Titus Andronicus: a critical analysis

Historically, the critical response to William Shakespeare’s earliest Roman drama,Titus Andronicus, ( arguably foremost staged in 1593 ) has complied with the predominating societal, political and philosophical currents since the play’s initial response. More specifically, prior to recent times, ( with the exclusion of the Elizabethan and the Restoration periods ) , history has witnessed the sustained rejection and disapproval of this drama, in the custodies of editors, theatre-critics and literary figures from the Stuart epoch to Edwardian times. The mode of the play’s rejection and the strength of the disapproval, has varied in range and strength.

Smith ( 2004: 192 ) reminds us, with the benefit of hindsight, that “this sensational retaliation calamity is marked by the flashiness and bravura of a younger poet, demoing off both his cognition of classical writers, and his command of a crowd-pleasing popular genre. Weaving an Ovidian narrative into a Senecan retaliation calamity, …Shakespeare revels in the ‘imitatio’ that structured the transmittal of Latin literature to the Elizabethan elite and those draw a bead oning to fall in it.”

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Furthermore, harmonizing to Smith ( 2004: 193 ) , the Elizabethans were offered more than a well-known dosage of Seneca, which had underscored the popular Renaissance retaliation dramas, such as Thomas Kyd’sThe Spanish Calamity. She contends Shakespeare subverted the Roman impression of ‘pietas’ , through parodic imitation, but besides attacked “the humanistic appropriation of Rome’s textual bequest from grammar school through university in Shakespeare’s England.”

In malice of this retrospective lift of Titus Andronicus’ literary virtue, ( which is likely spawned from the stylish paradigm of New Historicism ) , with the outgrowth of the Stuart Kings, the renunciation of the drama began in ernest. The moral repugnance felt towards Titus’ inordinate force ; humiliation and physical anguish ; bodily mutilation and even dismemberment finds its first look in the Stuart period.

Molly Smith in her article, Spectacles of Torment in Titus Andronicus ( 1996: 1 ) , draws our attending to George R Scott’s observations, that anguish was used often and justified in the name of subject and penalty, “reaching its greatest ecumenity in the reign of Elizabeth.” Smith’s decisions seems plausible, that “this explains Shakespeare’s trust on the spectacle of anguish in this Elizabethan calamity and his ulterior going to an geographic expedition of psychological torture in dramas such as Macbeth and King Lear. Smith ( 1996:1 ) furthermore, draws our attending to Pieter Spierenburg’s observations, that “mutilation, which was common among the Tudors, became less popular in the class of the 17th century, the early Stuart period even registering what he describes as an increasing repugnance against mutilation.” These societal alterations entirely would travel some distance to account for the newfound mid 17Thursdaycentury repulsion towards Titus Andronicus. For the play’s litany of slayings, human forfeit, severed custodies and caputs ; is compounded by the colza, slaying, and taking apart of Lavinia ; every bit good as the act of cannibalism. Furthermore, Smith ( 1996:1 ) notes that as new anti-torture values solidified, climaxing in the legal abolishment of anguish in 1640, Shakespeare’s connexion between villainousness and prolonged agony in this early Roman drama, lost its moral principle.

Smith draws our attending to another pattern which was losing public support in the 17Thursdaycentury, which would assist to turn the Elizabethan gusto for Titus Andronicus. Smith notes, ( 1996:1 ) that Karin Coddon underlines the wrongness of executings, for “ in seventeenth-century England, the spectacle of penalty was clearly going every bit ambiguous as the ‘fiendish ‘ nature of its faithless objects, a presentation of sovereignty ‘s powerlessness every bit good as power. ”

The Stuart period is besides underscored by the passage of Shakespeare from apprentice playwright, to the “ patronaged playwright” , to mention Kernan. ( 1995: 1 ) After 1603 Kernan ( 1995:1 ) believes Shakespeare’s plants addressed the premier affairs impacting his royal frequenter ; viz. the divine-right kingship in Lear, the corruptness of the tribunal in Antony, and the troubles of the old military nobility in Coriolanus. Kernan positions Shakespeare’s works as going subservient to the demands of the royal tribunal.

