The earlier quarto editions also of Richard the Second and the First Part of King Henry the Fourth were published without the author's name; so that this negative evidence is of no consequence whatever. But in the first folio Titus Andronicus was published as òne of Mr. William Shakespeare's Tragedies by his friends and fellow-actors; and his well-informed contemporary and probable acquaintance, Francis Meres, in Palladis Tamia, published in 1598, cites Titus Andronicus with Richard the Second, Richard the Third, Henry the Fourth, King John, and Romeo and Juliet in support of his opinion that Shakespeare was the "most excellent " English dramatist in Tragedy as well as Comedy. Such evidence as this outweighs all the vague surmises that Ravenscroft might magnify into tradition; and we shall trouble ourselves no more with his story of the "private author."

This is all the external evidence in the case, except that which is afforded by the title-pages of the quarto editions. That of the earliest copy known to exist (1600) announces the play as having been performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Servants, (Shakespeare's company,) as well as by the Earl of Pembroke's, the Earl of Derby's, and the Earl of Sussex's: that of the next in date (1611) announces it only as sundry times played by the King's Majestie's Servants, (the style of Shakespeare's company at that time;) so that from these title-pages we can only gather that this play might originally have been written by Shakespeare, and that afterwards it probably became the exclusive property of the company with which he was connected, or was, at least, regarded as such.

The internal evidence leaves us in the same position in which we are as to the First Part of King Henry the Sixth: that is, each reader has his own right of private judgment; for there is no existing dramatic work upon which Shakespeare could have founded this tragedy, or which can support the claim of any other writer to its authorship in whole or in part, or guide us in forming an opinion as to what is and what is not his. It is admitted by all, however, and will probably never be denied, that Titus Andronicus has very much less merit than any other play (except perhaps the First Part of King Henry the Sixth) that received the imprimatur of Heminge & Condell; and readers who are at all acquainted with the dramatic literature of the early Elizabethan period cannot fail to observe that in spirit, in construction, and in rhythm, if not in diction, this tragedy is more in the manner of Shakespeare's immediate predecessors

than in his own, as it appears in any of his undoubted works. Had we the same testimony as to Greene's or Marlowe's authorship of this play that we have as to Shakespeare's, we should all accept it without a question, and, comparatively poor as the horrible composition is, pass a considerable accession of fame to the credit of the reputed writer. Apparently there is direct discrepancy between the external and the internal evidence in the case. Testimony cries one way; but, in the words of Hallam upon a similar question, "res ipsa per se vociferatur" to the contrary.

Is this discrepancy irreconcilable? a question that brings us to the last two points of external evidence concerning the play. The first of these is, that Ben Jonson says in the Induction to his Bartholomew Fair, "Hee that will sweare Ieronimo, or Andronicus are the best playes, yet, shall passe vnexcepted at, heere, as a man whose Iudgment shewes it is constant, and hath stood still, these fiue and twentie or thirtie yeeres." Bartholomew Fair was first acted in 1614; and this, construed rigidly, carries back the production of Titus Andronicus to between 1584 and 1589. But, as Ben's purpose was to cast the slur of 'old-fogyism' upon the two plays that he names, it is safe to allow a little for malicious exaggeration, and to assume the latter date as very nearly that at which Titus Andronicus was produced. Now, if Shakespeare wrote any dramatic poetry at that date, it is to be supposed (for reasons which have been given in the Essay on the Authorship of King Henry the Sixth, Vol. VII. p. 463, and which need not be repeated here) that he would write it as nearly as possible in the style of the dramatists whose plays were then most in vogue· Greene and Marlowe. Especially would this be the case in a work on which he was a colaborer with them : — a conclusion which bears directly upon the last point of our external evidence. We know that Greene wrote much, and Marlowe somewhat, for the company called the Earl of Pembroke's Servants; and, as we have seen, the titlepage of the earliest quarto edition known records the performance of this play by that company, as well as by the Lord Chamberlain's (to which Shakespeare belonged) and two others. But there was an earlier quarto edition; and, although it seems to have perished, a copy of it was seen by Gerard Langbaine, who, in his Account of the Early English Dramatick Poets, (London, 1691,) says (p. 464) that it was first printed 4°. Lond. 1594, and acted by the Earls of Derby, Pembroke, and Essex, their

Servants." This date is sustained by the entry of the play for publication on the Stationer's Register, February 6, 1593. (See the Variorum of 1821, Vol. II. p. 634.) Now, it is especially noteworthy that on the title-page of this earliest edition of the play there should be no mention of its having been performed by the Lord Chamberlain's company, which did play it before the date of the next edition, 1600, and to which it, as well as its reputed author, seems to have afterwards exclusively belonged.

