Analysis
Titus Andronicus was one of Shakespeare’s first plays and is often regarded as his worst. Samuel Johnson questioned the very possibility of staging the play, saying the spectacle it presents “can scarcely be conceived tolerable to any audience,” while T. S. Eliot famously dismissed it as too atrocious even to provide an example of Seneca’s bad influence on Elizabethan drama:
In one of the worst offenders—indeed one of the stupidest and most uninspired plays ever written, a play in which it is incredible that Shakespeare had any hand at all, a play in which the best passages would be too highly honoured by the signature of Peele—in Titus Andronicus—there is nothing really Senecan at all.
Perhaps the most telling criticism came from John Dover Wilson in his introduction to the 1948 Cambridge University Press edition of the play. Although he clearly thought Titus Andronicus important enough to edit for the Cambridge series, Dover Wilson says that the only reason anyone reads or stages Titus Andronicus today is because it is part of the Shakespearean canon. While some of these canonical plays are more celebrated than others, there is no such thing as an obscure Shakespeare play. If Titus Andronicus had been attributed to anyone else, it would be entirely forgotten.
Because Titus Andronicus is part of the Shakespearean canon, it has received the level of critical attention generally thought due to a Shakespeare play, alongside all this disparagement. Three major theories have emerged from this. The first is that Titus Andronicus should be written off as a work of Shakespeare’s apprenticeship, quite unworthy of the poet and dramatist he was to become. Some adherents to this theory regard the play as essentially a work of George Peele, with additional dialogue by Shakespeare. They point out that Peele would have been the senior partner in this collaboration, as the older and better-educated of the two men. Shakespeare’s contribution is to be written off as a piece of unfortunate juvenilia, interesting only as a point of comparison for his latter work.
This view of Titus Andronicus dominated critical appraisals of the play from the seventeenth century until the twentieth. In the second half of the twentieth century, however, the idea arose that the excesses of the play were best explained by the notion that Titus Andronicus was not simply an extreme example of Elizabethan revenge tragedy, but a sophisticated parody of the genre. One of the leading exponents of this position was Harold Bloom, who recalled his own experience at Peter Brook’s landmark production of the play in 1955, featuring Laurence Olivier as Titus Andronicus. Brook, he recalls, had cut some of the more absurd lines, including Marcus Andronicus’s long speech on Lavinia’s mutilation. The audience, however, still could not help laughing at the play. In particular, when Aaron the Moor has chopped off Titus’s hand, so that Lavinia and her father have only one hand between them, Titus makes his solemn vow of revenge and then organizes his family’s departure with their cargo of his sons’ severed heads and his own severed hand:
The vow is made. Come, brother, take a head;
And in this hand the other I will bear.
Lavinia, thou shalt be employed: these arms!
Bear thou my hand, sweet wench, between thy teeth.
Bloom avers that it is impossible to hear or read such lines without laughing and that the director most suited to the style of Titus Andronicus would be Mel Brooks.
In fact, Titus Andronicus has not been well-served by feature film adaptations, and the only major big-screen version is Julie Taymor’s 1999 production,
(This entire section contains 799 words.)
Unlock this Study Guide Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
has not been well-served by feature film adaptations, and the only major big-screen version is Julie Taymor’s 1999 production,Titus. Taymor was influenced by the critical work of Jonathan Bate, which explores the third school of Titus Andronicus scholarship. For Bate, the play is neither an embarrassing piece of juvenilia nor a parody. Bate writes that he loved the play when he read it as a teenager and that it is one of the most popular plays with his students, who call it “Shakespeare’s Quentin Tarantino play.” The comparison with Tarantino brings out the combination of casually presented violence with black humor, which explains why Titus Andronicus was popular with Elizabethan audiences. Shakespeare’s later plays undoubtedly contain greater profundity and finer poetry, but Titus Andronicus stands on its own merits as a crowd-pleasing piece of Grand Guignol drama. Bate agrees with Bloom that the play may well make the audience laugh at times but says that it also keeps them on the edge of their seats, as a Tarantino film does. This is how Taymor’s movie version presents Titus Andronicus, with Anthony Hopkins in the title role playing the vengeful Titus as a Roman Hannibal Lecter, who retains his taste for cooking and eating human flesh.
Bibliography
Bessen, Alan C. Shakespeare in Performance: “Titus Andronicus.” Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1989. Dessen follows the stage history of the play, noting that the watershed performance was the highly successful 1955 production by Peter Brook, starring Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh. Dessen also addresses the numerous staging problems involved in a production of Titus Andronicus.
Bowers, Fredson T. Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy, 1587-1642. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1940. Although somewhat old, this book is still useful and enjoyable. It traces the origins of the revenge tragedy to the plays of Seneca. Bowers shows how Titus Andronicus follows a pattern first formulated in English by Thomas Kyd in The Spanish Tragedy.
Hamilton, A. C. “Titus Andronicus: The Form of Shakespearean Tragedy.” Shakespeare Quarterly 14 (1963): 201-213. Suggests that Titus’ fault is in attempting to be godlike in the sacrifice of Alarbus. The rest of the play makes him increasingly human.
