Miller 1

Dara MillerDr. RoysterENG 42831 May 2012And Now Prepare Your Throats: The Barberous Enactment of Revenge in Titus Andronicus and Sweeney Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet StreetAnother of Shakespeares tragic revengers, Othello, claims at a certain point that Murders out of tune/And sweet revenge grows harsh. In Titus Andronicus, which is unequivocally the most violent and revenge-ridden of Shakespeares tragedies, the long-tormented Andronici family ultimately responds to injustice by enacting Senacan retribution. In retaliation for the murder of his sons and the rape and mutilation of his daughter, Titus Andronicus resorts to a ritualized torture of Tamoras sons; as he prepares to murder them, he subjects Chiron and Demetrius to a detailed description of how he will repay their evil by baking two pasties of [their] shameful heads and feeding them Tamora. Although Tamora does not survive long after she realizes she has imbibed her own children, the effect of the cannibalism allows Titus to finally achieve the revenge he desires for his family. Almost four hundred years after Shakespeare penned his most violent work of revenge, Stephen Sondheim began work on a modern revenge tragedy, in the form of a musical thriller: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Like in Titus, the revenge motif in Sweeney Todd is spurred by injustices to the person and family of the title character. Cannibalism, in the musical, is not so much a method of revenge as it is a profitable byproduct of Todds direct line of revenge: slitting the throat of Judge Turpin, the man who effectively destroyed Todds previously happy life. However, as Todds lust for revenge begins to consume him, he swings his razor in an ever-widening arc, leaving his victims to the mechanisms of his eminently practical and yet appropriate as always (Sondheim 105) partner, Mrs. Lovett. Between his fury and her greed, they concoct a scheme to take revenge not only on the directly guilty parties, but also on the the great black pit of London, where peoples morals arent worth / what a pig could spit, by baking the bodies of Todds victims into meat pies and selling them in Mrs. Lovetts pie shop. Titus Andronicus and Sweeney Todd, although separated by both time and genre, share many common themes within the realm of the revenge tragedy. Both title characters are men who in their own right initially deserve respect, but through their own naivety instead end up abused by those in their society who wield greater political power. The revenge in both stories is also sparked by rape. The issue of this essential violation and its effect on both the victims and their loved ones creates both the need and the desire for revenge. Finally, both protagonists eventually resort to the violence of throat slitting and cannibalism as their chosen method for revenge. Like Platos pharmakon, however, revenge works both to restore and to poison. While Titus and Todd both obtain a dubious absolution through their revenge, the justice they seek is ultimately soured by the corruption of their own violent actions as they play off of common fears surrounding the idea of the vengeful barber-surgeon. In each work, the trope of cannibalism that stems from these ideas transcends its overt operation as an especially revolting form of vengeance; as both title characters feed the flesh of their enemies to others, they in turn allow their individual lusts for revenge to consume their own humanity. The history of cannibalism in in Western thought and literature is one fraught with curiosity, and the implications of cannibalism in society range from questions of survival to those of power and social domination, to those of revenge, worship, and even taste. According to Shirley Lindenbaum, Our desire to think about cannibalism has a long history in a wide range of studiesIn the fifth century B.C., Herodotus wrote about anthropophagi, said to be living beyond the light of Greek civilization. In the sixteenth century, Montaigne introduced us to man eating in the New World, and in the twentieth century, psychoanalysts proposed that cannibal images were projections of unconscious desires in early childhood. (476)

In the context of this study, cannibalism in England particularly maintained a long and little-discussed history in the concept of early modern medicinal cannibalism, a socially sanctioned form of cannibalism, where the human body is literally eaten for pharmacological purposes (Noble 678) that maintained a dubious distinction from the discursive notion of the cannibal Other, a savage construct created by English colonialism to assuage any doubts about Englands own cultural identity as inherently civilized within an expanding geographical realm (Noble 679). Although intent on maintaining this barrier of civilization, the concept of medicinal cannibalism still remained a staple of Western medicinal culture, tracing its roots all the way back to Pliny, who claimed that drinking human blood could serve as a cure for several ailments, including epilepsy (Packard 181). In Europe, Medicinal ingestion involving human flesh, blood, heart, skull, bone