The second act of filicide occurs at the end of the play when Titus murders Lavinia, so that she does not have to live with the shame of having been raped and mutilated by Tamora's sons, Chiron and Demetrius.

On the other hand, this reading highlights how Titus the "revenge hero" does the opposite, prioritizing a pursuit of vengeance on behalf of his family in defiance of law and order and committing crimes against other Roman citizens and the state as a whole.

However, this interpretation delineates his development with a caveat, as Titus is never truly able to escape the mold of Roman ideals, committing filicide once again at the end of the play in line with tradition and family order.

[7] Titus' killing of Lavinia, on the other hand, is considered (through reference to the mythological filicide of Virginius) by Saturninus as justified through personal or family honor: "Because the girl should not survive her shame, / And by her presence still renew [the father's] sorrows.

[7] In Roman Shakespeare: Warriors, Wounds, and Women, Kahn highlights how Titus's revenge is motivated by the marring of his daughter's virtue rather than any offenses carried out against him directly.

Titus eventually makes the choice to kill Lavinia as a show of mercy, motivated by the urge to spare her of living with the shame of having been defiled in such a gruesome manner.

In Kahn's reading, this action solidifies Titus's role as a manifestation of "patriarchal values", where the state in which his daughter can and should be allowed to exist falls under his own jurisdiction.

[1] Duquesne University Professor Danielle St. Hilaire viewed this action as a sign of Titus's devotion to honoring the Roman literary tradition and acting according to associated textual precedents.

[10] The sacrifice mirrors killings conducted by mythological figures such as Achilles and Aeneas, who both carried out battlefield carnage to avenge a fallen companion in their respective myths.

Thus, St. Hilaire asserts that Titus' demand for Alarbus to be sacrificed is a reflection of a larger Roman cultural legacy, one that justifies retributive killing in the name of the dead no matter the level of cruelty it requires.

[10] St. Hilaire also observed that the play's disintegration into chaos, immorality, and incivility develops alongside other characters' inability to live according to these textual and cultural traditions, largely due to misinterpretation or ignorance.