Group project for Professor Boeckeler’s Material, Agential, Sustainable Shakespeare course by Vijeta Saini, Kyle Wholey, Ben Machlin Titus Andronicus, Act 3, Scene 2 William Shakespeare Titus Andronicus, Act 3, Scene 2 William Shakespeare Quarto 1 Encoded Themoſt Lamentable Tragedie Makesway, and runnes like ſwallowes ore the plaine. Demetrius. Chiron we hunt not we, with horſe nor hound But hope to plucke a daintie Doe to ground.         Exeunt. Enter Aron alone. Moore. He that had wit, would thinke that I had none, To burie ſo much gold vnder a tree, And neuer after to inherit it. Let him that thinks of me ſo abiectlie, Know that this gold muſt coine a ſtrategeme, VVhich cunninglie effected will beget, A verie excellent peece of villanie: And ſo repoſe ſweet gold for their vnreſt, That haue their almes out of the Empreſſe Cheſt. Enter Tamora alone to the Moore. Tamora. My louelie Aron, wherefore lookſt thou ſad, VVhen euerie thing dorh make a gleefull boſt? The birds chaunt melodie on euerie buſh, The ſnakes lies rolled in the chearefull ſunne, The greene leaues quiver with the cooling winde, And make a checkerd ſhadow on the ground: Vnder their ſweet ſhade, Aron let vs ſit, And whilſt the babling eccho mocks the hounds, Replying ſhrillie to the well tun’d hornes, As if a double hunt were heard at once, Let vs ſit downe and marke their yellowing noyſe: And after conflict ſuch as was ſuppoſed The wandring Prince and Dido once inioyed, VVhen with a happie ſtorme they were ſurpriſde, And curtaind with a counſaile-keeping Caue VVe may each wreathed in the others armes, (Our paſtimes done,) poſſeſſe a golden ſlumber, VVhiles hounds and hornes, and ſweete mellodious birds Be vnto vs as is a Nurces ſong Of Lullabie, to bring her Babe a ſleepe. Moore. Letterpress Transcription Themost Lamentable Tragedie Makesway, and runnes like swallowes ore the plaine, Demetrius. Chiron we hunt not we, with horse nor hound But hope to plucke a daintie Doe to ground.         Exeunt. Enter Aron alone. Moore. He that had wit, would thinke that I had none, To burie so much gold vnder a tree, And neuer after to inherit it. Let him that thinks of me so abiectlie, Know that this gold must coine a strategeme, VVhich cunninglie effected will beget, A verie excellent peece of villanie: And so repose sweet gold for their vnrest, That have their almes out of the Empresse Chest. Enter Tamora alone to the Moore Tamora. My lovelie Aron, wherefore lookst thou sad, Where everie thing dorh make a gleefull bost? The birds chaunt melodie on everie bush, The snakes lie rolled in the chearefull sunne, The greene leaves quiver with the cooling winde, And make checkered shadow on the ground: Vnder their sweet shade, Aron let us sit, And whilst the babbling echo mocks the hounds, Replying shrillie to the well tun’d hornes, As if a double hunt were heard at once, Let vs sit downe and marke their yellowing noise: And after conflict as such was suppused The wandering Prince and Dido once enjoyed, When with a happie storme the were surprisde And curtaind with a counsaile-keeping Cave VVe may each wreathed in the others armes, (Our pastimes done,) possesse a golden slumber, VVhiles hounds and hornes, and sweete mellodious birds Be vnto vs as is a Nurces song Of Lullabie, to bring her Babe a sleepe. Moore. Notes This page of Quarto 1 accessible at https://bit.ly/2MUXtqJ.Details on the original source document read as the following: “The most lamentable Romaine tragedie of Titus Andronicus as it was plaide by the Right Honourable the Earle of Darbie, Earle of Pembrooke, and Earle of Sussex their seruants. London: printed by Iohn Danter, and are to be sold by Edward White and Thomas Millington, at the little North doore of Paules at the signe of the Gunne, 1594.” This transcription will feature annotations emphasizing feminist readings of Shakespeare to move beyond a lack of this scholarship in Shakespeare studies. Shakespeare scholar Valerie Wayne notes that: “no women were involved in the printing of Shakepeare’s texts until the later seventeenth century, and no edition of Shakespeare’s Complete Works has ever been edited entirely by a woman” (183). While this transcription intends to be as accurate to the original as possible, our annotations move beyond this context to emphasize an intersectional feminist theoretical approach. Modern editions of the play—such as the 2005 edition by Folger Shakespeare Library or the 2008 edition featured in the second edition of The Norton Shakespeare Tragedies—do not capitalize the “d” in doe. The capital in this edition indicates that the doe is a proper noun, directly referring to Lavinia. While modern readers may make the association of Lavinia to the doe, the capitalization makes this association more explicit. Altering that capitalization may suggest to the modern reader that the doe does not have any direct correlation to Lavinia and the violence she is soon to endure. See note 3 for more details on the Lavinia-animal metaphor. In her reading of this line, Jennifer Munroe suggests that: “The metaphorization of Lavinia as doe renders her an animal object for the taking such that rape serves simply as the natural expression of domination of human over nonhuman, man over woman” (41). Throughout Act II Lavinia is referred to through animal and object metaphors confirming her subordination to male dominated authorship. Since her body is consistently discussed by male characters this metaphorization demonstrates one of the many ways she is objectified and treated as a nonhuman. Notice the fluctuation between the stage direction and speech cues for this character, vacillating from Aron to Moore. As a racialized subject, Aron is inconsistently named in ways that may reflect upon the sociocultural understanding of blackness during the 17th century. As Kim Hall points out: “The language of blackness, however, is much more than an absence; it is an infinitely malleable presence that has been used, mostly negatively, to define white subjectivity” (257). Like Lavinia, Tamora is also referred to as a metaphorical object. This double entendre brings attention to both her body and to her newfound fortune as a Roman empress. Tamora is read as an object here, her chest is an extension of her personal wealth. Throughout this play, Tamora and Lavinia are compared to natural and human-made objects seemingly as a means to deprive them of their humanity. Alternative feminist readings may highlight the metaphor’s ability to create a potential for trans-corporeality. Stacy Alaimo writes: “Imagining human corporeality as trans-corporeality, in which the human is always intermeshed with the more-than-human world, underlines the extent to which the substance of the human is ultimately inseparable from ‘the environment’” (2). Here Aron may be emphasizing Tamora’s interconnectivity to the material world, rather than illustrating her subservience to this world.In both the Norton and Folger edition the letter “c” in “chest” is not capitalized. Like the alteration of the capital “d” in “doe” mentioned previously, this edit alters the reading and its layers of interpretation. Not only is chest a potential metaphor for Tamora as an object of wealth and exchange, but the use of chest as a proper noun may also indicate her power in terms of geography. The chest is treated as a royal object, perhaps because of Tamora’s transition from Goth queen to Royal empress. Capitalization here suggests that her assimilation into Roman status makes her more valuable. See note 4. These stage directions are also replicated in modern editions. The Folger edition reads this direction as “Enter Tamora alone to [Aron] the Moor.” While the bracket around Aron seems to be an addition used to highlight his character positioning beyond his race, it still reads as an after thought—brackets being symbols of additional secondary information. “According to early modern theory and folklore, music’s power over the body can inspire (and then calm) brutal violence, even completely against the will of the listener, and to the detriment of the state” (Smid, 2). The hunting scene begins with the “a cry of hounds”, but it is preceded by Tamora speaking at length about her plan to ruin Titus during her tryst with Aron in the woods. She co-habits music and violence by saturating her speech with musical terms. Django Bates, a composer for Shakespeare’s Globe, has carefully incorporated these elements in Lucy Bailey’s 2006 production of Titus Andronicus. “the responses of modern audiences can provide insight into the likely actions of Renaissance audiences. As Jeremy Lopez argues in his seminal work on early modern spectators, ‘Significant distinctions between a Renaissance audience and a modern audience are, like distinctions between different kinds of audience members in any audience, more frequently made than necessary. Modern audiences can understand and appreciate even the most bizarre conventions of Renaissance drama’” (Smid, 12). The materiality of the text’s imageries becomes all the more prominent in Bornila Chatterjee’s 2017 adaptation of Titus Andronicus, The Hungry. The “checkered shadow” are materialized into the attire of the characters, the props and the color palate of the setting were the movie is shot. Especially, if we focus on Tamora’s (Tulsi) engagement and wedding attire which are black and white, respectively. Most of Tamora’s dialogues have been cut in the movie, she replicates Ophelia’s speechlessness yet in choosing to narrate the story from her perspective and making her a loose protagonist figure Bornila puts a spin on the feminist reading of the play and translating it on screen. The double hunt refers to both the literal hunt that Titus and his sons embark on and the anticipated rape of Lavinia. Nature, according to Tamora, is celebrating her and Aron’s scheme to hunt (or prey) upon the Andronici while they are themselves hunting. Note the italicization of Dido and Aron in Tamora’s speech. This may be emphasized because both terms are proper nouns or possibly to indicate a verbal cue for the actor to emphasize these words particularly in the text. Our Transcription found at https://bit.ly/2piSoPU. Works Cited Alaimo, Stacy. Bodily Natures. Indiana University Press, 2010. Hall, Kim. “Epilogue: On “Race,” Black Feminism, and White Supremacy.” Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England. Cornell University Press, 1995. Munroe, Jennifer. “Is it Really Ecocritical If It Isn’t Feminist?:The Dangers of ‘Speaking For’ in Titus Andronicus.” in Ecological Approaches to Early Modern English Texts: A Field Guide to Reading and Teaching. eds. Munroe, Jennifer, Geisweidt, Edward J., and Bruckner, Lynne. Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2015. pp 37-47. Shakespeare, William, Dr B. A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. Titus Andronicus. Riverside: Simon and Schuster, 2015. Print. Shakespeare, William, Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine E. Maus, and Andrew Gurr. The Norton Shakespeare. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008. Print. Smid, Deanna. “Sans Tongue, Sans Hands, Sans Music? Violence and Musical Bodies in Titus Andronicus.” Shakespeare, 2018, pp. 1–12. Wayne, Valerie. “The Sexual Politics of Textual Transmissions” Textual Formations and Reformations eds. Maguire, Laurie E. Berger, Thomas L. University of Delaware Press, 1998.