275 1 Wilderness of Tigers': Structure and Symbolism in Titus Andronicus ALAN SOMMERS Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eic/article/X/3/275/510971 by guest on 30 September 2021 I IN SPITE of the achievements of recent years, in imaginative scholarship and the reintegration of the known works of Shake- speare, certain plays remain largely unaccounted for. One of these, Titus Andronicus, has for long been handled with the utmost caution, except in depreciatory comment; it now begins to reveal startling significance. A reassessment had better begin, if only for tactical reasons, with a few critical reservations. Already there is small justification left for doubting the authen- ticity of any considerable part of the play. It is also clear that the over-emphasised 'horrors' would have been much less offen- sive on the mainly non-visual Elizabethan stage. The presence of such surviving crudities does not evidence in the poet any essential brutality, but there is, in the strained and luxuriant pathos of his writing, an element of cruelty, or aesthetic sadism. There is also in the drama much of what Wilson Knight has termed 'the comedy of the grotesque' in another tragedy: be- sides the consciousness of fearful dream, the persons suffer an insistent awareness, sometimes explicit in their words, that their torment is but the 'sport' of superior powers; if one is reminded, not of Puck, but of the well-known complaint of Gloucester in King Lear, this may prove disconcerting, where the emotional complexity of later tragedies is lacking. Perhaps the latter consideration helps to explain why this serious and ambitious drama has seemed to ingenious but un- comprehending critics as burlesque. There is certainly some reason in the harsh judgment that has quite generally been passed upon it. Others, with Professor Clemen, remain unable to discover in the personalities any 'source and essential founda- tion' for the 'great effects'. But a real power, the more so for artistic phrasing, is rarely found explicable with truth in terms 276 ESSAYS IN CRITICISM of current psychology and morality. Such was the failure of the 'character critics', and one may not assume, as certain modern critics do, that these inhering errors can be safely dated. Eliza- bethan ideas, even could we experience them as Elizabethans, would not necessarily be of better service. Now the play by its effects detonates a vision of powers working within its own mythical-historical plan. This involves what might be termed Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eic/article/X/3/275/510971 by guest on 30 September 2021 an 'historical intuition'. If conceived to-day, such an intuition would take the form of a political concept, but to Shakespeare or Virgil it would have meant much more. To us it is primarily a poetic idea, a newly-discerned thread by which the play must now be interpreted. The essential conflict in Titus Andronicus is the struggle between Rome, and all that this signifies in the European tradi- tion to which we, and Shakespeare, belong, and the barbarism of primitive, original nature. It is this opposition which realises itself in the play's striking events and startling atmospheric con- trasts. Both the opposing principles are indigenous to Shake- speare's world: a nature-bound vitality almost characterises the poet's early work, while the Roman idea, pervasive in the historical plays and elsewhere, is fairly central, finally entwin- ing itself with the thought of England's destiny in Cymbdine. A poetic conception, composite both of traditional and of genu- inely classical values, as Roman 'virtue', 'justice', 'piety'—the words all recur significantly in Titus Andronicus—is in this earlier vision threatened by forces of unregenerate barbarism, comprising natural gifts and some natural instinct, but con- stituting a specific reaction from civilisation, religion and humanity. The conflict in some respects resembles that of Antony and Cleopatra, though there is no intertwining and sublimation as in the later play, and one side is strongly anti- pathetic. The opposition is stark, and the drama leaves it un- resolved. Nevertheless, a most interesting pattern of values becomes evident. In the opening scene there is strong and vivid ethical feeling. It may, perhaps, seem strange to use such terms; 'ethic' and 'value' would be remote abstractions and the play a mere melo- drama but for the way in which the dramatist insists upon such reference. It is in these terms that one must speak of the cruelty 'TITUS ANDRONICUS' 277 of Titus in countenancing the ritual murder of the eldest son of the captive queen. This error releases the whole conflict; it is the source of the tragedy. The evil character of the decision is underlined. There is Tamora's plea for mercy: Wilt thou draw near the nature of the gods? Draw near them then in being merciful; Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eic/article/X/3/275/510971 