Get help from the best in academic writing.

Titus Andronicus – Act III, Scene ii, Lines 53-80

The Behavior Of Titus Andronicus In Act III, Scene ii, Lines 53-80

In this part of the play, we encounter the intense inner struggle of Titus Andronicus and the extent to which his hardship and anguish have affected his perception and behavior. The need for revenge has reached an extreme level, very close to madness, expressed by his ever-changing mood and inadequate way of reasoning. Shakespeare further develops the character of Titus, adding new features, achieving a remarkable evolution that presents us with an interesting personality and mentality.

The reactions of Titus are a consequence of this gradual formation of the character. From the very beginning Titus kills one of his sons unscrupulously (I.i.292) and even if we assert that the state stands before his family, his behavior in this case is unjustified by the hasty and thoughtless manner in which he stabs Mitius. This particular scene is indicative of the whimsical and unsteady nature of Andronicus. This notion is enhanced by the following actions in the play and we realize that his reason is easily obscured by rage and prejudice. It is logical that after the heinous act done with his daughter, he is no longer capable of accepting the loss and humiliation, and his decisions become more and more unreasonable and inconsistent. The “black Moor” manages easily to take advantage of the created situation and weakness of Titus, to cut his hand off. Having in mind the scene when he sees the messenger with the two heads of his innocent sons and his own hand (III.i.234) revenge will inevitably become the driving force in Titus’ actions from now on.

The motivation of Andronicus’ conduct after Marcus kills the fly is understandable because of the …

… middle of paper …

…emies is the need for retribution. He is the moral winner in Shakespeare’s habitual combat between the good and the evil. Although the conflict is dramatized to the maximum, often excessively, the playwright has succeeded in creating an interesting and versatile character, achieved through a continuous but uneven evolution in his behavior. This unpredictable behavior adds to the uniqueness and value of the whole work. The author has emphasized on the conduct of his characters and has paid much less attention to their spiritual and mental side. We can judge for those qualities from their behavior. This is what makes this particular play of Shakespeare very close to the contemporary works–the emphasis on action and the incorporation of violent and taboo themes that would attract the interest of the viewers and eventually create a powerful impact on their insight.

Science, Technology, and Morality as Perceived in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley challenges the motives and ethical uncertainties of the scientific developments of her time. This critique has become increasingly relevant as modern scientists endeavor into previously unimagined realms of the natural world through the use of cloning and genetic engineering. Through careful analysis, we can see how the novel illustrates both the potential dangers of these exploits and the irony of the conflicts between science and creationism.

Prior to the birth of the story, Mary Shelley had begun to learn of advancements and speculation in the scientific world of the early nineteenth century; in Frankenstein’s introduction, editor M. K. Joseph asserts that “Mary Shelley wrote in the infancy of modern science, when its enormous possibilities were just beginning to be seen” (xii). Interest in electricity, premature concepts of evolution, and other post-Enlightenment developments seized the attention of Mary and her lover, English writer Percy Shelley. Scientific news and rumors provided as numerous topics for discussion between the Shelleys and their peers: “Many and long were the conversations between Byron and [Percy] Shelley . . . various philosophical doctrines were discussed, and among others the principle of life, and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered and communicated,” wrote Shelley in her 1831 introduction.

Marylin Butler, in her article “The first Frankenstein and Radical Science,” describes how William Lawrence, a physician, lecturer, and friend to the Shelleys, may have had a profound influence on the Shelleys’ perceptions and opinions of science. Butler reports how Lawrence was a passionate student of “materialist science,” a re…

… middle of paper …

…ngman York Press, 1992.

Garber, Frederick. The Autonomy of the Self from Richardson to Huysmans. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Kass, Leon R. Toward a More Natural Science. New York: The Free Press, 1985.

Levine, George. The Endurance of Frankenstein. Los Angeles: Moers, 1974.

Nelkin, Dorothy. “Genetics, God, and Sacred DNA.” Society May/June 1996: 22-25.

Patterson, Arthur Paul. A Frankenstein Study.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Smith, Christopher. Frankenstein as Prometheus.

Spark, Muriel. Mary Shelly. New York: Dutton, 1987.

Williams, Bill. On Shelley’s Use of Nature Imagery.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.