marrow, and other body parts was widely practicedfrom the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, and so-called mummy shops sold prepared remains of humans who had ideally met with sudden, violent death for a variety of common remedies (Lindebaum 478). The realities of this early modern form of civilized cannibalism also coincide with a fascination for the human body popularized by the theatres of anatomy prevalent in Europe starting in the sixteenth century. In these public sessions, lessons in anatomy were performed using the bodies of executed criminals; often, these bodies would then become a major source of corpses for manufacturing mummy for medicinal purposes (Noble 684). These forms of sanctioned cannibalism, while revealing the immediacy of the concept to the English populous particularly around the time of Titus Andronicus, do not display cannibalism in the same form as it take shape in these revenge tragedies, except perhaps to highlight a sort of artificial, hypocritical nature of civility that condemns an act in which itself partakes (Noble 679). In contrast, the cannibalism enacted in both Titus Andronicus and Sweeney Todd is a form of innocent cannibalism, at least on the part of the consumers, as they are unaware that [they are] eating human flesh (Lindenbaum 479). The antagonists do not choose to consume flesh; however, in the revengers logic, this culminating literal consumption serves as a physical manifestation of the metaphorical cannibalism that theirs victims had been practicing all along. This, then, brings the trope of cannibalism into the political arena. In Titus, the newly crowned Saturninus turns despotic almost immediately, setting out with his new Queen to rip apart the Andronici family even in the wake of Titus proven loyalty to his rule. According to Ctlin Avramescu in An Intellectual History of Cannibalism, The distinguishing mark of bad royalty is transgression of divine, natural, and civil lawthe tyrant is transformed into a curious creature: a rebel againstnature, humanity, and the body politic[and lowered] to the rank of anthropophagus (45). Tamora, raised from her role as foreign prisoner to Roman Empress within the first scene of the play and livid with rage towards the Andronici, immediately vows to find a day to massacre them all, / And rase their faction and their family (I.i.450-1), and from that point she, along with her new husband and her paramour, begins her political consumption of Titus and his family. Tamoras role as both exiled Queen of the Goths and current Empress of Rome allows her to occupy an intriguing space, and she comes to represent not only the purported savagery of her heritage, but also the deep-seated corruption of the Roman civilization. According to Noble, this context offers a critique of the founding myths of Western European civilization as constructions of the barbaric Other that rely on the cannibal distinction are seriously compromised by the savagery of the civilized Romans (689). Although the Goths are identified as barbarians with savage appetites cannibalistic enemies of Rome, on coming to Rome they actually join into a system of violence and revenge logic that fuels perceptions of insult and dishonor that is already in place, and Thus, any threat offered by the cannibal potential of Aaron and Tamora is immediately elided by the savage practices of the predacious civilized Roman state (690). This ostensibly political cannibalism, however, has very personal roots; in the opening scene of Titus, Tamoras son, Alarbus, is sacrificed by Titus and his sons in order to appease [the] groaning shadows that are gone (Shakespeare 1.1.142). This initial pyre creates the plays first images of cannibalism; as a sacrifice, Alarbus will symbolically feed the slain Andronici brothers, and Lucius description of the sacrifice employs language reminiscent of cooking and eating: they will make a fire straight; / And with our swords, upon a pile of wood, / hew his limbs till they be clean consumed (1.1.125-7). At this sentence, Chiron denounces them as barbarous (1.1.131), and through this language not only depicts the Romans as savage, but also sets the stage for later interplay on the semantics of barbarism and barbery. By invoking the allusion to the Thracian tyrant, Demetrius also suggests both this struggle between the civilized and the barbaric and the concept of unnatural feeding by the phrases double references to both the revenge of Queen Hecuba and the flesh-eating mares of Diomedes, another Thracian tyrant. As Alarbus entrails feed the sacrificing fire (1.1.144), the connection between revenge and cannibalism is firmly forged, and Shakespeares vividly brutal exposition of Roman and Goth practices as intrinsically violent and horrible, blurring the lines of barbarism on both sides (Smith 316). As members of the Andronici are in turn hewd by the Goths and Saturninus, the connection to barbery and the entry point to a literal cannibalistic revenge converge on the figure of Lavinia, who by Aarons account was washd, and cut, and trimmed, /and twas trim sport for them which had the doing of it (5.1.93-96). The description of Lavinias barbering enrages Lucius, and he perhaps unwittingly recognizes Aarons puns in his own retort, decrying Tamoras sons as barbarous, beastly villains (5.1.97). The context of these puns would have carried significant weigh in early modern England, where barbers were not merely confined to cutting and shaving hair; in addition, they also performed dental work and a wide variety of common surgeries well into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, spawning worries over acts of surgical barbarity and unethical practices by unlicensed and unskilled barbers (Noble 698). According to Nobles argument:The brutual dismemberment of Lavinia stages one of the major concerns of the Barber Surgeons Company the unlicensed practice of surgery by unskilled barbers. In fact, Aarons description of Lavinias butchering is couched in terms of barberyplaying onthe more violent, surgical treatment of human bodies with which barbers, who frequently transgressed their barbering roles, were associated. (698)In this light, the scene of Chiron and Demetrius killing takes on a new dimension; the torture chamber becomes a sadistic representation of the Barber-surgeons shop; Titus knife looks more like a razor, and Lavinias basin could very likely be a barbers shaving basin, conveniently cut out at the neck so to better catch any drips. These tools are essential to their revenge; as Titus knife is the weapon that will kill Tamoras sons, Lavinias basin is an equal form of mental torture as they are forced to silently hear how it will collect their blood and feed their mother. Titus speech echoes the words of Chiron and Demetruis as they described their plans for Lavinia to Tamora, but Titus is even more specific and brutal in his preview of their fate, describing with relish how he planned to grind [their] bones into dust, / And with [their] blood and itmake a pasteand bid that strumpet, your unhallowed dam / Like to the earth swallow her own increase (5.2.190). His dialogue to Chiron and Demetrius about their forthcoming death stands opposed to Sweeney Todds under-the-breath closest I ever gave (Sondheim 95) suggestiveness; rather, he forces them to prepare their own throats (5.2.195). In Sweeney Todd, the path to cannibalistic barbarism begins as a straightforward revenge plot: the story centers on the barber, Benjamin Barker. Wrongfully accused of an unspecified crime by the lascivious Judge Turpin who lusts after his wife, Barker is transported to Australia for life. On his subsequent escape, the barber changes his name and identity he is no longer the nave Barker (Sondheim 30), but the hardened SweeneyTodd. His cynicism is evident from his very entrance into the musical, as he interrupts the young sailors optimistic anticipation of coming back to London, telling him ominously, You are young. / Life has been kind to you. / You will learn (29). Todd, from his perspective, sees London as it really is:Theres a whole in the world Like a great black pitAnd the vermin of the world inhabit itAnd it goes by the name of London.At the top of the hole Sit the privileged few,Making mock of the verminIn the lower zoo,Turning beauty into filth and greed. (32)

This dour indictment of the injustice of Londons class system fuels Todds desire for revenge; even though he originally only sets out to kill the pious vulture of the law, Judge Turpin, he still knows that it is the corruption of the city that allowed Turpin to have the power to destroy his life. This theme of the corrupted class hierarchy of London was emphasized in the original production of Sweeney Todd by the use of an enormous backdrop depicting the British Beehive, in which all the professions of London were sorted out according to their rank. It is not surprising, then, that a significant portion of Todds introduction focuses on his identity as a barber. As a trade, barbers occupied a unique sphere in England; although typically lower-class citizens, they often mixed with a variety of people from different social classes due to the fact, as Mrs. Lovett points out, that everybody shaves. According to Christopher Benfey, this interaction allowed The domain of barber [to] emerge as a kind of liminal zone, a meeting place of wanderers and outcasts, where upper and lower classes mingle, with consequences comic or disastrous (30). Although after 1745, Englands barbers and surgeons formed separate societies (Royal College of Surgeons of England) in order to curb the possibility of untrained barbers carrying out dangerous surgeries, the role of the barber still carried with it the ever-present threat of danger of trusting oneself to an underling with a deadly weapon in his hand (Benfey 28). Even with a barber who was not intent on slitting his customers throats, the potential for violence and blood could never be more than a nick away. As the fraudulent Senor Pirelli points out, there is an inherent danger in the art of the barber: For if-a you slip, / You nick da skin, / You clip-a da chin, / You rip-a da lip a bit (Sondheim 62). The deep-seated English roots of viewing barbers with trepidation extends beyond the potential for damage as well, playing off the fears that stemmed from the accounts of rouge Barber-Surgeons in early modern England and beyond.Sweeney Todd, upon returning to London, is well aware of these deep-set fears, and intent on fulfilling them. In one of the more disturbing moments of the show, Todd croons a love song to his razors, promising them You shall drip rubiesprecious rubies and vehemently proclaiming that they make his right armcomplete again! (Sondheim 43). This commitment to the dark and vengeful God (Sondheim 25) brings Todd ever closer his cannibalistic destination. According to Avramescu, a true cause of cannibalism is extreme revenge, when individuals turn to anthropophagism out of fury and a spirit of revenge, not because they enjoy their [enemies] flesh (99). Although Todd never actually partakes of Mrs. Lovetts infamous pies (that we know of), his intent to involve himself in this vicious cycle is clear, and he wholeheartedly embraces the idea as a form of near-divine justice. After missing an opportunity to exact his vengeance on the Judge, Todds rage transcends beyond desiring retribution for his own wrongs to the Epiphany that we all deserve to die and his subsequent vow to practice on less honorable throats leads him to equate vengeance and salvation, and maniacally claim that he is finally alive at last / Andfull of joy (Sondheim 102-103). This cry echoes Titus laughter at the discovery of the severed heads of his son and his own severed hand returned to him mockingly by Saturninus; rather than destroy these characters, there respective disappointments were, for both Titus and Todd, a path to Revenges cave (Shakespeare (3.2.270). The fact that this song is directly followed by the duos decision to use Todds victims as filling for Mrs. Lovetts pies creates a disturbing juxtaposition in the manic rage and levity presented in the two songs, much like the extremes presented in Titus as he considers the fly in the third Act. Although the eaters/eaten distinction reprises the injustice theme of Todds first song (Schlesinger 131) in a manner that does seem eminently practical (Sondheim 105), it reveals the extent to which Todds vengeance has moved from specific to indiscriminate (Schlesinger 131). Subsequently, an element of his humanity is sharply decreased; although Todds repartee with Mrs. Lovett as they debate which types of people will taste the best is one of the shows most humorous numbers, the gaiety is topped with a discordant, warning note (Schlesinger 131) as the audience is forced to consider the implications of their charming notion (Sondheim 105). Todds motives, unlike the materialistic Mrs. Lovetts, center on his sense of the confirmation that the deed gives to the moral judgment that he has made about the worth of humanity (Mollin 412). As Todd commits himself to this cannibalistic cause, his own humanity is gradually consumed. Whereas in Shakespeares work, Titus perhaps gains his true revenge in through his dialogue (as he previews his plan to Chiron and Demetrius, and later reveals Tamoras cannibalism to the court), Todd appears to derive his satisfaction almost entirely from the blood itself. At the beginning of Act II, in what is perhaps the most chilling scene of the musical, he slits the throats of hapless customer after customer, all the while crooning a tender melody about his lost daughter. According to the stage directions, throughout the song, TODD remains benign, wistful, dream-like. What he sings is totally detached from the action, as is he (Sondheim 155). Although he begins by imagining Johannas beauty and lamenting that they shall not meet again (Sondheim 156), as the blood continues to pour from each new victim his tone begins to change, moving to assurances of Im fine, Johanna, Im fine (156) to a sense of almost peace in his revenge: And if I never hear your voice, / I still have reason to rejoice: / The way ahead is clear (157). As the bodies feed the furnace below his shop and are churned out into pies, Todd seems to grows increasingly more satisfied with his self-prescribed cure of violence; he assures his imaginary version of Johanna even in that darkness when Im blind / With what I cant forget / Its always morning in my mind, / My little lamb, my pet (158). As he concludes his song, his attention has shifted completely away from gaining her back, and he finds ways to justify accepting his new and murderous existence: And though Ill think of you, I guess,Until the day I die,I think I miss you less and lessAs every day goes by,JohannaAnd youd be beautiful and pale,And look too much like her.If only angels could prevail,Wed be the way we were,Johanna Wake up, Johanna!Another bright red day!