Titus Andronicus

“Rome is but a wilderness of tigers” (III.i.54) is the perfect summation of the conflicts and juxtapositions Shakespeare makes between morals, ethics and philosophies; many ideas of which are introduced and foreshadowed in I i of Titus Andronicus. Shakespeare presents us with characters so set in their own views of honour, justice and piety, that it may seem there is a clear line between what is right and wrong and just, however, he systematically proceeds to blur that line through the insistence and attachment each character has to their own moral code. This brings into question the difference between ‘civilised and barbarian...good and evil...religious and irreligious’ and who is the more of the either extreme, the Romans or the Goths.
It may be poignant to note that in the first folio this play has the full title of ‘The Most Lamentable Romaine Tragedie of Titus Andronicus’. The inclusion of the word ‘Romaine’, immediately asks its reader to acknowledge that a central theme of the play is going to revolve around Roman times and therefore values and traditions. Rome has long been considered as the founder of modern day civilisation; the strong doggedness on order, tradition, a moral code, righteousness and honour all point to Rome as the didactic leader of the world. Yet this Rome has always been set in contrast to its cruel spectator sports and thirst for blood. Are these not, by modern standards anyway, the signs of ‘barbarism’? Against this backdrop of conflicting ideals Shakespeare introduces other hypocrisies and opposite ideologies to bring readers into the light, or rather into the darker areas of human conflicts where boundary lines are greyed. (Ettin, 1970:329)

Titus is named in I i as a ‘Patron of Virtue, Rome’s best champion...surnamed Pius’, alluding to his strong beliefs and practices.
Obviously all very good qualities to posses. He stands in contrast to Tamora and Aaron who have both been called ‘ravenous tiger(s)’, the two main figures of barbarianism in Titus Andronicus. Titus, being the model man of piety and honour in Rome, so much so that the people have unanimously agreed to offer him the crown, is so set in his traditions that one may say he is blinded by them. He refuses the crown, and instead of offering it to the more virtuous and noble of the previous emperor’s sons, he passes it to Saturninus based on pure tradition and his adherence to it. Shakespeare has put into play the question of tradition as a true and apt measure of decisions; when does an observance of tradition become the wrong gauge by which one evaluates a situation? Strangely enough it is also the Andronici’s strict following of traditions in I i which inevitably leads to their down-fall. Lucius calls for the proper sacrifice to be made in honour of his fallen brothers, and despite the desperate, touching pleas of Tamora, who argues very logically appealing with reason, that her son not be taken from her, Titus refuses her and sends Alarbus to be sacrificed to appease the spirits and the gods. This action prompts two very interesting concepts dealt with in Titus. Firstly that of revenge, for the revenge of his sons’ deaths by the Goths, he has the
‘noblest’ of the Goths killed. The inception of revenge here turns into a motif that will haunt the rest of the play, consume the characters and bring them all to fall. Tamora swears revenge on Titus, so does Saturninus, Chiron and Demetrius ensue revenge on Titus by raping Lavinia, Titus avenges her rape on Tamora; the cycle goes on. The second issue raised is how can Titus, a ‘civilised’ man of Rome, ignore the logical argument of Tamora, who very rightly implores Titus’ sons and her sons were no different: both were much loved by their parent, both fought for the honour of their country, and if Titus knows that pain of loss, why should he inflict it on someone else. Quite cunningly Shakespeare has actually reversed the role of barbarian and civilised man, where we see a very human Tamora and a cold and unforgiving Titus, opposite to the virtue he had been praised with not even twenty lines before. Later on in II ii we will see the revenge exacted on Titus when he is forced to beg for his sons’ lives and is refused, and although we sympathise with him, we still have to question if he has the right to receive such a mercy when he himself gave none to Tamora.
The irony that this ritual is supposed to appease the spirits and the gods, yet whenever the gods are called upon there is no help from them, only serves to show the futility and pointlessness of this piety the Andronici expect to receive from their devotion to ritual. Tamora evens points this as she screams in abjection ‘irreligious piety!’ (I.i.133) and it is this ‘irreligious piety’ with which Chiron and Demetrius become instruments of Tamora’s revenge through the rape of Lavinia. This cycle of vengeance and violence, is reminiscent of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, another play dealing with the values of Rome and revenge, when Antony states ‘violence begets violence’.
It is possible to see this text as a problem play, it certainly has elements of the genre in terms of conflicting ideas and values, yet everyone seeks the same ends using the same means of violence: revenge.
We are constantly called to question who is just and deserves justice, for example is Tamora just in exacting her revenge to such extremes, for the single death of her son, and how far is she to blame for what happens? She doesn’t actually rape Lavinia, nor does she exactly sentence Titus’ two sons, Quintus and Martius, to death for the murder of Bassianus in II ii, Saturninus does, she just agrees. It is obvious that she is evil and wicked, but so the same can be said of Titus, and with Lavinia being the only marker to compare her lack of goodness and kindness to, we cannot fully single her out as someone so wretched and vile, when what she is doing is what has been done unto her by
Titus.
In this respect it is difficult to draw the difference between good and evil, hero and villain, when so much of what happens in the play is circumstance being propagated. The only intrinsic good we are able to see in the text is Lavinia, but her rape and the resulting deformity Chiron and Demetrius inflict upon her makes her, in the eyes of this Roman society, debased and dishonourable. Therefore she may be seen as good in our view, but in the context of the play it is a different story. And it is in this manner Shakespeare sets all tones from black and white in I i, to greys throughout the rest of the play. The difference of perception in an audiences’ belief system to that of the inner world of the play makes it extremely difficult to point out any defined view of anything, be it justice or injustice, honour or dishonour, et cetera (Clemen/McDonald, 2004: 54-57). Although the characters do not necessarily make these distinctions, it Shakespeare makes it evident to his audience and readers that there are definitely questions to be asked, and I i is the foundation of these questions where the discourse and action foreshadows and pre-empts the issues Shakespeare blends together so that we cannot really say whether or not these values are useful, it calls on us to be eclectic and choose how far we stay with honour or tradition, until it is obvious that a compromise be made for the sake of humanity and that extreme resolve in such values can actually lead us further away from civilised behaviour.