Rozett, Martha Tuck. The Doctrine of Election and the Emergence of Elizabethan Tragedy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984. Argues that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination and election was influential upon Elizabethan tragedy.
Wells, Stanley, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1986. This is where all studies of Shakespeare should begin. Includes excellent chapters introducing the poet’s biography, conventions and beliefs of Elizabethan England, and reviews of scholarship in the field.
Places Discussed
*Rome
*Rome. Center of the Roman Empire, where the play opens at Emperor Titus’s royal court. The entrance of the emperor’s sons through different doors opens the play and denotes the division and divided loyalties that will plague Rome, preparing the audience for the political strife that ravages the court. In contrast, the tribunes and senators of Rome, along with Marcus, the brother of Titus, appear aloft on the balcony, in order to underscore the tradition of a once mighty and proud Rome that remains “above” the fray of petty squabbles and familial strife. Into this contrasting setting appears Titus on the main stage in his triumphal entrance to the city, bringing both prisoners and Roman dead, as he moves to the trapdoor, which functions as the burial site for those slain in battle.
Later in the play, the trapdoor becomes a pit dug in the countryside of Rome, used by the sons of the evil queen to hide a murder and to ensnare two of Titus’s sons. Thus the location of the play is less important than the symbolism of where characters perform. In and nearby the court of Rome may be the referenced sites, but the playhouse stage reveals more, offering the medieval concept of theatrum mundi, or “world as a stage,” which measures all things vertically, from hell below to heaven above, as mankind “frets and struts his hour upon the stage,” as Macbeth says in another of Shakespeare’s plays.
Bibliography and Further Reading
Last Updated September 22, 2024.
Broude, Ronald. "Four Forms of Vengeance in Titus Andronicus." Journal of English and Germanic Philology LXXVIII, no. 4 (October 1979): 494-507. Broude identifies four distinct types of revenge in the play: human sacrifice to appease the spirits of fallen warriors, familial vendettas, human justice, and divine retribution. He views Titus as the gods' chosen instrument to exact their vengeance and assist in restoring justice in Rome.
Brower, Reuben A. "Titus Andronicus: Villainy and Tragedy." In Shakespeare: The Tragedies, edited by Robert B. Heilman, 28-36. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1984. Brower examines Timon as an underdeveloped tragic hero. He posits that Timon epitomizes a noble individual subjected to immense suffering, whose pleas for justice go unheard. Brower argues that a major flaw of the play is that it offers Timon only bleak options: he can either succumb to madness, exacerbate his suffering by clinging to "the very qualities that made him a hero," or become indistinguishable from his tormentors.
Charney, Maurice. "Titus Andronicus." In All of Shakespeare, 211-18. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. In this student-oriented chapter, Charney explores the play's main characters and central themes. He asserts that Lavinia retains a vital role even after losing her tongue and ability to speak; that although the audience witnesses Titus at his worst in Act I, he regains his tragic dignity through suffering; and that Marcus serves as a voice of reason and moderation. Charney describes Aaron as "the most brilliant and fully developed character in Titus Andronicus," setting the stage for all of Shakespeare's subsequent villains.
Cults, John. "Titus Andronicus." In The Shattered Class: A Dramatic Pattern in Shakespeare's Early Plays, 59-75. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1968. Cults dedicates this chapter to the character of Titus, whom he sees as deeply flawed and unable to recognize his own weaknesses. According to Cults, Timon is personally ambitious but reluctant to admit it to himself; he is willing to exploit or sacrifice his own family members for his selfish ambitions; and he attempts to deflect guilt by blaming others for the destructive cycle of revenge.
Dessen, Alan C. "The Sense of an Ending." In Titus Andronicus, 90-110. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989. Dessen examines how nearly a dozen twentieth-century productions of Titus Andronicus in England, Canada, and the United States have interpreted the play's final scene. He illustrates how actors' and directors' interpretations shape the audience's response to the characters: for instance, Lavinia has been portrayed as either submissive and zombie-like or as an eager participant in her father's revenge; Lucius has been depicted as either Rome's savior or as a symbol of ongoing violence and brutality. Dessen also discusses varying portrayals of "the fate of Aaron's child."
Hughes, Alan. Introduction to Titus Andronicus, by William Shakespeare, 1-47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Hughes emphasizes that Titus Andronicus was "written for the theater," highlighting its success on stage when actors and directors approach its emotions and character portrayals with sincerity. He asserts that Titus's tragedy is fully realized by the end of Act I—after he repeatedly breaches family bonds and "the laws of society, the state and heaven"—and identifies Aaron as the play's most theatrically compelling character. Hughes's introduction also explores the play's date of composition, its sources, and its stage history.
Kendall, Gillian Murray. "'Lend me thy hand': Metaphor and Mayhem in Titus Andronicus." Shakespeare Quarterly 40, no. 3 (Fall 1989): 299-316. Kendall argues that in Titus Andronicus, "language reflects and promotes the violence of Shakespeare's most grotesquely violent play." She examines how ordinary figures of speech—especially those referencing human body parts—acquire dark and sinister meanings in the play.
