Grieving Autonomy: Mother and Son Relationships in Titus Andronicus, Hamlet, and Coriolanus. Meaghan McGowan Thesis Advisor: Professor Sidney Homan April 23, 2012 Redacted McGowan 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Titus Andronicus (Tamora and Albarus) 3. Hamlet (Gertrude and Hamlet) 4. Coriolanus (Volumnia and Coriolanus) 5. Conclusion 6. Works Cited “Thou art thy mother's glass, and she in thee Calls back the lovely April of her prime.” - William Shakespeare, Sonnet 3 McGowan 3 Introduction Mother and son relationships in Shakespeare’s tragedies often fall victim to power struggles for independence. Coppélia Kahn states in her book, Man’s Estate, that “Shakespeare’s male characters are engaged in a constant struggle, first to form a masculine identity, then to be secure and productive in it.” Mothers represent the “constant struggle”1 their sons are working to overcome. Through conception and birth, the mother and son bond is formed. However, the development of manhood and sexual identity hinges on the future separation of the son from the mother. Within this paper, I will analyze mother and son relationships from Titus Andronicus, Hamlet and Coriolanus. Investigating the effects of this separation on both the mother and the son, I found recurring themes of identity, autonomy, grief, anger and reconciliation. These themes emerge as phases of the mother-son relationship in different ways. In each of the plays, the bond between mother and son results in a shared identity. A woman identifies herself as a mother upon creating the son. In Titus Andronicus, the death of a son results in Tamora’s loss of identity as his mother. Hamlet’s identity is connected to his father. The death of King Hamlet leaves him vulnerable to the influence of Gertrude. In Coriolanus, Volumnia views her son as a manifestation of herself. The theme of shared identity is further complicated by the son’s need to separate from the mother. The son’s need for individuality and autonomy leads to separation from the mother. In Titus Andronicus, Hamlet and Coriolanus, the sons’ separation from the mother is obstructed by her. The failure of the son to distance himself from the mother causes psychological trauma and provides the motivation for the tragic events in the play. Unable to exert autonomy, the son fails to become a man and reacts in anger and violence. The sons of these plays—Albarus, Hamlet 1 Coppélia Kahn, Man’s Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare, (London, UK: University of California, 1981). McGowan 4 and Coriolanus—each strive for autonomy. Meanwhile, their mothers—Tamora, Gertrude and Volumnia—manipulate them by withholding affection. Tamora promises maternal love to her sons as a reward for violence. Hamlet mistrusts all women as a result of his mother’s infidelity. Coriolanus wages war on Rome in order to prove his independence from his mother. In each of these cases, the son is left unsatisfied. Even as the son desires autonomy from the mother, he mourns the loss of this powerful bond. As the inevitable separation occurs, the mother and son mourn the loss of the relationship. Each play deals with the theme of grief. Tamora’s grief in Titus Andronicus transforms her into a monstrous villain. In Hamlet, Hamlet’s grief over Gertrude’s lost purity keeps him in a perpetual state of melancholy. Realizing his need for Volumnia’s approval, Coriolanus grieves his perceived masculinity. The phase of grief in these plays boils into anger as the characters seek to place blame. All three of these plays deal with the theme of anger, which consumes the individual and results in the tragic events of the plot. In Titus Andronicus, Tamora’s need for revenge is fueled by her anger; Hamlet’s anger over Gertrude’s death motivates him to take action; Coriolanus’s anger nearly destroys Rome. The phase of anger is essential to the grieving process in the mother-son relationship. While the son desires to distance himself from the mother, his desire for reconciliation complicates his need for independence. In order to resolve the anger and grief over the loss of the relationship, the mother and son seek reconciliation. Tamora uses revenge to find healing for Albarus’s death; Hamlet reclaims Gertrude’s purity; Coriolanus saves Rome in order to salvage his relationship with Volumnia. However, these reconciliations come at a great cost to the individual. McGowan 5 1. Titus Andronicus Shakespeare’s earliest tragedy, Titus Andronicus, is described as the bloodiest of revenge plays. It also exposes the reality that revenge is a cross-gender and cross-cultural phenomenon (Willis 26). Tamora emerges as the cruelest, most devious mother portrayed in Shakespeare’s works. As Queen of the Goths, Tamora is the leader of a barbaric, merciless people. Yet, in Rome, where civility should