UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA 
SISTEMA DE ESTUDIOS DE POSGRADO 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

“MONSTROUS REPRESENTATIONS OF WOMEN IN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S 

EARLY MODERN TRAGEDY TITUS ANDRONICUS” 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tesis sometida a la consideración de la Comisión del Programa de Estudios de Posgrado en 
Literatura para optar al grado y título de Maestría Académica en Literatura Inglesa 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

NACIRA ORTIZ ÁLVAREZ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Ciudad Universitaria Rodrigo Facio, Costa Rica 

2021  



 
 

ii 
 

Dedicatoria, 

 

A quienes me han apoyado de principio a fin en este viaje…Mami, Jorge, Vic, Dani,Guille 

y mis hermanas y hermanito no de sangre pero si de corazón…Silvy, March, 

Mariel, Cris, y Fa. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

iii 
 

 Agradecimientos,  

 

A mi directora de tesis, 

Dra. Gilda Pacheco, cuya ayuda y paciencia son la razón por la que esta tesis logró 

concretarse y me enseñó muchísimo a lo largo de este proceso.  

A mis lectoras, 

Dra. Hilda Gairaud y M.L. Patricia Barquero cuya ayuda y retroalimentación ayudaron a 

enriquecer este trabajo y me brindaron un gran apoyo a lo largo de esta tesis. 

Me gustaría expresar mi gratitud también al comité presente en mi tesis 

Dra. Ilse Bussing y M.L. Ileana Molina por el apoyo y las observaciones y recomendaciones 

brindadas para esta investigación y por sus enseñanzas al igual que las de mis lectoras y 

directora de tesis a lo largo de mi carrera universitaria. 

 A mi familia humana y no humana por apoyarme siempre y en todo momento y 

rodearme de mucho amor, comprensión, motivación y fortaleza. 

 A mis amistades más cercanas que estuvieron apoyándome desde el inicio y me 

brindaron palabras de motivación (y humor) durante las largas madrugadas y años de trabajo 

para llegar hasta aquí. 

 

 

 

 



 
 

iv 
 

 



 
 

v 
 

Table of Contents 
Dedicatoria........................................................................................................................................ii 

Agradecimientos...............................................................................................................................iii 

Hoja de Aprobación.........................................................................................................................iv 

Tabla de Contenido..........................................................................................................................v 

 Resumen...........................................................................................................................................vii 

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 

1. Topic/Title .......................................................................................................................... 1 

2. Justification ........................................................................................................................ 1 

3. Range of the Topic .............................................................................................................. 3 

4. Viability of the Project ....................................................................................................... 4 

5. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 4 

6. General Objective ............................................................................................................... 4 

7. Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................... 5 

8. Synopsis of the Play ............................................................................................................ 6 

9. Review of Literature ........................................................................................................... 8 

10. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 15 

CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................. 18 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: ................................................................................ 18 

NEW HISTORICAL VIEWS ON GENDER AND MONSTROSITY ............................. 18 

1.1 The Early Modern Era (1485-1600) and The Rise of English Theater ........................... 20 
1.1.1 The Revival of the Classics ............................................................................................................ 21 
1.1.2 The Theater and its Impact ............................................................................................................. 24 
1.1.3 Tragedies: Human Dramas on Stage .............................................................................................. 25 
1.1.4 William Shakespeare: The Bard ..................................................................................................... 29 

1.2 Theories on New Historicism, Gender, and Monstrosity ................................................... 31 
1.2.1 New Historicism: Critical Premises and Power Relationships ....................................................... 32 
1.2.2 Historical Contexts and their Standards and Values ....................................................................... 40 
1.2.3 Gender and the Role of Women in Society .................................................................................... 45 
1.2.4 Monsters in Society and their Portrayals ........................................................................................ 53 

Chapter II: Monstrous Anatomies in Titus Andronicus ................................................. 62 

2.1 Introductory Section: Key Aspects about Context and Text .......................................... 63 

2.2 Monstrosity in Titus Andronicus: Male and Female Monstrosities ................................ 72 
2.2.1 Male Monstrosity: Titus Andronicus and Aaron the Moor ............................................................ 74 

2.2.2 Lavinia: Noble Maiden and Victim of Revenge ........................................................... 76 
2.2.3 Tamora: The Barbarian Other and the Monstrous Female ............................................................. 81 



 
 

vi 
 

2.3. The Degrees of Monstrosity and its implications in Titus Andronicus ........................... 87 
2.3.1 Titus Andronicus: Monstrous Self but still a Noble Roman ........................................................... 88 
2.3.2  Aaron the Moor: Conspirator and Unrepentful Slave .................................................................... 89 
2.3.3 Lavinia: From Roman Beauty to Mutilated Scapegoat .................................................................. 91 
2.3.4 Tamora: Adulterous Wife and Vindictive Mother ......................................................................... 95 

Chapter III:  Female Monstrosity in Lavinia’s Mutilation and Tamora’s Behavior ..... 102 

3.1 Lavinia’s Behavior and its Consequences at the Personal and Social Levels ............... 105 
3.1.1 The Drama of Individual Limitations: Lucrece, Procne, and Lavinia .......................................... 106 
3.1.2 The Burden of the Andronici Family ........................................................................................... 115 

3.2 Tamora’s Actions and their Repercussions in the Private and the Public Spheres ...... 118 
3.2.1 Tamora’s Complicity in the Maiming and Murders of the Andronici .......................................... 120 
3.2.2 The Fall of the Roman Empire at the Hands of Tamora ............................................................... 125 

3.3. Comparing and Contrasting Shakespeare’s Female Characters ................................. 126 
3.3.1 Lavinia as an Ideal Model of Femininity and Tamora as the Monster ......................................... 127 
3.3.2 Lavinia’s Silence and Tamora’s Speech ....................................................................................... 141 

Chapter IV: The Influence of Patriarchy in Titus Andronicus: ................................... 154 

Paternal and Maternal Revenge .................................................................................. 154 

4.1 Revenge in William Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus ................................................... 157 

4.2 Paternal Revenge: Titus’ Search for Retribution ......................................................... 160 
4.2.1 Titus’ and Atreus’ Cannibalism as Parallel Forms of Paternal Revenge ...................................... 161 
4.2.2 Legally-encoded violence and Madness as Resources for Revenge ............................................. 165 

4.3 Maternal Revenge: Tamora’s Search for Justice ......................................................... 170 
4.3.1  Motherhood and Society ............................................................................................................. 171 
4.3.2 Tamora and Hecuba as Parallel Models of Maternal Revenge ..................................................... 173 
4.3.3 The Use of Manipulation, Rape, and Grief in Revenge ............................................................... 180 
4.3.4. The Struggle to Assert Grievability ............................................................................................. 184 

Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................. 190 

Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 200 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

vii 
 

Resumen 
 
 

Esta tesis se propuso como objetivo general determinar por qué los personajes 
femeninos y las nociones y perspectivas sobre el cuerpo y el comportamiento femenino son 
representados como elementos monstruosos en la obra de William Shakespeare Tito 
Andrónico. La investigación utilizó como metodología una plataforma ecléctica que combinó 
el enfoque Nuevo Historicista junto con nociones de poder, género, y monstruosidad.  

 
El cuerpo de la tesis se dividió en cuatro capítulos. En el primer capítulo se analizó 

el contexto histórico y el marco teórico de la tesis, pues el contexto es esencial para el enfoque 
del Nuevo Historicismo de Stephen Greenblatt. En el segundo capítulo se compararon y 
contrastaron las anatomías monstruosas femeninas y masculinas para demostrar la relación y 
diferencias de género entre las representaciones de los personajes masculinos y femeninos 
basadas en nociones patriarcales y ansiedades sobre el orden y la moral de la época. En el 
tercer capítulo se analizó la representación de los personajes femeninos principales de la obra 
en base a sus acciones, limitaciones, y también las percepciones y trato de otros personajes 
hacia ellas, así como el rol de la violación y la mutilación sobre el cuerpo femenino. 
Finalmente, en el cuarto capítulo se exploraron las diferencias de género en la venganza al 
comparar y contrastar las venganzas paternas de Atreo y Tito frente a las venganzas maternas 
de Hécuba y Tamora. 
 

El propósito de esta tesis fue demostrar cómo la monstruosidad femenina en la obra 
de William Shakespeare titulada Tito Andrónico (1593) está mediada por contextos sociales 
y nociones patriarcales que repercuten en la representación de los personajes femeninos como 
elementos monstruosos. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 



 
 

 
 

 

 



1 
 

 
 

 

Introduction 
1. Topic/Title 
“Monstrous Representations of Women in William Shakespeare’s Early Modern Tragedy 

Titus Andronicus” 

2. Justification 
The Early Modern period witnessed the birth of texts whose characters and literary 

devices developed engaging narratives that are still considered transcendental milestones for 

modern literature. Texts from this period portrayed men as tragic heroes in search of justice 

and noble causes; however, women were often depicted as an aid for male characters or as 

obstacles and monsters that must be overcome or killed to restore order in society. William 

Shakespeare belonged to this period and his works exhibit these female representations. From 

this perspective, the following thesis aims to demonstrate that female monstrosity in the 

Shakespearian play entitled Titus Andronicus (1593) is mediated by social contexts and 

patriarchal notions. Hence, negative portrayals of women reflect the attitudes of society 

toward strong female characters who transgress the private sphere in order to grasp political 

power or to assert the value and grievability1 of their loved ones, as well as their own. 

Additionally, apart from the negative portrayals, the text also presents an idealized 

construction of femininity to contrast with the transgressive and dangerous woman. 

However, this idyllic femininity also portrays a weak female character that is victimized 

despite following the rules of her society. While people in early modern contexts considered 

strong women as monsters or monstrous, they perceived men, who exhibited the same 

qualities, as both heroic and ambitious. Thus, female monstrosity becomes a social construct 

 
1 Grievabilityis a term developed by Judith Butler in Frames of War. It refers to a person’s worthiness of 
being grieved by others based on his/her usefulness to society. 



