A Tragedy of Principle

            In the article we read by Coppelia Kahn, Kahn asserts that “Lavinia…helped precipitate rape by boasting of her chastity…” (Kahn 64). From a psychological standpoint, I wondered why Lavinia decides to employ a biting tone unique to her otherwise reserved role in the play.
“’Tis thought you have a goodly gift in horning, / And to be doubted (suspected) that your Moor and you / Are singled forth to try experiments,” Lavinia says to Tamora upon seeing her with Aaron in the forest (2.3.67-9). After Chiron and Demetrius murder Bassianus, Lavinia becomes fiercer still. “Ay, come, Semiramis (Assyrian Queen with attributes of the Goddess of Lust Ishtar) – nay, barbarous Tamora, / For no name fits thy nature but thy own,” she scolds (2.3.118-9). Given that Lavinia does not give caustic criticisms or personal attacks at any other point in the play, why would she do so now, especially as she faces the wrath of Tamora and her sons?
            I’ve attached a link to a recent article examining the psychology of "slut shaming". According to Marisa Taylor, "slut shaming" has less to do with sexual behavior as was previously thought and more to do with social class. Sociologists followed fifty-three women from their freshman year of college until after graduation as part of a five year study, examining their social behaviors. Professor of sociology and organizational studies Elizabeth Armstrong noted that in general women who perceive themselves to be higher in the social hierarchy engage in "slut shaming", or “…the practice of maligning women for presumed sexual activity,” to make room for their own sexual promiscuity. The study concluded that the overall purpose of slut-shaming is to send a message to lower-class women that they aren’t welcome in high-status groups.
            Putting Lavinia’s actions in this contemporary perspective, I see two possibilities as to why she feels comfortable criticizing Tamora. Either Lavinia views Tamora as lower in Rome’s social order because of her outsider status (her “otherness”) and wants to make clear that she is not welcome or views herself as above or exempt from the kind of social order where Tamora is higher. I think that the latter is a much more interesting interpretation because it speaks to the patriarchal origins of Lavinia's belief system.
            From the play’s beginning, Lavinia is “Rome’s rich ornament” (1.1.52). Her agency is as a valuable object to Rome and most of the characters, namely men, for her ability to serve (you guessed it) men. Lavinia is an ornament, a jewel, a form of currency backed by the gold standard of her chastity. Following my “thesis,” Lavinia attempts to supersede Tamora in the social hierarchy by virtue of this status. Lavinia scorns Tamora’s sexuality to demonstrate that she believes she is higher in a society where Tamora is considered royalty as a matter of principle. Lavinia does not heed her situational reality (for Chiron and Demetrius are about to ravage her) or agency (for she has no agency of her own to lose as an object viewed in terms of her service to men). And since Lavinia is obviously not slandering Tamora's sexuality to make room for her own sexual promiscuity, I believe that Lavinia’s comments show her supreme adherence to patriarchal principles where a woman's sexuality may be put under a microscope at the expense of, well, women, leading only to women losing more and more of their agency through objectification overall. For Lavinia looks and more like a mute object than ever after her disfigurement, and Tamora goes on to willingly discard her agency as a woman (in becoming Revenge) while ironically looking like an object (without hands) in the movie we watched. What does everyone think?
           

 

Slut-shaming has little to do with sex, study finds

 

Here's the link to that study, if you guys are interested.

Female Revenge Plot: Then and Now

Although Tamora is essentially cast as the evil queen/manipulator/adulterer of Titus Andronicus, I feel her role in the revenge plot is sorely underappreciated. Today, revenge plots and/or diabolical females are pretty huge in Hollywood films (ex. Law Abiding Citizen; Maleficent). What then, would Shakespeare think of a movie like Kill Bill? Or, even more interesting: what would Tamora think of the Bride? For starters, both Titus Andronicus and Kill Bill would likely reach about a 9.5/10 on the gore-scale. They also follow the same general plot: Tamora seeks revenge on Titus for destroying her kingdom and sacrificing her firstborn son; the Bride goes after Bill, her former assassin boss and the father of her lost child. Most importantly, both females are survivors: Tamora survives the destruction of the Goth empire and the Bride survives her wedding-day massacre.