Smith ( 1996:1 ) has drawn our attending to the political branchings of the representation of the hanging of Aaron in Titus Andronicus, adorned with “the eloquent and limitless address by the victim on the scaffold.” She notes that the purpose of this convention, ( to reenforce the power of the jurisprudence ) , was frequently subverted. Smith ( 1996:1 ) remarks that when the balance was non justly struck, between the actions of the heartache afflicted evildoer, the witnesss detecting the passage of royal justness, or the rightful actions of the hangman as an instrument of the jurisprudence, the lesson would be lost. This convention that became platitude by the Stuart period, could non afford the voice of an Aaron on the scaffold, showing a defiant and impenitent spirit.

With the coming of the Restoration period, showing in the return of the English monarchy from expatriate in 1660, the abrasiveness of the puritanical cultural surroundings under Oliver Cromwell, gave manner to a new involvement in the cosmetic humanistic disciplines, following the enthronement of Charles the Second. This alleged Carolean manner saw the coming of European influences, easing the manner for experimentalism. Not surprisingly within this societal and political model, harmonizing to Shaw ( 2003:1 ) Edward Ravenscroft published the first version in 1687, titledTitus Andronicus: or, the Rape of Lavinia, while underscoring the function of Aaron, Ravenscroft commented that the original ‘seems instead a pile of trash than a construction. ‘

There was a partial revival in involvement in the original Titus Andronicus during the latter portion of the Restoration period. Vickers ( 1974: 188 ) cites John Downes in 1708, saying, “Downes records how, shortly after the Restoration, Killigrew ‘s Company performed ( unchanged versions of ) Othello, Henry IV, Julius Caesar, The Merry Wives of Windsor and Titus Andronicus. ] These being Old Plays, were acted but now and so ; yet being good execute ‘d, were really satisfactory to the town.

Vickers ( 1974:460 ) records the sentiment from Lewis Theobald on redacting Shakespeare 1729-30. Theobold stated, ‘there is something so brutal and unnatural in the fable, and so much rubbish in the enunciation, even beneath the three parts of Henry VI, that I am really much inclined to believe it was non one of our Author ‘s ain composings but merely introduced by him and honoured with some of his consummate touches. The narrative I suppose to be simply fabricated. Andronicus is a name of pure Greek derivation ; Tamora I can happen no where else mentioned ; nor had Rome, in the clip of her Emperors, any wars with the Goths that I know of ; non till after the interlingual rendition of the empire-I mean, to Byzantium. But, to take it with all its absurdities.”

Furthermore, Vickers ( 1995:560 ) cites Benjamin Heath from his 1765 text, A Revisal of Shakespeare’s Text. Heath is scathing in his comments, asseverating that Titus Andronicus is “shocking and puerile, without the least visual aspect of art or behavior. The characters are unnatural and indistinguishable, or instead perfectly none, whereas those of Shakespeare are ever strongly pronounced beyond those of any other poet that of all time lived.”

While the Georgian Era is typically divided into the three periods of Neo-Classicism, ( 1714-1750 ) , Sentimentalism ( 1750-1780 ) and Romanticism ( 1780-1820 ) , the adoration of Shakespeare in England was peculiarly a feature of the Sentamentalist period. This belief in the virtuousnesss of Shakespeare, strengthened the column ideal, that Titus Andronicus, could non hold come from the head or pen of Shakespeare. As Vickers ( 1996: 15 ) notes, “the most influential of these sentimental biographers was Edmond Malone, at first in the Supplement ( 1780 ) which he published as an extension of the 1778 Johnson—Steevens edition.” Vickers ( 1996:17 ) further observes that Shakespeare was “idolised…for his excellence under some of the Neo-classic classs for play ( command over the passions ; making characters from nature ; rightness of linguistic communication ) .” With these stenosiss steadfastly in topographic point, it is non difficult to see why Titus Andronicus remained a disfranchised drama in this period of History.

