User:1992scholar123/sandbox
Aaron (Character)[edit]
Aaron is a character in the Shakespearean play Titus Andronicus written by William Shakespeare. Aaron is the Moor lover/servant of the play's leading women Tamora, Queen of the Goths. Tamora and Aaron embark down the path of revenge and villainy against Titus Andronicus for all his wrong doings that Tamora felt he had committed against her. Aaron entered the play along with Tamora and her sons during Titus's Triumph. His history is unknown, but through the play, he gains status due to his mistress becoming the empresses of Rome. Due to this Aaron becomes part of Roman society but still a servant to his mistress, and in the eyes of the Roman Society, he is also known as the uncivilized Goth and Moor[1].
Role[edit]
Aaron's role in the play is not just the villain; he is also the mastermind behind many of the events that take place in the play. Throughout, he uses his cunning and and his skill in writing and language to help Tamora exact her revenge on Titus and his family[2]. His skills are used by his own will, but he used them to help Tamora and her two sons and worked closely with them to end the lives of characters or affect them in some way. He creates the scene that frames Quintus and Martius for the murder of Bassianus, and also gives Tamora's sons Chrion and Demetrius the idea to go after Lavinia during the hunt were she is raped and her hands cut off [3].
Motives[edit]
Aaron's motives for his action in the play derive from being the servant to Tamora, who was the main woman looking for revenge. She was so hurt and angered by Titus that she called on Aaron for help in getting her revenge through any means necessary. So in the play Aaron's motive for all his villainous actions is not his own, but rather adopted from his mistress and her desire to destroy Titus.[4]
Slavery in the Roman Period[edit]
Rome was a society with a strong tie to slavery. The elites' wealth, status, and leisure were very much affected by the amount of slaves they had. This ownership of a person was a sign of power, and for the elites of Rome this sense of power was above the economic values of the Roman society[5]. Slaves had many uses to Roman society other than labor. They were used as currency, gifts, and to repay loans to others. There were many ways someone could become a slave, including getting captured by pirates, being sold as children into Roman slavery, and being taken as an enemy in war. The capture of enemies was the largest and most efficient way to get slaves for the Roman people. Through the Roman conquests, there was an array of different groups of people that flooded into Rome as slaves[5].
Slave and Master (Dominus)[edit]
Wealthy Romans were more likely to use a slave than a free Roman for work for various reasons. One is that free Romans would have demanded pay for their work and might not have worked hard enough in the owner's eyes. But with a slave, the elites didn't have to pay the slave for their work, and the master could force them to do as much labor as he saw fit[6]. Owners even had slaves as their business agents, secretaries (professional and private), and overseers of other slaves[6].
Freed Slave[edit]
Masters could free their slaves anytime they wished, moving them up in the social class system of the Roman world. Under Emperor Augustus, there was a law in place that prohibited a master from freeing more than a hundred slaves in his will. All ex-slaves received Roman citizenship and became a freeman. They were even allowed to hold jobs and other various trades as a freeman, to make their own wealth, and even own slaves themselves.[6] This idea of being freed kept the slaves in line and somewhat obedient to their master in the hopes of becoming free; but for the master, it was a way to get rid of the old and get a younger slave in their charge[6].
Moors in Shakespeare[edit]
In Shakespearean plays, the Moorish characters were unique roles. They were placed in plays to amplify the unknown, mostly to be an opposite to the English society, an outsider, the one that hails from a different land, different culture, and has a different religion. Moors fill the place of the outside but they also fill the villainous role as well. They are looked at as having distinct destructive traits that turn the tide of a play. These traits are generally lust and violence[7]. Aaron the Moor is the outsider in the play, not being a Goth or a Roman. He is more than willing to commit evil acts, which makes him more connected to the barbaric side compared to the civilized Roman society he was thrown into[7][8].
Stage, theater & Companies Performance history: Four periods of popularity[edit]
1594-1620.[edit]
Five performances were documented by Philip Henslowe. He recorded that the play was performed on the 23rd and 28th of January, 6th and 5th of February, and the 5th and 12th of June in the year of 1594. The first three performances were performed at the Rose theater by Sussex's Men, while the last two performances were put on by the Lord Chamberlain's Men or the Admiral's Men. A private performance was performed on January 1, 1596, part of the Christmas Revels at the Sir John Harrington's manor. These dates are the only recorded performances of Titus Andronicus in the Shakespearean period, but there is evidence of other non-documented performances due to the closing of the theaters. The first quarto of Titus Andronicus in 1594 showed that two other companies performed the play, Derby's and Pembroke's. The second quarto added the Lord Chamberlain's Men, and the third quarto stated that the King's Men took to performing the play in 1611[9].
