Titus Andronicus is a play marked by acts of horrific violence and littered with death and the destruction of others. Each violent act, however, serves to explain and sometimes encourage the motives of the play's memorable characters and impart a very tightly knotted plot. The structure of the play employs well-defined heroes and villains. Revenge is their key motivating factor. All of these elements combine to form a cohesive plot and contribute to the overall success of the story.
Shakespeare's sources for the play are quite clear. He makes it no secret that the rape of Lavinia is analogous to the rape of Philomela in Ovid's Metamorphosis. In this tale, The daughter of the King of Athens, Procne, marries the King of Thrace, Tereus, and the two of them have a son, Itys. After a number of years, Procne desperately wishes to see her sister, Philomela, and sends Tereus back to Athens to bring her to Thrace. When Tereus sees Philomela, he becomes obsessed with her and carries her into the forest, rapes her and cuts out her tongue to prevent her from telling anyone. Upon returning to Thrace, he informs his wife that Philomela is dead. In the meantime, Philomela weaves her story into a cloth and sends it to Procne. Procne becomes so enraged by this knowledge that she and Philomela plot and kill Itys, cook his flesh and serve it to Tereus. He discovers their ploy and tries to kill them, but Philomela is changed into a nightingale, Procne a swallow and Tereus a hoopoe (Bullough, vi. 48-58).
This exhibits a very distinct parallel. Demetrius and Chiron used the same measures to prevent Lavinia from disclosing their deeds, though Shakespeare (always improving on his sources) took away Lavinia's hands to prevent her from weaving or even writing her assaulters' names (II. I.). Titus's actions are similar to those of Philomela and Procne as well -- in an act of revenge, he bakes Demetrius and Chiron into a pastry which he feeds to the breeders of his pain (V. iii.). This similarity is not limited to the characters' actions, however; Metamorphosis is mentioned in the play on several occasions. This analogy is first brought out by Lavinia in Act IV, scene one. The young Lucius has a copy of the book which Lavinia uses to explain how she was "Ravished and wronged, as Philomela was . . . " (IV. I. 52). The book is also mentioned in Act V, scene three, when Titus asks Saturninus,
"My lord the Emperor, resolve me this: Was it well done of rash Virginius [Philomela's father] To slay his daughter with his own right hand, Because she was enforced, stained, and deflowered?" (V. iii. 35-8)Shortly after Saturninus answers in the affirmative, Titus follows Virginius's lead and kills Lavinia. These occurrences are not the only unmistakable likenesses, however.
Another popular tale that was published during Shakespeare's lifetime is that of wicked Moorish servant who is wronged by his master and swears to exact his revenge. One day while the master is out hunting, the Moor traps the master's wife and two children in their moated tower by raising the drawbridge. The panicking mistress alarms her neighbors who alert her husband in the forest. When the master arrives, the Moor kills one child and then the other on top of the tower and drops their bodies into the moat. The husband pleads for his wife's safe returns and the Moor agrees to grant it -- at a price. He demands that the master cut off his own nose in exchange for her life. Without scrupling, the husband does so, only to see the Moor drop the lady to her death. The master instantly dies of shock which incites the Moor to uncontrollable laughter, after which he leaps to his own death to avoid being captured (Bullough, vi. 13-15). This story most likely inspired Shakespeare to create the Moor in his play. The method in which Aaron ransoms Titus's sons in exchange for a hand mirrors the aforementioned tale (III. I.). Aaron knows that the Emperor will not accept this exchange and he comments to that effect in an aside, immediately followed by laughter (III. I. 201-02). The hand is delivered to the Emperor but is rebuked and returned with the heads of Quintus and Martius, Titus's sons. This very grisly display is only one of the numerous gruesome acts in the play.