Furthermore, Vickers ( 1996:7 ) indicates there are many ailments about Shakespeare’s “general offenses against decorum—that is, at one degree, criterions of polite or sensible behavior, which would except saltiness, lewdness, force, or the mixture of societal ranks. Many of Francis Gentleman’s notes on Shakespeare reflect absolutely typical eighteenth-century feelings of indignation, against the ‘indecent’ behavior of Claudius in Measure for Measure” , allow entirely Titus Andronicus.

The moralistic paradigm which prevailed in the Late Georgian period, thanks to the broad spread influence of Samuel Johnston and others, weighed the literary and aesthetic virtue of texts chiefly in relation to the quality of their ethical content. Vickers ( 1996: 104 ) cites Francis Gentleman, from his 1774 column notes in Bell’s Edition of Shakespeare’s Plays. The ethical value of a text to its society is explicitly and shamelessly promoted as the step of a text’s worth. Vickers ( 1996: 104 ) cites Gentleman saying, “without some apparent usage to society in general no literary production, nevertheless notional or plausible, can claim appraisal. Upon this rule, though in different parts Titus Andronicus bears strong, nay evident, Markss of Shakespeare’s pen yet he has fixed upon such characters and incidents as are wholly violative. Human nature is shown in a most partial and distressing province ; depraved as we sometimes find it, it is scarce to be imagined that such an infernal group as is huddled together in this piece could run into in so little a compass. Hence this drama must be horrid in representation, and is disgusting in perusing. Indeed it is affair of great inquire how Shakespeare’s humane bosom could digest the contemplation of such cold actions and events, through the class of five Acts of the Apostless.

A farther case of the manner texts were appraised upon the remarkable standard of ethical import and their ability to enlighten one’s modern-day society, is noted by Vickers ( 1996:104 ) when he cites Elizabeth Griffith in The Morality of Shakespeare’s Drama illustrated ( 1775 ) , Shakespeare and domestic morality. Griffith indicated, “I should conceive of, from the many shocking eyeglassess exhibited in this drama, that it could ne’er hold been represented on any theater except the Lisbon scaffold, where the Duke d’Aveiro, the Marquis of Tavora, were so barbarously massacred for the supposed Jesuits’ secret plan against the present male monarch of Portugal. And yet Ben Jonson assures us that it was performed in his clip with great hand clapping ; and we are besides told that it was revived once more, in the reign of Charles the Second, with the same success. The different tempers and gustatory sensations of times! It would be non merely hissed but driven off the phase at present.”

Bradley ( 1938:526 ) indicates that “Victorian literature was written in the chief for the people, and reflected the pressing societal jobs and doctrines of a complex epoch. The age was prevailingly one of societal restraints and tabu, reminiscent in this regard of the Puritan period.” With this in head, it is barely surprising that a drama such as Titus Andronicus was mostly ignored. Bradley farther notes that the chief intent of the author was a moral one, and the least favoured signifier of literature was play.

The 18Thursdayand 19Thursdaycentury critical disapproval of Titus Andronicus, ( all affairs of authorship coaction and speculation aside ) , reflects the dictates of the outgrowth of neoclassicism. The romanticism of “Nature” and “Art” saw a conventionalized remembrance through the Humanistic disciplines of the alleged ‘classical period’ , including appropriations of the values and gustatory sensations of ancient Roman society. It was no surprise thatTitus and Andronicus’s blood lecherousness and entire decomposition of the value of household, was viewed as a misdemeanor of the false bedrock of classical civilization.

Jonathan Bate ( 1993:1 ) notes that when Britain was imperialistic in the eighteenth and 19th century, Shakespeare ‘s Julius Caesar was cardinal to the instruction and character-formation of blue blood, politician and imperial civil retainer likewise. True Britons were non, nevertheless, encouraged to see Shakespeare ‘s other Rome, the bloody universe of his first calamity, Titus Andronicus. The drama was so flooring to tender esthesias and so insurgent of the Roman ideal that it was barely of all time staged and was often said to be by person other than Shakespeare. You could non hold the National Poet dirtying himself with a barbarian banquet of colza, taking apart and cannibalism.

