Titus Andronicus Villain

1088 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Into the wild character analysis

The question of who one is meant to sympathize with in the play Titus Andronicus is a confusing one. The titular character is responsible for most of the deaths that take place within the play and other characters commit equally as atrocious acts. Thus it is difficult to decide upon any singular character or group being the “villain” of the play. Traditionally Tamora and Aaron are declared the villains or at the very least the antagonists since they are the driving force against Titus. However this is still a questionable judgement. In the standard formula of a revenge tragedy, Tamora more justifiably fits the role of the character enacting revenge. Her oldest son is sacrificed by Titus for the loss of his own sons even though she was not personally responsible for their deaths (Titus Andronicus, 1.1.121-26). She is flung into the political world of Rome through not only this but future actions throughout the play. Tamora and her consort Aaron are continuously othered by the narrative of Titus; Tamora is the former queen of the Goths and Aaron is a Moor. Their gradual rise to power throughout the play is meant to be threatening to the autonomy of Roman culture that Titus Andronicus is so immersed within. The two characters’ roles as villains is not because of either of their actions by …show more content…

Her kingdom had just been conquered by the Romans and she and her family were captured (1.1.109-11). The way she begs Titus to spare her oldest son by calling him “Roman brethren” implies an attempt to connect with the Romans despite being a foreign queen (1.1.104). The rest of her speech is meant to relate her role as a mother to Titus’s role as a father, but Titus carries out the sacrifice anyway. Shortly after Tamora is made the queen of Rome through becoming Saturninus’s wife, once more becoming enveloped into Roman society and culture whether she wishes it or not

Show More
Related

  • Belief System In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus

    1264 Words  | 3 Pages

    Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus demonstrates how aggressive challenges and divisions are born out of conflicting belief systems. For example, because the Roman citizens, the Goths, and Aaron the Moor all differ in matters of consciousness, tension ensues. Nicholas Moschovakis comments extensively about these clashes in his essay ““Irreligious Piety” and Christian History: Persecution as Pagan Anachronism in Titus Andronicus,” and Moschovakis not only magnifies persecution, but he remarks extensively about the major elements in Titus Andronicus that can be understood as anachronistic. While Moschovakis carefully and thoroughly observes the Shakespearean realms of violent “human sacrifice,” the “relevance of Judeo-Christian sacrificial discourses,” the anti-papist Elizabethan attitudes, and other religious and pagan traditions, Moschovakis plainly admits that “Titus evades all attempts to be read as partisan invective” (Moschovakis 462). Because Shakespeare included a wide range of conflict and overlapping belief systems, assertions tend to become, as Moschovakis puts it, “curiously inconsistent” and “overshadowed” (Moschovakis 462). What can be claimed as transparent in Titus Andronicus, and what I think is appealing to the masses, is that Shakespeare drew upon the major controversial motifs in human history and religion, and he included the evils of hypocrisy which allow for realistic interest regardless of what your religious or political stance is. Moreover, I would argue that Shakespeare exposes a more obvious anachronistic element that can serve in expanding Moschovakis’ arguments. Titus Andronicus demonstrates the time honored obsession over first born sons, and because the play includes a first born son in each family t...

    Read More

  • Julie Taymor’s Titus Andronicus

    2758 Words  | 6 Pages

    One of the distinguishing factors in portraying Titus centers in its origin: "Titus Andronicus [...] must be considered as an experimental play" (Bowers 118). Being Shakespeare's first attempt at tragedy, it obviously has room for error. Yet, as some critics and scholars would say, I believe there is a similar element found in all of Shakespeare's works, no matter when they were written: "Shakespeare constantly reminds us that the character's predicament and humanity is very like our own" (Barton 184). No matter what the plot is, or where he chose to set the story, Shakespeare captures a fundamental element of humanity. Within Titus Andronicus, it is undoubtedly humanity's search for revenge: "Titus Andronicus is a play of social piety, outrage, suffering, and revenge" (Barber 133). The first three elements that Barber attributes to the work are consequential to the fourth; it is the revenge and spite of Titus, Tamora, and Aaron that fuel the other three elements.

    Read More

  • A Comparison of Evil in Richard III, Titus, and Romeo and Juliet

    978 Words  | 2 Pages

    The audience never witnesses Aaron's supposed teachings however, nor is it likely that if he were to continue living as before that he would commit the acts he pledges himself to as he is to be hanged (Act V Scene I Lines 125-144). Aaron talks of evil and trickery, while Tamora lives its epitome, marrying herself into the queen-ship of the conquering tribe. When presented with his child Aaron does care for it, and only agrees to speak upon the condition that it shall be saved. This insight into his character makes him seem almost a worthier person than Titus who murders his own sons. The villain shows more care for his kin than the hero does for his. This serves to make Aaron a more realistic villain by making him more human.

