Oliva Getting The Short End Of The Stick

Shakespeare plays are mostly known for having a huge conflict and towards the end it works toward a “tidy” ending where social order is restored and couples are paired off to have a happy ever after. But for the Shakespeare play Twelfth Night it’s quite interesting how at one point we are rooting for Oliva for going after her man ‘Cesario’ because instead of just sitting around and waiting for him to come to her like a typical situation that was expected from a woman during that time by being silent. She is the one taking control by proposing to him and also breaking away from the idea that she should marry a man of the same age and social status. Granted “he” was really Viola it was still awesome to see a woman character taking control of the situation and acting rebellious.

But all of that was lost towards the end of the play because even after Viola reveals the big secret that she isn’t ‘Cesario’ but instead a girl, one would expect to see Oliva be one to hold a grudge and become infuriated for being the most deceived. But instead she disappoints us all with just quickly moving on to loving, Viola’s look-alike brother Sebastian. Who she knows nothing about because it was Viola who was the one who caught Oliva’s eye, not Sebastian. Oliva easily was able to transfer all of her passion for ‘Cesario’ into a relationship with Sebastian when she marries Viola's look-alike brother.

Yet somehow her marriage to Sebastian helps to reestablish the play's sense of social order because it leads back to how Shakespeare’s play almost always ends with marriage and that would pretty much lead to reestablishing the order in the world. Oliva’s character was a huge disappointment and the ending was quite awful because it portrayed her as pretty much willing to settle down for anyone. Which leads to the conclusion that she couldn’t become independent but rather have a male figure in her life in order to feel a sense of belonging.

Why Borrowing Isn't Theft: The Influence of Metamorphasis on Titus Andronicus

            It is no secret that Shakespeare borrowed, mixed, and refined stories with traditional origins to create many of his works.  Romeo and Juliet was largely derived from The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562, as well as Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1567.  Hamlet originated from the legend of Amleth, while all of his historical plays, such as Henry V, take influence from their real life counterparts.  I say this not to criticize Shakespeare as a copier or cheat, but to argue that his method of subverting many of the stories he borrowed from contain an equal amount of merit as an original work.  While Philamela’s rape scene in Ovid’s Metamorphasis is similar to Lavina’s rape in Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare’s subversion of the tale by instituting changes in Philamela’s character change the implications of the narrative.

            Interestingly, Ovid’s Metamorphasis is mentioned in the play itself, when Lavinia uses it to help explain to Titus and Marcus what happened to her during the attack. In the sixth book of Metamorphoses, Ovid explains the story of the Philomela’s rape. Philomela's sister, Procne, marries Tereus of Thrace and has a son for him, Itys. After five years in Thrace, Procne yearns to see her sister Philomela in Athens. Tereus, Procne, and Philomela travel to Athens and accompany Philomela back to Thrace. Tereus begins to lust after Philomela. When she refuses his advances, he drags her into a forest and rapes her.  Just as in Titus Andronicus, he proceeds to cut out her tongue to prevent her telling anyone of the incident, and tells Philomela’s sister that she has died. However, Philomela weaves a painting in which she names Tereus as her assailant, and has it sent to Procne. The sisters meet in the forest and together they plot their revenge. They kill Itys and cook his body in a pie, which Procne then serves to Tereus. During the meal, Philomela reveals herself, showing Itys' head to Tereus and telling him what they have done.

            The stories are strikingly similar, but have a few key differences.  One example is that Philomela and Procne are daughters of the King of Athens, not a general as Titus is.  This gives Philomela and Procne a greater sense of power than Lavina has, who is controlled by fear at the hands of Tamora and Saturine, even after she was raped.  Lavina has little agency even before she was assaulted, while Philomela loses her power after her tongue is cut off.  In fact, Philomela and her sister, not a male as Titus is, hatched the entirety of their revenge plot.  And they accomplished this without stabbing at flies and essentially killing themselves at the play’s end.  Secondly, while she was raped and her tongue cut off, Philomela did not have to bear the cost of two arms, as Lavina did.  Lavina becomes completely powerless, both physically and emotionally drained.  Shakespeare’s reversal of the Philomela character from a woman with power and agency to a character who is powerless is an interesting decision on his part.  Was it to make Titus’ decisions carry more weight?  A more dramatic fall and revenge for a general who has lost everything?  Or is it to function as a commentary for the oppressed society that women were (and still are) forced to endure?  The fun part about Shakespeare, as with any work of writing, is that it can be debated from multiple perspectives and generations for years to come.