Who indeed. Though Saturninus seems to be the obvious answer, his em-
brace of Tamora and unleashing of Aaron, the obvious offense, it is actually Lu-
cius who is on the spot here, Lucius who must defend himself and justify the
“civil wound” he has created by overthrowing the legitimate regime—and for
him the Moor and his child become key. To exonerate himself as the true
champion of an embattled but unified Rome, Lucius deflects attention from
the divisions between the Romans and lays the blame almost exclusively on the
Goths, singling out Chiron and “the damned Demetrius” as the culprits who
“murdered our emperor’s brother” and “ravished our sister” ( 5. 3. 96 – 98 ). “For
their fell faults,” Lucius argues, “our brothers were beheaded, / Our father’s
tears despised and basely cozened / Of that true hand that fought Rome’s quar-
rel out / And sent her enemies unto the grave” ( 5. 3. 99 – 102 ). Making no men-
tion of the Andronici’s alienation under Saturninus, he glorifies Titus as the
true champion who “fought Rome’s quarrel out” and himself as the next in this
heroic line, as one who braved “the enemy’s point” to “preserve [Rome’s] wel-
fare in my blood” ( 5. 3. 109 – 10 ). Lucius elides his family with the emperor’s,
placing “our emperor’s brother” beside “our sister,” “our brother,” and “our fa-
ther” as Roman victims of the Goths. He then represents his banishment
from—and ostensible betrayal of—Rome in abstract, and so less indictable,
terms: erasing the fact and the reason that Saturninus banished him, he admits
simply that the “gates” of Rome were “shut on” him, that he, “the turned-
forth,” was “unkindly banished” and left “to beg relief among Rome’s enemies”
( 5. 3. 103 – 5 ). He also validates and neutralizes his potentially treasonous alliance
with the “enemy” Goths by personalizing the relation, crediting them with
opening “their arms to embrace me as a friend” ( 5. 3. 107 ). As if overwhelmed
by passion, he interrupts his “worthless praise” to, in fact, underscore it, ex-
plaining that “when no friends are by, men praise themselves” ( 5. 3. 116 – 17 ). And
while he suggests that the Romans are indeed on his side, know that he is “no
vaunter,” and will believe that his report “is just and full of truth,” his doubts
come through clearly as he offers additional evidence, producing his “scars”
which, he insists, “can witness, dumb although they are” ( 5. 3. 112 – 14 ). We can
only think of Coriolanus, who also appropriates his exile and his enemy to au-
thorize and even name himself, and to justify effective treason against the
Roman state.
In Titusthe strategy does not work any better than it works in Coriolanus.
When Lucius interrupts himself, Marcus takes over, augmenting the argu-
ment before giving the “common” Roman “voice” opportunity to judge
whether “the poor remainder of Andronici” have “done aught amiss” ( 5. 3. 139 ,
“Incorporate in Rome” 95