by guest on 30 September 2021 Sweet mercy is nobility's true badge. (Li.117) which, if not 'in character', suffices at least to stamp the episode as Shakespearian and to condemn the act, by reference to Chris- tian values, similarly invoked in other plays. But the deed is also to be felt as repugnant to the true Roman character as con- ceived by Shakespeare, which is apparent in the noble words of the Roman Lucius of a later play {Cymbdine V.v.75-83). It seems to derive none the less from an authentic Roman virtue, 'piety'. The Andronici are distinguished by family piety, and in this value, an aspect of the Virgilian pietas, lies their real strength. But a virtue such as this is not, alone, sufficient. Others may possess it equally, as Tamora says (I.i.114-115). Her subse- quent complaint is no less just: O cruel, irreligious piety! (Li.130) What is lacking is not only the 'mercy' pleaded for but also, more precisely, pity. 'Here piety lives on in pity dead', as Dante, with Latin ruthlessness, has expressed it. The word is to be re- iterated as we see that the quality is more completely lacking in the non-Roman party. Tamora, splendid animal but barbaric, is pitiless. At the end Lucius is to declare that Her life was beast-like, and devoid of pity; And, being so, shall have like want of pity. (V.iii.199) Lavinia, in the terrible forest scene, implores her to be 'some- thing pitiful', like the lions and ravens (II.iii.150-156). She refuses: 'I know not what it means' (157). Of Titus she says: Even for his sake am I pitiless. (II.iii.162) The initial crime of the protagonist is not glossed over, and it is not excused. But while it is logical that Rome's want of pity should be avenged on the Andronici by a subsequent trans- 278 ESSAYS IN CRITICISM fcrcncc of power to pitiless barbarism, and though our inevit- able sympathy with Rome is strained to the utmost by this very impressive opening, there is no doubt as to which side must ultimately maintain its right. The Andronici, strong in 'piety', are, like the hero of the Oresteia, finally justified. Lucius be- comes Emperor. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eic/article/X/3/275/510971 by guest on 30 September 2021 II The structure of the tragedy has one important characteristic: the whole action develops from, depends upon, and in a sense returns to, the opening situation. The opposition already de- fined, of ideal civilisation and barbarism, coincides obviously with the separation of the dramatic persons into two parties, 'good' and evil', which is one of many points of resemblance between this play and King Lear. There is, however, a more intricate series of contrasts: the juxtaposition and interaction of persons, incidents and impressions serve to develop, and add to the significance of, the main conflict, which forms the core of the poet's conception. A fine symbolic juxtaposition opens the play. The speeches of the two contestants or the Empire are of interest here: Saturninus. Noble patricians, patrons of my right, Defend the justice of my cause with arms; And, countrymen, my loving followers, Plead my successive title with your swords . Bassianus. Romans, friends, followers, favourers of my right, If ever Bassianus . Were gracious in the eyes of royal Rome . suffer not dishonour to approach The imperial seat, to virtue consecrate, To justice, continence, and nobility; and let desert in pure election shine, And, Romans, fight for freedom in your choice. (I.i.i, 9, 11, 13) The speech of Bassianus demands attention. Its penetrative colouring of imaginative positives in contrast to evil suggests 'TITUS ANDRONICUS' 279 the later Shakespeare, of Banquo's speeches, and Malcolm's catalogue of the 'king-becoming graces', in Macbeth. As fre- quently with Shakespeare, the Roman Empire is seen, through mediaeval tradition, in conjunction with the principle of Chris- tian royalty. Yet classical republican ideals, opposed to the im- perial spirit in Julius Caesar, are here specifically included. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eic/article/X/3/275/510971 by guest on 30 September 2021 Bassianus's subsequent speeches in the scene show a similar colouring, and he himself typifies that Roman character which persistently excites the poet's instinctive admiration. The speech of Saturninus differs, particularly, in tone, its halting move- ment conveying his uneasiness as he falls back upon personal dignity and primogeniture. He is a 'degenerate' type. But the conflict is, in fact, yet more dramatic. Bassianus, conscious of inferior claims as an individual (63), stands for the ideal, per- haps mainly to create a 'pure election', but this ideal is immedi- ately relevant, 'dishonour' referring not to a threat of armed force, which both sides offer, but to Saturninus, the betrayer of Rome, who is judged throughout by the standard which Bas- sianus invokes, and represents.