Abstract

Shakespeare's allusions to Ovid in Titus Andronicus repeatedly evoke the possibility of non-verbal communication, often with reference to early modern notions of musical sympathy. However, rather than promoting music as a bridge between inarticulate experience and understanding, Shakespeare's use of Ovidian voicelessness raises serious doubts about music's ability to mean anything at all. By figuring the mutilated Lavinia as a second Philomela (and a second Io, Actaeon, Hecuba), the play imagines a musician who has utterly lost her ability to connect sound to language. The subsequent attempts to interpret Lavinia suggest an analogy to how music is made to signify, in contemporary writing about music and in Shakespeare's own theatre. In this way, Titus Andronicus participates in a larger debate about the relationship between language and music taking place in Renaissance England.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.