    Read More

  • Honesty Fairness In The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar And Butus

    1043 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout the play many characters are not who they turn out to be. Julius Caesar is a very good judge of character, he does not ruts Cassius, he says “ He thinks too much man, such men are dangerous”( shakespeare,1.2.195). Caesar foreshadows now dangerous Cassius is, Cassius is one person who stabs Caesar. Unlike Caesar, Brutus trusts people too much to see who they are. After Caesar 's death, Brutus trusts Marc Antony to give his speech, but Cassius says “ You know not what you do. Do not consent./ that Antony speak in his funeral. I know you how much the people may be moved/ by that which he will utter.” (shakespeare,3.2.333-335). Caesar was an amazing military leader, Brutus was not. Before Caesar becomes king, he gained land back to Rome “ Julius Caesar has just returned to Rome after a long civil war in which he defeated the forces of pompey” (applebee) Caesar led his military to victory and has the chance to take full control of Rome. brutus is a humble military leader company to Caesar. After Brutus won his battle over Octavius’ army, he left his men begin looting. Instead of helping Cassius’ army “ O Cassius, Brutus gave the word too early,/ who, having some advantages on Octavius/ took it too eagerly. His soldiers fell to spoil/ whilst we by Antony are all enclosed .(Shakespeare,5.3.5-8) Brutus had a bad call when he did not send his army to help Cassius. With Caesars flaw being

    Read More

  • How Does Julius Caesar Change Throughout The Play

    888 Words  | 2 Pages

    The play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare showcases many characters and events that go through many significant changes. One particular character that went through unique changes was Julius Caesar. The 16th century work is a lengthy tragedy about the antagonists Brutus and Cassius fighting with the protagonists Octavius, Antony, and Lepidus over the murder of Julius Caesar. Although the play’s main pushing conflict was the murder of Julius Caesar, he is considered a secondary character, but a protagonist. Throughout the theatrical work Julius Caesar’s actions, alliances, character developments, and internal and external conflicts display his diverse changes.

    Read More

  • Honor in the Play Titus Andronicus

    834 Words  | 2 Pages

    The premise of the play Titus Andronicus can be easily summed up in one word. That word is simply ‘honor’. Honor means a different thing today than it did during the Roman Empire or Shakespeare’s life, but it is important to know honor’s definition in order to understand Titus Andronicus. Honor was used to justify murdering multiple times throughout the play. Titus killed two of his own children to protect his honor. Titus’s honor was also destroyed by Lavinia being raped and mutilated and Aaron tricking Titus into cutting off his hand, an important symbol of his honor. The word ‘honor’ has a huge impact on the play Titus Andronicus.

    Read More

  • Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus - A Powerful Tragedy

    1680 Words  | 4 Pages

    Titus Andronicus is a play marked by acts of horrific violence and littered with death and the destruction of others. Each violent act, however, serves to explain and sometimes encourage the motives of the play's memorable characters and impart a very tightly knotted plot. The structure of the play employs well-defined heroes and villains. Revenge is their key motivating factor. All of these elements combine to form a cohesive plot and contribute to the overall success of the story.

    Read More

  • The Meaning of a Hero in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus

    2521 Words  | 6 Pages

    The word hero tends to hold many meanings in different periods of history based on a society’s laws, mores, and customs. In that regard, to be a hero necessarily evolves to have varying connotations over time. An excellent study in the evolution of the word is William Shakespeare’s often-maligned tragedy Titus Andronicus. In the play, the title character must navigate a society wrought with complex conceptions of the interaction between honor, revenge, and the heroic. As a character, Titus can be difficult to stomach because he constantly pushes our modern conceptions of heroism. Is it heroic to kill a child so as to save her from worldly shame? Can a hero also be a murderer? Should heroes avenge family members and if so, what type of hero is that person? Some scholars argue that Titus is the tragedy’s hero and some argue the opposite. Titus, the father of twenty-six and servant to traditional Roman values, is portrayed heroically, but is far from a hero. His development and actions within the play better convey Titus’ depiction as a classical tragic hero. His dramatic and rapid fall from grace hint that while Titus may have been a hero before Shakespeare’s story of him begins, when told in medias res, Titus cannot lay claim to that honorable title. Titus Andronicus is not this tragedy’s hero, per se, but rather a tragic hero who embodies tradition Republican values to his bitter end.

    Read More

  • Brutus the Tragic Hero

    1058 Words  | 3 Pages

    Shakespeare’s complex play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar contains several tragic heroes; a tragic hero holds high political or social esteem yet possesses an obvious character flaw. This discernible hubris undoubtedly causes the character’s demise or a severe forfeiture, which forces the character to undergo an unfeigned moment of enlightenment and shear reconciliation. Brutus, one of these tragic heroes, is a devout friend of the great Julius Caesar, that is, until he makes many execrable decisions he will soon regret; he becomes involved in a plot to kill the omniscient ruler of Rome during 44 B.C. After committing the crime, Mark Antony, an avid, passionate follower of Caesar, is left alive under Brutus’s orders to take his revenge on the villains who killed his beloved Caesar. After Antony turns a rioting Rome on him and wages war against him and the conspirators, Brutus falls by his own hand, turning the very sword he slaughtered Caesar with against himself. Brutus is unquestionably the tragic hero in this play because he has an innumerable amount of character flaws, he falls because of these flaws, and then comes to grips with them as he bleeds on the planes of Philippi.