Titus Andronicus is by far the goriest of Shakespeare's plays. Although there are over a dozen lurid acts either implied or presented on the stage, it is not so much the quantity of violent acts as the severity of these acts. It is not an uncommon sight for someone to be run through on Shakespeare's stage. Eight instances of this familiar form of "character pruning" occur in the play. What is unusual are sights like Lavina wandering about the stage, handless, stained from head to toe in blood with much of the flow emanating from her mouth. There are other atypical violent displays: Aaron lopping off Titus's left hand, the return of the hand accompanied by the heads of his sons, Titus slitting the throats of Demetrius and Chiron while Lavinia gathers their blood in a bowl and Tamora, et. al, eating pastries made from Demetrius and Chiron's bones and blood. The purpose of such unprecedented acts is the subject of scholarly debate. One explanation is that Shakespeare is attempting to appeal to the groundlings in the theater. Another explanation is that he is trying to push the limit of his company's "special effects" ability. Yet another explanation is that the Bard is appealing to a trend of violence in the plays of his contemporaries. It is not likely that Shakespeare would try to write exclusively for the satisfaction of the groundlings. They pay the least to get in to the Globe, and these gruesome acts would more likely discourage the upper crust who pay several times more than the groundlings to attend. This would not be an intelligent financial move for the playwright. It is noted that bloody public executions and animal-baiting were popular in Elizabethan times (Waith 67). Why then, would anyone go to a play and pay to see second rate gore when they could get the real thing for free? For these reasons it does not seem likely that Shakespeare was financially motivated to add these horrors. It could be that the playwright was inspired by the "special effects" knavery of another company or passing jugglers, who often performed "tricks which made it seem as if a hand or a head was chopped off" (qtd. in Waith 137). This idea is feasible but very difficult to prove. The most likely explanation is that "Shakespeare may have decided to outdo his predecessors" by improving upon past incidences of violence on the Elizabethan stage (Waith 65). Shakespeare's attempt to one-up his competition is made easier with the addition of two purely wicked characters -- Tamora, queen of the Goths, and Aaron the Moor.
Tamora's motives are no secret. In Act I, scene one, her eldest son is sacrificed by Titus's sons.
"Away with him, and make a fire straight, And with our swords upon a pile of wood Let's hew his limbs till they be clean consumed." (I. I. 127-9)This act, coupled with the defeat of her people and her imprisonment motivate Tamora to seek her revenge on Titus and his sons. She accomplishes this task by framing Quintus and Martius for the death of Bassianus. The Emperor has no choice but to put Titus's sons to death. She then pursues her retribution with Titus with the help of Aaron. In a certain respect, her necessity seek revenge is called for -- she must avenge her sons and her people. In other respects, however, Tamora uses dubious methods to accomplish her task. Her personal character could also be criticized when she uses Saturninus to attain power and has an adulterous affair with Aaron. Just associating with this wicked character is questionable.
Aaron the Moor is evil incarnate. According to Waith, "his blackness is seen as emblematic" (64). The language of Shakespeare supports this claim readily. In Act III, scene two, Marcus kills a fly and likens it to Aaron. "It was a black ill-favoured fly, Like to the Empress' Moor; therefore I killed him" (III. ii. 66-7). Aaron is often found defending his color: "Is black so base a hue?" (IV. ii. 71), and "Coal-black is better than another hue ..." (IV. ii. 99). The rhetoric of the play often implies that there is some correlation between the color of Aaron's skin and his evilness. Even Aaron won't allow us to make any mistake about his character. In one of his final speeches he boasts:
"Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did Would I perform, if I might have my will. If one good deed in all my life I did, I do repent it from my very soul." (V. iii. 186-9)From statements like these one could even infer him to be the devil himself. Aaron is one of the most enigmatic and memorable characters that Shakespeare ever penned. He is often compared to Richard III because of his villainy, and because we tend to become wrapped up in his evil schemes. Also, like Richard III, the character of Aaron the Moor has a great deal of staying power, and we continue to see characters like him four-hundred years later.
Titus Andronicus is very successful as a tragedy. Second guessing of the character's actions is held to a minimum because most of the tragedy is imposed by the other characters' revenge tactics. The notable characters are easily distinguishable because of their very distinct personalities. Titus and Aaron are a prime example of this type of opposition. The solid plot, memorable characters and striking depiction of violence combine to make Titus Andronicus one of Shakespeare's best works.
Bullough, Geoffrey. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare , 8 vols. (1964-75)
Waith, Eugene M. ed. Titus Andronicus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1984.