1669 & 1678[edit]
In 1663 the King's company moved to the Theater Royal and in 1669 they chose to revive three plays: Othello, Julius Caesar, and Titus Andronicus. To be included into a list of plays by the Kings Company shows that it was still highly popular in this time. In 1678 Edward Ravenscroft rewrote the play for a performance at the Drury Lane theater under the title Titus Andronicus or Rape of Lavinia[9].
1839 & 1849[edit]
A version of the play was produced by actor N.H. Bannister and was performed at the Walnut Street theater four times: January 30 and 31, February 1 and 2, 1839. This was hailed as the first stage performance of Titus in the new world[9]. In 1849 an abridged version of the play which was created by Ira Aldridge an African American actor of the 19th century and Charles A. Somerset. Their collaborative version eliminated the violence and transformed the character Aaron from the violent character to a noble hero. Aldridge played Aaron on stages starting in December of that year. This version made its way to several theaters in England; Aberdeen, Southampton, Leeds, Belfast, Edinburgh and Plymouth[10].
20th century[edit]
The performances in the 20th century started in 1923 with a production at the Old Vic theater. This particular production only ran for nine performances. After 1923's performance the play seemed to disappear from the world of theater until Yale University produced a performance in 1924 on April 14th and 15th. Stanford University was going to put on Titus Andronicus in 1929 but it was put down due to the violent nature of the play. In 1951 an abridged version of the play was put on in the Irving theater in London: This version was limited to thirty minutes and omitted the part of Aaron. Later, in 1953 the Marlowe Society at Cambridge had two performances on March 9th and 10th, while in 1954 there was an amateur production put on at Tonybee hall in London, set in medieval Japan. 1955-57 was a high time of interest in performing Titus Andronicus. In 1955 the Stanford Memorial theater staged a production which ran for 29 performances, which started April 16th of that year. The next year 1956, Titus Andronicus was performed at the Oregon Shakespeare festival and two more performances later that year at the New York Shakespeare festival. Titus Andronicus was put on again in London in 1957 at the Stroll theater and ran for 25 performances. The year 1967 was a memorable year for play in the United States, starting with a production in Center Stage theater in Baltimore with 26 performances. The year closed with five performances running at the Mary Rippon in Boulder, Colorado during the Colorado Shakespeare festival. The year 1971 was the last notable year for performances of Titus Andronicus. At the Citizens' theater in Glasgow, there was a performance in the spring where black paint was used to signal the loss of limbs. The last notable performance was in 1972 during the winter season where The New York Classic Stage Company's presented Titus Andronicus in Grand Guignol style which ran for 33 performances[9][11].
People who have played Aaron in films[edit]
| Movie | Year | Character:Aaron |
|---|---|---|
| Titus Andronicus | 1985 | Hugh Quarshie |
| Titus Andronicus | 1999 | Lexton Raleigh |
| Titus | 1999 | Harry Lennix |
- ^ Charney, Maurice (2012). Shakespeare's Villains. New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University. p. 24.
- ^ Pearson, Meg F (2010). ""That Bloody Mind I Think They Learned of Me" Aaron as Tutor in Titus Andronicus". Shakespeare. 6.1 – via Routledge Taylor&Francis group.
- ^ "Titus Andronicus: Entire Play". shakespeare.mit.edu. Retrieved 2016-11-19.
- ^ Tassi, Marguerite (2010). Women and Revenge in Shakespeare Gender, Genre, and Ethics. New Jersey: Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp.
- ^ a b Joshel, Sandra (2010). Slavery in the Roman World. new york: Cambridge University Press.
- ^ a b c d Keith, Hopkins (1978). Conquerors and Slaves. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. pp. 108–135.
- ^ a b D'Amico, Jack (1991). The Moor in English Renaissance Drama. USA: Library of Congress.
- ^ Bartels, Emily (2008). Speaking of the Moor. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- ^ a b c d Metz, Harold (1977). "Stage history of Titus Andronicus". Shakespeare Quarterly. 28: 154–169 – via JSTOR.
- ^ Lindfors, Bernth (2015). Ira Aldridge. Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press. p. 43.
- ^ Thompson, Ayanna (2008). Performing Race and Torture on the early Modern Stage. United States: Taylor&Francis Group. pp. 51–73.