exist, Tamora is forced to her knees to beg for the life of her eldest son, Albarus. Roles are reversed as Rome is infected with the “cruel, irreligious piety” characteristic of the Goths (1.1.133). As Tamora enters Rome, the feminized city is possessed by a dangerous threat to her innocence. The Andronici protect Rome from the Goths as a man would protect a woman from rape.2 Men dominate feminized Rome for “Romanness is virtually identical with an ideology of masculinity” (Kahn 2). Becoming “incorporate in Rome,” (1.1.467) Tamora adopts the “ideology of masculinity.” Tamora’s presence in Rome infects the city and turns the city against its protectors. Once spurned by their female Rome, the Andronici vow revenge. The process of transforming Rome from a civilized woman to a barbaric woman stems from Tamora’s loss of identity and subsequent grief. Phase 1: Grief Pleading for Titus’s mercy, Tamora compares her love for Albarus to the love Titus has for his lost sons: “And if thy sons were ever dear to thee, / O, think my son to be as dear to me” (1.1.110-111). Titus claims that he must sacrifice Albarus as punishment for the death of his sons: “Your son is marked, and die he must, / T’appease their groaning shadows that are gone” (1.1 128-129). The murder of Albarus results in the need for future sacrifices, as Tamora must now honor Albarus’s “groaning shadow.” Tamora’s “passion for her son” is the only expression 2 David Willbern, “Rape and Revenge in Titus Andronicus,” English Literary Renaissance, (State University of New York McGowan 6 of true tenderness shown by the barbaric queen. With Albarus’s death, Tamora loses her humanity and takes on the role of avenger. Described as a “horrific, devouring mother,”3 Tamora embodies the suffocating mother established by Janet Adelman. Politcally powerful, Tamora poses a threat to male society. Tamora becomes the suffocating mother as she dominates Saturninus as a sexualized mother figure. Upon becoming empress of Rome, Tamora begins her plot for revenge. For Saturninus, she acts as both wife and mother, asking him to “be ruled by me, be won at last” (1.1 446). The naïve Saturninus finds himself so captivated by Tamora’s beguiling nature that he fails to see her true identity. Tamora claims to “advise the emperor for his good” while manipulating him for the good of her own schemes. Her success in convincing Saturninus to falsely forgive Titus is twofold, as she calls for the Andronici to kneel in the streets begging for “pardon of his majesty” (1.1 477). Kneeling before the emperor begging for mercy, Titus parallels Tamora pleading for Albarus’s life. The ground is set for Tamora’s “sharp revenge” as the brutally, elegant symmetrical structure of the play is presented: Tamora must kneel for her son’s life, so Titus will later kneel for his sons’ lives. Doubling in Titus appears through “jarringly appropriate incongruities”4 (Willis 34). Shakespeare shows us that villains and heroes share common experiences of traumatic loss and humiliation. Tamora is Titus’s mirror opposite in that she illustrates the extremes of his character. Shakespeare uses female characters such as Tamora and Lavinia to create a tragic hero out of Titus. Tamora is both victim and abuser. Tamora adopts Titus’s cruelty and barbarism in order to avenge the crimes against her family. The cycle of revenge begins as Tamora and Titus are equally entitled to vengeance. “The avenger mirrors the enemy by committing the very evils 3 Janet Adelman, Suffocating Mothers, (London, UK: Routeledge, 1992) 4 James Hirsh, “Laughter at Titus Andronicus” Essays in Theatre 7 (1988): 59-74 McGowan 7 for which vengeance is sought” (Green 321). Emulating one another, Tamora and Titus blur the lines between good and evil for “revenge exists in the margin between justice and crime.”5 Titus and Tamora come to represent Roman and Goth culture in their violent and horrible actions. Molly Easo Smith refers to this phenomenon as “the myth of the Other.”6 Titus and Tamora believe the other to be more evil than the self, and thus, their vengeance is justified. However, the evil of Titus resides within Tamora and vice versa (Green 322). Once the cycle of revenge begins, the competition for sufficient justice escalates. The elegant symmetry continues with the juxtaposition of quarrelling brothers, Bassianus and Saturninus, and Chiron and Demetrius. In the same way that Bassianus and Saturninus fight over Rome, Chiron and Demetrius fight over Lavinia. Similar phrasing even appears, Saturninus talks of “my loving followers, / Plead my successive title with your swords” (1.1.3-4), and Chiron states that “my sword upon thee shall approve / And plead my passions for Lavinia’s love” (2.1.35-36).7 These two sets of brothers establish the tension of the play, which is to maintain a balance of attack and defense.