Titus Andronicus by William Shakespeare has often been defined by it’s over excessive displays of violence, mutilation, and death. Throughout the years since this play’s inception, the play has lauded and scrutinized for the frighteningly determined convictions behind the minds of the Titus Andronicus’s brutal and gory story arc. Even today, it is doubtful that many people can recall a piece that so accurately depicts the butchering of the human form better than this work by Shakespeare. Thus, it is of utmost importance in this work to learn the psychoanalytic perspective with which the main characters -- especially the title character, Titus Andronicus -- view and carry out their actions. It is curious to examine the motives of the man who …show more content…
He declares that a hand from a man of Andronicus blood will free the two of the same that are being held in custody by the state. Titus wastes no time reacting to this or mulling over the possible consequences of this circumstance. Almost with child like glee and enthusiasm he offers up some of his own flesh to please this hollow request given by a shadow emperor. He proclaims, “Good Aaron, wilt thou help to chop it off?” Again, Titus’s unholy desire for suffering rears it’s head at the audience. To this scene, Elizabeth Griffith offers her view of the situation by saying: “Here our detestation and abhorrence … serves to heighten our reinforcement of the injury.”2 Indeed, the reader is pulled into this realm, like Titus, of wanting more blood, more hewn body parts to be added to the protagonist’s belt. It is interesting that, while he was so determined when killing his earlier son and causing the death the beloved son of a vulnerable and helpless, he is so desperate to save his sons from possible death. The answer is obvious: his sons are not dying by his command. Thus, it exposes the hidden desires of control and power within Titus’s heart despite his apparent submission to the tradition of the emperor in Act I. In truth, Titus’s sadistic and controlling attitude is deeply rooted in his unconscious, much more deeply that his supposed persona of …show more content…
Rather, he is eager to jump to the conclusion of pain and suffering -- even when that pain is his own. Albert H. Tricomi notes the oddness of this scene as well, commenting “Thus, in a vain effort to save his two imprisoned sons, Titus render’s up his own hand to the ravenous emperor of Rome. The words he speaks at this time precisely explain the bizarre relationship between language and events that typifies the method of the play.”3 Titus’s need to feel the feeling of controlled hurt to satisfy his violent desires is present even in his “bizarre language” as he converses with the Moor. Therefore, he makes the tribute part of himself in order to regain that control that he does not have over the impending doom of his captured (and soon to be executed)
It is astonishing how one man can take away another’s life so quickly and easily. It is alarming how one could argue that the murder of Julius Caesar was a group effort, when there is only one man who is behind this horrific feat of hatred. It is amazing how anyone could think that the killing of our powerful leader-to-be could be justified by any reasoning. Ladies and gentlemen, we are standing in the very same room as the murderer of the great Julius Caesar. May I direct your attention to the man guilty of this crime, Marcus Brutus.
This statement portrays to the idea of love in the identity, love, and Truth unit. When Titus found out about the seriousness of Valentine’s injuries his ideas and actions changed dramatically towards their relationship and his deep love for her changed also. “And for the first time, I started crying. I cried, sitting by her bed, and I told her the story of us” (Anderson 297). This quote from the book supports my conjecture and idea towards Titus’s change of love and affection towards Valentine.
The article "Then let no man but I/Do execution on my flesh and blood" point outs the law of Rome authorizes father 's power over his children that mainly cause the death of Mutius, Lavinia, and the threatened killing of Tamora and Aaron 's baby. Emily Detmer-Goebel says, "When Titus kills Mutius, he is not only demonstrating his own loyalty towards Rome, he is also enacting the ancient Roman right of the father to 'give or take life ' from a rebellious child", which I disagree with. I think in the death of Mutius, Titus does not play a role of father, instead he is the man of Emperor who has the duty to protect Emperor 's dignity. Without his duty, Titus cannot take away his son 's life by his own willingness.
In the discussion of Julius Caesar, one controversial issue is how did he die. On the one hand, he is more of a victim than villain. On the other hand, he can be a villain more than a victim. Everyone has a different perspective for if he is a victim or villain. In the following paragraphs, there will be a comparison on Mark Antony’s Funeral Speech and Brutus’s Funeral Speech on whether Julius Caesar is a victim or villain.
For many people that think Titus Andronicus is all about violence, well it is mainly from the criticism from “The Pequod” it talks about violent act is style and context in which it is executed whether we respond to violence with shock, laughter or satisfaction like for example the death of Titus’s sons in battle and how he buried them. In Titus Andronicus, explains and tells the reader what Tamora’s sons Demetrius and Chiron did to Titus’s daughter Lavinia. Which revealed Titus’s son kills Tamora’s son, while Tamora tries to explain that it was Titus that killed Lavinia; but at the end of the the last act Titus kills his daughter so she probably wouldn’t have to go through that and he doesn’t have to live the fact that her daughter has been raped. The author shows that how this is a pattering, when Lavinia finally reveals and actually feels appropriate talking about what happened to her the play becomes not just violent but it becomes more violence and it goes downhill from their. From her rape it emphasis both natural and human systems.
