TitUS ANDRONICUS: REVEnge tragedy as shakesperian noir

by David Gow

Titus Andronicus is the bloodiest of Shakespeare's tragedies. Cannibalism, mutilation, gang-rape and ritual sacrifice may well have delighted audiences of the 1590's, but later critics branded it his worst play, and some even questioned whether Shakespeare could be the author. T.S. Eliot called it 'one of the stupidest and most uninspired plays ever written.'

A less hostile appraisal might see a formative early work, which shows the young playwright developing some serious themes as well as trying to compete with the most spectacular revenge tragedies of his rivals. I set out here to discuss Titus Andronicus as a revenge tragedy, and as perhaps the most 'noir' of Shakespeare's plays.

Generally Titus Andronicus has not been considered as one of Shakespeare's Roman plays, a strange conclusion when apparently the name 'Rome' is uttered more times here than in the other Roman plays put together. At a glance the play deals with issues of whether individuals should have absolute power over others, whether illegal violence is ever justified, and most of all whether personal loyalty should ever supercede civic responsibility. Each of these issues is also central in the later (and unquestionably 'Roman') play, Julius Caesar.

Shakespeare's continued use of a Roman setting indicates its popularity with audiences, and it's worth questioning the ways audiences through history have identified Titus' corrupt Rome with their own society. In Classical Drama And Its Influence B.L. Joseph explains that 'English society did not need encouragement from outside to develop an attitude to revenge. A cult of revenge is inseparable from that of honour in every incompletely civilised society where law does not dominate.' Some would question whether any society can be completely civilised, or entirely dominated by the forces of law. Hence the ancient revenge story retains its popularity, finding new
forms through history.

Titus assumes his role right at the start as a magisterial authority caught between irreconcilable duties. In loyalty to an emperor childishly feuding with his brother (over the hand of Titus' daughter, Lavinia), he slays his own son. Here is an important aspect of much noir and of revenge tragedy- the fact that someone's basic, human interests are undermined by a higher or more powerful authority, although in this case it is interesting that Titus himself is directly an instrument of that authority. Titus has put Rome before his family, and it turns out to be a pointless gesture. The new emperor Saturninus decides he can do without marrying Lavinia after all, and so Titus’ dreadful act was for nothing. What is more, Saturninus actually begins to jealously resent Titus at this point. He seems to fear the old man’s greater popularity, and incredibly, he is even able to imagine Titus is disloyal.

'Full well Andronicus,
Agree these deeds with that proud brag of thine
That saidst I begged the empire at thy hands.' (1.1 302-304)

Also in the first scene is the event which starts the whole cycle of violence. This is the slaying of Alarbus, a necessary sacrifice and example in the Romans’ eyes, but a needless slaughter as far as the Goths see it. Tamora swears revenge and is almost immediately moved into a position of great power in Rome. Again, this marks out Titus as doomed. After Tamora begs convincingly but in vain for her son's life, we can tell that Titus is going to suffer some unspeakable retribution, especially since there is mention of Gods and of Titus overstepping the mark in some sort of great scheme.

'Wilt thou draw near the nature of the gods?
Draw near them then in being merciful.
Sweet mercy is nobility's true badge.
Thrice noble Titus, spare my first born son.' (117-120  1.1)

This early slaying is a vengeful act committed in accordance with the laws of Titus' society and religion. He has lost twenty-five sons in the war with the Goths, and the killing of Alarbus is to set their souls at rest. Ironically, this one religious killing is the cause of all the other deaths. Tamora quickly gets her revenge, and so must Titus.

With the enmity of the emperor and empress invoked, Titus shifts into the position of the typical revenger. Out of power and favour, he is now more recognisable as a noir protagonist. Titus began the play as the democratically chosen future emperor of Rome, literally the most powerful and untouchable man in the world. By his own foolish loyalty he has dropped to a status below that of an ordinary citizen, and put himself in great danger. Of the noir protagonist, Russell James has said 'it is the probability of his death that underlines the noir nature of the story'. A high probability of death is common to all of Shakespeare's tragic heroes, but Titus stands out from the others as a man who has shed all his defences. Later in the play the great war hero even cuts off his own hand as a sign of his loyalty to Rome.

Among other things, the time period of the 4th century AD seems quite important, as at this stage the Roman Empire's reign was drawing to a close. Rome, or Titus' idea of Rome seems to be of great importance to the revenge theme- as Titus has not just been physically harmed (through his family), but his code of honour has been violated also, and this code is part of his identity as a civilised Roman. This reminds me of Chandler's Marlowe, simultaneously the toughest and the most honourable man in his society. These characters stand up for the ideals they feel have been lost in the world they inhabit. But Titus begins the play with absolute trust in the Empire he has killed for and risked his life for. Lee Horsley has explained that 'revenge seekers can function as the most direct critics of a corrupt system, though they are not all equally outspoken'. Titus, as an extremely loyal citizen of Rome, is the most reluctant revenger imaginable.

The problem for Titus is that the emperor he serves, and eventually opposes, is not so honourable as himself. It is as if he is old fashioned in his patriotism, and in his naïve belief in the Emperor. Saturninus is not loyal to Rome, he only desires to possess it, just as the rapists Demetrius and Chiron desire to possess Lavinia for selfish, lustful reasons. These are not the sentiments that built up the great nation centuries before, the three pillars of 'justice, continence and nobility', which only Titus and some of his family now seem to possess. Against the double-dealing, pettiness and arbitrariness of the new royal family, the honourable, straight-fighting Titus is helpless. Like many an unwilling noir hero, Titus becomes isolated from his past life. He has always been away at war with Rome's enemies, but his constant comfort has been a belief in the ideals of the empire he serves. It takes a great deal to shake that belief, and for much of the play we see staggering examples of Titus' loyalty.