2 
 

 
 

tied to a deeply political and social context that fears women who disregard social norms and 

challenge the status quo, as well as oppresses women who obey the social norms and who 

are unfairly punished. 

It is pertinent to point out that in mythology, art, and religion, monsters are associated to 

elements considered marvelous, but they are also related to other divergent concepts. As 

stated by Mircea Eliade, monstrosity represents a system of constructs in which myths and 

ideologies (discourses of power) of each culture and time meet. Each time and place 

determines righteousness and normality; thus, society governs and categorizes its members 

based on these perceptions. Therefore, Elizabethan times and Renaissance views play 

important roles in this thesis, for they help explore and determine the monstrous female 

representations in the play. 

 In addition, in order to study the role of context, time, and the female gender issue in 

William Shakespeare’s text, I will use a New Historicist approach to analyze the hegemonic 

discourses that permeate this Shakespearean play and create stereotyped representations of 

women. In fact, Early Modern tragedies and productions from ancient times echo a 

hegemonic masculinity that frames female characters into dichotomies and forces them into 

total submission as docile wives, mothers, and daughters who are at risk of becoming 

monstrous if they resist the status quo. Therefore, a comparison between the female and male 

characters in the chosen play is needed to determine how the patriarchal context influences 

the portrayal of women in a world ruled by men. But before starting with these comparisons 

it is important to clarify some aspects of this play since Shakespeare’s text presents some 

relevant traits which need to be exposed as follows. 

Depending on the context and society where the play has been performed, Titus 

Andronicus is either admired or discarded. Today, the importance and originality of its topic 



3 
 

 
 

become relevant in our current context where gender issues are constantly being challenged 

by patriarchal societies. Then, the relevance of this research lies, in part, on the study of two 

contrasting female heroines in a play whose traditional focus of attention is usually its male 

hero, as the title of the text shows. In addition, its female characters are not realistic 

representations of women, but limited or distorted stereotypes based on male anxieties. 

Therefore, the female characters’ analyses will help explore the social constructs of 

monstrosity as well as its effects and implications on collective and individual levels. Thus, 

the proposed research is justified and needed in order to expose the social myopia on gender 

as well as the prejudices and fears that are involved in the concept of monstrosity as a notion 

that has been created and re-created at different historical times. 

 

3. Range of the Topic 
For the purpose of the present research, as mentioned before, I will use a New Historicist 

approach to analyze William Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus. The social context will be 

essential in order to unravel Early Modern notions of gender that are present in the female 

characterizations of the play. Additionally, New Historicism will serve to explicitly politicize 

an academic discourse “that had often attempted to avoid or conceal partisan or polemical 

commitment, [and that] unsettles familiar aesthetic hierarchies that had been manipulated, 

consciously or unconsciously, to limit the cultural significance of women” (Gallagher and 

Greenblat 11). Consequently, the New Historicist approach complemented by some feminist 

notions and theoretical views on monstrosity will provide the elements necessary for the 

study of female monstrosity rooted in Shakespeare’s text and influenced by the Early Modern 

social context. In sum, this research aims to create awareness in regards to the stereotypes 

that affect female depictions in literature, particularly by showing how either strong or docile 



4 
 

 
 

women are defined as either monsters or martyrs who are punished either way for their 

transgressions and/or actions. 

 

4. Viability of the Project 
 The object of study proposed in this thesis is viable in terms of available sources and 

theory. A number of critical texts related to New Historicism, gender approaches, and 

monstrosity will be used to articulate the methodological framework needed for this type of 

research. In fact, several works have been written on Early Modern texts and especially on 

Shakespeare’s plays, and on New Historicism as well. Additionally, various studies on 

gender violence that focus on different time periods, from the classical to contemporary 

literature, have been taken into account. Some other valuable texts and views that have 

explained the concept of monstrosity, its origin and traits are also a part of the bibliography. 

Thus, the pertinent sources will facilitate the study of female monstrosity and will help 

explore the influence that the Early Modern society had on the portrayals of women as 

monstrous beings.  

 

5. Problem Statement 
How do the socio-historical contexts affect the way in which monstrosity is portrayed in the 

female characters of William Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus? 

 

6. General Objective 
To determine why the female characters and the notions and views of the female body and 

female behavior are represented as monstrous elements in William Shakespeare’s Titus 

Andronicus. 

 



5 
 

 
 

7. Specific Objectives 
1. To examine the historical background of the Early Modern period, the approach of 

New Historicism and some relevant theoretical views on gender and monstrosity.  

2. To compare monstrous female anatomies to monstrous male anatomies in Titus 

Andronicus, in order to show the relation and differences in gender among character 

portrayals and the patriarchal anxieties on order and morality of the time.  

3. To analyze the portrayals of the main female characters, their power and limitations, 

as well as the others’ perceptions and treatment toward them. 

4. To explore the gender differences on revenge: Tamora’s revenge as opposed to Titus 

Andronicus’s revenge in order to analyze the consequences and effects of these 

vindictive acts. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



6 
 

 
 

8. Synopsis of the Play 
 

Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus takes place at the end of the Roman Empire. After 

returning from the war against the Goths, Lucius, Titus Andronicus’ son, declares that the 

proudest warrior from the Goths, Alarbus, must be sacrificed. Tamora, Queen of the Goths 

and mother to Alarbus, begs for his life. But her pleas are ignored and her son is sacrificed. 

Afterwards, Saturninus, the Roman Emperor, chooses Lavinia, Titus’ daughter, as his future 

wife. However, a dispute ensues when Mutius, Titus’ son, tries to convince his father not to 

marry Lavinia to Saturninus because she is betrothed to Bassianus, Saturninus’ brother. Titus 

becomes enraged and kills his own son for contradicting his order. Saturninus, distressed by 

Titus’ actions, resolves to marry Tamora instead of Lavinia and avoids further confrontations.  

On the day of the royal hunt, Tamora and Aaron, Tamora’s servant and lover, plot 

against the Andronici in the forest. Tamora lies to her sons, Chiron and Demetrius, by telling 

them that Bassianus and Lavinia threatened to kill her. Consequently, Chiron and Demetrius 

murder Bassianus and rape Lavinia before cutting off her hands and tongue. Marcus, Titus’ 

brother, finds Lavinia bleeding and mutilated wandering in the woods alone and brings her 

to Titus. Both men lament Lavinia’s tragedy and the loss of her virginity. Chiron and 

Demetrius toss Bassianus’ body into a pit and write a forged letter that blames the Andronici 

for Bassianus’ assassination, leading to the imprisonment of Quintus and Martius, Titus’ 

sons. Both are unfairly condemned to die for Bassianus’ murder. Aaron convinces Titus to 

cut off his right hand in exchange for his sons’ lives. But after cutting his hand off, Titus is 

informed that his sons were executed anyway.  

Sometime later, Lavinia writes the names of her rapists on the dirt with the stumps of 

her hands so that her family can avenge her. Titus becomes angry when he finds out who the 



7 
 

 
 

rapists are and looks for revenge. Therefore, Titus invites Tamora and Saturninus to a banquet 

where he feeds the queen the flesh of her own children. Later, Titus reveals his murder of 

Tamora’s sons and she becomes horrified. Subsequently, Titus kills Tamora, and the 

Emperor kills Titus in revenge.   Finally, Lucius, Titus’ only surviving son, returns home and 

kills Saturninus, becoming the new Emperor of Rome. 

  -------------- °--------------  

Titus Andronicus is one of Shakespeare’s earliest plays, written between 1588 and 

1593. This play helped shape future plots and characters from other Shakespearean tragedies, 

as is the case of Iago from Othello, who shares evil characteristics with Aaron, and Cordelia 

from King Lear, who resembles Lavinia in her innocence and her great respect for her father. 

Interestingly enough, the play was initially well received but soon forgotten for many years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



8 
 

 
 

9. Review of Literature 
 

Several critics have embarked in the task of analyzing the Early Modern period (1485-

1600) in hope of achieving a better understanding of its literary productions. Some critics 

have focused their analyses on the female representations that male authors portray in these 

works. The present literary review will explore the different trends found in existing studies 

regarding female monstrosity and gender in Titus Andronicus. Therefore, the representation 

of female characters will be analyzed from this perspective. It is important to clarify that 

critics have studied women in terms of their actions and transgressions as either martyrs or 

monstrous. Yet, very few have addressed the reasons behind the negative female portrayals 

based on social or biological differences. The most common views found in these studies 

consist of female initiative as a masculine trait, female sexuality as a disruption of patriarchal 

order, female refusal to abide to social norms as a punishable transgression, motherhood as 

a source of anxiety, and female revenge as a monstrous behavior. Given the arguments listed 

above, it is significant to study the factors leading to the creation and interpretation of female 

characters in Early Modern texts in order to understand traditional readings of strong women 

as either evil or monstrous, as opposed to their male counterparts who are depicted as brave 

and courageous. 

Several feminist critics have scrutinized William Shakespeare’s texts to explore his 

writing and his position towards female characters, as is the case of Virginia Woolf, Theresa 

Kemp, Juliet Dusinberre, Lisa Jardine, Marianne Novy, and Janet Aldeman, among others. 

Feminist criticism and theory have been an undeniably invigorating influence on the study 

of Shakespeare in the past century, and these works have played a crucial role in the 

continuing interest in Shakespeare’s texts. For example, Virginia Woolf in a review that first 



9 
 

 
 

appeared in the “Times Literary Supplement 18” (1920),  states that female characters in 

Shakespeare’s plays are not what they pretend to be: “Some are plainly men in disguise; 

others represent what men would like to be, or are conscious of not being” (65). Woolf 

acknowledges that the women who engage in masculine behavior are set apart from other 

female characters. Theresa Kemp in Women in the Age of Shakespeare (2009), argues that 

the bard’s2 plays present moral lessons by depicting women as either models to be emulated 

or as examples on what a woman should not be (masculine, active, transgressive)as seen in 

the Shakespearean heroines: Lady Macbeth, Goneril, Regan, and Tamora.  

