Problem: Renaissance revenge tragedies often draw our attention to questions about the nature of revenge and its relationship to justice. Aristotle, as you know from your Revenge Journal reading, finds that anger is the emotional response to a slight, and the desire for revenge is somehow a desire to win back the esteem that was lost. And yet, there remain questions about whether revenge can repair that personal damage, about whether it is moral to pursue revenge, about the role of social institutions (including the government and law) in mitigating the desire for revenge while also creating a sense of balance, and about what one is to do when those institutions fail. The plays we are reading all take up these questions to varying degrees and in interesting ways.
How does Titus Andronicus take up these issues in interesting ways and analyze how they address the philosophical, psychological, moral, an/or legal questions surrounding the idea of revenge.