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.
No comments:
Post a Comment