Additionally, female characters in Shakespeare’s plays have been the object of study 

of some critics who affirm that the British playwright not only reflected cultural attitudes and 

notions of his time toward the feminine gender, but he also ventured into the portrayal of 

transgressive figures. Juliet Dusinberre, in her work entitled Shakespeare and the Nature of 

Women (1996), affirms that the culture in which Early Modern drama evolved was “feminist 

in sympathy” and that Shakespeare’s “attitudes towards women are part of a common stock 

to be found in the plays of almost all of his contemporaries” (5), which is a different view 

from other critics who argued that portrayals of women in Shakespeare are often negative. 

To clarify her views, Dusinberre states that “Shakespeare’s strong female characters are the 

result of the playwright’s genius sparking off the ideological catalyst of his time” (305), and 

that Shakespeare presents women as individuals who challenge early modern female roles 

(172).  

Lisa Jardine in Reading Shakespeare Historically (1996) agrees with Dusinberre and 

contends that Shakespeare’s plays present an enlightened view of women; however, unlike 

 
2The term “bard” will sometimes be used to refer to William Shakespeare throughout the text. 



10 
 

 
 

Dusiberre, Jardine is more cautious in her description of Shakespeare’s women as she 

acknowledges that Shakespeare also depicts representations of women permeated by male 

anxieties. Therefore, examples of these social anxieties portrayed in female characters can 

be found in Shakespearean plays where women reject or are unable to pursue motherhood, 

such as Lady Macbeth in Macbeth, or Goneril in King Lear. These anxieties are also seen in 

women who refuse to follow social roles, engage in male behavior or have other-wordly 

powers such as the witches in Macbeth, Queen Margaret in Henry VI, Sycorax in The 

Tempest, and Tamora in Titus Andronicus, among other Shakespearian heroines. For some 

critics, these anxieties resulted from the changing attitudes and conditions of women based 

on the Protestantism and Humanism of the time. Hence, these critics assert that female 

heroines in Shakespeare’s texts are ambivalent portrayals of women who range from positive 

ideal female characters to negative transgressive and evil beings. 

Other critics such as Marianne Novy, Janet Aldeman, and Marilyn French study the 

dichotomous nature of Shakespeare’s heroines and how their societies affect the construction 

of their identities. Novy, for example, concedes that there are ambivalent and ever changing 

relationships among the portrayals of women in the Early Modern society. French and 

Aldeman argue that Shakespeare is not necessarily a feminist, but rather a writer still 

constrained by culturally assigned binary gender roles that dictate which behaviors are 

feminine and which are masculine. Aldeman, for instance, in Suffocating Mothers: Theories 

of Maternal Origin in Shakespeare (1992), examines the construction of male identity and 

the representation of women through fantasies of female sexuality in the Shakespearean 

tragedies. She asserts that “women in the later tragedies become the locus of male terrors and 

desires concerning the potential malevolence and contamination of maternal power” (10).  



11 
 

 
 

So male terrors will be exemplified through the negative portrayals of women who 

choose to disregard male order and re-assert their identity and grievability. Irene Dash in 

Women’s Worlds in Shakespeare’s Plays (1997), as well as Aldeman, concedes that 

Shakespeare is not necessarily feminist. In fact, some of his female characters are depicted 

negatively in order to reflect male anxieties against “unfeminine behaviors” and sexual 

fantasies. In addition, current analyzes of Titus Andronicus focus on Titus, the protagonist, 

as the avenger, and the studies that concentrate on Tamora tend to view her mostly as a 

vicious model of an anti-mother or as a terrible woman. This view can also be found in Emma 

Cornila’s, Jenna Fitzgerald’s, Bernice Harris’, and Kelly Sorge’s works.  

The character of Lavinia has also been a point of discussion among critics. Cornila 

argues that Lavinia represents the ideal woman for the Romans and becomes a martyr, while 

Tamora is the barbarian and vicious woman who contributes to the downfall of the Empire. 

Lavinia, according to Cornila, “shows us what would happen if women did not have any 

conviction or want for independence” (1). Thus, Lavinia is presented as an ideal Roman 

woman who abides to the norms and obeys the male figures in the play. Steven Gregg also 

asserts that Lavinia’s behavior is that of the perfect Roman woman, yet, her destiny is one of 

the most gruesome in Titus Andronicus. On her part,Cornila affirms that the only time where 

Lavinia does not behave passively is when she berates Tamora, a woman and not a man. 

Thus, by arguing with a woman and not with a man, Lavinia remains a “good woman.” 

Although Cornila perceives Lavinia as a tool used to portray a female ideal that opposes 

Tamora, Gregg asserts that Lavinia is instead used as a justification for Titus’ search for 

revenge.  

 In The Ladies Dreadful: Abjection and Female Agency in Early Modern English 

Drama (2011), Nicole Batchelor states that women in Early modern plays both resist and 



12 
 

 
 

embrace the patriarchal narrative of the abject female Other. In Lavinia’s case, her adherence 

and willingness to obey, grant her a mode of limited agency to resist the patriarchal gender 

roles that confine and harm her through Shakespeare’s text. Lavinia appears as an object to 

be won or used. According to Cornila, Lavinia “is not represented as a full-fledged character” 

(15). In other words, Titus’ daughter exists to follow her father and brothers’ orders to the 

point where she passively accepts her murder by the hands of Titus. Even though Lavinia is 

another victim of the revenge of the Goths, Titus kills his daughter before allowing her to see 

the retribution for her rape. Gregg agrees that Lavinia’s willingness to “perform the female 

role, even after her rape and mutilation, propels her towards her demise” (9). Consequently, 

both critics, Gregg and Cornila argue that Lavinia’s purpose in the play is to represent the 

Roman and Early Modern ideal of the “good” woman. Thus, both express that Shakespeare 

uses Lavinia and Tamora as counterpoints to depict the consequences for women who are 

overtly passive or overtly aggressive. 

Discussing Tamora, Cornila affirms that the Goth queen’s actions are free from 

Roman ideals; consequently, she is perceived by the Romans as a barbarian and an example 

of what might happen if women are given power. Jenna Fitzgerald concedes that Tamora is 

Shakespeare’s first model of a female avenger; for women in Shakespeare’s world are usually 

portrayed as either weak or evil. Therefore, in Titus Andronicus the reader faces these two 

opposite female portrayals in Lavinia and Tamora. In fact, Tamora begins the play as a good 

mother that pleas for her son’s life; however, she eventually becomes an anti-mother when 

she engages in her road to revenge. For Kelly Sorge, Tamora’s villainy unfolds from her 

reaction to the horror of her son’s murder by Titus’ sons.  In her essay, “The Gnawing 

Vulture: Revenge, Trauma Theory, and Titus Andronicus” (2002), Deborah Willis affirms: 

“It is as if the tender hearted mother simply dies with Alarbus and in her place stands an 



13 
 

 
 

insulted, vindictive queen” (38). Both Fitzgerald and Cornila agree that Tamora acts out of 

her own selfishness and her search for power. Sorge, in contrast, asserts that Tamora’s actions 

are fueled with her desire to avenge her son. In fact, the character of Tamora has been more 

analyzed by the critics than the character of Lavinia. 

Jordi Coral, Debora Willis, Jenna Fitzgerald, and Kelly Sorge have focused on 

Tamora’s “masculine” behavior and her willingness to transgress social boundaries in order 

to live in the private and the social spheres simultaneously. For example, Coral agrees with 

Fitzgerald that Tamora’s behavior is male oriented. Fitzgerald argues that the queen’s actions 

are meant to hurt Titus and his pride which ultimately leads Titus to kill the Goths. In 

addition, Fitzgerald declares that, like Lady Macbeth, Tamora is a wild character who creates 

anxiety in men by forcing them to question their identities. So she insults and pushes her 

male counterparts towards violent acts. Thus, Tamora is a strong and proud woman with a 

domineering nature that allows her to step outside the private sphere and into the public. In 

fact, Coral also states that Tamora seeks conflict to satisfy her own needs. The Queen of the 

Goths struggles to achieve her revenge by casting aside feminine traits, thus, subverting 

authority and manipulating the men around her. In sum, Tamora’s revenge is perceived as 

evil based on her gender and her actions. 

In addition, Tamora’s sexuality in the play constitutes a powerful and dangerous 

attribute, as Kelly Sorge and Bernice Harris state. Both critics agree that Tamora’s sexuality 

represents a potential danger for her male counterparts throughout the tragedy, and her lust 

ultimately leads her to commit heinous acts that expose male terrors and anxieties towards 

female autonomy, as well as reflect her refusal to adjust to the status quo. Therefore, in 

Masking Femininity: Women and Power in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, As You Like it, and Titus 

Andronicus (2017), Sorge asserts that one of Tamora’s powers is her sexuality, which in turn 



14 
 

 
 

makes her vicious and dangerous based on her transgressions and powerful actions against 

men in the play. In her text, Sexuality as a Signifier for Power Relations: Using Lavinia of 

Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus (1996), Harris discusses the fear of female sexuality and 

asserts: “A woman’s ability to have multiple orgasms probably accounted for a more serious 

concern—that a woman’s sexual needs would drive her to illicit sexual couplings” (387). 

From this perspective, her sexuality and her willingness to transgress social boundaries place 

Tamora into the realm of the monstrous.  

Some critics read Tamora’s character as evil and monstrous because of her revenge 

and the way in which she reacts to violence and murder. According to Sorge, Willis, and 

Douglas Green quoted in Fitzgerald, Tamora surpasses Titus. Even though he rejects 

identification with Tamora’s culture, Titus is ultimately driven to “barbarous” actions by his 

enemy, a Goth woman. Fitzgerald and Cornila also recognize that Tamora subverts authority 

and masculine paradigms through manipulation. Green asserts that Tamora’s evil manifests 

itself early and that she has a subtle power that makes her dangerous. In addition, Carol 

Thomas Neewly argues that the speeches by female characters as Tamora, though violent 

and at times cruel in nature, held the ability to captivate and strike fear within their male 

counterparts. Tamora struggles for equality and seeks revenge to restore balance, yet, she is 

often perceived as vicious for her revenge and “masculine” demeanor.  

