|
Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus compared to Ovid's "The Story of Tereus, Procne, and Philomela"
Shakespeare has made several nods to Ovid before, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream directly, with the play of Pyramus and Thisbe; but the rape of Lavinia in Titus Andronicus is in reference to “The Story of Tereus, Procne, and Philomela”. To the left, you can see that Lavinia has had her hands cut off and there is blood streaming from her mouth, as her tongue has been cut out like Philomela’s. In Ovid's telling, Philomela is raped by her brother in-law, Tereus, and she asks him in lines 539-541, “Why not have been my murderer? That crime would have been cleaner…” and she then proceeds to threaten to scream for help (Humphries). Tereus, however, did not kill her, as she would’ve preferred, and instead cuts out her tongue to prevent her from yelling. Lavinia, similarly, begs Tamora to kill her, instead of being sullied by her sons, by saying, “‘Tis present death I beg; and one thing more that womanhood denies my tongue to tell. O’ keep me from their worse than killing lust…. Do this, and be a charitable murderer” (II.iii.173-178). Tamora, like Tereus, denies Lavinia a decent death and lets her sons rape her and cut out her tongue to prevent her from speaking of the murder of her husband, Bassianus, and of the rape.
Throughout act II, scene III, there is mention of “sweet melodious birds”, and Aaron says, “[Bassianus’] Philomel must lose her tongue today”, meaning Lavinia (II.iii.27; II.iii.43). By Lavinia being compared to Philomela, there is a direct parallel in terms of names, both a literal name and a pet name. Later, leading up to the rape, Lavinia asks Tamora, “When did the tiger’s young ones teach the dam”, which can be tied to Ovid’s metaphor in 636-637, to note the un-maternal instincts of both Tamora and Procne (II.iii.142). So, there are many similarities in terms of plot, but also in terms of Shakespeare’s word choice. He continuously mentions birds namely the nightingale, raven, owl and lark. While the direct translation of Ovid’s story shows that Procne and Tereus turn into a swallow and hoopoe, respectively, there are other sources that say Procne and Tereus actually turn into a lark and raven. If we keep with those two birds, then we can conclude that Tamora is Tereus, despite her not committing the rape, as Lavinia states that “ravens foster forlorn children”, meaning Tamora has raised terrible children, Chiron and Demetrius, who are capable of committing such a cruel act (II.iii.153). There is a crucial difference to note between these two tales, in that Lavinia also has her hands cut off, which would then make Ovid’s telling impossible, as Philomela weaves her story into a tapestry. In conclusion, there are similarities to be noted in plot and word choice, and differences in logistics of how Philomela or Lavinia would extract their revenge. In Titus Andronicus, Tamora plays the intellectual role of Tereus, which shows a gender flip as well. All in all, I think that there is a clear parallel between the two stories, but Shakespeare wrote the villains to be smarter and more cruel than Ovid’s antagonist. |
Nec mora, traxit Ityn, veluti Gangetica cervae
lactentem fetum per silvas tigris opacas, utque domus altae partem tenuere remotam, tendentemque manus et iam sua fata videntem et 'Mater! Mater!' clamantem et colla petentem 640 |
ense ferit Procne, lateri qua pectus adhaeret,
nec vultum vertit. Satis illi ad fata vel unum vulnus erat: iugulum ferro Philomela resolvit, vivaque adhuc animaeque aliquid retinentia membra dilaniant. 455 |
In lines 636-637, Ovid presents a metaphor that sets up the murder in the first stanza; he says, “Nec mora, traxit Ityn, veluti Gangetica cervae lactentem fetum per silvas tigris opacas”. By comparing Procne to a tiger and Itys to a fawn, there is a shift from a familial relationship to a raptorial one. By doing this, Ovid shows a change in Procne’s personality and alliances, since she is choosing revenge with her sister at the expense of her own child. Additionally, with the use of “opacas”, Ovid amplifies the mysterious and dangerous elements at play, which continues to build suspense in the story.
In line 640, right before the murder takes place, it is a mostly spondaic line. With “‘Mater! Mater!' clamantem” especially, there is an sense of emotional urgency for Itys, who knows he is about to be killed. In 640-642 he is “colla petentem”, which I interpreted as him trying to hug his mother before she kills him. However, Procne’s greatest betrayal of Itys was not her killing him, it was that she “nec vultum vertit”, in that she did not acknowledge him in his final moments nor did she flinch at killing her own son; thus showing her complete renouncement of maternal instincts.
Additionally, Procne’s abandonment of maternal instincts continues into lines 642-643 when “iugulum ferro Philomela resolvit”, despite “illi ad fata vel unum”. By Procne allowing Philomela to cut Itys’ throat, she denies him a merciful death.
In line 640, right before the murder takes place, it is a mostly spondaic line. With “‘Mater! Mater!' clamantem” especially, there is an sense of emotional urgency for Itys, who knows he is about to be killed. In 640-642 he is “colla petentem”, which I interpreted as him trying to hug his mother before she kills him. However, Procne’s greatest betrayal of Itys was not her killing him, it was that she “nec vultum vertit”, in that she did not acknowledge him in his final moments nor did she flinch at killing her own son; thus showing her complete renouncement of maternal instincts.
Additionally, Procne’s abandonment of maternal instincts continues into lines 642-643 when “iugulum ferro Philomela resolvit”, despite “illi ad fata vel unum”. By Procne allowing Philomela to cut Itys’ throat, she denies him a merciful death.