Miola, Robert S. "Titus Andronicus and the Mythos of Shakespeare's Rome." Shakespeare Studies XIV (1981): 85-98. Miola closely examines Shakespeare's use of classical writers such as Ovid and Virgil to elevate the dignity and sorrow of characters and events in Titus Andronicus. He focuses on themes of rape as a violation of family honor and civil strife within a fundamentally lawless society.
Scuro, Daniel. "Titus Andronicus: A Crimson-Flushed Stage!" Ohio State University Theatre Collection Bulletin 17 (1970): 40-48. Scuro surveys critical reactions to the most celebrated production of Titus Andronicus in the twentieth century: the 1955 staging directed by Peter Brook, featuring Laurence Olivier as Titus. Scuro captures the haunting intensity and brooding melancholy of Brook's formal, highly stylized presentation of the play.
Waith, Eugene M. Introduction to Titus Andronicus, by William Shakespeare, 1-69. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Waith discusses the ambiguous characterizations of Titus and Aaron, arguing that the violence in Titus Andronicus is "an integral part" of Shakespeare's dramatic technique. He also comments on the importance of various ceremonies and spectacles in the play, contending that they enhance thematic issues—such as the necessity for political order—and serve as structural devices linking dramatic events. Additionally, Waith provides a detailed history of the play's performances and an in-depth discussion of Shakespeare's use and manipulation of literary sources.
Willis, Susan. "Titus Andronicus in the Studio: Winter 1985." In her The BBC Shakespeare Plays, 292-313. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. Willis offers a lively account of the BBC-TV videotaping of Titus Andronicus. Among other intriguing details about this production, she reveals that the makeup for the scene with Tamora and her sons as Revenge, Murder, and Rape (V.ii) was inspired by the rock group Kiss, and that the stumps fitted onto the actor playing Lavinia's hands featured "real bones from a butcher shop."
Modern Connections
Last Updated September 22, 2024.
Titus Andronicus is often associated with a type of drama known as "revenge tragedy." In this genre, once someone vows to avenge a wrong done to them or their family, there is no turning back. The cycle of revenge, marked by violent and bloody incidents, isn't complete until everyone involved in the wrongdoing is punished. Forgiveness is an alien concept in this type of drama.
Revenge cycles persist globally even in the late twentieth century. One faction or ethnic group within a nation oppresses or harms another. The oppressed group retaliates or waits until it gains power, then seeks vengeance for past wrongs. In some countries, people are still fighting to avenge crimes committed against their ancestors decades or even centuries ago.
Group solidarity, a commendable trait, plays a role in sustaining these cycles. Family solidarity is also a virtue. The Andronici family stands united against the world. They follow the Roman tradition that an attack on one family member is an attack on all. They may have intense internal disputes, but when an external threat arises, they close ranks. Their enemies act similarly. Tamora allows, even encourages, her sons to rape Lavinia partly because she believes Titus unjustly permitted the killing of Alarbus, knowing that Lavinia's rape will devastate him. She also views Lavinia not as an individual but as an Andronici.
Modern societies worldwide promote family loyalty. When one member succeeds, it's expected that the family will benefit. Siblings may fight among themselves, but if a younger sibling is threatened by a neighborhood bully, an older one is traditionally expected to step in and protect them. This concept of loyalty extends to groups of non-related individuals, such as gangs, where members essentially 'adopt' each other as family.
The Andronici, along with their enemy Saturninus and other Romans of that era, view rape as a disgrace to the family. Although Lavinia is blameless, she is personally disgraced and brings shame upon her family. This attitude still lingers in modern societies. Rape victims often hesitate to report the crime to the police or even their own families. Families of rape victims frequently feel unable to talk openly about the crime, unlike if a relative had been robbed or their house had been broken into. Some progress has been made in recent decades to remove the social stigma of rape.
Titus Andronicus highlights a pervasive social issue that persists today: racism. The portrayal of Aaron exploits societal biases against individuals whose physical appearance significantly differs from the dominant populace. Racism was present in sixteenth-century England and has persisted into the twentieth century across various cultures worldwide. Furthermore, the play provokes unsettling questions about the traditional association of the color black with malevolence.
Literary critics regard Aaron as the most dynamic and fully developed character in the play. He is considered a strong prototype for villains in Shakespeare's later works, particularly Richard III, Iago in Othello, and Edmund in King Lear. However, those villains exist as white men in predominantly white societies. In Titus Andronicus, Aaron is entirely estranged from the surrounding society. Although Tamora is also "different"—a foreigner from a despised culture—she is given a chance to integrate into Roman society by marrying Saturninus and becoming empress. In stark contrast, "her raven-colored love" (II.iii.83) remains perpetually marginalized. The play does not explicitly link Aaron's intentional exclusion from Roman society to his malevolent behavior. However, contemporary readers, aware of the impacts of racism and prejudice, may perceive a connection there.