Although several critics have analyzed Early Modern works, few texts regarding 

monstrous representations of female characters study the reasons behind the portrayal of 

strong women as terrible and dangerous or beautiful women who are victimized and 

transformed into grotesque bodies. Concerning William Shakespeare’s depiction of Tamora 

and how critics have studied her character, most of them agree that the Queen of the Goths 

acts as a vicious woman whose revenge is initially justified, but towards the end, her lust 



15 
 

 
 

becomes her downfall. The major trend found in the various works from the theorists studied 

is that these women are considered monstrous mainly as a result of their transgressions of 

social norms.  

Thus, the study of the monstrous representations of women in Shakespeare’s play 

will explore cultural notions of gender based on different discourses that aim to silence 

women’s voices and restrict their social mobility. This research also proposes to fill out a gap 

in this Shakespearean play, for most traditional studies on Titus Andronicus focus on Titus 

as the hero. In those studies, Tamora and Lavinia are considered stereotypes of convenient 

polarized women. However, as female characters they demand more exploration. 

10. Methodology 
 

 The present thesis requires a methodology of description, analysis and interpretation. 

This research uses a literary corpus, a Shakespearean play that will be submitted to a critical 

analysis.As a methodological framework, the use of a New Historicist approach will facilitate 

an exploration of the text focusing on the influence that the historical context of the author 

had on the creation of his work as well as the historical context depicted in the play itself. In 

order to carry out this research, readings of the text at social and historical levels will be 

undertaken. Therefore, this analysis demands not only the text per se but also its context. In 

addition, the approach selected will be complemented by theories and views on gender and 

monstrosity to develop the thesis topic. In other words, a theoretical eclectic platform will be 

structured to contemplate a New Historicist approach with critical premises on gender and 

monstrosity. 

The first step of the analysis consists of a study of the Early Modern Period and the 

historical contexts used by Shakespeare in Titus Andronicus. The second step is to identify 



16 
 

 
 

the influence of the Early Modern Period on the portrayal of female characters in the tragedy 

as well as of male characters as a counterpoint strategy using the theories already mentioned. 

Consequently, a comparative analysis in terms of gender and monstrosity will be developed. 

In sum, a dialogue between the context and the text will emerge and allow for an analysis 

that can properly explore the representations of female monstrosity in William Shakespeare’s 

tragedy Titus Andronicus.  

 Regarding the structure of this thesis, the analysis will be divided into four chapters 

that address monstrosity in various characters in order to asses how female monstrosity is 

perceived and judged differently. The chapters will explore topics such as: monstrous 

anatomies, social and moral views of monstrosity, historical contexts and the influence of 

patriarchy in Titus Andronicus, among others.  

The first chapter will examine the historical background of the Early Modern period 

and theories on New Historicism, views of monstrosity, and issues of gender. The second 

chapter will compare monstrous female anatomies to monstrous male anatomies to show the 

relations and differences of gender in character portrayals as well as the Roman anxieties on 

the concepts of order and morality of the time. To develop this chapter, theories on gender 

and monstrosity, along with a study of the historical context, will help provide a complete 

analysis to determine those similarities and differences between female anatomies and male 

anatomies perceived as monstrous. The third chapter will focus on Tamora’s depiction as a 

monstrous being based on her actions against the Roman society in contrast to Lavinia’s 

portrayal as the ideal Roman woman. In order to do this, theories on gender and monstrosity 

will aid in supporting how these two women are depicted. Finally, the fourth chapter will 

examine the differences in the judgment placed on revenge. To examine these differences, 

social views and gender theories will help determine how gender issues influence the 



17 
 

 
 

perceptions of revenge, as such exemplified through the cases of Tamora’s and Titus’ 

respective revenge. Therefore, by establishing a connection between the socio-historical 

context from the tragedy and from William Shakespeare’s text, this study aims to show how 

female monstrosity in Titus Andronicus is influenced by social context and patriarchal 

notions that frame women into stereotypes, reflecting male anxieties towards female bodies 

in terms of sexuality and objectification as well as male fear towards women’s ability and 

power to challenge the status quo. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



18 
 

 
 

CHAPTER I 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: 

NEW HISTORICAL VIEWS ON GENDER AND 
MONSTROSITY 

 

Representations of female monstrosity in Early Modern texts are critical issues to 

New Historicist approaches that aim to re-read and study literary works of some of the most 

influential writers. From this perspective, William Shakespeare’s tragedy Titus Andronicus 

will be analyzed by using New Historicism and other theories in order to create an 

interdisciplinary approach that will present theoretical perspectives on gender and will 

explore the concepts of monstrosity, as well. The theories listed above will help readers grasp 

the reasons behind the portrayal of female submission and the framing of strong women as 

grotesque and monstrous entities under the gaze of the male collective. The proposed analysis 

will show how the Early Modern historical context affected the representations of female 

protagonists as monsters based on their actions, physical appearance, and their adoption or 

rejection of social moral codes. Although some studies present the female protagonists in 

these texts as evil and monstrous per se, this research will use Stephen Greenblatt’s New 

Historicist approach to understand how context played an important role in the 

representations of these women who are provided with monstrous traits. Greenblatt’s 

methodology will contribute to unearth the mixture of voices and discourses3 within the Early 

 
3According to Foucault, discourse is defined as systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of 
action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak (Lessa 
290). 

 

 



19 
 

 
 

Modern period that justify the lynching and destruction of female transgression based on 

notions of gender.  

This thesis aims to uncover the voices of the various discourses that support the 

reading of deviant and violently transformed women as monstrous by analyzing how 

monstrosity is portrayed in female as well as in male characters in Shakespeare’s Titus 

Andronicus. Therefore, in order to better understand the portrayals of both women in the 

play, it is necessary to explore the context in which the play was written and the social 

expectations of that time. Hence, some questions that drive this thesis are: what female 

behaviors are considered monstrous or deviant in the Early Modern context? How does the 

Early Modern culture view the female body in terms of monstrosity? How is female revenge 

perceived in Early Modern tragedies as opposed to male revenge?  

The English rebuilt their society after the black plague4. Thus, the restoration of the 

English society resulted in a cultural movement known as the Renaissance that took place in 

the Early Modern era, an age that portrays Europe’s artistic and literary revolution, after 

centuries under the influence of the Middle Ages. Unlike the religious motifs of Medieval art 

and literature, the Renaissance brought about the revival of the Classics and fostered the 

creation of literary masterpieces that have survived through the centuries and are still being 

studied today. Drama, as a literary genre, played a preponderant role in the context of the 

Renaissance. The play selected as the literary corpus of this thesis belongs to that time. 

Therefore, taking into account the text and the proposed theoretical framework, this first 

chapter will discuss the birth of theater and its evolution towards the Early Modern period, 

 
4 The Bubonic plague swept through Asia, Europe, and Africa in the XIV century. 



20 
 

 
 

Stephen Greenblatt’s approach on New Historicism, and some theories on gender and 

monstrosity which are relevant to the topic of research. 

1.1 The Early Modern Era (1485-1600) and The Rise of English Theater 
 

The Early Modern age marks a prolific and notorious period in arts and literature as 

a result of the diverse cultural manifestations that were permeating Europe at the time. Leah 

Whittington asserts that this period was "originally defined in the Victorian era to register 

what was perceived to be the burgeoning humanism of English life after 1500” (10). At this 

point, it is pertinent to clarify the term “Early Modern,” which is the historic period that 

began in England after the accession of Henry VII (1485) and ended with the Restoration of 

Charles II (1660). In fact, the term “modern” is defined by its relation to antiquity and was 

employed during the Renaissance implying a “progressive economic and administrative 

rationalization and differentiation of the social world” (Sarup qtd. in Hrubes 130). On their 

side, Karl Marx and Max Weber visualize the period as a “historical periodizing term which 

refers to the epoch that follows the ‘Middle Ages’ or Feudalism’ ” (qtd. in Best 2). In other 

words, the name of the period was deeply attuned to the cultural process that was an essential 

catalyst for the improvement of the “early modern” perceptions of society and modernity 

(Withington qtd. in Best 10).  

In addition, the period witnessed many important historical events: the invention of 

the printing press (1450), the War of the Roses (1455-1487), the rise and fall of the Tudor 

Dynasty (1457-1509), the Reformation (1534), the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, the arrival of 

the Pilgrims in the New World (1620), the outbreaks of civil wars after the ascension of 

Charles I (1625), and the end of the Stuart reign at the beginning of the eighteen-century. It 

is important to point out that armed conflicts during the Tudor and Stuart dynasties helped 



21 
 

 
 

improve the use of weapons, and so the British economy offered opportunities for companies 

that created arms and warlike artifacts that were used in those conflicts. In sum, the revolts 

that resulted from social instability changed an English community that shifted from “one 

founded on the concepts of hierarchy, uniformity, and personal loyalty to one founded on the 

concepts of difference” (Abrams 1073). Aside from armed confrontations, the bubonic 

plague (1348) killed more than half of the population in Europe, thus leaving the survivors 

and their descendants to reach the Early modern Age with the task of rebuilding their societies 

and cultures, and so they were motivated by a feeling of rebirth. 

 

1.1.1 The Revival of the Classics 
 

  Prior to discussing the role of theater and its influence, the revival of the Classics 

must be addressed. The rediscovery and reappropiation of the Greek arts by the Europeans 

of that time support their interest in a group of English scholars known as the “Oxford Group” 

who endeavored in the task of studying classical works and molding their present from the 

past of great civilizations. The group brought forth a rebirth of letters and arts based on a new 

aesthetics influenced by texts and norms of Classical antiquity (Abrams 396). The revival 

commenced in Italy with the creation of sculptures based on ancient motifs and spread all 

over Europe and other artistic fields. 