Its Resurrection was merely realised on history of a generous gift, as Marder ( 1993:1 ) notes, “a gift of ?25,000 by Sir George Dance in 1914 made it possible to set up the Old Vic Theatre as “ The Home of Shakespeare ” in London. The Old Vic production of Titus Andronicus in 1916, in memorialization of the tercentennial of the decease of Shakespeare, made it the first theater to hold produced all of his plays.”

Shaw ( 1993: 1 ) contends that, “the foremost critically acclaimed production of modern times was Peter Brook ‘s 1955 production at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre ( renamed Royal Shakespeare Theatre in 1961 ) , with Laurence Olivier as a bored Titus, Vivian Leigh as Lavinia, and Antony Quayle as Aaron. The force was stylised throughout with Lavinia ‘s lesions famously portrayed by gory streamers from carpuss and oral cavity. For many, this was the first clip the drama ‘s disparate elements had been presented as a satisfying, incorporate whole. This was a landmark production for both the drama and the immature director.”

Peter Brook himself remarked in Stratford in 1955, ‘when the notices of Titus Andronicus came out, giving us full Markss for salvaging your awful drama, I could non assist experiencing a pang of guilt. For to state the truth, it had non occurred to any of us in dry run that the drama was so bad. ‘ [ 1 ] Arkins asserts, “the significance of Seneca for Shakespeare and for our clip can be gauged from the following citation from Peter Brook, the existent entreaty of Titus ( over theoretically “ greater ” dramas like Hamlet and Lear ) was that abstract – stylized – Roman classical though it appeared to be, it was evidently for everyone in the audience about the most modern of emotions – about force, hatred, inhuman treatment, pain – in a signifier that because unrealistic, transcended the anecdote and became for each audience rather abstract and therefore wholly existent.

In even more recent times, the turning credence of this ‘prodigal son’ , and readoption of Titus within the Shakespearean canon, is due to two chief grounds, each of which reflects our modern cultural and philosophical surroundings. Literary analysts find far greater resonance in the play’s intervention of human psychological science and political relations than has antecedently been the instance. Contrary to Samuel Johnson’s appraisal that, ‘the atrocity of the eyeglassess, and the general slaughter which are here exhibited, can barely be conceived tolerable to any audience, ‘ or influential literary figure and modernist, T.S Eliot’s appraisal, ‘one of the stupidest and most uninspired dramas of all time written, ‘ possibly show a society so enured to force, we look beyond it to analyze the psychological science of offense and the human status within the modern universe of the 21 st century.

In the current aesthetic context of self-reflexivity and paradox, bookmans such as Bate ( 1993:1 ) can confirm that, “Shakespeare was a contrarian. He took the platitudes of his age and stood them on their heads-or possibly sliced off their caputs and baked them in a pasty. Rome was synonymous with civilisation and the Goths with brutality. So Shakespeare considers the possibility that Rome was merely every bit brutal as the Gothic forest. Roman Stoicism proposed that it was healthy to maintain your emotions under tight restraint. So Shakespeare voices the demand to give your feelings blowhole ( ‘Sorrow concealed, like an oven stopped, / Doth burn the bosom to clinkers where it is ‘ ) . The jurisprudence prescribed that penalty should be left to the justness system, so Shakespeare dramatised the primal-though finally self-destructive-attraction of moving out retaliation for oneself. A girl has been raped and mutilated: the jurisprudence is non at that place to assist ( even the hapless Clown goes from pursuit for imperial justness to arbitrary executing ) , so Titus raises the bets and thinks of a retaliation so horrid that it outdoes the original offense. This is but an utmost version of an inherent aptitude that is still with us: the constabulary make nil about the burglaries, so out comes the pump-action shotgun.”

