Shakespeare’s play, Titus Andronicus, tells us what words can and cannot do. As usual, Shakespeare doesn’t seem to subscribe to any particular view — especially when it comes to opposites —, but rather explores their implications, so that we as readers, can draw conclusions about their meanings. In doing this, I take it that the notion of words can be defined or understood as ‘verbal expressions,’ or symbolic language.

Essentially, the text explores the tension between language and its effect in the physical world. Another way to put it could be to ask: what are the effects that language can have on the physical world as opposed to the effects of concrete (physical) actions. To me, the first clear suggestion of this tension occurs when Aroon encounters Dimitrus and Chirus. When the two men fight for the ungiven rights of Lavina, Aroon tells them to “ strike her home by force, if not by words: This way or not at all stand 126 you in hope” (Shakespeare 2:1:125-126). Hence, the suggestion is that,according to Aroon, Dimitrus and Chirus got the wrong approach. This is because words — or trying to get a lady’s love or physical affections with words — would not have a real effect in the physical world in terms of Dmitrus and Chirus’ intended purpose. In contrast, in Aroon’s view, actions (or force) is what has a real effect in terms of obtaining Lavina’s affections.

Similarly, considering that Aroon suggests to carry out the plan — that of taking action by force — in the forest, the suggestion is that the forest is the perfect place for actions to produce their best effect. In other words, the forest is the place where no one hears words or perceives symbolic language. It is a quiet place, where words seem to lose their power. Hence, in Aroon’s view, the effect of words in the real world, if any, is limited by their being communicated (in speech or in writing). If words are not heard, then words have no effect. If there was a world where there are only trees and rocks, words are not spoken or heard, hence words have no effect. In contrast, it could be argued that, in such a world, non-human actions are still present and have actual effects.

The emperor’s court is like the house of Fame, The palace full of tongues, of eyes, of ears. The woods are ruthless, dreadful, deaf and dull: There speak and strike, brave boys, and take your turns: There serve your lusts, shadowed from heaven’s eye, And revel in Lavinia’s treasury. (Shakespeare 2:1:134- 136).

The word fame could be replaced by the word ‘name.’ And a name could also be understood as a ‘word.’ One might still ask other questions: which one is more powerful? Is Saturninus’ house powerful because of their name? Or is it because of some physical representation of their power? What does the name tell us about the kingdom’s power? Is there any form of power in the kingdom’s way of presenting itself through language? Or does the language of a kingdom have power if and only if it has an army that fights for its ideals (laws expressed through language)?