  As many artists adopted the new trend, the Classical influence became discernible in 

architecture, art, music, and literature. Italy’s kinship with the ancient civilizations expedited 

the interest in Greek and Roman cultures, thus resulting in the scholars’ utilitarian motive 

that sought to exploit Classical antiquity for modern man (Highet 20). Scholars and literati 

such as William Grocyn, Polydore Vergil, Thomas Reid, David Hume of Godscroft, and Gian 



22 
 

 
 

Vittorio Rossi, to name a few, began translating written texts in an effort to assist their study 

and imitation of the Classics for cultural and academic purposes. In England, schools 

incorporated Greek and Latin in their curriculum to prompt reading in the original languages 

and learning about the cultures of the ancient world. The mandatory inclusion of Greek and 

Latin texts in the educational system became a source of inspiration for Early Modern writers 

such as Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Kyd, Thomas Middleton, and William Shakespeare, 

among others, as can be seen through the construction of their characters and motifs of many 

of their plays. Classical influences enabled writers to conceive engaging and structured 

artistic manifestations, especially in theater where playwrights attempted to eclipse their 

ancestors’ works. In sum, the influence of the Classics is observable in the structure of plays, 

motifs, and characters. Different playwrights fashioned direct allusions to the ancient Greek 

civilization in their plays to pay homage to their literary forefathers; Shakespeare was no 

exception. 

Ideologies and beliefs were unleashed through cultural manifestations in education, 

art, and literature that were deeply rooted in the social development of Elizabethan subjects. 

Curricular plans were modified to include classical influences: “education was ordered 

according to the subjects of the medieval trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the 

quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music) but with new emphasis on rhetoric 

and classical texts” (Abrams 397). Writers of the Renaissance replicated “all the newly found 

devices of sentence-structure and paragraph-structure, or versification, of imagery and 

rhetorical arrangement” (Highet 19) in their texts, in an attempt to transcend the Greeks and 

the Romans. The rediscovery of classical culture in this period involved an expansion in “the 

powers and resources of all the arts-sculpture, architecture, painting, and music too and a 

closer, more fruitful alliance between them” (Highet 21). 



23 
 

 
 

Therefore, the revival of the Classics in England improved education through the 

inclusion of a more culturally diverse curriculum that diverted from the ecclesiastical 

doctrines of the Medieval era. Consequently, grammar schools cradled some of the most 

lucid minds of the Renaissance and avowed for a new future for the modern man. Along with 

education, the improvement of infrastructure helped European society in the mobilization of 

resources through territories. As a result, transportation and infrastructure shortened 

distances and prompted international relations. As the economy increased, so did the 

opportunities for citizens to engage in ludicrous activities, which, in turn, incremented the 

proliferation of literary productions such as plays.  

Parallelisms are evident when comparing Greek and Early Modern cultures where 

citizens could engage in cultural and leisure activities due to the social order that each society 

gradually acquired through either slavery in the case of the Greeks or by means of an 

economic stability in the case of the Early Modern society. So, economic stability and 

cultural proliferation helped to improve social order by providing citizens with a sense of 

security that was often threatened and recovered in the representation of many plays of the 

period. Writers often depicted chaotic royal families and unstable kingdoms in their texts as 

a social critique which ended when the heroes installed order. They were received by 

audiences that cheered the murder of villains and invaders by the hand of brave princes and 

nobles who could restore the order and save the kingdom. Thus, the theater was a means of 

presenting their desirable stability. Unfortunately, such stability is neither perceived in the 

female characters nor in the social gender roles. 

 

 

 



24 
 

 
 

1.1.2 The Theater and its Impact 
 

The first records of theater in the Western World date back from the 6th century in 

Athens, where tragedies, satirical plays, and comedies “were thought to be the center of the 

Ancient’s cultural life, which seemed often empty without theater presentations” 

(Gorgoussopoulou qtd. in Highet 268). In addition, a number of theorists believe that theater 

evolved from religious rituals held for the God Dionysus. In fact, the earliest account on the 

origins of theater comes from Aristotle’s Poetics. The Greek philosopher claimed that drama 

was produced by the authors of the dithyrambs (choral hymns dedicated to Dionysus) and 

comedy by the authors of the phallic songs (songs performed at religious festivals, especially 

during fertility rituals).  

Although Aristotle’s theory is one of the most well-known accounts of the origin of 

theater, there are at least four other theories including the ritual theory5: the great man theory6, 

the story telling theory7, and the dance theory8. In regards to the relevant role of theater in 

society, Nigel Rodgers explains in The Ancient Greek World, People and Places: Art, 

Architecture, Theater, Gods and Myths, and Culture (2010), that while “the entrance cost 2 

obols, an unskilled worker’s daily wage, a fund provided free entry for the poorest” (164). 

Thus, the Greek valued the importance of theater in the lives of their citizens to the point that 

they would help the poorest to have access to the performances. Even female citizens, as 

spectators, were admitted in the theater during the 4th century B.C. 

 
5This theory argues that drama evolved from religious rituals dedicated to the Greek God Dionysus. 
6 This theory proposes that drama was created by a talented artist who probably merged elements that   
_already existed in society. 
7Some scholars believe that drama evolved from the art of storytelling into a more complex representation. 
8The dance theory states that movement was the core of drama since dancers would imitate animals _dressed 
in skins and garments. 



25 
 

 
 

The importance of theater within society was also part of the Early Modern period. 

Classical influences on Early Modern drama “unleashed new ideas and new social, political, 

and economic forces that displaced the otherworldly and communal values of the Middle 

Ages” (Abrams 396). The European dramatists of the Early Modern age assimilated much of 

the classical drama, after re-reading, incorporating, adapting, and imitating classical texts. 

These playwrights and critics even named the dramatic genres after their Greek names: 

drama, comedy, and tragedy.  

 

1.1.3 Tragedies: Human Dramas on Stage 
 

The origin of the word “tragedy” comes from the Greek word tragoidia. The term 

comes from two words - tragos, meaning goat, and oidia, meaning song “possibly because 

the chorus wore goat skins, or a goat was sacrificed or there was a price of a goat” (Adkins 

258). The plays consisted of choral songs, dialogues, and some dance, although not much 

has been found about the kind of dances performed on the stage. Ian Storey, Roy Adkins, 

Nigel Rodgers, Will Durant, and Gilbert Highet state that the actors wore masks depending 

on the part that they performed. Tragedies were very popular. They represented stories based 

mostly on myths that usually concluded with tragic endings. So, tragedies normally consisted 

of:  

A prologue (prologos), with a monologue or dialogue introducing the play before the 

entrance of the chorus. . . Next came a parados, a song performed by a chorus as it 

entered. This was followed by epeidodia (sin. Episodion), scenes or episodes with the 

actors and chorus. These were divided by stasima, songs  performed by the chorus. . 

. After the last stasimon came the final scene or exodus (Adkins 259). 



26 
 

 
 

In fact, other contributions from Classical theater can be observed in Early Modern 

dramatic texts. Some examples are intricate plots, the modern dramatic verse (in an attempt 

to rival the eloquence of the Greeks and Romans), the use of a chorus, the division of the acts 

and the duration of the plays which lasted twenty-four hours within the texts (Highet 130). 

Even the presence of ghosts in plays to incite revenge was a Greek literary device that was 

later used in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and The SpanishTragedy. It is also important to point out 

that Seneca, the famous Roman philosopher, was a major influence in tragedies. Playwrights, 

being Shakespeare one of them, were impressed by Seneca’s devices to conjure the darker 

sides of life such as: “ . . . witchcraft and the supernatural (as in Macbeth), madness 

impending or actual (as in Hamlet, The Spanish Tragedy, The Duchess of Malfi), the display 

of torture, mutilation, and corpses (as in King Lear, Titus Andronicus, Orbecche) and stage 

murder” (Highet 133). Thus, these subjects were usually used and represented by the 

playwrights of the Renaissance. 

The theater influenced the way of life and thought of the Greeks by providing 

audiences with tragic heroes and heroic deeds that established models of behavior as well as 

restrictions for ordinary citizens. The theater constituted a driving force in the Early Modern 

society that gave citizens a chance to relive heroic deeds and tragedies that had existed since 

ancient times and that were adopted into their own context. However, the transition from the 

Classics to Medieval drama was problematic since during the Middle Ages, the Church 

exercised a strict control over cultural manifestations. Hence, the strict control over artistic 

and literary productions translated into a shift from classical heroes to new and biblical 

figures whose role was to transmit stories and teachings from the Bible to peasants and 

nobles. Therefore, Medieval theater included moral plays, liturgical drama, mystery plays, 



27 
 

 
 

farces, and masques; all these artistic productions were used as vehicles to teach biblical 

stories and didactic lessons supported by the Church.  

Unlike the Middle Ages, in the Early Modern period many “companies” or group of 

actors were founded and, some received gold in exchange for performing before Queen 

Elizabeth and garner critical acclaim across England. According to Greenblatt, there were 

more than twenty companies at that time. Some of the most renowned were: King’s Revel 

Men, Lady Elizabeth’s Men, Queen Elizabeth’s Men, The Admiral’s Men, The Children of 

Paul’s, The Lord Chamberlain’s Men, and the King’s Men, among others (2004: 28-29). 

Playwrights such as Ben Johnson, Christopher Marlowe, and William Shakespeare were 

members of some of these companies and carried out plays for the Queen. In fact, companies 

that performed for the Queen acquired a series of benefits that improved their overall status 

in the English society.  

Queen Elizabeth’s reign fostered the transformation of the nobility and gentry into 

courtiers who collected the benefits from their petitioners after presenting their work to the 

court. Being a courtier represented a great honor in a society that valued the Queen’s court 

and its influence on stately matters. In addition, a patronage system was implemented to 

encourage writers to devise works that could be performed or read in the court and for the 

Queen. Literary patronage was then “part of the interlocking patronage system whereby 

grants, offices, and honors were exchanged for service and praise” (Abrams 401). Hence, 

notorious playwrights received financial rewards for their works, as was the case of 

Christopher Marlowe, George Peele, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Mash, John Kyd, and 

William Shakespeare, among others. This system of rewards could influence Shakespeare in 

writing plays based on themes that would reinforce the royal power, satisfy the Queen and 

earn her favor. 



