George Peele (1556–1596)

The Arden Shakespeare collection, in my view the greatest single, most available resource for deep understanding of the text and themes of Shakespeare's plays, here presents one of Shakespeare's most difficult plays, and probably one of his earliest. There is, in fact, considerable debate about how much of the play actually is by Shakespeare's hand, but setting that aside, it's a play rather short on true dramatic action, in the academic sense, though a great deal happens in it. It reads primarily as a simple tale of insult, response, injury, and revenge. What makes it difficult, beyond the fact that it largely just pits one side against another and lets them have at each other without enormous nuance of ideas, is that it is virtually undeniably Shakespeare's most violent work, with hands and arms and tongues lopped off onstage and people baked into pies and eaten. I find Shakespeare's poetry, even his earliest and perhaps weakest, nonetheless enthralling, and Titus Andronicus contains its share. There is a fine and detailed analysis of the play and its place in history, as well as notes on production history and theme. Far from Shakespeare's best, it is still a powerful piece of theatre.… (altro)

Shakespeare's earliest, starkest, bloodiest tragedy, Titus Andronicus is among a handful of nearly everyone's least favorite Shakespeare plays - mainly for the unmitigated violence, racism, and misogyny that fills it. The body count is staggering - perhaps 14 corpses in all - along with multiple dismemberings, decapitations, and gang rape. The theatrical spectacle is amazing and virtually unmatched in all of the First Folio.

Julie Taymor, noted interpreter of Shakespeare for the stage and screen, says Titus is about what makes great, noble people turn violent. In that respect it has more in common with the most famous classical Greek tragedies than with most of Shakespeare’s plays. It is in the verbal style of Seneca – oratorical declamation – or of Shakespeare’s early contemporaries Kyd and Marlowe, using what Ben Jonson referred to as their “mighty line” – not naturalistic but heightened speech.

The play is set at the time of the late Roman Empire. Unlike in Yeats’ “Second Coming,” in Shakespeare’s play of apocalyptic horrors both the best and “the worst are full of passionate intensity.” At breakneck pace we are subjected to a series of catastrophic errors by the most powerful and respected man in Rome, the conquering general Titus. 1) Ignoring a mother’s pleas for mercy, he has the son of his conquered opponent Tamora killed, dismembered and sacrificed; 2) declining to rule Rome himself, he selects the wrong candidate, Saturninus, to be emperor; 3) disregarding a prior claim by the emperor’s brother Bassianus, he agrees to wed his daughter Lavinia to the emperor; 4) accusing his own son of treason for supporting Lavinia, he kills son Mutius; 5) believing her deceitful peacemaking, he expects friendship and gratitude from Tamora even as she plots the demise of his entire family. And that’s all in the first scene. By the play’s end, only three Andronici (two men and a boy, and virtually no other named characters) are left alive – all the result of unchecked villainy combined with blind adherence to principles of honor.

Early in his career Shakespeare discovered the powerful attraction of articulate, scheming villains. In Tamora and Aaron he created two of the best, and ironically they are also two of the best parents in the play, in their unflagging loyalty to their children. The play’s final irony is that Rome is saved only by an invasion of barbarians.… (altro)