Lawrence Stone once observed that Elizabethan “familial emotive ties were so weak that they did not generate the passions which lead to intra-familial murder and mayhem” (95). However, Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus (c.1592), a tragedy in which the antagonism between barbarism and civilization is played out rhetorically in the service “[o]f murders, rapes and massacres” (5.1.63), shows that the family is a site of emotional distress and instability manifested in the discourse of disowning (fathers’ and mothers’ severing their relations with their children verbally and physically) that paternal and maternal figures employ, and, further, this discourse is fulfilled through murderous violence. While much research has been carried in Titus Andronicus, to the best of my knowledge, there is no single study that examines the discourse of disowning in this tragedy. I contend that the discourse of disowning employed by Titus and later appropriated by Tamora reveals that familial relations are primarily the stuff of words rather than bloodline. Furthermore, this destructive discourse reveals that parent-child relations were remote, singularly lacking in affective bonds and governed solely by patriarchal authority. Titus Andronicus shows that kinship is affected by the ideologies underlying romanitas which is, in the words of Robert S. Miola, a ‘military code of honor that encompasses the virtues of pride, courage, constancy, integrity, discipline, service, and self-sacrifice’ (46). Titus’s accusations of his sons as “traitors” (1.1.283) show that Titus is more of a Roman warrior than he is a family man. Robert S. Miola points out that in Titus, “Romans live and die in a restricted ethical universe, one dominated by a military conception of honor and by a desire for fame” (44). Titus’s ideals of reputation deny any paternal concern of his own family’s well-being. As Miola shows, “Roman heroic traditions act [... ] as a source of strength and nobility; yet they also force Romans to lead lives increasingly at odds with human instincts and needs” (44). Titus’s display of romanitas is, therefore, based on disallowing any fatherly concern of his family. He disowns his children as not worthy of him when he is faced with

中文翻译：

---

莎士比亚《泰特斯·安德洛尼克斯》中否认家庭关系

劳伦斯·斯通 (Lawrence Stone) 曾观察到伊丽莎白时代的“家庭情感纽带非常薄弱，以至于他们不会产生导致家庭内部谋杀和混乱的激情”（95）。然而，莎士比亚的泰特斯·安德罗尼克斯 (Titus Andronicus) (c.1592) 是一出悲剧，其中野蛮与文明之间的对抗在“谋杀、强奸和屠杀”(5.1.63) 的服务中以修辞方式表现出来，表明家庭是这是一个情绪困扰和不稳定的场所，表现在父系和母系人物所使用的否认话语（父亲和母亲在口头和身体上与孩子断绝关系）中，此外，这种话语是通过凶残的暴力来实现的。虽然在泰特斯·安德洛尼克斯 (Titus Andronicus) 中进行了大量研究，但据我所知，没有一项研究能够检验这场悲剧中否认的话语。我争辩说，提图斯使用的否认话语，后来被塔莫拉挪用，揭示了家庭关系主要是文字而不是血统。此外，这种破坏性的话语表明，亲子关系是遥远的，特别缺乏情感纽带，完全由父权制统治。Titus Andronicus 表明，亲属关系受罗马尼塔主义背后意识形态的影响，用罗伯特·S·米奥拉的话说，这是一种“军事荣誉准则，包括骄傲、勇气、恒心、正直、纪律、服务和自我”的美德。牺牲”（46）。提图斯指责他的儿子是“叛徒”（1.1.283）表明提图斯更像是一个罗马战士，而不是一个有家室的人。罗伯特·S。米奥拉在提图斯中指出，“罗马人在一个受限的伦理世界中生死存亡，这个世界被军事荣誉观念和对名望的渴望所支配”（44）。提图斯的名誉理想否认对自己家庭幸福的任何父系关心。正如米奥拉所说，“罗马的英雄传统 [...] 作为力量和高贵的源泉；然而，它们也迫使罗马人过着越来越违背人类本能和需求的生活”（44）。因此，提图斯对罗曼尼塔斯的表现是基于不允许他的家人有任何父亲般的关心。当他面对他的时候，他否认他的孩子配不上他 正如米奥拉所说，“罗马的英雄传统 [...] 作为力量和高贵的源泉；然而，它们也迫使罗马人过着越来越违背人类本能和需求的生活”（44）。因此，提图斯对罗曼尼塔斯的表现是基于不允许他的家人有任何父亲般的关心。当他面对他的时候，他否认他的孩子配不上他 正如米奥拉所说，“罗马的英雄传统 [...] 作为力量和高贵的源泉；然而，它们也迫使罗马人过着越来越违背人类本能和需求的生活”（44）。因此，提图斯对罗曼尼塔斯的表现是基于不允许他的家人有任何父亲般的关心。当他面对他的时候，他否认他的孩子配不上他