28 
 

 
 

During Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the theater scene, or “Shakescene” as Stephen 

Greenblatt calls it, was prolific and full of rivalries between playwrights who aspired to attain 

the favor of the court. In spite of the promise of monetary rewards, courtiers often had to 

work in another craft since patronage alone was rarely enough to survive in the Elizabethan 

society (Greenblatt 2004: 199). In the late sixteenth-century, the growth of the urban 

population, the market for new plays, and the emergence of public theaters enabled the 

presence of a group of playwrights whose works would define an era. According to Abrams, 

the educational system introduced a newfound interest for literature and rhetorical effects as 

well as for complex plays and a restless intellectual culture (240). As a result, many of the 

leading writers flaunted their college education in top schools such as Oxford or Cambridge, 

a privilege that Shakespeare did not have.  

Greenblatt contends that a group of writers, which existed in the late 1580’s, consisted 

of Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Watson, Thomas Lodge, George Peele, Thomas Nashe, 

and Robert Greene (200). This group was famous for their erratic lives and arrogant 

snobbishness, which resulted in a series of unfortunate events for some of its members (such 

as Marlowe’s death in a brawl, Greene’s death due to his partying, and Peele’s death by what 

doctors believed to be syphilis) who did not live beyond their forties. In fact, Thomas Lodge 

was the only member of the group that managed to live to the age of sixty-seven (Greenblatt 

2004 211-212). Although Shakespeare had encountered this company, he was probably 

undermined since he did not have a degree from either Cambridge or Oxford as they had. 

However, Shakespeare’s greatness and influence as a playwright surpass his contemporaries 

up to our day. 

 

 



29 
 

 
 

1.1.4 William Shakespeare: The Bard 
 

Some of his contemporaries perceived William Shakespeare as a threat due to his 

rapid success and wits that earned him his patronage and the Queen’s favor. Most members 

of the group of playwrights of the time resented Shakespeare for lacking a college degree and 

so earning the public’s favor and respect despite having a provincial origin. The Bard, as 

Shakespeare was known, knew that in spite of his success as a writer, the group would always 

view him as a player and not as a poet because of his background. According to Greenblatt, 

although his peers underestimated him, the Bard turned their snobbishness into a resource 

that he would inscribe later on in his characters. Shakespeare “made their acquaintance and 

savored what was startling or amusing about their reckless lives” (2004: 209) to give those 

characteristics to his own characters. Later on, Shakespeare would include references or 

characters based on some of these writers as a response to their snobbishness towards him 

(2004: 217).   

 Unlike many of his peers, William Shakespeare was raised in the countryside away 

from crowded London. Even though his parents were not literate, they sought a proper 

education that would allow their son to become a respected member of society. Back in the 

Renaissance, society valued knowledge in arts, Latin, and literature. For example, most 

successful citizens had learned to speak and write Latin in an effort to emphasize their 

knowledge of the Ancient World. Therefore, several writers received their education and 

inspiration from classical texts studied during their academic life.  

William Shakespeare drew his inspiration from several elements of his context such 

as morality plays, royal disputes, countryside ideals, and even from plays written by some of 



30 
 

 
 

his peers9. In fact, morality plays provided writers with a starting point from which they 

adapted their own characters and stories into new thrilling and colorful tales of love, passion, 

treason, and revenge, which were depicted in intricate plots. For example, acts of treason and 

wars allowed viewers to accompany the heroes of the stories into a journey of rightfulness 

and self-discovery that often culminated with the death of the villains.  Audiences enjoyed 

Shakespeare’s plays such as Henry VI, Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, The Spanish Tragedy, 

The Changeling, and TheDuchess of Mafi because they gave people a chance to witness the 

conflicts of noble characters with royal origins. Audiences longed to see plays that provided 

insights into royal affairs and lives. Hence, Shakespeare included these elements into his 

texts as well as the countryside and pastoral motifs of his background which depicted a 

completely different lifestyle from most Londoners.  

While some authors whose origins were linked to the countryside chose to distance 

themselves from their roots, Shakespeare embraced the pastoral and distanced himself from 

the urban. As Stephen Greenblatt asserts in Will in the World: “there was nothing defensive 

in the ways Shakespeare distanced himself, no stiff-necked insistence on his sophistication 

or learning, no self-conscious embrace of the urban or the courtly” (41). In fact, 

Shakespeare’s stay in Avon inspired him to include pastoral images into his work as can be 

seen in Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The Bard used his countryside roots 

to create scenes for his plays and poems. In short, William Shakespeare used his background 

to gather inspiration for his writings. He combined elements from his everyday life and 

captivated readers with their complexity and resemblance of their own lives. Therefore, the 

study of the elements present in Shakespeare’s context and life as well as his admiration 

 
9Marlowe’s Tambourline was a text that inspired Shakespeare to write his famous trilogy Henry VI. 



31 
 

 
 

towards the Classics will contribute to guide the analysis of his female characters in Titus 

Andronicus through means of the representation of women in his tragedy. 

The next section will elaborate on the use of New Historicism as well as it will show 

how critical studies of gender and monstrosity will aid in the re-interpretation of the selected 

play. Each theory is a part of an interdisciplinary discourse where different aspects within 

the historical context from the Early Modern period will prove how traditional readings of 

strong women depicted as monstrous are based on biased (male) histories, fears, and desires, 

while submissive and obedient women are destroyed by following patriarchal rules. 

 

1.2 Theories on New Historicism, Gender, and Monstrosity 
 

 The following critical approaches are essential to the proposed analysis due to the 

various interpretative readings that they provide for the portrayal of women as monstrous 

along with some male characters that will be analyzed as counterpoints for this study. New 

Historicism will also help uncover the voices in the margins of a historic context where 

cultural Otherness, aesthetics and morality dictated a person’s worth in society. Studies on 

power will provide support to determine how the labels of monstrosity are essential in the 

framing of individuals’ worth and responsibilities, based on their adherence or rebellion to 

the status quo. Hence, gender theories along with studies on monstrosity will be crucial in 

determining how female characters are portrayed as monstrous based on their refusal to 

accept abuse, or how even submissive female behavior leads to eminent destruction in order 

to protect and reproduce patriarchal notions of order and perfection. In sum, the Early 

Modern society generated these views, and a New Historicist approach will explore and 

expose the reasons of such portrayals. 



32 
 

 
 

 

1.2.1 New Historicism: Critical Premises and Power Relationships 
 

New Historicism arose as a revolution against textualism and traditional historicism 

that contemplated history as one universal and objective truth. According to Scott Wilson, 

Historicism dominated literary scholarship up until the 1940s but passed out of favor after 

World War II. In the United States, New Historicism began in the 1980s with Stephen 

Greenblatt, Catherine Gallagher, D.A. Miller, Louis Montrose, among others. However, 

British Materialism had already explored some of these views. Often referred to as Cultural 

Materialism, British Materialism was defined as the study of historical material within a 

politicized framework. This movement began in the 1950s with the work of F.R Leavis, 

heavily influenced by Matthew Arnold’s analyses of bourgeois culture (Wilson 7). These two 

critical approaches, British Materialism and New Historicism see literature as an indicator of 

historical forces. 

In fact, New Historicism seeks to study literature as an expression of forces in history 

and how these forces affect the creation of texts. According to Harmon, New Historicism 

“tends to be social, economic, and political, and it views literary works (particularly 

Renaissance dramas and Victorian novels) as instruments for the displaying and enforcing of 

doctrines about conduct, etiquette, and law” (350). New Historicism also studies how these 

instruments and doctrines are present in the text and how they affect the author. 

Consequently, New Historicism does not classify history as a one-sided universal truth, but 

rather, as a set of views and histories that are constantly interacting with one another in the 

creation of meaning. 



33 
 

 
 

Since the text constitutes a cultural product, the New Historicist critic focuses on the 

social forces and cultural elements that permeate the context where the text was produced. 

This emphasis on social forces helps unravel the subject positions and mechanisms of power 

that affect the different groups who interact in their context. These groups basically consists 

of hegemonic groups and subordinate groups which are being oppressed by the first one. It 

is through this oppression that the conflict arises within the text. In addition, this conflict 

gives way to an array of voices that help the critic understand how and which social forces 

permeate the text and result in the different portrayals of the subjects presented in the 

narrative. In sum, New Historicists are interested in how “collective representational systems 

work in the reproduction and contestation of power” (Ryan 129).  

It  is pertinent to clarify that the New Historicist approach aims at destabilizing history 

and seeks the voices that live in the margins, and the stories that connect through complex 

exchanges with various cultural representations. Greenblatt and Clifford Geerz state that 

culture is “a set of control mechanisms—plans, recipes, rules, instructions . . . for the 

governing of behavior” (3), and as such, culture controls individuals through the imposition 

of rules, roles, and behaviors that define society. As a consequence of the exchange of 

representations and stories, culture permeates discourses and social productions that allow 

for the fashioning of identities in society.  

In addition, New Historicism assumes that every culture is a mixture of perspectives, 

worldviews, and positions from various groups in society. This approach does not agree with 

traditional views of hegemonic groups that accept one and only “historical” truth. According 

to Meyer and Pacheco, New Historicists “emphasize the importance of context: [where] each 

product must be examined within the cultural contexts because the time, place, and 

participants all influence that product and how it is received or understood” (40). 



34 
 

 
 

Consequently, this literary approach assumes that contexts are constantly changing and 

depend on different variables that affect the literary products and their authors. As a result, 

New Historicists identify the subjects and their positions within the texts. Meyer and Pacheco 

affirm that the New Historicist critic “looks for the main issue at stake in the text (important 

areas of struggle) and examines both how the different groups represented in the text align 

themselves in terms of those issues and what that suggests about the web of interacting forces 

and elements in that society at that point” (41). Thus, Greenblatt’s New Historicist approach 

helps understand how portrayals or depictions of characters are social constructs and how 

forces and intentions take place within those constructions. In other words, New Historicism 

provides a form of subversion or the subversive agency needed to reveal a voice or voices 

that had been previously silenced in different texts. 