(Wistful smile)We learn, Johanna,To sayGoodbye In this final farewell, it is as if his razors take the place of his daughter; he welcomes the dawn of new blood and says goodbye, not just to Johanna, but to his humanity. When Anthony next approaches him about attempting to rescue her, Todd reacts with a mad delight not at the thought of regaining his daughter, but at the possibility of using her for bait to lure the Judge back into his shop. Todds final victory, however, is hollow, as he destroys not only himself but almost everyone who could have redeemed him. In his final moments, he unwittingly slaughters his wife, who has haunted the set of the play since the opening scene as the mad beggar woman, and comes moments away from also killing his daughter. His revenge on the Judge is over too quickly; in his reveal to the Judge, he almost misses him again, and is forced to swipe at his throat and hurriedly pull the lever on his mechanical chair to keep the Judge from escaping his grasp. Although he feels at first some sense of atonement, singing to both his razors and his crazed revenge to sleep now the untroubled sleep of angels, (Sondheim 195), his short-lived reverie is slashed by the thought of his loose ends the few remaining people he needs to silence. As Todd races down to the bakehouse kill the boy, Toby, the chorus ironically repeats an earlier call to Lift your razor high, Sweeney! Sink it in the rosy skin / of righteousness! (Sondheim 196); whereas earlier in the play this had been a rallying cry of the disenfranchised of London, appealing to Todd to avenge their wrongs at the hands of hypocrites, now it merely highlights Todds monstrosity as he hunts down the truly innocent. Although Todds will for self-preservation may be shattered by the discovery that the old beggar woman he had calloused killed was actually his beloved Lucy, his willingness to slake his thirst for revenge in the blood of others is not, and his murder of Mrs. Lovett (for lying to him) is by far the most painful endured by any of the plays victims; a death that has nothing to do with her crimes or the dark side of her character[but] rather an act done in service of her sole redeeming virtue her capacity to love Sweeney (Mollin 413-14). The final barbarity of his actions, however, is shown most completely not in this final murder, but in his effect on the poor crazed Toby. In the presence of the crazed and jabbering Toby, Todds abject acceptance of his fate as his own throat is slit is almost an afterthought the audience is captivated, not by the scene of carnage, but by the emotional impact of Tobys mindless motions on the meat grinder, babbling over and over Three times through for them to be tender and juicy. Three time through the grinder. Smoothly, smoothly (Sondheim 201). In this final tribute to the cannibalistic trope, Sondheim again emphasizes the all-consuming nature of serving the dark and hungry god of revenge (204).In both works, the title characters barberic actions unleash their hidden barbaric nature. Through the ritual of throat cutting, both Titus and Todd reclaim control in a society that had disenfranchised and taken advantage of them. However, their violence cannot be contained to merely seeking reparative justice; in response to the personal wrongs done to them and their families, both Titus and Todd stray beyond the bounds of justice and allow their desire for revenge consume their own humanity. By instigating forms of cannibalism as revenge, both Titus and Todd unleash their own barbaric identities; with their original identities destroyed, they have no choice but to submit to the ultimate tragedy they both set into motion.

Works CitedAgusti, Clara Escoda. "Julie Taymor's "Titus" (1999): Framing Violence and Activating Responsibilty." Atlantis 28.1 (2006): 57-70. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2012.Benfey, Christopher. "A Close Shave: The Barber and the meaning of life." The New Republic (2008): 27-30. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2012.Blyton, Carey. "Sondheim's "Sweeney Todd": the Case for the Defence." Tempo 129 (1984): 19-26. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2012.Brustein, Robert. "Making the Familiar Strange." The New Republic (2005): 25-27. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2012.Dickson, Vernon Guy. "'A pattern, precendent, and lively warrant': Emulation, Rhetoric, and Cruel Propriety in Titus Andronicus." Renaissance Quarterly 62.2 (2009): 376-409. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2012.Mohler, Tina. "What is Thy Body but a Swallowing Grave?" : Desire Underground in Titus Andronicus." Shakespeare Quarterly 57.1 (2006): 23-44. JSTOR. Web. 22 May 2012.Mollin, Alfred. "Mayhem and Morality in Sweeney Todd." American Music 9.4 (1991): 405-417. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2012. JSTOR. Web. 20 May 2012.Noble, Louise. ""And Make Two Pasties of Your Shameful Heads": Medicinal Cannibalism and Healing the Body." ELH 70.3 (2003): 677-708.Ray, Sid. ""Rape, I Fear, Was Root of Thy Annoy": The Politics Consent in Titus Andronicus." Shakespeare Quarterly 49.1 (1998): 22-39. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2012.Shakespeare, William. Titus Andronicus. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,1997.

Smith, Molly Easo. "Spectacles of Torment in Titus Andronicus." Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 36.2 (1996): 315-331. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2012.Sondhiem, Stephen and Hugh Wheeler. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. New York: Applause Theatre Book Publishers, 1991.