A major downside on Tamora’s reputation is the fact that she orchestrates the rape of Lavinia. Yes, that’s horrible. But it’s not far off from what the women of Kill Bill do to one another. In a similar grimace-worthy encounter, the Bride kills her former assassin friend, Vernita, right in front of her young daughter. That, too, is pretty low. Neither woman should be considered a monster, when they are simply driven in their revenge.

Some additional similarities in plot include rape and illegitimate babies. However, the ways in which the women handle these situations differ. Because of societal restrictions, Tamora is forced to give up her interracial baby to avoid being caught as an infidel. The Bride’s child, also a lovechild, would have at least been accepted in society. Regardless, both babies are lost (sacrificed or missing) tragically.

The rape culture of Titus also differs from that of today. Lavinia’s rape caused her death: death in social status, self-worth, and physical being. In Kill Bill, the Bride easily enacts her vengeance. In both cases, tongues are lost: Lavinia is mutilated by her rapists, but the Bride mutilates her rapists. Lavinia would never have been able to actively seek revenge on her rapists. Instead, her father commandeered the mission and made it about his own pride and honor.

However, getting back to Tamora and the Bride, there is one final difference: Tamora fails while the Bride succeeds. Tamora’s failure is likely due to the societal expectations of female villainy and the presence of a male revenge-seeker, Titus, who essentially stole all of Tamora’s thunder. To allude to the opening quote of Kill Bill, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” Unfortunately, Tamora literally eats that dish of revenge. But on the bright side, the Bride, fellow female vengeance-seeker, succeeds in killing EVERYONE who ever wronged her.

The Tamora Effect: Bad-assery that tragically leads to Death

                                      “Same old song and dance my friends.”

                                                                            - Aerosmith

 The character of Tamora in Titus Andronicus is a strong woman who doesn't stand by and let men walk all over her. When her son was brutally executed and her pleas to Titus for mercy go unheard she takes matters in her own hands. Thus begins the vengeance plot that takes place in the play. It is Tamora’s survival instinct and willingness to use her beauty to expose and bring down her enemies that ultimately seals her fate.

      Back in Shakespeare’s time and reflected in Titus Andronicus, is evidence that a woman is judged by her beauty, and what her body can achieve for the advancement of their male counterparts, and that once a woman is deemed useless, is quickly extinguished. Our example in this case is poor Lavinia, our friendly neighborhood ornament, and tragic pawn in Shakespeare’s topsy-turvy Roman world. Her beauty (namely her virginity), is held in higher regard than her own life. The tension between Tamora and Lavinia plays into the Virgin/Whore complex that still is going strong today. The history of American drama takes a page from Shakespeare plays. Some of the most famous American plays apply the Tamora Effect. 

In modern film and television, Tamora still exists today. 2012’s Snow White and the Huntsman is a perfect example of this. The film stars Kristen Stewart as the virginal Snow White fighting for good, and the amazing Charlize Theron portraying the beautiful ass-kicking evil queen obsessed with youth. It is easy to see that Theron is the Tamora to Stewart’s Lavinia. Both the film and the play have similar plot lines, and both end in the death of the “sinful”, and the triumph of the “pure”. Both Tamora and Ravenna have power and don’t mind doing what is necessary to get what they want. This we all know, means that Ravenna has stepped into male territory, and therefore has to die. Both the movie and the play feature power plays involving fathers and daughters as well. 

            As for me, I personally always root for the Tamoras’ and Ravennas’ of the world because women should be allowed to flex their intellectual and physical muscle without fear of retribution in the form of ostracism, Cucking stools, rape, amputation, and death.