As stated before, New Historicism searches for the voices in the margins that provide 

a re-reading of history by demonstrating how the context and the culture of each time fashion 

the self and the literary productions as well. Chung-Hsiung Lai, for example, states that “New 

Historicism, mainly based on Foucault’s theories, offered just such a critique of history. It 

revamped basic concepts concerning literary production and asserted that ‘history cannot be 

divorced from textuality’ ” (2). In fact, New Historicism offers a dialogue between texts and 

history that enriches the analysis by providing the opportunity to approach a text while 

simultaneously analyzing the histories around the text. From this perspective, Veestra affirms 

that: 

Greenblatt’s detailed perceptive analyses emphasize that a text is informed by the 

same cultural dialectics as a society at large. A text reflects as well as supports this 

dialectics or, to put it differently, a sociohistorical context conditions its textual 



35 
 

 
 

representations and likewise a text informs and sometimes even conditions the 

historical process (8). 

In other words, the notion of humanism that considered men to be autonomous and free 

transcending creatures has no place in Greenblatt’s theory since the human self is perceived 

as a social construct. Besides, the author and his/her context will inevitably affect the creation 

of the text, and so the context permeates the text. It is pertinent to point out that Greenblatt 

uses these views to develop his theory of “self-fashioning.”  

The term “self-fashioning” was coined by Greenblatt in his book Renaissance Self-

Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (2005) to describe a form of manipulation that 

creates specific individuals by governing the passage from abstract potential to concrete 

historical embodiment (3-4). The results of self-fashioning are individuals molded to fit their 

time and rules, fashioned after the hegemonic structures and ideology that govern each aspect 

of culture and society. Self-fashioning “occurs at the point of encounter between an authority 

and an alien . . . [because] any achieved identity always contains within itself the signs of its 

own subversion or loss” (Greenblatt 9). This process involves submission to an absolute 

power or authority, achieved in opposition to an alien Other (this Other must be discovered 

or invented in order to be destroyed). Through such a process, individual identity is re-shaped 

and re-defined by social expectations.  

New Historicism seeks to reveal the relationship between texts and their socio-

historical contexts by assuming that the texts not only document social forces that inform and 

constitute history and society, but they also feature prominently in social processes which 

fashion both the individual identity and the socio-historical context. In addition, literary 

productions and other symbolic goods circulate in society via channels of negotiation and 



36 
 

 
 

exchange that contribute to the distribution of social energy10. Marlon Ross, in his work 

“Contingent Predilections” (1990) , affirms that literature exemplifies “the play of deferred 

agency and power that occurs as we fashion ourselves within a history that prefashions us” 

(523). So history molds, restrains, and frames the identity of individuals within their 

respective contexts. Thus, the power to fashion the self controls identity. It was a power 

exercised in the 16th century by the State, the Church, and the family, and a power observed 

in Shakespeare’s play. 

Greenblatt, unlike Karl Marx, believes that capitalism constitutes a positive force that 

produces social energies which in turn favor the interactions of individuals within society: 

“In the atmosphere of negotiation and exchange, of circulation of different currencies, the 

borders between individuals, nations, different classes, and social circuits are easily crossed 

and hence called into question” (qtd. in Veestra 185).  A single artist does not generate social 

energy nor does one single person control it; social energy is appropriated, purchased, or 

symbolically acquired through means that involve a social exchange such as theatrical 

performances. In fact, meaning and social energy are synonymous in Greenblatt’s theories. 

Greenblatt strongly believes that during a performance social energy shifts from audiences 

to society to return once again to the performance, to the stage in the form of interpretation 

and meaning (Veestra 187). For example, texts, as social productions or social artifacts, are 

exchanged in society and are able to affect individuals and their context. So dramatic 

performances allow the circulation of social energies and the re-interpretations and creation 

of meaning from the stories told from the stage. Thus, New Historicism contributes to 

politicizing texts and re-discovering the ties between the text and the sociohistorical 

 
10This kind of energy refers to the intensities of experience that give value and meaning to life and that are 
indispensable to the construction of self-awareness and identity. 



37 
 

 
 

environment in order to create awareness and uncover the role of history and society as 

driving forces or power in the production of meaning.  

Michel Foucault’s theories about history and power heavily influenced the views of 

New Historicism. Steven Best and Douglas Kellner affirm that Foucault rejects the notion 

that reason, emancipation, and progress are interdependent by stating that “an interface 

between modern forms of power and knowledge” has contributed to the rise of new forms of 

control (34). According to Best and Kellner, the French philosopher attempted to reinterpret 

modern power in a non-totalizing, non-representational, and anti-humanist scheme (48). 

Thus, Focault developed a theory in which power is a fluid, dispersed, heteromorphous, a 

subjecteless force that shapes individual identity and body. Unlike Marxist critics who reduce 

power to a negative unitary force, Foucault asserts that one should approach power through 

the understanding of the various discourses that permeate and circulate power and its 

relations. Although in some of his works Foucault also argues that power could work as a 

repressive/oppressive force, after the rise of his theories, power is no longer understood as 

destructive and repressive. In fact, in his text Discipline and Punishment (1995), 

Foucaultrevisualized power as the option of being productive, due to its possibility of 

fostering and generating positive results in society. 

 In opposition to traditional power theories where power is objective or emancipatory, 

Foucauldian thought emphasizes that knowledge cannot be severed from power regimes in 

society. The circular relation between power and knowledge leads to the concept of power. 

These relations are made effective as a result of practices and technologies of exclusion, 

surveillance, confinement, and objectification. Thus, social disciplines such as psychology, 

criminology, and sociology contributed to the development, refinement and distribution of 

more advanced techniques of power (Best, Kellner 50). Moreover, Foucault asserts that 



38 
 

 
 

institutions were created to observe and experiment on individuals to impose social control: 

“The modern individual became both object and subject11 of knowledge, not ‘repressed’ but 

positively shaped and formed within the matrices of ‘scientific-disciplinary mechanisms,’ a 

moral/ legal/ psychological/ medical/ sexual being ‘carefully fabricated’. . . ” (1995: 217). 

Although institutions claimed to “positively shape” individuals, Foucault’s writings also 

demonstrate that hegemonic institutions imprison and punish individuals to obtain 

knowledge or delegitimize forms of knowledge that oppose the beliefs of powerful groups.  

Foucault’s theories evolved and changed throughout time; however, his texts helped 

to understand the duality of power as both a possibility for change and also as a form of 

control. Punishment, for example, became a mechanism of control that helped “shape” those 

who chose to rebel against power structures. Undoubtedly, Foucault’s contributions helped 

New Historicism through its analysis on power relations and their influence on the 

individuals, for New Historicism demonstrates how the context, which is heavily influenced 

by power relations, affects the writer and his/her literary productions. 

 In her work Frame of War (2009), Judith Butler, another philosopher, reinforces the 

concept of power by defining “life” as follows: “The ‘being’ of life is itself constituted 

through selective means; as a result, we cannot refer to this ‘being’ outside of the operations 

of power” (1). And this “being” is framed through “others, norms, and to social and political 

organizations, that have developed historically in order to maximize precariousness for some 

and minimize precariousness for others” (Butler 2). As a result, power structures dictate 

whether an individual’s life can be apprehended or not if they consider that this ‘life’ or 

‘being’ has been produced according to norms that deem it as a life. Consequently, there are 

 
11Foucault understands the term “subject” as someone who is commanded to another by control and 
dependence. He also understands “subject” as a term related to identity and conscience of self-knowledge. 



39 
 

 
 

lives that are apprehended as lives and others that are not and:     “there are ‘subjects’ who 

are not quite recognizable as subjects, and there are ‘lives’ that are not quite—or, indeed, are 

never—recognized as lives” (Butler 4).  Adherence to the system and willingness to follow 

the hegemony can produce a benefit that makes a life grievable. Consequently, those lives 

that present no value to the system are ungrievable and are forced to live in the shadows on 

the margins of society.  

 Systems of power determine the worth of each life and in the same manner, they can 

dispose of said lives without any repercussions since the worth of a life can never surpass the 

needs of the hegemony. As a consequence of living socially, it is through social framing 

imposed by hegemonic powers that a life’s worth is determined and apprehended. Power 

relations intervene in this process since they determine the precariousness of a life. For 

example, the lives that are ungrievable have been forced into the shadows, and for them to 

emerge from the margins, they need recognition from the Other. Then it is through acts of 

solidarity, social resistance and outcry that the grievability of a life can be manifested. The 

lives of those who belong to an oppressed group are condemned to precariousness and lack 

of apprehension that lead to abuse, torture, and death. Then, power relations and structures 

determine the fate of the subjects, and those who are considered as inferior by the hegemony 

are at risk of becoming precarious, thus, ungrievable and unnecessary. The female collective 

constitutes a body of lives that are considered somewhat grievable depending on their 

contributions to society, but for the most part, women are perceived as ungrievable when 

compared to men. These double standards are present in Shakespeare’s play where the socio-

historical context plays a fundamental role in gender perceptions and norms. 

 

 



40 
 

 
 

1.2.2 Historical Contexts and their Standards and Values 
 

The historical contexts of Titus Andronicus and of Shakespeare’s time will help to 

visualize the portrayal of female characters in the play. In fact, Roman and Early Modern 

contexts intertwine in Shakespeare’s play by means of the representation of the female 

characters. Therefore, before starting the literary analysis, it is essential to understand what 

the Roman and Early Modern standards of beauty, normality, and restraint were, in order to 

realize how these notions affected the portrayal of Shakespeare’s characters. The Roman 

Empire, as stated before, lived under patriarchal rules in which very specific standards for 

women were created. It was a society where the word father or pater was linked to the 

paterfamilias, patrimony and power, and the word mother or mater was instead linked to 

matrimony and therefore, family. As a consequence, Roman women had to follow strict rules 

of behavior in order to become accepted in their society. The historian Sara Casamayor traced 

the ideals of female standards of normality and decency that were imposed upon Roman 

women. In her book Casta, pia, lanifica, domiseda: modelo ideal de feminidaden la Roma 

tardorrepublicana,Casamayor states that since birth Roman women were given only one 

name while boys were given up to three names (6), emphasizing with this the importance 

that Roman society gave to males. In addition, education was focused on intellectual 

improvement for men while women were groomed for marriage, so that they would become 

“proper citizens” for the Empire. In short, women’s aspiration was to become a matron with 

her own family. Their lives revolved around family, religion, and domus (the house). 