This is, I believe, all the evidence in the case. Does it, in connection with the great resemblance in style between certain passages of this play and the works of Greene and Marlowe, and the superiority of other passages to the poetry of either of those authors, warrant the opinion that Titus Andronicus was written, about 1587-1589, by Greene, Marlowe, and Shakespeare together for the Earl of Pembroke's and perhaps other companies, and that (popular as we know it was) the Lord Chamberlain's Servants afterwards secured it, as well as the services of the youngest of its authors, exclusively for themselves, and that he subjected it to the same revision which, under like circumstances, he gave to the earlier versions of King Henry the Sixth? In my judgment this opinion is supported by all that we know upon the subject; and, should a copy of the quarto of 1594 ever be discovered, I should not be surprised to find its text bear somewhat the same relation to that of the folio that exists between the earlier and the later versions of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry the Sixth. The classical allusions with which this tragedy abounds might have been easily furnished by scholars of far less reading than Greene and Marlowe, and are not too much to expect from the young author of Venus and Adonis and the Rape of Lucrece, who might have found all the classical knowledge displayed in it (except the few scraps of Latin) in Golding's Ovid and Seneca's Ten Tragedies — two books with which he appears to have been intimately acquainted.*

* Without presuming to parcel out this play to the authors whom I suppose to have been engaged upon it, I venture (though with some hesitation and a full appreciation of the difficulty of forming an opinion upon the subject worthy of attention) to indicate the latter part (about half) of Scene 2, Act I., the whole of Scenes 1 and 2, Act II., and the greater part of Scene 2, Act IV., as originally the work of Greene: to Marlowe I attribute the choice of the plot and the incidents, with the writing of Scene 4, Act IV., and nearly all of Act V. in its original form and it seems to me that in the first part of Scene 2, Act I., in Scenes 3 and 5, Act II., throughout Act III., we may clearly trace the hand of Shakespeare. There are few readers of discrimination, I think,

An old story, of yet unknown origin, furnished the plot of this monstrous tragedy. A ballad originally entitled A Noble Roman History of Titus Andronicus, which was entered on the books of the Stationers' Company in 1593, and which will be found in the first volume of Percy's Reliques of Ancient English Poetry as The Complaint of Titus Andronicus, seems to me to be very clearly not the foundation of the play, but to be founded upon it. Throughout the ballad there is evident effort to compress all the incidents of the story within as brief a relation as possible; and this is not the style of a ballad written for the ballad's sake.

The period of the action seems indefinable. It may be placed at almost any time during the decadence of the Roman Empire. The text exists in remarkable purity in all the old editions. Save a few misplaced or omitted prefixes, there are no corruptions of much importance. The folio is followed in this edition, the quartos being looked to only as auxiliaries. It contains an entire Scene (Sc. 3 of Act III.) which is not found in them a fact which sustains the authority of Heminge & Condell to publish the tragedy as Shakespeare's. It has been suggested that this Scene was written by another hand than the one which produced the rest of the tragedy. However this may be, I believe that that hand was Shakespeare's, whose peculiar flow of thought and rhythm is very noticeable in the Scene in question. But they are to be found in as marked a degree elsewhere in the play; and there seems to be no sufficient reason for doubting that this Scene was part and parcel of Titus Andronicus as it was first produced by the Lord Chamberlain's Servants.

who would attribute such lines as the following to any other pen than his:

In peace and honour rest you here, my sons;

Rome's readiest champions, repose you here in rest,

Secure from worldly chances and mishaps!

Here lurks no treason, here no envy swells,

Here grow no damned grudges; here are no storms,

No noise, but silence and eternal sleep." Act I. Sc. 2.

It is noteworthy that in this play (Act IV. Sc. 2, p. 396) we find an instance of the idiom 'for to,' which Greene used so freely, and which Shakespeare and Marlowe so carefully avoided; and one of 'when-as,' (Act IV. Sc. 4, p. 408,) which occurs often in the works of both Greene and Marlowe, but never, I believe, in any undoubted play of Shakespeare's. It is also worthy of observation that the three or four instances of similarity of expression between this play and other works bearing Shakespeare's name connect it only with Venus and Adonis, his earliest poem, and with the First Part of Henry the Sixth and The Taming of the Shrew two plays in which Shakespeare has but a part interest; sharing again with Greene and Marlowe, almost without a doubt.

DRAMATIS PERSONE.

SATURNINUS, Son to the late Emperor of Rome, and afterwards declared Emperor.

BASSIANUS, Brother to Saturninus; in love with Lavinia.

TITUS ANDRONICUS, a noble Roman, General against the Goths. MARCUS ANDRONICUS, Tribune of the People, and Brother to Titus. LUCIUS,

AARON, a Moor, beloved by Tamora.

A Captain, Tribune, Messenger, and Clown; Romans.

Goths and Romans.

TAMORA, Queen of the Goths.

LAVINIA, Daughter to Titus Andronicus.

A Nurse, and a Black Child.

Kinsmen of Titus, Senators, Tribunes, Officers, Soldiers, and

Attendants.

SCENE: Rome, and the Country near it.

(340)