This graph counts the attribute values for the depiction element, differentiating for male and female characters. Along the x-axis
is every role attribute value we used, ordering them from the lowest to highest amount of female depictions.
Starting on the left side, the attribute values that only have male depictions are very obvious. Depictions of protectors, heroes, and race are isolated to
men, demonstrating a couple things. First, there are hardly any colored women in Shakespeare's writing, shutting out a large demographic, and clearly highlighting
the social hierarchy of the time period. Second, men are more commonly written as the savior and protector of women, who are depicted as too weak to do it
themselves. This is also shown by the weakness counts, which are very similar for men and women, but still one of the largest attribute values.
Moving to the right side of the graph, we can see large, almost entirely female bars for victim, object, and wife. While it should not be surprising
for the wife category, the other two clearly indicate subjugation of women by the men in power throughout Shakespeare's plays. The image he conjures
up of how women are portrayed is very clear, for the women who are main characters, being in a position of power is unlikely.
One outlier is the villain role, with the highest number of depictions by far. Due to our research methods and team size, we could only exaimine two plays,
which has limitations depending on the primary themes in each. In Titus Andronicus, violence and revenge are the most prevalent, which leads to a a large quantity
of villain depictions throughout hence the much larger bar. While it may be an outlier the villain attribute value has a lot of information within it. Aaron the Moor,
the singular black character, has the most villain depictions. The other common villains include Chiron and Demetrius due to the rape of Lavinia and murder of
Bassianus, as well as any mentions of traitors or goths. There was a separate violence tag for plotting, insults, and murder, but for these characters, they truly
encompassed what it means to be a villain, doing evil and being proud of their actions. In this way, Shakespere sets up a dynamic where foreigners are the despicable
villains, and white lords are the victims who must defend themselves. This perpetuates a racial stereotype of the time that is also as problem of today.
The insanity element reveals a particularily interesting part of the plays we read. While the graph only reveals the number of times it is mentioned, the story
has more to tell. As Titus experiences more and more tragedy, he seems to start going insane from all the grief. The other characters underestimate him, and Tamora
believes he is weak and can be defeated. However, this is all a trick by Titus for his enemies to let down their gaurd, and exact his final revenge. This storyline
talks about the views on mental health, instead of helping him through mourning, even his allies discredit him, while his enemies seek to take advantage.
| Matriarch | Patriarch | Other |
This pie chart shows the the different attribute values for the power element. Matriarch applied to words like Queen, Empress, your Highness, largely in reference to Tamora. Patriarch applied to words like Lords, Prince, King, Emperor, and sons, which was much more prevalent than Matriarch as Shakespearean plays tend to be dominated by men in positions of power, with clear patriarchal relationships present. The other category was largely for the attribute value aside, which was in reference to the stage direction aside, where a character gets to speak directly to the audience. Our group decided to classify this as a power that Shakespeare grants the character, as not every character gets to do that. In Titus Andronicus for example, Aaron the Moor is almost exclusively granted asides to the audience, which he uses to explain his plans, and cement the audiences belief in his villainy.
This is the explaination of our analysis