Consequently, wives were expected to behave dutifully and abnegated and to respect their 

husbands in order to establish a well-balanced society. 



41 
 

 
 

Marilyn Yalom in her text History of the Wife (2001) discusses the position of women 

as wives through time. According to this critic, marriage became a political alliance where 

women consisted of a commodity for men. As such “control over women passed ‘naturally’ 

from fathers to husbands. Married women were expected to behave according to the dictates 

of—a code word for strict morality, including its literal meaning ‘chastity’ ” (25). And so, 

marriage turned women into objects whose wealth was directly linked to material possessions 

and their ability to procreate citizens for the Empire/State. Therefore, the male appropriation 

of female property followed the laws and, at the same time, it binded women to fulfill their 

life purpose as dutiful and abnegated wives whose sole role was to uphold morality and 

follow their husbands’ commands. 

While the materfamilias, or the mother, was in charge of raising her children and 

obeying her husband, the paterfamilias possessed power in the public and private spheres 

and the protection of the law. Casamayor also shows how other critics like Amelia Castresana 

stressed the importance of female virtues and morality in the life of Roman women who had 

to be “. . . close to the ideal of femininity, endowed with exceptional virtues and away from 

the weaknesses of her sex . . . educated in modesty, shame and austerity, obedient to the 

dictates of her husband” (9). Women’s ultimate purpose was to give birth to future Romans, 

raise them, and also dedicate their lives to serving their husbands until death.  While men 

fought for Rome and were able to speak freely in any given space, “[t]he only public sphere 

in which women were allowed to participate regularly was religion, which also served to set 

models of female behavior” (Casamayor 12).  Another prevalent duty for these women was 

chastity. Marilyn Skinner stated that chastity and fertility of a daughter gave Roman families 

the same prestige as the military and civic successes of a son (qtd. in Casamayor 12). The 

purpose of this rule was to prevent the birth of illegitimate children that would affect a 



42 
 

 
 

father’s lineage. As a result of all these notions, Roman women were expected to behave 

accordingly, which means that their purpose was to serve the paterfamilias, respect the men 

around them, and procreate for the sole purpose of providing the Empire with future citizens. 

For men, the expectations differed since they possessed more power than their female 

counterparts. According to Raewyn Connell “the pattern of masculinity . . . occupies a 

position of centrality in a structure of gender relations, and [its] privileged position helps to 

stabilize the gender order as a whole, especially the subordination of women” (4). Taking 

into account the role of masculinities in the study of their conception in Rome, Sofia 

Gonzales states that Virtus12, as a socially constructed notion, stands for the ideal of what a 

Roman man should aspire to have.  As such, a man with virtus was expected to participate in 

the political life of Rome, to be versed in Latin and Greek literature as well as to have an 

active character: Virtus men, unlike women, were encouraged to participate in the public 

sphere, where they were highly praised and honored. Women instead were supposed to 

behave submissively and attend their roles within their family and private sphere. 

While Rome developed its own standards of beauty and morality, the Early Modern 

period used many of these ancient notions and applied them to its society. Anu Korhonen 

studied the perceptions of beauty and décor in Early Modern England. Korhonen states that 

“heavily gendered concept of bodily beauty was an essential discursive tool for envisioning 

femininity and masculinity, and indeed women’s visibility. . .” (336). As such, beauty was a 

determining element for Early Modern society beauty and its standards followed Greek and 

Roman ideals of perfection and aesthetics. These standards were decisive in the 

categorization of gender roles. Accordingly, “Early modern knowledge of beauty assigned 

 
12 Roman virtue of courage, manliness, excellence, and masculine strength. 



43 
 

 
 

subject and object positions that made women and men what they were, positioning women 

as the looked-at sex and men as the primary” (Korhonen 336). In sum, the Early Modern 

period valued good looks in men and women; thus, any trait that was not considered 

aesthetically balanced was then perceived as negative. Therefore, the Roman and Early 

Modern periods shared their love for symmetry, beauty, and morality, aspects that are 

violated throughout Titus Andronicus by both, female and male characters who constantly 

transgress order and descend into chaos. 

In terms of physical beauty, Jacob Hammer asserts that the Roman “expected a 

beautiful woman to have a tiny nose, beautiful legs, a well-developed tapering hand, with 

long tapering fingers, and golden or auburn hair” (18). Even aspects such as the color of the 

eyes and skin were imperative for a Roman woman to be considered beautiful. Women 

needed to have “eyes like flaming torches—oculi flagrantes: to have a smooth neck with the 

hair flowing over it: and to have fair skin” (19). Proportion and symmetry were essential 

pillars in the construction of beauty in the Roman Empire since these two notions implied 

that bodies would follow the laws of nature and perfection. Monstrous anatomies, on the 

other hand, were bodies that did not respect these standards. If the female bodies lacked parts 

or presented an excess of any sort that could disrupt natural symmetry and did not meet the 

beauty standards and women were rejected. 

Although the play takes place in Rome, Shakespeare’s historical context is also 

relevant to understand some aspects behind the portrayals of the main female characters: 

Lavinia and Tamora. As mentioned before, men in the ancient world excluded women from 

social and political spaces and enforced ideals of beauty on the female body. The Early 

Modern period also followed some of these notions since the Renaissance promoted many of 

the ideals of arts and aesthetics from Greece and Rome. For example, Early Modern England 



44 
 

 
 

had female rulers but even then; women were not exempted from discrimination and absurd 

notions of morality and beauty. Rights and responsibilities were given based on gender and 

socio-economic status. Apart from being excluded from public spaces and politics, with a 

few exceptions, women were also punished for their physical appearance and background. 

During the Renaissance, physical beauty was used to determine women’s morals and 

kindness; thus, being beautiful became necessary for women in order to avoid public scorn.  

According to George Duby and Michelle Perrot in Historia de las Mujeres: 3. Del 

Renacimiento a la Edad Media (1992), ugliness was associated to the lower classes and 

immorality. Duby and Perrot affirm that for the Renaissance, female beauty was 

characterized by fair skin, red cheeks, black eyebrows, long neck and hands, small feet, 

¨graceful¨ hips, firm breasts and pink nipples (89-90).  So, the female body was rated based 

on those ideals of beauty, and this view resulted in unjust treatments towards women who 

did not have these traits. Women considered “ugly” became pariahs who lived on the 

margins, especially if they were not wealthy. Duby and Perrot assert that the first victims of 

the new order of morality were women since misogynistic theologists and the sexually 

frustrated clergy denounced them as the daughters of sinful Eve. As a result of these views, 

women were proclaimed sinful, manipulative, and evil. These views also incited a train of 

thought where women would ensnare naïve men and deliver them to Satan, a view that was 

also supported by the “medical sciences” which affirmed that women had a biological need 

to satisfy their erotic desires and fill the space in their wombs (Duby and Perrot 98). Taking 

this into consideration, it is not surprising that female representation in literature reinforced 

the image of women as either passively angelical or monstrously evil. In Titus Andronicus, 

these opposing representations are portrayed through Lavinia, the noble maiden, and Tamora, 

the monstrous Other. 



45 
 

 
 

1.2.3 Gender and the Role of Women in Society 
 

In order to discuss the role of gender in society, it is essential to explore how power 

relations affect women’s position and how these relations attempt to subdue women and 

categorize them as inferior. To do this, Foucault’s theories will help demonstrate how power 

and knowledge are systematically deprived to women as a way to police and control them. 

Additionally, Foucault’s theory on the body and sexuality will also help examine how the 

female body serves as a battleground where male power is exercised and where female 

identity is built and controlled by patriarchal mechanisms.  

Foucault believes that “the production of knowledge is always bound up with 

historically specific regimes of power and, therefore, every society produces its own truths 

which have a normalizing and regulatory function” (qtd. in McNay 25). This means that 

every society determines what the truth is and will use that “truth” to justify the control and 

punishments exercised on individuals who do not adhere to the truth. By justifying 

punishments against dissidents, society allows institutions to subdue and police behaviors 

and bodies. Following Foucault’s view of the body as the principal instrument and effect of 

modern disciplinary power, it is no wonder that female bodies and sexuality are constantly 

oppressed and punished by patriarchal societies that fear females’ “deviant” nature and the 

power that women can exercise with and through their bodies. Examples of forms of 

oppression on the female body are the taboos around female pleasure, the chastising of 

sexuality in women, and the hysterization of the female body. Naturally, with repression there 

is also resistance, and this resistance becomes a part of the intricate power relations that, in 

this case, are inscribed on the sexed bodies. These sexed bodies constitute the main target of 



46 
 

 
 

disciplinary powers, but they also stand for a form of resistance that aims at disrupting power 

structures such as patriarchy.  

Foucault’s theory about power analyses how the relation between power-knowledge-

truth affects the body and inscribes its mechanisms on individuals. Lois McNay in Foucault 

& Feminism (1993) agrees that the body bears the scars and marks of the mechanisms that 

societies use to control individuals, while Foucault asserts that: “The body is the surface of 

events (traced by language and dissolved by ideas), the locus of a dissociated self (adopting 

the illusion of a substantial unity), and a volume in perpetual disintegration” (qtd. in McNay 

83) that is imprinted by history and its processes. Consequently, the body is understood as a 

historical and cultural entity in which power exercises punishments. McNay argues that the 

notion that women are inferior is naturalized and legitimized by biology. This assertion is 

achieved “through a twofold movement in which, firstly, women’s bodies are marked as 

inferior by being compared with men’s bodies, according to male standards (home manqué) 

and, secondly, biological functions are conflated with soc