Throughout the course of Seneca’s tragedy, Medea exhibits several egregious departures from traditional Roman religion. These departures are almost too numerous to be fully outlined here, but their occurrences can be roughly divided into prayer/speech and sacrifice/action. This first part will address prayer and religious language. Such departure is evident from the beginning of the play, where, as classics professor Harry Hine (1989) argues, “Seneca has created a conflict between Medea and the Chorus, who are competing for support of the gods” (Hine, p. 413). Hine observes the fact that both parties address “identical” deities and include mirroring language in their respective prayers but, of course, for opposite purposes – one is a curse,
One of the fundamental aspects of literature that still exists presently conveys the ability to illustrate a metaphorical boundary line between what constitutes as good or evil. In the world of Shakespeare, a plethora of rhetorical devices woven into the numerous sonnets and dramas presents a blurring of these oh-so-sacred lines. Within Julius Caesar, there lies abounding cases of oxymoronic situations in which the balance of good and evil results in alteration. For example, within Brutus’ speech addressing the public following the assassination of Julius Caesar, the proper application of rhetorics expounds on Brutus’ ability to commit something purely evil while maintaining innocent intentions. Though he associates himself with the murder of the leader of Rome, Brutus bases his honesty on the genuine truth that it solely benefits his beloved country.
History Repeats Itself, First As A Tragedy, Second As A Farce Titus Andronicus is believed to be Shakespeare’s first tragedy, and has often been regarded as one of his worst plays. However, by reading this play one can grasp the motifs behind certain important characters that Shakespeare would later write about, making the play an important and influential work despite how one feels about it. If the play is looked at through a Marxist scope, it can be seen that these motifs drew from authentic qualities from the state of affairs in Shakespeare’s own life. Some of these motifs include men in power going mad, seen first in Titus Andronicus himself, though subsequently seen in characters such as King Lear and Hamlet. It is likely that this quality
The plays Thyestes and Titus Andronicus deal with death and godly power. In Thyestes, the king Atreus has Thyestes’ sons killed in despicable ways. The shock and melancholy of death in the era is reflected by the other living characters. In Titus Andronicus, Titus’ murder of his son Mutius similarly shows how the educated and common folk deal with the death of a person. These plays have similar important events which reflect on the culture of that time.
“Romeo and Juliet” by William Shakespeare entertains the audience through use of character, language and drama. The plot focuses on the theme of conflict and consequences, using deep characterisation, descriptive language and high drama to entertain. Act 3 Scene 1 focuses on a brutal feud between two enemies and Act 3 Scene 5 follows the patriarchal society’s approach to women marriage and societal expectations. Shakespeare forces the audience to engage with the idea of conflict and what it must have been like to live through this time. Shakespeare cleverly utilises a changing atmosphere in Act 3 Scene 1 to expertly entertain his audience.
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him! This was the most unkindest cut of
In the Shakespearean comedy The Tempest, we are presented with the psychological violence associated with the abuse of power and continuous theme of colonialism explored throughout the play. In early works of Shakespeare it is evident that the violence interrogated in his plays consists of bloodshed and physical torture as opposed to his later works such as The Tempest where the play focuses on the ideology of psychological violence. The Tempest was one of the last plays written by Shakespeare and is recognised as one of his most popular works
Have you ever heard the phrase, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me”? While this could be accepted as a universal truth, this statement is not always completely accurate. A few cleverly chosen words may turn the tide of any argument, with consequences most severe. In Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar”, the content of the two speeches delivered at Caesar’s funeral has devastating effects on the outcome of the plot to which it directly foreshadows.
Introduction Coriolanus is one of Shakespeare’s latest tragedies and depicts the life and downfall of the great Roman leader Caius Marcius, later named Coriolanus. We, the audience, follow this soldier turned politician as he struggles against his very nature to gain control over a people who despise him, and quite possibly to avoid the inevitable downfall of the tragic hero. The play has been described, as of its hero, as perhaps one of Shakespeare’s greatest, or at least biggest, creations. It is possible that this could be due to certain paradoxical features in the hero’s personality, or perhaps because we are presented to this deeply flawed mystery that is Caius Marcius Coriolanus, whose nature initially makes it difficult for the audience to sympathise with him.
The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome by Michael Parenti is a monograph that illustrates the history of Rome before and after the death of Caesar. The historical bestseller takes the readers into the Republic of Rome through the eyes of the Populares and the Optimates. He also gives the readers of today an inside look at the democratic battles that emerged over religion, sexuality, and social control; which illustrates the patriarchal domination of women in Rome. In this critique of Michael Parenti’s, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome, I will analyze his reasons for writing the historical work, his use of data, and his diction. Michael’s reason for writing about the history of Ancient Rome was to illustrate how Rome was more than the glamorous life of the nobles.