Probably the most striking feature of modern critical reaction to Titus Andronicus is the persistent refusal to consider it one of Shakespeare's Roman plays. Early in the century, the abundant bloodletting and lurid action caused John M. Robertson to discern various hands in the play and to deny it a place in Shakespeare's canon. The disintegrationist furor having died down, most critics now emphasize the importance of Titus Andronicus to Shakespeare's artistic development, specifically to the histories and great tragedies that follow. Critics of Shakespeare's Rome generally follow the precedent of M. W. MacCallum, who relegates Titus Andronicus to a place apart from the Plutarchan tragedies:

The vestibule has become a closet. Recent examinations of Shakespeare's Rome by Maurice Charney, Derek Traversi, J. L. Simmons, Paul A. Cantor, and Michael Platt either ignore Titus Andronicus completely or skim over it. Employing his three criteria for Romanitas – use of Roman costume, praise of suicide, source in North's Plutarch – Maurice Charney summarily dismisses Titus Andronicus: “Rome in Titus Andronicus is only the setting for a revenge play, which is based on such fictional classical themes as the Revenge of Atreus and the Rape of Philomela.” The play, however, gives ample evidence of Roman character.