. According to Cibber, Samuel Sandford (1661-1698) was an actor whose performances of villains were widely respected by audiences and actors alike. However, Cibber largely attributed Sandford’s success to his appearance:

But poor Sandford was not the Stage-Villain by Choice, but from Necessity; for having a low and crooked Person, such bodily Defects were too strong to be admitted into great or amiable Characters… This Actor, in his manner of Speaking, varied very much from those I have already mentioned. His Voice had an acute and piercing Tone, which struck every Syllable of his Words distinctly upon the Ear. He had likewise a peculiar Skill in his Look of marking out to an Audience whatever he judg'd worth their more than ordinary Notice. When he deliver'd a Command, he would sometimes give it more Force by seeming to slight the Ornament of Harmony… Had Sandford liv'd in Shakespear's Time, I am confident his Judgment must have chose him above all other Actors to have play'd his Richard the Third.

A departure from the “bluff” figure of John Lowin (the actor who had originated the role), Cibber’s words paint the picture of a small, unattractive Iago with a shrieking voice, certainly not one whom the audience might believe to be honest... Later, Cibber mentions that Sandford rarely received the audience’s applause for his performance of Iago because of how the audience members were concerned about how they might be perceived by their peers:

For my own part, I profess myself to have been an Admirer of Sandford, and have often lamented that his masterly Performance could not be rewarded with that Applause which I saw much inferior Actors met with, merely because they stood in more laudable Characters. For, tho' it may be a Merit in an Audience to applaud Sentiments of Virtue and Honour; yet there seems to be an equal Justice that no Distinction should be made as to the Excellence of an Actor, whether in a good or evil Character… the Spectator will tell you, that when Virtue is applauded he gives part of it to himself; because his Applause at the same time lets others about him see that he himself admires it. But when a wicked Action is going forward; when an Iago is meditating Revenge and Mischief; tho' Art and Nature may be equally strong in the Actor, the Spectator is shy of his Applause, lest he should in some sort be look'd upon as an Aider or an Abettor of the Wickedness in view; and therefore rather chuses to rob the Actor of the Praise he may merit, than give it him in a Character which he would have you see his Silence modestly discourages.[15]

Cibber’s comments suggest a new self-consciousness on the audience’s part that does not appear to be present in earlier audience accounts, and imply that, for Cibber’s audience, going to the theatre was as much about being seen by one’s peers as it was about seeing a performance. Unlike Shakespeare’s audience, whose interactions with the actions presented on stage were largely unregulated, the self-censorship of Cibber’s audience made them more likely to frown upon Iago’s actions, than participate, as to do so would put the audience member under the scrutiny of his peers.

As audiences became unified in their responses to what they observed in performances, actors became similarly concerned with how they went about presenting their characters on stage. In the early eighteenth century, a new style of acting came into fashion, in which actors “performing emotions… used codified gestures and facial expressions… with both physical and vocal grace and with sensibility: a feeling for the character type being presented.”[16] As this style grew in popularity, actors who were able to cycle through these gestured emotions, called ‘passions,’ with speed and ease became  especially well known. Unsurprisingly, Shakespearean roles which challenged the actor’s ability to navigate ‘passions’ became highly sought after by actors who longed to prove themselves, and the part of Othello became a role in which many of these up-and-coming actors first proved themselves on the London stage.[17] Interestingly, very few changes were made to the text itself to emphasize the virtuosic nature of Othello’s role.[18] Lois Potter argues that, because of the role’s emotional demands on the actor, audiences and actors alike began to think of Othello as the lead, and of Iago’s role as secondary, as the role of Othello required its actor to navigate emotional extremes in a way that the role of Iago did not. [19]