Poor Titus Andronicus. Not only does he suffer every possible indignity in the play named for him, but the play itself, actually a very important one in Shakespeare's career (and which is much better than most people realize, incidentally), is usually discussed with open derision. In fact, the dominant critical attitude toward it for the better part of four centuries has been the attempt to somehow prove that either a) Shakespeare didn't write the play, or b) if he did, he didn't really mean to. The primary reason for all of this is, of course, the play's violence, which even by today's standards (which have been "shaped" by the content of popular culture), seems shocking and/or disturbing. Fortunately, a great many commentators have set about trying to explain what Shakespeare was really up to in writing this play (for a long time, the assumption was that he wrote it entirely for profit and thus played up its sensationalism and horror). One of the best pieces that I've read on the subject is Alan Hughes's introduction to the 1994 Cambridge edition, in which he summarizes the history of the play in terms of its writing, performance practices, criticism and (I'm happy to report) its increasing appreciation over the last few decades. Highly recommended. In the next little while (my next post, I should say), I'm going to add my two cents regarding what I consider to be the play's most important characteristic: its importance in terms of Shakespeare's later career, and in particular the tragedies.