The audience may not like Titus when he kills his son Mutius, but his loyalty and fortitude cannot be questioned, particularly when we are aware of his natural fondness for his family. Titus cries, 'What, villain boy/ barrst me my way in Rome?', and it doesn't matter that it is his son barring his way, only that he is being hindered in his serving Rome, and the hindrance must be removed. It is a mistake to contrast the evil plotter Aaron's affection for his son against Titus' apparent callousness as a father. The point is that Titus denies himself the personal indulgence that others succumb to, and if need be, this includes paternal love. In this respect, he might be called the most civilised character in the play. Unfortunately, with the new power structure in Rome, self sacrifice has become very passe.

The build-up toward the revenge motive often seems to follow a set pattern. The revenger is first wronged, secondly he discovers the identity of his enemies, and thirdly he attempts to get justice through conventional, legal means. When this fails he turns to his own violent means of revenge. Though Titus pleads with the emperor for Quintus and Martius to have a fair hearing, once he finally discovers the identity of Bassianus' murderers he realistically does not harbour any hope of satisfaction through conventional justice.

The extent to which Titus is overpowered and gone mad with grief is shown in a number of later scenes. There is a repeated image of tears, salt water, and the sea as if the enormity of his grief is truly enough to drown the old man in tears. These long, powerful monologues are a convention of a revenge tragedy, building line by line a feeling of the revenger's grief and instability.

If there were reason for these miseries,
Then into limits could I bind my woes.
When heaven doth weep, doth not the earth o'erflow?
If the winds rage, doth not the sea wax mad,
Threat'ning the welkin with his big swol'n face?
And wilt thou have a reason for this coil?
I am the sea. Hark how her sighs doth blow.
She is the weeping welkin, I the earth.
Then must my sea be moved with her sighs,
Then must my earth with her continual tears
Become a deluge overflowed and drowned (218-228 3.1)

Titus' period of impotent grief eventually erupts into action. He re-awakes as a man entirely lost to the normal world, and absolutely uncompromising in his pursuit of revenge. A mention of the play's excessive violence cannot be omitted from a full discussion, and indeed it is the aspect of the play most focused on by many critics. This morbid interest is aroused not so much by the body count, as the manner of death, the mutilation of the body, and the worse-than-death suffering inflicted on some of the characters, particularly Lavinia. At times Shakespeare seems eager to present us with gory scenes, as he does when Titus, Lavinia and Marcus walk off, carrying two heads and Lavinia with Titus' severed hand in her mouth. If we remember that the whole assortment of body parts was carried on quite easily by one messenger, and that Marcus still has all his limbs, we might think this gory scene a little contrived. But it is done for the spectacle, and it recalls the fact that Shakespeare wrote for an audience of ordinary people, whose other entertainments including bear-baiting, cock fighting and public executions. Titus Andronicus is known to have been a popular success on release, and Shakespeare was probably aware that the excessive violence of the play at times weakens its dramatic effect. Later in his career he would be free to take more risks.

One notable omission in Titus Andronicus is the Chorus, which would have been found in all classical and much later tragedy, fulfilling the purpose of interpreting the action onstage. Kyd's Spanish Tragedy has a chorus onstage almost constantly in the form of Andrea’s Ghost and Revenge. They speak briefly of what has passed at the end of each act. Hamlet lacks a chorus, but his regular soliloquies often serve the same purpose of interpreting the action onstage. Although Shakespeare does not seem keen on the traditional form of a chorus as used by Kyd, it is unusual that he does not use some method to interpret the action in Titus Andronicus. Richard III, written around the same time, uses the female characters as a chorus, at times seeming to throw off their individual character to chant out a judgement on the play's proceedings. I think that, more than anything it is the lacking of this chorus function to break up and interpret the scenes of action which has led to the general bad opinion of Titus Andronicus.

The play presents a conflict between selfish mankind and the ideas of civilisation he has built up. Titus begins the play feeling he is removed from primitive desires and follows a nobler cause, but when Rome lets him down he becomes human, lusting after revenge. Of course he was deceiving himself anyway, about Rome's righteous conquest of the earth. An empire that invades other countries can only justify itself by a conviction of its moral superiority over the weaker countries. Rome's rulers in the play are hardly morally superior to anyone, and are certainly not guided by anything other than base desires. Rome has lost the veneer of civilisation that justified its supremacy.

Shakespeare's goriest play seeks to remind us not that the world is evil, but that it is indifferent. The worst people may prevail over the best; in fact it is probable that they will as they lack a conscience. Audiences and readers accepting this paranoid outlook, seek a protagonist who might redress the balance, and who must necessarily operate outside the usual channels of justice. Titus cannot rescue the ideal Roman civilisation he so worshipped, it has fallen too far and he has anyway seen that it was hollow. The bloodshed moves from foreign battlefields into the city walls, and the great city reverts back into a wilderness of tigers, corrupted and weakened beyond redemption.

Bibliography.

Primary Source.
Shakespeare, William. Titus Andronicus. Taken from :
Greenblatt, Cohen, Howard, Maus, The Norton Shakespeare.- Based on the Oxford Edition. (Norton 1997: London)

Copyright© 2003 David Gow

***

DAVID GOW works as a shop assistant in Edinburgh.
Contact David