    Read More

  • Julius Caesar - A Comparison of Brutus and Cassius

    1631 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the play Julius Caesar, written and preformed by William Shakespeare, there are many characters, but two, Brutus and Cassius, stood out. The play begins in Rome where a celebration of Julius Caesar's victory over the former ruler of Rome, Pompeii. The victory leads to Caesar's betrayal by his jealous companions. Senators and other high status figures are jealous of Caesar's new and growing power, while others, like Brutus, fear the tyrannical rule Caesar could enforce. The conspirators, Brutus and Cassius being the most important, assassinate Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius, better known as Antony, and Octavius Caesar, Caesar's heir to the thrown, revenge Caesar's death. Antony convinces the Roman populous to destroy the conspirators and eventually begins a war with Cassius and Brutus' armies. Both Cassius and Brutus commit suicide to save their honor and Antony and Octavius win the war. The characterizations of Brutus and Cassius show a distinct contrast in their character traits and motives for the assassination of Julius Caesar.

    Read More

  • Julius Caesar Ambition

    798 Words  | 2 Pages

    The ambition possessed by each character, leads Caesar, Brutus, and Cassius to power. It will be the same ambition, that quest for power, that makes each one susceptible to their own weakness. For Caesar, it will be his ego and inability to heed warnings, Brutus his love of Rome, and Cassius his dedication to power. These qualities prove that although intentions may be noble, ambition can make a person ruthless and blind them to their original goals. Ambition kills those who lose sight of their conscience and although it may prove beneficial in many instances, in this case, it leads the characters to lose all that they

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Power In Julius Caesar

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    Honor and power is what drives the conspirators to assassinate Julius Caesar in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar. Caesar is now the single leader of Rome, and members of the Senate have concerns that he will abuse his sole power. Therefore, they plot and accomplish the assassination of Caesar in an attempt to rebuild the balance of Rome. Rome falls into chaos with an unknown future with no central leader for the people to follow. In Act I, Scene 2, Cassius, a member of the Senate, explains to his friend, Brutus, that Caesar is not the god he makes himself out to be. Instead, he argues both he and Brutus are equal to Caesar and are just as deserving of the throne. Cassius’ speech to Brutus diminishes Caesar’s godly demeanor through

    Read More

  • Comparing Romulus And Remus, Hamlet, And Wonder Woman

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    The primary aggressor in “Romulus and Remus” is Romulus himself, who murders his brother in cold blood over a disagreement about where to build a great city (). In Hamlet, Claudius grows jealous of his brother, King Hamlet, so he murders him and takes both his kingdom and his wife. The principle aggressor in Wonder Woman is Ares, son of Zeus and Hera, who chooses to fight, and attempts to kill, his sister Diana (Wonder Woman) in order to obtain his goal of destroying mankind. While all three multiforms are connected by this component of (attempted) murder of one’s own family member, the differences within the narratives are critical in understanding why each piece had different consequences for their respective

    Read More

  • Betrayal and Love

    435 Words  | 1 Pages

    William Shakespeare is a famous writer who wrote many plays. Most people would concur he is the greatest writer of all time. His plays fall under the categories of histories, comedies, and tragedies. Troilus and Cressida is a tragedy, but many would say it is not because Troilus does not die. Instead a noble fighter named Hector dies. Betrayal, love, and love causing betrayal is expressed in Troilus and Cressida when Cressida betrays Troilus by not railing against the Greeks, Troilus falling in love with Cressida, and in a way, Paris betraying the Trojans because he would not give up Helen which made the Trojans continue fighting.

    Read More

  • Coriolanus: Rome's New Republic

    448 Words  | 1 Pages

    This makes them vital in Rome’s new republic, but it is not their roles in the hierarchy that is emphasised in the play, it is how they abuse their power for the betterment of themselves and not the country. This fallacy is the down fall of the play as they manipulate the plebeians, “all revoke your ignorant election” this is Sicinus telling the plebeians to revoke their votes of Coriolanus for consul as he will take away everything that belongs to them, according to the tribunes. This action ultimately gets Coriolanus removed from Rome for the betterment of themselves. Coriolanus is the only person who sees what they are actually doing and that it is wrong, “have you not set them on?” this question that Coriolanus poses is a direct threat to Sicinius and Brutus as it is

    Read More

More about Titus Andronicus Villain

Open Document