Furthermore, Deborah Warner directed a full text production in the intimate infinite of the Swan for the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1987. Harmonizing to Shaw ( 1993:1 ) , the emotional power and unblinking word picture of force had great impact and the production gained a well-earned repute for doing members of the audience of swoon. The production was lauded by critics and audiences and demonstrated for the first clip that the drama does non needfully necessitate to be cut to be a theatrical success. Gregory Doran ( 1995 ) directed a production at the West Yorkshire Playhouse, which besides toured South Africa. Antony Sher played Titus and the production made expressed analogues to South African political relations. Since Shakespeare ‘s age, Titus Andronicus has ne’er been considered one of the cardinal dramas in the Shakespearian canon. Harmonizing to Shaw ( 1993:1 ) managers, such as Peter Brook and Deborah Warner, have produced influential productions ( in 1955 and 1987 severally ) that caused the drama to be re-evaluated.

Finally, harmonizing to Mowatt ( 2005: 1 ) the debut to the New Folger Library Shakespeare Edition presents a position of the drama, which finds modern-day ethical resonance. Viewed as a statement of transportation of truenesss, from Titus’ initial absolute trueness to the Roman province, grounds of his civic virtuousness found in his anterior victory on the battleground and in his willingness to pass his ain blood in the service of widening and continuing the imperium. Mowatt ( 2005:1 ) iterates that, he has led 21 of his 25 boies to decease in Rome ‘s wars. Titus’ evident deficiency of patriarchal responsibility to his household, is revived when Titus comes to appreciate that under the sway of the new emperor Saturninus and his bride Tamora, Rome has become “ a wilderness of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelams ” and that “ Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelams must feed, and Rome affords no quarry / But me and mine. ” He is brought to this acknowledgment by the decease sentence imposed on two of his three staying boies, a sentence that teaches him that the Roman tribunes are “ more difficult than rocks. ” About instantly he is faced with the awful colza and mutilation suffered by his lone girl. With his realization that justness has fled from Rome and that his and his family’s forfeits are now as nil, Titus turns his fierce trueness off from the province and toward his household entirely. Many scenes in the latter half of the drama show him in the company of his brother, girl, and grandson, a foursome wholly devoted to each other and joined in common compassion for the household ‘s atrocious agony.

In decision, the silencing ofTitus and Andronicusfrom the Shakespearean canon, the phase, or the topic of scholarly analysis ; finally reflects the values of the predominating societal and philosophical surroundings.

Bibliography

  • Adams, J.Q.Shakespeare ‘s Titus Andronicus: The First Quarto, 1594, Reproduced in Facsimile from the Unique Copy in the Folger Shakespeare Library, New York, C. Scribner ‘s Sons, 1936.
  • Bradley, W.A Survey-History of English LiteratureBarnes & A ; Noble, New York. 1938
  • Kernan, A. Shakespeare,The Kings Playwright: Theater in the Stuart Court, 1603-1613Yale Univ Press 1995
  • Marder, L.His Exits and His Entrances: The Story of Shakespeare ‘s Repute. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1963
  • Smith, E.Shakespeare’s Calamities, Blackwell Guides to Criticism, Malden, MA, Blackwell, 2004
  • Vickers, B.William Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage. Volume: 2. Routledge.London. 1974
  • Vickers, B.William Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage. Volume: 3. Routledge.London. 1995.
  • Vickers, B.William Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage. Volume: 4. Routledge.London. 1995.

Webliography

  • hypertext transfer protocol: //www.rsc.org.uk/titus/about/who.html Royal Shakespeare Company, ( 2003 ) Jim Shaw, Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham Accessed March 30, 2007,
  • hypertext transfer protocol: //www.bard.org/education/resources/shakespeare/titusfuture.html Titus Andronicus: Looking to the Future with Potential, Jerry L. Crawford, Midsummer Magazine 1990, accessed March 30, 2007
  • hypertext transfer protocol: //www.rsc.org.uk/titus/about/who.html, ‘Rome is but a Wilderness of Tigers’ , J. Bate, accessed March 30, 2007
  • hypertext transfer protocol: //www.folger.edu/template.cfm? cid=1033 New Folger Library Shakespeare edition, edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. 2005 Folger Shakespeare Library, accessed March 30, 2007

Articles

  • Smith, Molly E. ; “Spectacles of Torment in ‘Titus Andronicus” , in Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 36, Gale, 1996

1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *