5 so
ve
Saas
aa.
oo
a
*
ca,
i.
oe
i mii)
by

i
es
n
i‘University of Virginia Library
PR2935.T5 F8
LD

Helin

XSL iy i Raa ap CA

   
   
   
    
  

LIBRARY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

 

 

FROM THE LIBRARY OF
THOMAS RANDOLPH PRICEBEA: = g < : ni fue Y = : _— . 3 ee aes ‘
— > “ = > ” A
5 ‘ yak ‘ i
siren nto yee nines Pai Std shit bnncbincadiens Sonia PA tir Pc es ah aa Al ec sicpligg ,Sns ada hcg lel entero x eX
f
“

W !
4

4

/

!
|
y
’
‘
v4
’
?
é Bae see sith lon la hy oP at ane a RENN ee Oat RGN CEN CUE muiais
. Rpts Sener Pome eRe ~
5 : + 3 r 5 » on ee e 0FHE SOURCES

OF

TITUS ANDRONICUS

BY

HAROLD DE W. FULLER

WITH A NOTE ON

“TITTUS AND VESPACIA” AND “TITUS AND
ONDRONICUS” IN HENSLOWE’S
DIARY

BY

5 5 pre Bes 85205 a
(GECRGH P. -BAKERR °°?
y JED = s nF > eo a

« ‘ J, 25,5 ee z 2 a . , 2 x rs °
Assistant Professor af English in? Harvard Oniversity
> eat 2 te ae ee eee ) ; 5 29PRICE LIBRARY?[Reprinted from the Publications of the Modern Language Association,
Vol. XVI, No. 1.]

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS?

In any examination of Titus Andronicus the student is
immediately confronted with the questions: “Are we really
to regard Shakspere as the author?” “ How did he happen
to choose such repulsive material?” Or, again, if we assume
that he but touched up an old play, there is still the ques-
tion: “Just how great was this revision?” In other words,
Titus Andronicus interests most readers not for its real worth
as a drama, but only for what it may or may not represent _
in the history of Shakspere’s dramatic career. For this bs a
reason it seems essential to give, first of all, a brief account
of previous opinions as to the authorship of this tragedy, so
that we may better understand the importance of determining
its sources.

At the very outset we encounter such diametrically oppo-
site assertions as the following: “As to Titus Andronicus only
the most narrow-minded critic can yet maintain that its

1J desire here to acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor Kittredge
and Professor Baker of Harvard University for the kind encouragement
and valuable counsel which I have received from them during the prepara-
tion of this paper. To Mr. C. N. Greenough I am also indebted for the
considerable task of copying the Dutch play, Aran en Titus, and for several
useful suggestions; to Mr. R. H. Fletcher for helpful criticism.

12 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

authorship does not belong to Shakspere,’' and “ No one
among sane English critics believes the play to be Shak-
spere’s.””” Hence it will be impossible, within the scope of
this article, to trace the history of previous opinion in any
detail. But, broadly speaking, we may group the views of
scholars under three main heads. First there is the theory
upheld by comparatively few critics—chiefly Germans—that
every line of the play is Shakspere’s own. ‘The champions
of so outspoken an acceptance of Titus Andronicus fortify
themselves by citing, throughout the play, passages which
have a decidedly Shaksperian ring, and by adducing two
pieces of evidence which prima facie seem almost unimpeach-
able: (1) the testimony of Frances Meres, who, in 1598,
recorded Titus Andronicus as one of several dramas which
had exalted Shakspere’s fame to a level with that of Plautus
and Seneca,’ and (2) the inclusion of the play in the First
Folio. But their chief reliance seems to be the idea that
Shakspere was little more than an impressionable youth
when he composed this, his first production, so that the play
naturally appears typical of the time rather than of the man.
Perhaps the most enthusiastic advocate of this view was
Franz Horn. ‘“ What, as a man,” Horn urged, “ was possi-
ble to him in Lear, the youth could not accomplish.” * And
though in lines, scenes, and scattered characterization, Horn
found a faint suggestion of the later Shakspere, it was never-

‘Cohn, Atheneum, 1851, p. 22.

*Fleay, as quoted by Ward: A History of English Dramatic Literature,
London, 1899, vol. ii, p. 55.

*“As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for Comedy and Tragedy
among the Latines, so Shakespeare among ye English is the most excellent
in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy witnes his Gentlemen of Verona,
his Errors, his Love labors lost, his Love labours wonne, his Midsummers
night dreame, and his Merchant of Venice; for Tragedy his Richard the 2.
Richard the 3. Henry the 4. King John, Titus Andronicus and his Romeo
and Juliet.” Palladis Tamia. See Shakespeare's Centurie of Prayse (New
Shakspere Society), London, 1879, p. 21.

* Shakespeare's Schauspiele Erliutert, Leipzig, 1828, vol. i, p. 304.aden aneed peirar rn Umea

et all as

    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. S

theless Shakspere in the early eighties that he insisted on,—
Shakspere the chameleon rather than the self-reliant drama-
tist. Verplanck’ and Knight,’ some years later, went over
much the same ground. Both refer to Shakspere as the
“‘boy-author,” hinting that he may have been still a minor.
There remain to-day, so far as I am aware, only a very small
coterie of scholars whom we may put in this first category.
Of these Kurz,’ Creizenach,* Brandes,’ and Herford® adopt
Horn’s theory, while Schroer,’ Sarrazin,® and Brandl? modify
it to extent of emphasizing the traces of Shaksperian charac-
terization. All of these recent critics, too, favor a somewhat
more conservative date of composition, namely, from 1587
to 1590.

Among the advocates of a second and directly opposite
view,—that Shakspere had no connection whatever with Titus
Andronicus,—it is interesting to note the name of Dr. Johnson,
Thus Johnson observes that “all the editors and critics agree
in supposing this play spurious. I see no reason for differing
with them; for the colour of the style is wholly different from
that of the other plays, and there is an attempt at regular
versification and artificial closes, not always inelegant, yet

1 Shakespeare's Plays, New York, 1847, vol. iii, Introduction to Titus
Andronicus, p. 7.

2 The Pictorial Edition of Shakspere, London, 1838-42, vol. containing T.
AG, pedi.

3 Zu Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare Jahrbuch, v, pp. 82 ff.

* Die Schauspiele der englischen Komédianten, Berlin, 1889, Introduction
to Titus Andronicus, p. 4.

5 William Shakespeare, translation by William Archer, London, 1898, vol.
i, pp. 36-41.

6 The Works of Shakespeare, London, 1899, vol. vii, p. 292. It has been
my experience to find that conservative critics, almost without exception,
shy at Titus Andronicus ; they seem loath to champion any one theory. It
has been necessary, therefore, in this classification to accept as his the
theory which a critic manifestly prefers, even though he does not commit
himself to it in so many words.

7 Uber Titus Andronicus, Marburg, 1891.
8 William Shakespeare’s Lehrjahre, Weimar, 1897, pp. 50, 51.
9 Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1891, pp. 708 ff.

Wana onc4 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

seldom pleasing. The barbarity of the spectacles, and the
general massacre which are here exhibited, can scarcely be
conceived tolerable to any audience; yet we are told by
Jonson that they were not only borne but praised. That
Shakespear wrote any part, though Theobald declares it incon-
testable, I see no reason for believing.’’' As in the case of the
first view, there are in recent days few so outspoken against
Titus Andronicus as Johnson. Gerald Massey,’ Fleay,’ and
Grosart 4 will serve as good examples of the outspoken kind.
The arguments of all three centre in an insurmountable
prejudice against ascribing to Shakspere anything so revolt-
ing as the blood and horror in which this play is steeped.
All three fail to find in its unpleasant nature any similarity
to Shakspere’s other plays,—sufficient proof, they think, that
it is not his.

But it is with the third view that the great majority of
critics have identified themselves,—that Shakspere merely
touched up an old play here and there. This opinion first
gained authority from the testimony of a dramatist who came
nearly a century later than Shakspere. In 1687 Edward
Ravenscroft published a revision of Titus Andronicus, in
the preface to which he said: “I have been told by some
anciently conversant with the stage that it was not originally
his [Shakspere’s], but brought by a private author to be
acted, and he only gave some master-touches to one or two
of the principal parts or characters.”° To this statement

! Shakespear, London, 1765, vol. vi, p. 364.

* Shakspeare’s Sonnets and his Private Friends, London, 1866, pp. 580 ff.

° The Life and Work of William Shakespeare, London, 1886, p. 282.

* Was Robert Greene substantially the author of Titus Andronicus? Englische
Studien, 1896, pp. 389-436.

’Titus Andronicus, or the Rape of Lavinia, Acted at the Theatre Royall, A
Tragedy. Alter’'d from Mr. Shakespear’s Works by Mr. Edw. Ravenscroft.
London, 1687.

In this prologue Ravenscroft goes on to say: “The success [i. e., of his
own revision of Titus Andronicus] answered the labor, though it first
appeared upon the stage at the beginning of the pretended Popish PlotCia as seccimnmmenar titi reper
steed ee Ce away Tt ae

 

     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 5D

critics have continually harked back, attempting thereby to
explain the presence of a few lines in Titus Andronicus which
seem to them Shaksperian. The evidence of Frances Meres
and of the First Folio they would reconcile with Ravenscroft
by supposing that the popularity of the drama in its revised
form may have led to its being commonly known as “ Shak-
spere’s Titus Andronicus” as distinguished from the earlier
version, until at length it got to be generally regarded as one
of his original productions. On such a theory, Shakspere’s
connection with Titus Andronicus, it will at once be observed,
is a question rather of a few scattered passages than of a

[1678].... In the hurry of those distracted times the prologue and epi-
logue were lost. But to let the buyer have his penny-worths, I furnish you
with others.” After giving Ravenscroft’s own account of his motives in
this prologue it is only fair to quote from a contemporary of Ravenscroft
who has spoken out very decidedly about Ravenscroft’s motives in general
and in particular with reference to his avowed connection with Titus
Andronicus. In his Account of the English Dramatick Poets, Oxford, 1691,
pp. 417-22, Langbaine says of Ravenscroft, “A gentleman now living... .
one who with the vulgar passes for a writer; though I hope he will pardon
me, if I rather style him in the number of wit-collectors; for I cannot
allow all his wit in his plays to be his own: I hope he will not be angry
for transcribing the character which he has given of Mr. Dryden and
which mutato nomine belongs to himself. ’Tis not that | anyways abet Mr.
Dryden for his falling upon his Mammamouchi, but that I may maintain
the character of impartial, to which I pretend, I must pull off his disguise
and discover the politick plagiary that lurks under it. I know he has
endeavored to show himself master of the art of swift-writing, and would
persuade the world that what he writes is ex tempore wit and written currente
calamo. But I doubt not to show that though he would be thought to imi-
tate the silk-worm that spins its web from its own bowels, yet I shall make
him appear like the leech, that lives upon the blood of men, drawn from
the gums; and when he is rubbed with salt spues it up again. To prove
this I shall only give an account of his plays; and by that little of my own
knowledge which I shall discover, ’twill be manifest that this Ricketty-
Poet (though of so many years) cannot go without others’ assistance.” And
p. 464 he says, as to Titus Andronicus: “’ Twas about the time of the Popish-
plot revived and altered by Mr. Ravenscroft. In the preface to the reader
he says: ‘That he thinks it a greater theft to rob the dead of their praise
than the living of their money’ Whether his practice agree with his pro-
testation I leave to the comparison of his works with those of Molliere ;

an ache uae eos: SO et ee een TTR a I TT a ET See to Cone an6 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

thorough-going revision of a given story, such as for instance
we know occurred in the case of most of his other works.
Thus far there is a concurrence of opinion on the part of
all who uphold this theory. But from the Psyche-like task
of sorting out Shakspere’s lines from the rest, difficulty and
disagreement have arisen. Perhaps Morley has gone farthest
in the amount of retouching which he imputes to Shakspere’s
hand. Thus he would include a meagre mending of old
verses and the insertion of some new ones, beside a slight
recasting of the old material here and there. It is not neces-
sary, however, to record the exact lines variously claimed as
Shaksperian. It is enough to say that they represent a very
small percentage of the whole. How very small indeed,

and whether Mr. Shadwell’s opinion of plagiaries reach not Mr. Ravenscroft
I leave to the reader. ‘I,’ says he ingeniously (Preface to Sullen Lovers),
‘freely confess my theft and am ashamed on’t; though I have the example
of some that never yet wrote a play without stealing most of it: and (like
men that lie so long till they believe themselves) at length by continual
thieving reckon their stolen goods their own too; which is so ignoble a
thing that I cannot but believe that he, that makes a common practice of
stealing other men’s wit, would, if he could with the same safety, steal
anything else.’ Mr. Ravenscroft, in the epistle to Titus, says ‘that the
play was not originally Shakespear’s,’ etc. Afterwards he boasts his own
pains and says, ‘that if the reader compare the old play with his copy he
will find that none in all that author's works ever received greater altera-
tions, or additions; the language not only refined but many scenes entirely
new: Besides most of the principal characters heightened, and the plot
much increased.’ I shall not engage in this controversy ... . but to make
Mr. Ravenscroft some reparation, I will here furnish him with part of his
prologue, which was lost, and, if he desire it, send him the whole:

‘To-day the poet does not fear your rage,
Shakespear by him reviv’d now treads the stage:
Under his sacred laurels he sits down
Safe, from the blast of any critic’s frown.

Like other poets, he’ll not proudly scorn

To own that he but winnow’d Shakespear’s corn;
So far he was from robbing him of’s treasure,
That he did add his own to make full measure.’ ”’

' English Writers, London, 1893, vol. x, p. 45.elie REO TAS ame ri ti

ee

 

   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

may be judged from the words of Dowden: “The great
majority of English critics either altogether reject the play....
or accept as true the tradition of Ravenscroft, that it was
touched by Shakspere, and no more.”* ‘He may have
retouched it here and there,” writes Mabie; ‘he can hardly
have done more.”” Again, to quote from Rolfe, ‘The verdict
of the editors and critics is so nearly unanimous against the
authenticity of the play that the burden of proof clearly rests
with the other side.” ? Indeed, how near this third view may
come to coinciding with that which entirely rejects the drama
we may see from Verity’s words: “ Titus Andronicus, I
believe, was written by a fifth-rate playwright .... and then
Shakspere gave the work half an hour’s revision and—far
more important—his name.” * ;

From this cursory history of opinion it will be seen that
critics of to-day, with half-a-dozen exceptions, are inclined
to believe that Shakspere had no hand whatever in Titus
Andronicus, or,—what for our purposes will amount to the
same thing,—to hold that he is responsible for only a few
scattered passages; and further, that those who do accept the
play, relegate it to the colorless period of what has been
termed ‘“Shakspere’s apprenticeship.” Moreover, we are
forced to admit that the contention as to authorship can never
be decided on purely esthetic grounds, nor yet from external
evidence alone, since, as we have seen, this in a measure
contradicts itself. Obviously then, agreement can only come
from more definite knowledge of the origin of the play,—for
example, of its sources. If we could only discover them, we
should then be admitted to the author’s workshop,—and there
is surely no better place to study his identity.

It has long been thought that an old story of Titus
Andronicus, perhaps taken over from the Spanish or the
Italian, was common property in England as early as 1567.

1 Shakspere: Primer, p. 61. 2 Outlook, June 2, 1900, p. 293.
3 Titus Andronicus, New York, 1892, pp. 15-16.
4 Shakespeare, Irving ed., London, 1890, vol. vii, p. 259.

Pe a TTA be oe
RRND At ates tea tad Ec8 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

Thus in the introduction to the Variorum Shakspere of 1803
the statement is ascribed to Steevens that Painter in his
Palace of Pleasure, volume 11, speaks of Titus Andronicus
as well-known and that he mentions particularly the cruelty
of Tamora.t Until recently Steevens’s statement has gone
unchallenged. It seems, nevertheless, to rest on error.” But
though no novel® of Titus Andronicus appears to have

1Variorum Shakespeare, London, 1803, edited by Johnson and others,
vol. i, B. 2, v°. The first edition of Palace of Pleasure appeared in 1566-7.

?After searching vainly for such a reference in Painter, my attention was
kindly called by Dr. Rolfe to Mr. Herford’s note in the Eversley edition of
Titus Andronicus, vol. vii, p. 290, where this error of previous generations
is cited and corrected.

° There is, however, still extant an old ballad, entitled, ‘The Lady and the
Blackamoor” (Roxburghe Ballads, vol. ii, pp. 48 ff; printed, also, in Evans’
Old Ballads, vol. iii, pp. 232 ff, with the title “The Cruel Black’’), which
may be indirectly connected with the sources of Titus Andronicus. Chappell,
in the Roxburghe collection, gives the following note with regard to it: ‘“The
ballad appears, from incidental notices in plays, to be as old as the reign
of James I., and yet no one of the above-named extant copies can be dated
earlier than the reign of Charles IL”? But though Chappell is unable to
trace this ballad back to an earlier period, its agreement in several points
with the play of Titus Andronicus is nevertheless significant: (1) The
scene is Rome; (2) the trouble starts in a hunting expedition; (38) there is
a blackamoor bent on revenge; (4) his brutality is relentless and appall-
ing; (5) he beguiles his master of his nose in much the same way that
Aaron gets the hand of Titus; for instance, he promises to save the lady’s
life if her lord will cut off his nose;—this done, out of pure villany, he
throws her down from the wall and kills her.

After connecting this ballad with the Titus Andronicus fable I discovered
that I had been anticipated by Emil Koeppel who, in Englische Studien,
1891-2, vol. xvi, pp. 365-374, not only observed the similarity of the
ballad in several respects to the play but traced it back to the year 1569-70.
He found for example in the Stationers’ Register, between 22d July, 1569,
and 22d July, 1570, the following entry: “Rd. of Ryc. Jonnes, for his
lycense for pryntinge of a history intituled a strange and petiefull novell
dyscoursynge of a noble Lorde and his Lady, wt thayre tragical end of
them and thayre II cheldren executed by a blacke morryon... . IIII4,”
See Extracts from the Register of the Stationers’ Company of Works entered jor
publication between the years 1557-1570, with Notes and Illustrations by J. P.
Collier, London, 1848 (Shakespeare Society), p. 211. In this article Koeppel
also shows the practical agreement of the extant ballad with Bandello, PartTHE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 9

existed prior to the play, yet when we recall the origin of
most dramas of that time, it is natural to suppose that the
main outlines of the plot were not invented by the author
of the extant text.

Acting upon this supposition, let us for a moment examine
some material which bears upon Titus Andronicus and which
has caused a good deal of speculation. In the first place, there
is a German play entitled, “ Eine sehr klagliche Tragedia
von Tito Andronico und der hoffertigen Kayserin, darinnen
denckwiirdige actiones zubefinden.”’ This is contained in
the first edition of English Comedies and Tragedies, a collec-
tion of adaptations from English plays that were carried
into Germany and performed there by English actors about
the year 1600. The degenerate condition in which these
dramas remain to us has led to the belief that they must have
suffered a good deal from the rough and ready manner in
which they were adapted to the needs of the German stage.
Thus the dialogue, which at first was probably spoken in

III, 21st Novel: ‘‘ Uno Schiauo (battuto dal Padrone) ammazza la Padrona
con i figliuoli, e poi se stesso precipita da un’ alta Torre.’ With regard to
this story, as Koeppel observes, Bandello says: “‘Saperete anchora questa
Historia essere stata latinamente descritta dal gran Pontano.” The writ-
ings of Pontano, however, according to Varnhagen (Englische Studien, xix,
p. 163), who has been at great pains to examine them, do not seem to bear
out Bandello’s statement. Warnhagen, nevertheless, in an old ms. (No. 234
of the Erlanger Library) dating from the end of the thirteenth or the
beginning of the fourteenth century, has discovered an exemplum which
in substance he believes to be closely related to Bandello’s story.

It ought, also, to be noted in this connection that G. Sarrazin (Archiv. f.
n. Sprache, 1896, Bd. 97, pp. 373 ff.) has gone somewhat beyond Koeppel’s
theory. Besides Bandello’s novel he considers, as a possible source of the
fable, the old Germanic story of Wayland. Thus he would make Aaron
correspond to the captive, crippled Wieland ( Vélundr), Titus Andronicus
to NiSu%r, and Lavinia to Bodvildr. Sarrazin says it is a question whether
this story of the Moor’s vengeance was incorporated into our play from the
Italian version or from a popular form of the saga, which must at that time
have been current in various parts of England. Little weight is to be
ascribed to these guesses.

1See Albert Cohn’s Shakespeare in Germany, London and Berlin, 1865,
pp. 161-236.

A ty 8) | el te cad ay OB aia Seo er OTe ae id ered PPT ena a a ae10 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

English, was deemed less important, it would seem, than the
action; for it was essential that the audience should under-
stand the story with their eyes if not with their ears. Asa
consequence, according to the usual opinion, the dialogue may
have been cut short or slighted. Furthermore, the mutilated
state of some of the plays seems to indicate that they were
pirated, or, in other words, taken down by reporters and
filled out as well as might be from memory. After under-
going such treatment, they represent, according to Cohn, no
more than the framework of their English prototypes.’

The German Titus Andronicus, for example (which for
convenience [ shall designate as G in contradistinction to 8,
Shakspere’s Titus Andronicus), is much shorter than S, is
cruder in construction and dialogue, and lacks some of the
important episodes of S. In this particular instance, how-
ever, two things have made critics hesitate to infer that S was
the prototype of G: (1) the great divergence of G from §
In numerous details, and (2) the mention in Henslowe’s diary
on April 11, 1591, and several times after that, of a play
(now lost) entitled “tittus and Vespacia.”? The preservation
of this title has rendered the problem more complex, for it
so happens that in G also two of the principal charac-
ters go by these same names. Albert Cohn long ago faced
this enigma. In his Shakespeare in Germany, he remarks,
“Now in our German Lamentable Tragedy we have the play
in all probability, in a form copied from the first design.

1Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany, p. cv.

*See The Diary of Philip Henslowe from 1591-1609, ed. by J. P. Collier
for Shakespeare Soc., London, 1845, pp. 24-30. The play is sometimes
entered as “‘tittus and Vespacia” and sometimes “titus and Vespacia.”
Henslowe’s spelling is so capricious that we are obliged to judge of his
meaning by the spirit and not the letter. Thus on what amounts to about
one page of his diary he allows his own name to be spelt in four different
ways—none of them right: Henslow, Henchloe, Hinchloe, Hinchlow; see
pp. 158-9. He also writes “palaman and arset” where he clearly means
“Palamon and Arcite.” This capriciousness of Henslowe’s pen has made
it rather easy for critics to believe that by “tittus and Vespacia” Henslowe
meant Titus and Vespasian.Sabot ee OE oppor a

ES

 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. it

But the coarse feeling, which was interested in the mere
external action alone and not in the dramatic development,
has prevailed in the treatment of this as well as of almost
all the other pieces in the collection, for the principal object
has evidently been to reduce the piece to the smallest possible
compass.... We cannot make the original piece responsible
for these absurdities, but if we disregard them, the original
form of Shakespeare’s tragedy .... may still be distinctly seen
to glimmer through.”' Then, merely on the strength of the
agreement of Titus and Vespasian in Henslowe with the two
names in G, Cohn reasons: “ We may safely assume that this
Vespasian, like all other characters of the German piece, was
taken from the original Titus Andronicus, and thus we should
have to acknowledge that Titus and Vespasian was the original
on which Shakspere’s play was founded.” ‘This theory, it
will be noted, was advanced tentatively and not as the result
of careful scrutiny; for a few lines above we read: “‘ Whether
Shakespeare found the piece already in existence and pro-
duced a new version of it, or whether he was the first to treat
this subject at all, is a question . . . . which probably will
never be decided.” It is difficult to make out from Cohn’s
language whether or not he regards Titus and Vespasian as a
production of Shakspere’s which he afterwards retouched into
the present version of our play. Such may be his meaning,
since some years previous to this he was convinced that Shak-
spere wrote Titus Andronicus and later revised it.” Kurz°
and Schroer,’ so far as they commit themselves, likewise
favor Titus and Vespasian as the prototype of G. According
to their way of thinking, however, Titus and Vespasian was
a later piece than the first draft of S, which Shakspere, some-
what later, probably revised. The Titus and Vespasian, then,
they suppose was the same as this first draft, except that it
was altered by a rival company in some minor details

1 Shakespeare in Germany, p. cXil. 2 Athenceum, 1851, p. 22.
3 Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1870, pp. 99 ff.
* Uber Titus Andronicus, p. 18.2, HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

(“ Lucius” to “ Vespasian,” for instance), to avoid the charge
of plagiarism. Dowden,' Morley,’ Lee,’ Sarrazin,* and Brandl,’
also, find in G a translation of Titus and Vespasian. Creize-
nach,® Verity,’ Herford,® and Grosart,? on the contrary, take
exception to so flimsy a theory. As Herford remarks, “The
structure of hypothesis thus erected is of perilous frailty,
and quite incapable of supporting any conclusions,” since, as
he goes on to say, the mere title Titus and Vespasian would
seem to indicate a play dealing with the two Emperors,
so-named. All of these last four critics prefer what seems
to them the safer assumption that G is a free and degener-
ate adaptation from S. So Grosart insists: “ ‘Throughout,
besides, the successive speeches distinctly echo Titus Androni-
cus and prove that our Titus Andronicus was present to the
translator. ... It seems mere unreason to create another
Titus Andronicus out of Titus and Vespacia.” <A. slightly
modified form of this statement represents the opinion of
conservative critics to-day, who feel that in the absence
of more persuasive evidence to the contrary the safest course
is to call G a free and pitiable version of 8.

Before entering into a minute discussion of G, however, it
will be profitable for our purposes to examine another piece
of extant material, which at first glance appears to be strik-
ingly analogous in its origin to G. There still exists an old
Dutch play by one Jan Vos, glass-maker, entitled Aran and

1 Shakspere: Primer, p. 62. * English Writers, 1893, vol. x, p. 43.

3A Life of William Shakespeare, London, 1898, p. 65.

* William Shakespeare’s Lehrjahre, Weimar, 1897, pp. 50-51.

5 Gott. Gel. Anz. 1891, pp. 709-10.

6 Die Schauspiele der Englischen Komédianten, 1889, Introduction to T. A.,
Dp. 0:
" Shakespeare, Irving ed., vol. vii, p. 258.

8 The Works of Shakespeare, London, 1899, vol. vii, p. 287.

9 Englische Studien, 1896, p. 398.

0 Aran en Titus, of Wraak en Weerwraak, Amsterdam, 1641. According to
Cohn (Shakespeare in Germany, p. cxiii) not less than eleven editions of
this play had been published by the year 1661. Some of these must have
been pirated, for in the fifth edition, printed in the year 1656, we find thenr ee |
TE see CFT orien ae
eet Ee OE cast EL

 

   
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 13

Titus, or Revenge and Counter-Revenge, the first edition of
which appeared in 1641. This preserves, with a few modifi-
cations, the Titus Andronicus story of Shakspere; but what
its direct source was we lack the means of determining.
That our knowledge on this last point is so meagre seems
odd, considering what a furore the play at once created in
Holland. Vos was hailed as the coming genius, not only
of his own age but of all ages. The great Vondel cried out,
“Tt is a man of wonderful understanding.”* Caspar van
Baerle, a famous Latin scholar and Vos’s patron, concluded a
long eulogy in verse with: “Is Sophocles risen from the
dead? Has Aeschylus returned to us again? Or is it
Euripides that makes this unwonted furore? No, it is a
tradesman, an unlettered soul who now outdoes the whole
chorus of Helicon. He who has never sat at a Greek or
Roman feast now shows the world what a tragedy is,
Athene read this play and declared, ‘I will never write
again, for he, who lightens us with glass, puts the fame of all
of us in the shadow.’”? And these are only samples of the
many extravagant plaudits with which Vos was overwhelmed.

Not to enter at too great length into the almost unparal-
leled reception accorded to Aran and Titus, | may add that
the play continued to be popular with the Dutch far down

publisher, Jacob Lescaille, saying: “Inasmuch as this tragedy has several
times been badly printed without the author’s knowledge by gainseeking
men,.... let everyone know that the author does not recognize any copy
as his except that printed by Jacob Lescaille”’ This fifth edition, the only
one accessible to me, I have had collated with the first edition, which
is contained in the British Museum Library. The play is composed in
Alexandrines—often truncated—and to the first four acts choruses, consist-
ing of a “Zang,” “Tegen-zang,’” and “Toe-zang,” are subjoined.

1See W. J. A. Jonckbloet’s Geschichte der Niederléndischen Literatur, Leip-
zig, 1872, vol. ii, p. 281. Here, there is the following quotation from a
letter written, December 15, 1641, by Caspar van Baerle to Huygens:
“ Audivit Vondelius, et portentosi ingenii virum dixit.”

2See H. E. Moltzer’s Shakspere’s Invloed op het Nederlandsch Tooneel der
Zeventiende Eeuw, Groningen, 1874, pp. 8, 9; also Introduction to the fifth
edition of Aran en Titus.

FE Tee ee a en aa

Repeats oe tts tae dk 4 eM
RA a eee14 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

into the eighteenth century and that even in the middle of
the nineteenth it had not wholly disappeared from the stage.
Beside a Latin translation, which van Baerle’ seems to have
prepared for presentation by the boys of his school, one
Danish? and at least three German® versions of the story,
according to general acceptance, owed their existence to Vos.
In short, Aran and Titus appears to have been immediate
and far-reaching in its effect. As to the important part
which it played in the history of the Dutch drama, it need
only be said that into the old Senecan tragedy, which was at
that time so popular on the Dutch stage, Aran and Titus
instilled a romantic ferment sufficient to hasten on a new era.

The question how Vos obtained the Titus Andronicus fable
has not been seriously treated, so far as I know, by English
critics. ‘They seem to have taken it for granted that Aran
and Titus (which I shall designate as D, as a symbol for
Dutch) was freely adapted from 8. It has remained, there-
fore, for Dutch and German scholars to attempt to decipher
the connection between these two plays. Bilderdijk, who first
called attention to their intimate relation, firmly believed that
Vos used § directly, though, owing to the many points of
difference, he conceded that Vos might have employed a
somewhat curtailed manager’s book.* Half a century later

‘Aran en Titus. Mutua vindicatio, interprete schola Thielana. Thilae, Apud
Gosuinum & Duym, Bibliopol. Anno croroctvim. See J. A. Worp, De
Invloed van Seneca’s Treurspelen op ons Tooneel, Amsterdam, 1892, p. 58.

* Schauspiel von Tito Andronico und der hoffartige Kayserinn und dem Mohr
Aran. This play was performed in Copenhagen by German comedians in
1719. See Die Schauspiele, etc., Introduction, p. 15.

>In a Ms. of the 17th century which contains a collection of German
dramas, Creizenach found under number 11: Titus und Aran; and in the
Weimar index of dramatic works under number 94: Der mérderische,
gotthische mohr sampt dessen Fall und End. See Die Schauspiele der Eng.
Kém., Introduction to T. A., p. 15.

There, also, survives a Titus und Tomyris by Hieronymus Thomae, pub-
lished at Giessen in 1661 and said to be an adaptation of Aran and Titus.

* Bydragen tot de Tooneel-poézy, Leyden, 1823, p. 19.Ceiapeie acter hy
Ladlaghas gr ress" prt wnat oc:

eee

    
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
 
 
   

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 15

Loffelt ’ and Jonckbloet* advanced the same theory, though
without any mention of the prompt-book (that convenient
refuge of embarrassed speculation). Vos’s inability, however,
to read a foreign language, which is well established from his
own boasting of this ignorance as well as from contemporary
testimony, seems to render this view a trifle hazardous.* Cohn,
about the middle of the nineteenth century, without giving
his reasons and without indicating the source of G, ventured
the assertion: “Thus, the Dutch Aran en Titus is undoubt-
edly of the same origin as that of Titus Andronicus in the
English Comedies and Tragedies of 1620.”* About this
time, also, van den Bergh ® hazarded the guess that Vos had
seen the English actors on the stage and had adapted his
play from their performance. Moltzer® fancied that, besides
G, there must have been another adaptation of S which
appeared in Holland and furnished Vos with the material for
D. Worp’ at first agreed with this, but Creizenach ° insisted
on a modification. According to the latter’s view, G and D
could not possibly have emanated from the same English
text. “For,” he observes, ‘‘ while the German adaptation

1 Nederl. Spectator, 1870, p. 293.

? Geschichte der Nederl. Lit., vol. ii, p. 289.

3“ No!” he says, “‘ knowledge of languages creates scholars, but not poets;
it is a bridge which one must cross to borrow a foreign wisdom so that he
may publish it as his own. Poetry is not the daughter of foreign languages,
but the child of a rich spirit, which gushes forth in his thought.” See
Jonckbloet, zbzd., p. 292.

In the edition of 1656 of Aran en Titus, among a number of recommenda-
tions, occurs the following by Vechters: ‘‘ Readers, whoever you are, come
and see of what might a soul may be, although he has not been educated
in school. A glass-maker, who knows no language but his mother-tongue,
bedims the fame of nearly all the poets.”

* Atheneum, 1850, p. 738.

5’sGravenhaagsche Bijzonderheden, 1857; cited by J. A. Worp, Nederlandsche
Spectator, 1886, No. 41, p. 342.

6 Shakspere’s Invloed, etc., pp. 30-42.

7 Academisch Proefscrift, Groningen, 1879, pp. 51 ff.
8 Berichte der philol. hist. Classe der Konig. Stich. Gesell., etc., 1886, p. 97.

 

 

Aaa a rr ee as ieee16 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

without doubt went back to the play mentioned in Henslowe’s
diary under the date of 1591,—in which Titus’s son... . bears
the name Vespasian,—this son with Vos, as in the modern
edition of Shakespeare, is called Lucius.” ‘ Now it is not
inconceivable,” he goes on to say, “that Vos used an adapta-
tion which stood nearer to Shakespeare than the German
adaptation.” But, acting upon this supposition, Creizenach
was embarrassed by the preservation in D of a number of
points that are not included in G, such as practically ail of 8,
act iv, scene 1 (where Lavinia alludes to the story of Tereus
and Philomela in Ovid’s Metamorphoses), and act ii, scene 3
(the reference to Diana and Actaeon). “ This kind of thing,”
according to Creizenach, “could scarcely have come from an
adaptation for the use of the wandering English actors, whose
practice 1t was to drop from their crude and limited repertoire
the little niceties calculated for distinguished hearers.” One
point cited by Creizenach as the only one common to D and
G, but not in S (namely, the confidence entrusted to the audi-
ence that Tamora, out of infatuation for Aran, has killed her
first husband), he explained as a mere coincidence. He found
no cogency in the objection that Vos understood no English,
since in translating the original he may, like other Dutch poets
(particularly Isaak Vos in his use of Spanish), have sought
help. After reading Creizenach’s article, Worp altered his
previous opinion. Speaking of D and S he says: “It seems
to me that the difference in the two tragedies is too great to
indicate a direct borrowing. Had Vos been familiar with
Shakespeare’s version, .. .. he would have adhered more
closely to his original. That, indeed, copies of Shakespeare
existed in the middle of the seventeenth century is shown by the
version of The Taming of the Shrew (1654).”' He dismissed
the possibility that D rests on an adaptation of 8, introduced
into Holland by the English Actors, with the remark, “ this
tragedy of Vos’s seems to me too good in form and too skil-

' Nederlandsche Spectator, 1886, No. 41, pp. 341-2.OE repro eT
Adee i OSL anata PEEL

 

       
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
   
  
   

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. ey

fully put together to have used as its source a mutilated
libretto of the English Actors.” Worp then risks another
conjecture,—that Shakspere and Vos drew from the same
source. What the source was he admits he does not know,
though he hints at an Italian novel which, like the story of
Fortunatus, may have been known alike in Holland and
England ; he thinks, therefore, that it may have been used
by Vos and Shakspere independently. Not wholly convinced
by this theory, Worp quotes the following from a Dutch
poem of 1652 called “ The spirit of Mattheus Gansneb Teng-
nagel, in the other world with the Dead Poets:” “And her
father [the father of the actress Adriana van den Bergh], the
illustrious actor, in his youth was the first to present upon
the Dutch stage Jeronimo of Spain, and young Polidorus, and .
Andronicus, which even now lives vividly in my memory.” !
Van den Bergh’s Jeronimo, based upon the Spanish Tragedy,
or at least on the English Actors’ version of it, belongs to
the year 1621, but unfortunately the Andronicus is no longer
extant. In consequence, Worp does not feel sure that this
non-extant play was not after all the source of D. Creize-
nach’s comment on Worp’s article appeared some three years
later. He attempted to show that Worp’s first hypothesis—
that of a common source for D and S—was rendered unten-
able by the presence in D of Shaksperian tricks of style;
against the second hypothesis, which assumed a borrowing by
Vos from van den Bergh, he naturally had nothing tangible
to oppose.”

Such, then, are the opinions which have thus far been
entertained with regard to the relation between G and D and
S. One more version of the Titus Andronicus story, how-
ever, ought here to be briefly considered before we undertake

1 Inasmuch as this old play of Andronicus is lost and would not, anyhow,
affect the theory which is later proposed in this paper, I shall dismiss it
with this brief notice.

* Die Schauspiele der Englischen Komédianten, Introduction to T. A., p. 11,
note.

2

c a ee , 5 PPE OTE ea ee en ee ee Cee
Be ee ee ee Lee aa oa18 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

for ourselves a careful study of Gand D. It is yet another
German version. Unhappily, the play itself no longer sur-
vives, except in a Program! which bears witness to a
performance—probably at Linz—in the year 1699. A very
comprehensive outline of the plot, which is preserved in
the Program, seemed nevertheless according to Cohn’ to
indicate a close translation of D, since it appeared that
in all, save one or two details, the lost play must have
been identical with D. This idea, moreover, was further
strengthened by the knowledge that a German, George
Greflinger, in 1650 had planned to translate, among other
Dutch plays,? one called “Andronicus mit dem Aaron.”
Creizenach * and Schréer,® however, were deterred from this
hasty inference by the existence in this Program of the name
Lavinia—the daughter of Titus—which agrees with S as
against the name Rozelyna in D. ‘They fancied, therefore,
that beside G there may have been current in Germany an
adaptation of S, following its original more closely than G.

To facilitate, now, our own investigation of the inter-
dependence between G, D, 8, and the version represented by
the Program, it may be well for us to examine the plots
of the first three plays,—supplementing D in case of differ-
ence by the Program.

1 The title of this play is Raache gegen Raache oder der stretthare Romer,
Titus Andronicus. A reprint of the Program, edited by Albert Cohn, is to
be found in the Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1888, pp. 266-81.

2 Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1888, p. 269.

3 Berichte, etc., 1886, p. 105. In the introduction to his translation of the
Cid of Corneille, Greflinger promised that Der Bekldgliche Zwang, Laura,
and Andronicus mit dem Aaron were to follow. Lope de Vega’s Fuerza
Lastumosa had been translated by Isaak Vos in 1648, under the title of De
Beklagelijke Dwang ; and Greflinger’s Laura recalls Lope’s Laura Perseguida,
a translation of which had appeared in Holland by 1645.

* Die Schauspiele, ete., p. 15. 5 Uber Titus Andronicus, p. 17.a cn amet tate a ea

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS,

  
   

DRAMATIS PERSONAE.

GERMAN, 1620.

The Roman Emperor.

Consort of Andronica.

Victoriades,
brother to Titus.
Titus Andronicus.

Vespasian, Son to Titus.

Helicates, ) Sons to

Saphonus, § Xtiopissa.

Morian, a Moor, beloved
by AXtiopissa.

Messenger,
White Guards.

JMtiopissa,

Queen of Ethiopia.
Andronica,

daughter to Titus.

| SHAKSPERE.

Saturninus,
son to the late Em-
peror of Rome.

Bassianus,
brother to Saturni-
nus.

Marcus Andronicus,
brother to Titus.

Titus Andronicus,

a noble Roman. ,

Lucius, ]
Quintus, + sons to
Martius, f Titus.
Mutius, |

Young Lucius,
son to Lucius.
Publius, son to Marcus.

 

Sempronius, Kinemed
ae
Caius, : to Titus.

Valentine,
Emilius,

a noble Roman.

i
a ee sons to

S
eee me Tamora.

Chiron,

Aaron, a Moor,
beloved by Tamora.

A Captain, Tribune, Mes-
senger, and Clown.
Goths and Romans.
Tamora,

Queen of the Goths.
Lavinia,

DutcuH, 1641.

Saturninus, the Roman
Emperor.

Bassianus,
brother to the Em-
peror.
Marcus Andronicus,
brother to Titus.
Titus Andronicus,
General of the Ro-
P ‘
ee ” | Sons to
y Titus.
Askanius
little son to Lucius.

———-.

mans,
Lucius,
K laudillus,

Gradamard, J

Demetrius, ) Sons to
Quiro, Thamera.
Aran, a Moor, General of
the Goths, beloved
by Thamera.
Tacitus, a Messenger.

Thamera,

Queen of the Goths.
Rozelyna,}!

 

 

daughter to Titus.

1In the Linz Program the daughter of Titus

Shakspere.

(RN RB ea ER ane

daughter to Titus.

is called Lavinia, as inGERMAN, 1620.

Midwife,
and a black Child.

Act I.

Vespasian, carrying in
his hand the Roman
Crown, suggests that
Titus, in return for his
brave deeds in the wars
with the Ethiopians, be
crowned Emperor. The
oldest son of the late
emperor demurs and
puts forward his own
claims.

 

1 Not mentioned in the Program.

HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

SHAKSPERE.

A Nurse,
and a black Child.
Senators, Tribunes, Offi-
cers, Soldiers, and
Attendants.

Act I.

There is a dispute be-
tween Saturninus and
Bassianus as to who
shall be Emperor. Sa-
turninus claims the
right, on the ground
of primogeniture; Bas-
sianus defends election.
In the midst of this
quarrel, Marcus, enter-
ing, announces that the
people have chosen Titus
to be their emperor, as
a reward for his warlike
deeds against the Goths.
The two brothers there-
fore dismiss their fol-
lowers.

   
 
  
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
    
   
 
   
   
 
 
   

DutcH, 1641.

Roman! Counsellors
and Judges.

Four Officers.
Philippus.1
Kamillus.!
Chorus of: 4
Roman Citizens, Tem-
plars, Goths, Roman
“Toffren,” ‘Andro-
mizenzer Loffren.”
Leeuwemond, Priest and
Soothsayer.
Quintus,’ Page to Aran.

Act I.Per a

GERMAN, 1620.

Titus, crowned with a
laurel wreath, is on the
stage at the outset, and
with him are his prison-
ers of war: the Ethio-
pian queen, her two
sons, and her paramour,
Morian.

Titus, after being pro-
claimed Emperor, re-

 

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

SHAKSPERE,

A captain announces
Titus’s return from the
war. Titus then enters
amid great acclamation,
bringing with him as
captives the Gothic
queen, her three sons,
and her paramour, Aa-
ron; also a coffin, con-
taining the bodies of
his sons, slain in the
war.

He then addresses an
apostrophe to Rome:
“Hail, Rome, victori-
ous in thy mourning
weeds!” etc,

Lucius demands that
the proudest prisoner
of the Goths be sacri-
ficed ‘fad manes fra-
trum,’”’ so as to ensure
them an eternal rest.
Titus accordingly names
Alarbus, and remains
kind though unyielding
to Tamora’s entreaties.
The sacrifice occurs off
the stage.

Titus addresses an elo-
quent farewell to his
dead sons, as they are
laid in the tomb, be-
ginning, “‘In peace and
honor rest you here,
my sons;’’ Marcus an-
nounces to Titus that the
latter has been elected
Emperor.

Titus, however, depre-
cates the honor, because

 

  

Dutcu, 1641.

Saturninus _— eulogizes
Rome in her present
security, now that Titus
has subdued the Goths.
He remarks on _ the
popular  acclamations
that greet Titus for his
valiant deeds in war.
Titus enters with his
prisoners: the Gothic
queen, her two sons,
and her paramour Aran.
He, then, addresses an
apostrophe to Rome,
beginning: “O Rome,
kingdom of fame!”’ ete.

Aran, the General of
the Goths, it is decreed
by Titus, must be sacri-
ficed by the priest’s axe
to the god Mars.

A long and tiresome dis-
cussion ensues, in which
Thamera and her two
sons plead for Aran’s
life and persuade Satur-
ninus, who meanwhile
has become infatuated
with Thamera, to do
likewise. The priest,
Titus, and Marcus, how-
ever, insist on the sacri-
fice.GERMAN, 1620.

fuses the honor because
of his great age, and
places the crown on
Saturninus’s head.

Shouts of approval.
Saturninus returns
thanks for this favor,
and to show his grati-
tude chooses Andronica
to be his Empress.
Titus presents his pris-
oners of war to the
Emperor.

In accepting them the
Emperor says to AXti-
opissa: “Therefore
grieve not and repine
not, but be of good
cheer.”

Act II, beginning.

[ The Emperor tells Ati-
opissa that he has re-
turned Andronica to
her father with the
message that his heart
has changed; that he
now prefers to have
JXtiopissa for his em-
press.

 

HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

SHAKSPERE.

of his advanced age,
and, securing from the
people the right to name
his successor, he pro-
poses Saturninus.

A long flourish.
Saturninus returns him
thanks for this favor,
and to show his grati-
tude chooses Lavinia to
be his Empress.

Titus presents his pris-
oners of war to the
Emperor.

In accepting them Sa-
says to Ta-
mora: “Clear up, fair
queen, that cloudy coun-
tenance.”

turninus

Saturninus courts Ta-
mora in dumb-show.

Bassianus, who was pre-
viously betrothed to La-
vinia, kidnaps her from
the very presence of
Titus and Saturninus.
Marcus and the sons
of Titus espouse Bassia-
nus’s cause; and Mutius,
in attempting to prevent
his father from pursu-
ing, is struck down by
the latter and killed.
The delay caused by
this fatality gives the
lovers a chance to es-

 

  

¢

DurcH, 1641.

Saturninus bids Bassia-
nus conciliate Thamera
by means of wind in-
struments and _ string
instruments, accompa-
nied by clear voices.nero Natiep are. a waiand 4 F

Pe el peer

   
 
   
    
 
 
 
  
  
   
    
 
 
    
  
 
   
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

GERMAN, 1620. SHAKSPERE. Durcnu, 1641.

cape and to be mar-
ried,

Saturninus takes this
whole proceeding as an
affront, prearranged by
Titus and his family.
But he soon indulges
his infatuation for Ta-
mora by persuading her
Thereupon, he places|to become his empress.
the crown upon the| They withdraw to the
latter’s head and pro-! Pantheon to solemnize
claims her Empress.] | the “spousal rites.”
After considerable dis-
cussion, Marcus and the
surviving sons of Titus
prevail upon Titus to
allow Mutius to be
buried in the family
tomb.

Bassianus returns with
his bride, Lavinia; like-
wise, Saturninus with
Tamora. At the urgent
entreaty of Tamora, who
in a side-remark to Sa-
turninus promises later
to join him in avenging
his affront, the house
of Titus is officially for-
given.

Saturninus, who has
been wooing Thamera
during most of the act
in a give-and-take dia-
logue and who has
promised to spare Aran’s
life, provided Thamera
will requite his love,
still receives no encour-
agement from Thamera ;

 

 

 

 

resGERMAN, 1620.

Act III, beginning.
[In honor of the Em-
peror and his bride,
Titus arranges a stag
hunt for the morrow. ]

Act I, end.

[ Because his mistress is
in favor with the Em-
peror and is likely to
be advanced to the sta-
tion of empress, Morian
throws off his black
outer mantle and dis-
plays himself richly
dressed. He boasts
loudly and obscenely of
his previous relations
with Aitiopissa and
vows, in case she _ be-
comes Empress, to make
a cuckold of the Em-
peror.

He declares, further,
that, to make his own
relations with Atio-
pissa more secure, the
latter has poisoned her
first husband in a cup
of wine.

In this same monologue
Morian boasts of his

HAROLD DE W.

 

    
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
   
   
   
   
  
    
    
    
   
    
 
 
 
 
  
   

 

SHAKSPERE.

To show his gratitude,
Titus invites Saturni-
nus to hunt with him,
on the morrow, the
panther and the hart.

Act IT.

Aaron, in a very poetic
monologue, comments
on the high station to
which his mistress has
been advanced, and
boasts somewhat of his
intimate relations with
her. “TI will be bright,”
he says, “‘and shine in
pearl and gold, To wait
upon this new-made
Empress.” He prophe-
sies that Tamora will
charm Saturninus and
then wreck him and his
commonweal.

FULLER.

 

 

 

  

DutcH, 1641.

and the courting and
the proposed sacrifice
are at length cut short
by the hurried en-
trance of Lucius, who
announces that a boar,
twice the usual size, is
running amuck along
the banks of the Tiber.
All set out in pursuit
Of it.

A chorus, consisting of a
“Zang,” ‘'Tegenzang,”’
and “Toezang,” follows,
expatiating on the power
of Love.

Act II, (0)!

In a dialogue with Aran
Thamera mentions hav-
ing killed, at Aran’s
instigation, her first
husband, so that her
relations with the Moor
might be less danger-
ous.

Act I.

When asked by Satur-
ninus who he is, Aran

* The letters a, 6, etc., indicate the order in which the events follow

one another.panne er css Pe

ae

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

GERMAN, 1620.

prowess in war, assert-
ing that he has rightly
merited the name of
“The Lightning and
Thunder of Ethiopia;”’
and he adds that he
had never been un-
horsed in battle until
he met with Titus. ]

Act Ut.

Helicates and Saphonus
quarrel over Andronica.
Morian separates them
repeatedly. At length
he pacifies them by sug-
gesting that they kill
Andronica’s husband
and then ravish her.

Act III.

Preparations for the
hunt. Horns and trum-
pets are heard. Titus
begins a monologue
with, ““O how sweetly

 

 

 

SHAKSPERE,

Aaron’s monologue is
interrupted by the en-
trance of Demetrius and
Chiron, who fall out
over Lavinia and carry
on a hot quarrel. Aaron
separates them, but to
no purpose. Finally
they are prevailed upon
by the device which he
suggests—namely, that
during the hunt they
shall ravish Lavinia in
the forest.

Act II, Scene 2.
Preparations for the
hunt. Horns and the
cry of hounds are heard.
Titus begins a mono-
logue with, “The hunt

 

25

Duron, 1641.

replies: ‘One whom
the sharp-edged steel
as well delights as you
the sceptre. I am the
Gothic God of Arms,
who did terrorize the
Roman army with the
thunderings of my voice,
with the lightnings of
mine eyes.” [The mono-
logue, found in G and
S, however, is lacking. |

Act L.(a)

[Quiro and Demetrius
quarrel over Rozelyna.
By way of reconciling
them, Aran tries to per-
suade them both to
ravish her. They are
aghast at the idea until
Aran feigns that their
father’s ghost is present
on the stage, urging
them to avenge the foul
death which Titus in
battle inflicted on him
with a poisoned sword.
This ruse brings them
to terms.

To meet their fear that
Rozelyna may betray
them, Aran _ suggests
that they tear out her
tongue and cut off her
hands.

There is hurried prepa-
ration for the hunt.
The hounds are loosed,
and all hasten to the
forest. |GERMAN, 1620.

and pleasantly the birds | is up, the morn is bright

do sing in the air; and
the hunt has likewise
commenced in joy and
splendor.”

‘| informs the audience is

(6)

[Morian is angry at
finding Atiopissa walk-
ing alone in the forest.
She bids him, however,
not to chide her and
tries to entice him into
lechery; but he answers:
“My lovely Empress, if
you are under the in-
fluence of the goddess
Venus, I am ruled and
mastered by the god
Mars.” ]

(a)
[Andronica and her
husband, entering, jeer
at AXtiopissa—being
provoked to it by the

HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

SHAKSPERE.

and grey; The fields are
fragrant and the woods
are green.”

Act II, Scene 3.
In a lonely part of the

forest Aaron buries a
bag of gold, which he

to serve him in an ‘“‘ex-
| cellent piece of villany.”
Tamora then enters and
tries to entice Aaron into
lechery, but he answers:
‘Madam, though Venus
governs your desires, Sa-
turn is dominator over
mine.’ He further in-
forms her of his device,
already on foot, to kill
Bassianus and mutilate
Lavinia.

He then drops a letter,
which is to incriminate
two of Titus’s sons, and
which he tells her she
is to pick up and hand
to the King.

  

Dutcu, 1641,

()
[In declaring his plat-
form of villany to Tha-
mera, Aran informs her
that he has buried near
a pit a helmet of gold,
which is to incriminate

the two youngest song
of Titus. ]

(a)
[Alone in the forest
with Thamera, Aran re-
viles her angrily for
inconstancy to him and
lechery with the Em-
peror. She pacifies him,
however, by bidding him
kill the Emperor, if he
will. He replies that
this must not be done
too hastily, and then

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lavinia and Bassianus,
entering, jeer at Tamora
both because she is un-
accompanied and be-

apprises her of his
scheme, which is first
to ruin the house of
Titus. He shows her,
also, a letter, which
he has fabricated to
incriminate the two
youngest sons of Titus,
and which he is going
to drop near a pit.]

Rozelyna and Bassianus,
entering just in time to
see Aran withdrawing,

jeer at Thamera becauseaint et TL esta VRE al Sd

 

GERMAN, 1620.

latter—because she is
unfurnished of her re-
tinue;—no mention is
made of her relations
with the Moor. Heli-
cates and Saphonus
enter and, according to
/Etiopissa’s bidding,
stab Andronica’s hus-
band and carry her off
to ravish her, in spite
of her pitiful pleading
to spare her life, or to
kill her, in case they
intend defilement of
her person. |

. iS oye 2 paired ire
OTD - bi re a
Rol Pre 4433 eels ted. ee a. a ek

 

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

SHAKSPERE.

cause of her relations

with Aaron. At this
juncture, Chiron and
Demetrius enter and,

according to Tamora’s
bidding, stab Bassianus,
throw his body into a
pit, and carry Lavinia
off to ravish her, in
spite of her pitiful
pleading to spare her
life, or to kill her, in
case they intend defile-
ment of her person.

Aaron directs Quintus
and Martius to a pil,
where he says he has
seen the panther fast
asleep. Martius falls
into the pit, and, while
Quintus is vainly try-
ing to extricate him,
Aaron rushes off to
fetch the rest of the
party, who arrive just
in time to see Quintus,
also, fall into the pit.

Tamora hands to Sa-
turninus the letter,
which Titus has picked
up. It is an anony-
mous letter, directing
Quintus and Martius to
dig the grave for Bas-
sianus and to look for
their reward by the
elder tree. The gold,
which is subsequently
discovered, substantiates

 

   
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
   

Durcn, 1641.

of her relations with
the Moor. A_ long,
vituperative dialogue
ensues between ‘Tha-
mera and _ Rozelyna.
There is no surprise
evinced at Thamera’s
being unfurnished of
her retinue. She calls
for help, and Quiro and
Demetrius, rushing in,
according to Thamera’s
bidding stab Bassianus,
hang his body on some
bushes, and carry Roze-
lyna off to ravish her.
Klaudillus and Grada-
mard, in search of the
boar, are urged on by
Thamera, who says that
the boar has fallen into
a pit. Aran then pushes
them both in, and at
length they suffocate.
The rest of the party
arrive at this moment,
as if by magic, in time
to hear the dying groans
of the two victims.
Titus hands to the
Emperor the intrigu-
ing letter, which he has
picked up. It is written
to the two youngest sons
of Titus, apparently by
the murderers, whom
they have bribed with
the golden helmet to
kill Klaudillus and
Gradamard, and also
Bassianus. The helmet,

Deas os atlTe ac ne i

GERMAN, 1620.

Act IV.

Titus is astounded to
learn that his two sons
are imprisoned and con-
demned to death on the
charge of having grossly
insulted the Empress.

In a short speech Vic-
toriades laments the
woful plight of his
niece, Andronica, whom
he meets in the forest—
handless and tongueless.

HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

SHAKSPERE.

the proposed villany.
In consequence, Quin-
tus and Martius are
dragged off to prison to
await their execution.

 

Lh pise.s

Sieh een rem eae

Dutcu, 1641.

which is subsequently
discovered, substantiates
the proposed villany.
In consequence, Satur-
ninus orders Pollander
and Melanus to be ar-
rested.

Another charge, also,
on which  Pollander
and Melanus are appre-
hended is gross inso-
lence and _ insulting

 

In a long and effective
speech Marcus laments
the woful plight of La-
vinia, whom he meets
in the forest—handless
and tongueless.

Act IIT, Scene 1.

Titus pleads before the
tribunes for the lives
of his two sons: “ Hear
me, grave fathers! ...
For pity of mine age,
whose youth was spent
In dangerous wars whilst
you securely slept, For
all my blood in Rome’s

 

 

great quarrel shed,” ete.

violence towards Tha-
mera, when she was
alone in the forest,—
a charge fabricated by
Aran and her, and at
once borne out by the
sword of one of the
culprits, which, as Aran

asserts, fell from its
owner’s side as he fled.
Act ITI,

In a short speech Mar-
cus laments the woful
plight of Rozelyna,
whom he meets in the
forest — handless and
tongueless,

Titus pleads before the
tribunes for the lives of
his two sons: “Then
let my deeds which I
performed in behalf of
Rome convert your
cruelty to favor. A
proud boaster am I not;
but who can bury in
silence the heroic deedsLene eee eerie

 

GERMAN, 1620.

(e)
[Victoriades brings in
Andronica, and Titus
is distracted at the
woful sight. ]

(a)

[At this point, Morian
enters with the message
that the Empress will
spare the lives of Titus’s
two sons, if Titus will
cut off his hand and
send it to her.

 

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

SHAKSPERE.

Stage direction: Titus
lieth down; the judges,
etc., pass by him and
exeunt.

Lucius announces that
he has been doomed to
everlasting banishment
because he tried to res-
cue his brothers. Titus
felicitates him on being
released from such a
wilderness of tigers.
Marcus brings in La-
vinia, and Titus is dis-
tracted at the woful
sight.

At this point, Aaron
enters with the fabri-
cated message that the
Emperor will spare the
lives of Titus’s two
sons, if Titus, Marcus,
or Lucius will cut off
his hand and send it
to the Emperor.

   
 
   
   
 
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
   
 
   
  
   
   
   
  
 
   
  
 

DutcH, 1641.

which Titus relates?”
Marcus: ‘Andronicus,
stand: wp.” Titus: 538
must not let the prince

go, until 1 have ob-
tained favor for my
sons.” Marcus: ‘“An-

dronicus, stand up; the
judges have gone.”’ And
in a passage at the end
of Act II, just preced-
ing this last quotation,
Titus contrasts, at tre-
mendous length, Rome’s
present wickedness with
her former virtue.

A chorus, following this

second act, philoso-
phizes on the same
theme.

It develops later in the
act that Lucius has been
banished from Rome on
the charge of being a
traitor and of being the
third murderer. Titus
pities him, as if this
were a calamity.
Marcus brings in Roze-
lyna, and Titus is dis-
tracted at the woful
sight.

At this point, Aran
enters with the fabri-
cated message that the
Emperor will spare the
lives of Titus’s two sons,
if Titus will cut off his
hand and send it to the

 

Emperor.L
ey

Dake By cige Pr ees

GERMAN, 1620.

In a monologue Morian
informs the audience
that the Empress is be-
guiling Titus of his
hand, so that he may
never be able to over-
throw Rome. ]

(0)
[A dispute then follows
as to which of the three
—Titus, Victoriades, or
Vespasian—shall suffer
the required sacrifice—
this in spite of the fact
that only the hand of
Titus is demanded.
While Vespasian and
Victoriades are gone in
search of an axe, Titus
disappears and _ goon
returns with his own
hand cut off. ]

(d)
[After the hand has
been returned to him in
scorn, Titus eulogizes it

 

 

 

HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

SHAKSPERE,

A dispute then follows
as to which of the three
shall suffer the required
sacrifice. While Lucius
and Marcus are gone in
search of an axe, Titus
has Aaron cut off his
hand for him.

As he gives the hand to
Aaron, Titus eulogizes it
in a few eloquent words.

 

 

bas

ae _ - LM womae.p 4 r .
aah ee rte ss

Dutcu, 1641.

[In the Linz program
Aran informs the audi-
ence-that the Emperor
is beguiling Titus of
his hand, so that he
may never again be
able to perform warlike

deeds. This informa-
tion, however, is lack-
ing in D.]

In a very, very long
speech Aran also tells
how, on the scene of

the execution, there
appeared an _ appari-
tion, in form like

Venus, who interceded
for the victims; he says
that this accounts for
the Emperor’s miti-
gated demand.
Although only the hand
of Titus is demanded,
Mareus and _ Lucius
insist on suffering the
sacrifice. Amid the
wrangling, however,
Titus chops off his own
hand and gives it to
Ayan.

As he gives the hand
to Aran, Titus eulogizes
it in a long speech.GERMAN, 1620.

in a speech somewhat
longer than in S.]

(c)
[Morian soon returns,
bringing back the hand
and also the heads of
the two sons. The
trickery is hence re-
vealed. ]

Act V, (c)

[In this act, where they
take the oath of ven-
geance, we find this stage
direction: ‘Titus takes
up his hand, raises it,
and looks up to heaven,
sighs, mutters, vows,”
etc. |

(0)
[They therefore swear
to revenge the villany—
Titus by the head and
hand, and finally by
Andronica. ]

(d)
[Vespasian here de-
parts, at his father’s re-
quest, to collect a large

THE SOURCES OF TITUS

 

 

     
   
  
   
  
  
   
  
   
   
  
    
   
   
   
    
    
   
  
  
    
 
  
   
   
  
   
   
    
   
   

 

SHAKSPERE.

When Aaron departs,
Titus, half-crazed with
grief, resorts to ex-
travagant metaphors.

A messenger soon en-
ters, bringing back the
hand and also the heads
of the two sons. The
trickery is hence re-
vealed; and Titus’s
utterances become still
more tinged with lunacy
as the scene progresses.
“QO, here I lift this one
hand up to heaven,”
he moans, ‘And bow
this feeble ruin to the
earth; If any power
pities wretched tears,
To that I call!”

“For these two heads,”
he continues, ‘‘do seem
to speak to me, And
threat me I shall never
come to bliss Till all
these mischiefs
turned again, Even in
their throats that have
committed them... You
heavy people circle me
about, That I may turn
me to each one of you,
And swear unto my soul
to right your wrongs.”
Lucius here departs, at
his father’s request, to
collect a large army of

be re-

ANDRONICUS.

 

 

 

DutcuH, 1641.

When Aran departs,
Titus, wholly crazed
with grief, raves like a
madman.

Aran’s page soon enters,
bringing back the hand
and also the heads of
the two sons. The
trickery is hence re-
vealed ; and Titus fairly
out-lTerods Herod, to
the extent of several
pages: one moment he
imagines that he is
reconciled to the Em-
peror; the next he pic-
tures himself on the
gallows, just ready to
swing.

The two heads actually
speak, urging venge-
ance, and the ghosts of
the other murdered sons
echo the oath, which
they all take, in much
the same way that the
ghost in Hamlet does.
Just before this, Titus,
by way of lament, has
taken up in turn the
various calamities that
have befallen his house-
hold.

Lucius here departs, at
his father’s request, to
collect the troops and

Reta. eco- 7
ee oe 5 Ta
q Lacan fomoentaruna eta catea es al A ’

ac

   

GERMAN, 1620.

  

HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

SHAKSPERE.

army and march back} Goths and march back

on Rome. ]

(a)
[ Vespasian spreads sand
on the floor so that An-
dronica may write the
name of the man who
has ruined her. Titus
teaches her how to
manage it. She writes:
“Felicates and hunt,”
and, on being questioned
if Helicates and Sapho-
nus have misused her

 

on Rome.

Act III, Scene 2.

Titus, Marcus, Lavinia,
and young Lucius sit
down to a banquet, at
which Titus appears
half-crazed from grief.
This scene is in neither
of the first two quartos
of Titus Andronicus, but
it is included in the
First Folio.

Act IV, Scene 1.

Young Lucius enters,
running. He carries
some books and is pur-
sued by Lavinia. The
latter turns over with
her stumps the pages
of Ovid’s Metamorpho-
ses, until she comes to
the tale of Tereus and
Philomela. To extract
further information
from her, Marcus teaches
her how to write on the
sand with a staff. She
writes: ‘Stuprum. Chi-
ron. Demetrius.”

 

Doutcu, 1641.

put them in readiness
for revenge.

The chorus, at the end
of Act III, expatiates
on abstract justice and
then describes the exe-
cution-scene of Titus’s
two sons.

met LN.

Young Askanius enters,
running. He carries
Ovid’s Metamorphoses,
which Rozelyna is try-
ing to get away from
him. She points to the
tale of Tereus and
Philomela, from which
Titus reads a passage.
To extract further in-
formation from her,
Marcus teaches her
how to write on the
sand with a staff. She
writes: “At the instiga-
tion of Thamera, Aran’s
mistress, Rozelyna has
been ruined by Quiro
and his brother, Deme-
trius.”

 
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
     
    
    
   
   
  
  

 

Sr gee
ee ara Te ndGERMAN, 1620.

in the recent hunt, she
nods. She also impli-
cates the Empress. |

Act VI.

At this juncture, a
midwife enters, carry-
ing a black babe, the
offspring of Morian
and A®tiopissa, whom
the latter wishes to have
concealed, because its
swarthy hue would be-
tray its origin. Sapho-
o

 

 

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

SHAKSPERE.

Young Lucius swears
vengeance on the vil-
lains. .

Titus: ‘‘Come, go with
me into mine armory;
Lucius, I’ fit thee; and
withal my boy Shall
carry from me to the
Empress’ sons Presents
that I intend to send
them both. Come,
come; thoult do thy
message, wilt thou not?”
Nouns lucie; aty,
with my dagger in their
bosoms, grandsire.”

Act IV, Scene 2.

Young Lucius then car-
ries a bundle of weapons,
with verses—one from
Horace—tied up in
them, to Chiron and De-
metrius,— the. presents
of Titus. Aaron, in sev-
eral asides to the au-
dience, interprets the
double meanings of the
verses and hints at an
impending calamity.

At this juncture, a nurse
enters, carrying a black
babe, the offspring of
Aaron and Tamora,
whom the latter wishes
to have killed, because
its swarthy hue would
betray its origin. De-
metrius is about to

 

 

   
 
  
 
  
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
   

Duron, 1641.

Askanius’s protestations
of courage are carried
to much greater length
than in S. He desires
to be fitted out with
armor and says: ‘‘Oh,
only give me a sword
and I will cut the cruel
bellies out of the vil-
lains.”GERMAN, 1620.

nus is on the point of
killing it, when Morian
rushes in and snatches
the babe away. The
midwife tells Morian
that the Empress wishes
to have the child carried
off to Mt. Thaurin,
where Morian’s father
lives. Morian agrees to
take it there; and then,
to prevent the secret
from leaking out, he
kills the midwife.
After taking these pre-
cautions, he sets out for
Mt. Thaurin, meanwhile
crooning to his babe:
- .. . | Cheese of doo’s
milk with water shall
be thy food, till thou
canst walk. I will put
thee to all kinds of ex-
ercises, that thou mayst
become hardy, and learn
how to fight bravely
and to tear up a coat
of mail with thy hands,
like myself,” ete.—
much longer than in 8.
Although this arrow-
shooting scene does not
actually occur on the
stage, it is referred to
later by the Emperor.
See Act vii, Cohn, p.
224: “ Yesterday in de-
fiance of me he shot my
imperial palace full of
arrows.”

Dw ae

HAROLD DE W.

 

  

 

SHAKSPERE.

“broach the tadpole on
his rapier’s point,’ when
Aaron intervenes and
arranges to substitute
a child: of one ob
his countrymen, and
thereby to deceive the
Emperor. Furthermore,
to prevent this secret
from leaking out, he
kills the nurse and
plots the death of the
midwife.

After taking these pre-
cautions, he sets out for
the Goths, meanwhile
crooning to his babe:
“ll make you feed on
berries and on roots,
And feast on curds and
whey, and suck the
goat, And cabin in a
cave, and bring you up
To be a warrior and
command a camp.”

Act IV, Scene 8.
Titus, being madly dis-
tracted, has Publius,
Marcus, and others join
him in shooting arrows
to Pallas, Mercury, Sat-
urn, and other gods; the
arrows are attached to
notes, urging the gods
to send Justice, who has
disappeared, back to
earth again.

FULLER.

 

ee Jol, Le ee

— A
= Nee gemne Pe
Wise ue” PBN eer ee z

  

DutcH, 1641.er

 

Sareea os uNriar at

Pere ae

GERMAN, 1620.

Act V, end.

[Titus then employs a
messenger to deliver to
the Emperor a sword
and a letter of defiance,
in which he has folded
a razor.

The messenger delivers
his insulting presents
and is ordered to be
hanged for his pains. ]

Act VIL.

“Beat of drums
flourish of trumpets.
Vespasian approaches
Rome with his army,
having made _ great
havoc and_ desolated
all the cities of the
Romans.”

The Emperor’s courage
sinks, and he sees no
hope ahead, unless
AKXtiopissa can bewitch
Titus.

and

Morian and his babe
are captured by a
soldier and delivered
to Vespasian, who is

OAH ANTE REET
ae a ae ie: ile as

 

 

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

SHAKSPERE.

Titus then employs a
clown, who is carrying
a basket of pigeons, to
deliver to the Emperor
a letter of defiance, in
which he has folded a
knife.

Act IV, Scene 4.
finds the

arrows and is worried
by the contents of the
notes. Tamora, how-
ever, cheers him up
with the promise that
she will — successfully
manage Titus.

The clown delivers his
insulting presents and
is ordered to be hanged
for his pains.

Saturninus

News arrives that Lu-
cius is approaching
with a large army of
Goths.

The Emperor’s courage
sinks, but Tamora again
cheers him with the
promise that she will
bewitch Titus.

Act V, Scene 1.

Aaron and his babe are

captured by a soldier
and delivered to Lucius,
who is eager to kill

 

  

Durcu, 1641.

Act III.

[ Lucius, who is muster-
ing an army, overhears
a conversation between
Aran and Thamera’sGERMAN, 1620.

eager to kill them at
once. But Morian
promises, provided Ves-
pasian will spare his
life, to disclose the past
villany. Vespasian en-
gages to do so, and then
Morian recounts the
treachery which has
wrought the downfall
of the Andronici. Ves-
pasian, however, breaks
his promise, and, though
at Morian’s request he

spares the child, he
orders Morian to be
hanged.

Enter the Empress and
her two sons, all three
in disguise. The Em-
press informs Titus that
the gods have sent these
men to assist him in his
wars. According to the
Empress’ scheme, they
are to discover the plans
of Titus and, if possible,
assassinate him and Ves-
pasian.

(5)
[Act VIII, beginning.
A messenger announces
to the Emperor and
Empress that Titus in-
vites them to a banquet
to celebrate the eternal

 

HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

SHAKSPERE.
them at once. But
Aaron promises, pro-

vided only Lucius will
spare the child’s life, to
disclose the past vil-
lany. Lucius swears to
do so, and then Aaron
recounts, with gruesome-
ness yet with decency,
both the treachery
which has wrought the
downfall of the An-
dronici, and also his
many other  villanies
in the past.

Act V, Scene 2.

Tamora and her two
sons disguise them-
selves as Revenge, Rape
and Murder, and, trust-
ing to Titus’s lunacy,
get him to enlist their
services. He bids them
kill all persons who are
like themselves.

His pretended joy at
Tamora’s coming finds
expression in these
words: ‘‘O sweet Re-
venge, now do I come
to thee: And. if ‘one
arm’s embracement will
content thee, I will em-
brace thee in it by and
by’ Tamora then
persuades Titus to sum-

 

erpa

, Udon eer beeen

Lede A ey

  

DutcH, 1641.

sons which reveals
the guilt of all three.
He captures Aran, but
the sons escape. Aran
then recites with gross-
est obscenity both the
treachery which has
wrought the downfall
of the Andronici, and
also his many other
villanies in the past. ]

two

Thamera and her two
sons, in the guise of
Revenge and her at-
tendants, trusting to
Titus’s lunacy, inform
him that it is Lucius
who has worked his
father’s downfall.

Titus pretends to be
overjoyed at Thamera’s
coming, and, feigning
love for her, wooes her
in @ speech which is too
obscene to quote.

He begs her, further,
to invite the Emperor
and Empress to his
house, since he has
business of importance

OS aan

Washi: aaah da,ep ae ee aE
shaded ar tN RE APS on gpa]

 

THE

GERMAN, 1620.

peace which he desires
to be established be-
tween himself and the
Court. |

(a)
[ Atiopissa departs, leav-
ing her two sons in the
service of Titus.

Titus then cuts their
throats, preserving the
blood in a basin. |

Titus, dressed like a
cook, welcomes his

SOURCES

 

     
 
   
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
   
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
   
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
    

SHAKSPERE.

mon Lucius to a ban-
quet, to take place in
Titus’s house, to which
also she promises to in-
vite the Emperor and
Empress, so that Titus
may wreak vengeance
on them.

Tamora departs on her
errand, but Titus in-
sists that the two sons
remain.

Marcus and others, en-
tering, insist that the
disguised persons are
Tamora’s sons, but Titus
satirically defends their
assumed roles.

Titus then cuts the
throats of the captives,
while Lavinia catches
the blood in a basin.

Act V, Scene 3.

Titus, dressed like a
cook, welcomes his

OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

 

    

Doutcu, 1641.

about which to confer
with them.

Thamera departs on her
errand, but Titus in-
sists that the two sons
remain and spur him on
to revenge.

Marcus and others, en-
tering, insist that the
disguised persons are
Thamera’s sons, but Ti-
tus satirically defends
their assumed rdles.
Titus then cuts the
throats of the captives,
bidding Rozelyna hold
the basin ; but, on realiz-
ing thatshehasno hands,
he has her bite the mur-
derers’ hearts out and
spit them into their faces.
In the midst of this free-
for-all slaughter, a mes-
senger announces that
Lucius has _ captured
Aran.

The chorus expatiates
on Rozelyna’s_ woful
plight and hints at a
fearful nemesis.

Act V.

The guests arrive at the
banquet, among whom

On nan See Ae Le eyes Se te

wie Oahes iGERMAN, 1620.

guests, among whom
also is Vespasian,—
Morian having been
hanged.

Titus then serves up to
the Emperor and Em-
press, unknown to them,
the heads of AXtiopissa’s
sons cooked in a pie.

Further, he kills An-
dronica and then

discloses the authors of
all the villany and, also,
the ingredients of the
pie.

After this disclosure,
Titus stabs Xtiopissa,
and is killed in turn
by the Emperor, who,

  

HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

SHAKSPERE.

guests to the banquet,
among whom also are
Lucius and Aaron, as a
prisoner.

Titus then serves up to
the Emperor and Em-
press, unknown to them,
the heads of Tamora’s
sons cooked in a pie.

Further, he kills Lavi-
nia, citing as his warrant
the case of Virginius
and Virginia, and then
discloses the authors of
all the villany and, also,
the ingredients of the
pie.

 

 

After this disclosure,

Titus stabs Tamora,
and is killed in turn by
Saturninus, who, again,

 

hase hou , + !
eee Pini ieahon np cnek set oT Na
blah Pe aS

fislaitearhctaSgblattadeaamo a

Dutcu, 1641.

also are Aran and Lu-
cius,— the latter dis-
guised as his own cham-
berlain.

Titus then serves up to
the Emperor and Em-
press, unknown to them,
the heads of Thamera’s
sons cooked in a pie.

At this point Lucius, in
the réle of chamberlain,
announces that he has
killed Lucius. There
is great rejoicing on the
part of the Emperor and
Empress, since Titus has
told them that Lucius
was at the bottom of the
knavery.

Then Titus kills Roze-
lyna and

discloses the authors of
all the villany and, also,

 

 

the ingredients of the
pie.

Hereupon the ghosts of
Demetrius and Quiro
appear to Thamera, who
begins to rage; she hears
the voices of her sons
crying out within her,
and calls upon Titus to
effect their release by
ripping open her breast.

(0)
[To prove the truth of
his disclosure, Titus
stabs Thamera, and is
killed in turn by Satur-

 
 
  
  
  
  
     
     
    
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

 

prereenes — ane rT
Aer ee alk rite em ; enhGERMAN, 1620.

again, meets his death
at the hands of Ves-
pasian.

Vespasian is then de-
clared Emperor.

Morian is hanged, as
stated above.

 

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

SHAKSPERE.

meets his death at the
hands of Lucius.

Lucius is then declared
Emperor; and he and
Marcus and young Lu-
cius express their grief
for their dead kinsmen.
Lucius’s first decree is
to have Aaron buried
breast-deep in the earth
and starved; Tamora’s
body flung out to birds
of prey, and Lucius’s
kinsmen entombed.

 

 

   
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  

Durch, 1641.

ninus, who, again, meets
his death at the hands
of Lucius.
Lucius is then declared
Emperor. |

(a)
(At Titus’s bidding,
Aran is burned alive at
the rear of the stage. ]

The table may be briefly summarized as follows :—

I. Points common to S and D, but not found in G:—
1. The two sons of Titus appear on the stage.

2.

Dr 9

The young grandson of Titus has a role to play.
The foreign enemy are called the Goths.

Titus eulogizes Rome.
The human sacrifice.
The courting of Tamora “in dumb-show” in 8,—

with wind-instruments and string-instruments in D.

oan

10.

The buried gold used for a bribe.
The intriguing letter.

. The catastrophe of the pit.

The pleading of Titus before the tribunes for] the

lives of his sons.

fel
12;

The banishment of Lucius.
The incident concerned with Ovid’s Metamorphoses.

II. Points common to G and §, but not found in D:—

1. The dispute over the emperorship.

2. Lhe betrothal of Lavinia to the Emperor, and the

DRM RE Oe eee Cae Te
tal dite aprgntner anal tap cada Yt ER PETE

device by which the marriage is thwarted.. 4
OM GE Ree ih ge et Sooke lal
ve SE LOO in teipek carmen irae, :

  

HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
   

3. The whole episode of the black child, including the
murder of the midwife (and also of the nurse in 8),
and the capture of the Moor while bearing his child
to a place of safety.

4, The arrow-shooting.

. The defiant message from Titus to the Emperor,

which results in the death of the messenger.

6. The method by which a confession is extracted from

the Moor.

Or

III. Points common to G and D, but not found in S :—

1. Mutius, one of the sons of Titus in §, is lacking in
both the other plays.

2. Alarbus, the eldest son of Tamora in 8, is likewise
not to be found in G and D.

3. The information that the Empress’s first husband has
been killed to quiet his suspicions. 7

4, The Moor in effect boasts himself the “ Lightning
and Thunder” of his people.

5. The Moor is angry at the Empress when he meets
her alone in the forest.

6. The charge of insulting the Empress upon which the
sons of Titus are arrested.

7. The hand of Titus only is demanded in return for
the lives of his sons, instead of (as in S) the hand
of Titus, Marcus, or Lucius.

8. Extreme obscenity in the Moor’s confession of his
past life.

IV. Points found in §, but in neither G nor D :-—

1. The preliminary dispute between Saturninus and
Bassianus.

2. The burial of Titus’s sons, who are brought back
dead from the war.

3. The sacrifice of Alarbus, instead of (as in D) the

proposed sacrifice of Aran.

 

 

 

rer Fe aCe ee een
ed pasa tro ; tere iatinoa wamaboeetTHE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. Al

4. The kidnapping of Lavinia, which results in the
death and burial of Mutius.
5. The hand of Titus, Marcus, or Lucius is demanded
instead of that of Titus only.
6. Act iil, scene 2.
7. Young Lucius carries presents from Titus to Chiroun
and Demetrius.
8. The arrow-shooting actually occurs on the stage.
9. The sentence imposed on Aaron varies a little from
that in G and D.
10. Formality in closing the last act; farewell speeches
to the dead.

V. One point occurs in the version represented by the
Program and in §, but is not found in D :—the name Lavinia
instead of (as in D) the name Rozelyna. Also one point
occurs in the version represented by the Program and in G,
but is not found in D:—namely, the reason why Titus is
tricked of his hand.

Since the Program, as it will shortly appear, is of immense
importance in helping us to determine the true origin of D
and hence the relation between D and 5, let us, using at all
times for reference the categories given above, discuss the
Program first. As I have already mentioned, Cohn accepted
the version represented by the Program as directly dependent
upon Vos’s play D; but Creizenach and Schroer, on account
of the name Lavinia, as opposed to Rozelyna in D, con-
cluded that besides G there must have been current in
Germany another adaptation more closely related to $, which
adaptation they held to be that represented by the Program.
They did not, however, connect it in any way with D.
Nevertheless, if we examine the Program closely we are
bound to see in the version which it represents a very
striking connection with D. For besides the almost exactPiel od oe s nf
PRP Sb niimurepcoroanae te NI

tLe wer eteatbaineiantu teen ok tia

Ms

  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

49 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

agreement of plot, already referred to,’ the descriptive
titles of the two plays are nearly identical. The full title
of D is “Aran and Titus, or Revenge and Counter-Revenge,”
that of the Program, “Revenge versus Revenge, or the warlike
Roman Titus Andronicus.” It is not only the similarities,
however, which serve to determine the relation in question,
but quite as much the differences. The name Lavinia, for
instance, as Creizenach and Schroer pointed out, proves con-
clusively that the version represented by the Program cannot
possibly be a translation of D. How could a translator who
had nothing but D to go by, hit upon the name “ Lavinia,”
which is that employed in S? It would certainly be un-
reasonable to explain away the difficulty on the ground of
coincidence. Our other alternative, then, is to suppose that D
and the version represented by the Program had a common
source, and that Jan Vos changed the name Lavinia to Roze-
lyna. His reason for making this alteration readily appears
when we glance at the period in which he wrote. At that time
a new school of erotic poetry had just come into existence in
Holland, and “ Roselyn’s Oochies” (Rosalind’s Eyes) was
only one of a great store of poems in which the anatomy of
this heroine was sung.” Probably, then, Vos substituted the
name Rozelyna for Lavinia because it was more popular.
But whatever his reason may have been, the necessary infer-
ence as to the common origin of D and the version represented
by the Program is, for our purposes, of real importance,—
indeed of two-fold importance. In the first place, we are
now in a better position to understand how the story of
Titus Andronicus got into Holland; and in the second place,
when we undertake a comparison of D with S, it will not
then be in order to explain away difficulties of action by
supposing that Vos made alterations to suit his pleasure.

1P, 18, above.
See Sir John Bowring’s Sketch of the Language and Literature of Holland,
Amsterdam, 1829, p. 47.

 

et ae oe

a ; RE TT een
: p " is Py Ss be aamaranth sare ria Siete anne

  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
   

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 43

As to the first question,—how the story of Titus Androni-
cus got into Holland,—we have already seen that George
Greflinger in 1650 had planned to translate into German a
Dutch play which he referred to as “Andronicus mit dem
Aaron.” Now the preservation of the Program, which in
details of plot practically agrees with D, seems to indicate
that Greflinger actually carried out his plan. For it is
inconceivable that the play represented by the Program, if
it owed its existence to some other version of the story in no
way related to D, should tally so closely with the latter.
Hence there must have been in Holland, besides D, a play
which was the source of D. ‘This inference at once removes
a serious difficulty, already adverted to,—it accounts for Vos’s
knowledge of the story of Titus Andronicus in spite of his
ignorance of all foreign languages. But a further question
remains: How did this source of D get into Holland? One
version of the story, as we know from G, was carried from
England into Germany about 1600 and performed by the
English Actors. There is abundant evidence that the Eng-
lish Actors travelled through the Netherlands as early as the
year 1597, and repeatedly after that." Doubtless it was in this
way that the story of Titus Andronicus made its way into
Holland, and thus the Dutch original of D and of Gref-
linger’s lost German drama is easily accounted for. The
complete disappearance of the Dutch play of the English
Actors need occasion no surprise. Probably it never got
into print. Unfortunately we have no Dutch collection to
correspond with the German Schauspiele der Englischen Komé-
dianten. We are now in a position to see the exact bearing
of the question how closely Vos followed his original. Obvi-
ously, if Vos made practically no alterations in the plot
which he adapted, we must impute such divergences from 5
as exist in D to the work of the English Actors,—that is,

1See H. E. Moltzer’s Shakspere’s Invloed op het Nederlandsch Tooneel,
pp. 34-41.44 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

if we insist that D depends upon an adaptation of S. These
divergences are enumerated above, in categories II and IV.

Yet when we consider the episodes included in these lists
and notice the dramatic importance of some of them, we
cannot help wondering how they came to be left out, even in
a rough-and-ready adaptation. Similar wonderment is excited
when we attempt to explain G as an adaptation of S; for G
lacks all the episodes in categories I and IV,—such im-
portant things as the buried gold, the intriguing letter, the
whole catastrophe of the pit, etc. How, then, can we account
for the arbitrary methods which apparently were used in
making the adaptations?

In the first place we must remember that in pieces prepared
for the German or Dutch stage action was all important, for
action is something which appeals to the eyes and can in con-
sequence be readily grasped. Furthermore, it goes without
saying that the English Actors did not trouble themselves to
alter their originals needlessly. If, then, the action in the
originals was not such as to miscarry or to obscure the mean-
ing, one is at a loss to see why they should have changed it.
Thus, for example, in S Aaron buries in the forest a bag of
gold which he says is to serve him in an “excellent piece
of villany.”' Here the significance of the buried treasure is
emphasized for the benefit of the audience by the actual
secreting of the gold in their presence. Surely we might
expect to find the same method employed in an adaptation
for the Dutch stage. Upon turning to the corresponding
place in D, on the contrary, we read that Aran, in declaring
his platform of villany to Thamera, informs her that he has
buried a helmet of gold which is to incriminate the two
younger sons of Titus. Similarly in S, Bassianus, who was
previously betrothed to Lavinia, kidnaps her from the very
presence of Titus and Saturninus, and NSaturninus later
indulges his sudden infatuation for Tamora by persuading

1P, 26, above.

 

 

mitt Ce Un er eae Seana a— - genie -
See ee aan rend a

ih pet
ee head

       
  
  
    
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 45

her to become his Empress.’ In G, on the contrary, the
Emperor merely tel/s AXtiopissa that he has returned Andronica
to her father with the message that his heart has changed,—
that he now prefers to marry Aitiopissa. Here again we
apparently have, in a play adapted to the needs of a German
audience, a reversion from a striking bit of action, in every
way suited to the purpose, to a bald statement of fact wholly
devoid of action. Nor is this difficulty, or that just cited in
D, to be explained by supposing that G and D were pirated
and hence do not exactly represent the plays as they were first
performed on the German and the Dutch stage respectively ;
for no reporter could have failed to comprehend such obvious
phenomena as kidnapping and the burial of a treasure.
Judged, therefore, by a simple common-sense standard of
adaptation, G and D are hard to reconcile with S. If, further,
we add to the discrepancies just mentioned the many im-
portant omissions from G and D which are included in
categories I and LV, and II and LV, our faith in G and D
as adaptations of S may well be shaken.

More light, however, will be thrown upon this particular
contention if we examine category IV (points found in S but
in neither G nor D). With the exception of No. 6 (Act ii,
scene 2), all the episodes in this category either have their
close correspondences in G or .D, or at least could easily have
been suggested by the action there represented. (1) The
preliminary dispute between Saturninus and Bassianus varies
but little from the altercation in G, where Saturninus insists
that he be made Emperor instead of Titus. (2) The burial
of Titus’s sons is but a slight elaboration of the pageant cele-
brating Titus’s return in D. (3) The sacrifice of Alarbus has
its close counterpart in D in the proposed sacrifice of Aran.
(4) The kidnapping of Lavinia, resulting in the death of
Mutius, is a ruse to thwart the marriage of Lavinia to the
Emperor; in G a message, instead of the kidnapping, is

1P, 22, above.

ohun aa

eres

ra rrr rs
To ae tae a)46 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

employed to the same end. (5) The demand for the hand
of Titus, Marcus, or Lucius, instead of the hand of Titus
only, is a very slight change. (6) Act iii, scene 2, was in
neither of the first two quartos of S and did not appear until
the First Folio. It was doubtless a late insertion, and we
may here disregard it. (7) According to 8S, young Lucius
swears vengeance on the villains, Chiron and Demetrius ;
whereupon Titus says to him:

Come, go with me into mine armoury;

Lucius, I’ll fit thee; and withal my boy

Shall carry from me to the Empress’ sons

Presents that I intend to send them both.

Come, come; thou’lt do thy message, wilt thou not?
Young Lucius: Ay, with my dagger in their bosoms, grandsire !

In D, Askanius’s protestations of courage are carried to much
greater length than in S. He desires to be fitted out with
armor and begs: “Oh, only give me a sword, and I will cut
the cruel bellies out of the villains!” In D, then, Askanius
desires in some way to take part in wreaking vengeance. In
S his request is granted, and he is allowed to carry to Chiron
and Demetrius weapons, with verses of sinister intent. The
expansion in §, therefore, may be safely called the following
out of ahintin D. (8) Though the arrow-shooting does not
actually occur on the stage in G, it is nevertheless referred
to. (9) The sentence of death imposed on Aaron in § has
its close counterpart in both G and D. (10) The farewell
speeches to the dead in the last act of S are again only a
slight elaboration (tending to dramatic completeness) of the
final scenes in G and D.

Thus we find that there is not a single episode in S! that
could not easily have been suggested by the combined con-
tents of G and D; whereas, on the other hand, we are ata
loss, as we have seen in the preceding paragraph, to explain
in G and D the many omissions and the striking changes

from S.

* Except Act iii, scene 2, which we are justified in eliminating.

 

ee Ce ee a =THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. AT

Such being the case, the question at once arises: Can it be
possible that the English prototypes of G and D antedated
S? We shall be in a better way to decide this question after
we have examined category III,—points common to G and
D but not found in S. Here we have eight agreements
which could in no way owe their origin to S. Indeed, there
are nine such agreements. If we turn to category V, we find
that in-the Program the reason is given by the Moor why
Titus is being tricked of his hand. Now this reason is also
furnished in G, but not in D. It is inconceivable that this
additional point in the Program was incorporated from G,
since, if there had been a borrowing from G, more would
have been taken than a mere motive occupying in the
Program but a short clause. To explain these nine agree-
ments by urging coincidence is of course out of the question.!
We are, then, forced to conclude that G and D go back to
English versions prior to S.

As to the direct relation of S to these English versions, I
have already shown that no episode exists in S which has not
either a close correspondence in G or D, or which could
not easily have been suggested by G or D. In other words,
so far as plot and action are concerned, these two plays
almost exactly supplement each other and produce S. How
nicely the action of G is filled out by that of D, and vice
versa, we may see by again turning to categories I and II.
D lacks such important incidents as the dispute over the
emperorship, the betrothal of Lavinia to the Emperor, the
action concerned with the black child. G lacks the réle of
young Lucius, the human sacrifice, the buried gold, the
intriguing letter, the whole catastrophe of the pit, etc. If,
however, we combine the plots of G and D, the result
accounts for practically everything in 8S. Add to this strik-

'Creizenach, finding, as I have said, only one agreement of this kind
(namely, the information that the Empress had killed her first husband),
was possibly justified in pleading coincidence; but this argument can no
longer suffice.48 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

ing fact, our conclusion that G and D cannot possibly depend
upon S§, directly or indirectly, and the inference is not to be
avoided: In G and D we have preserved to us two old English
plays which prove to be the sources of S.

But though, judged purely by the plots, the English
originals of G and D seem undoubtedly to have been the
sources of S, it may yet be urged, I suppose, that they were
not the immediate sources of that play. Such an objection
has been partly forestalled by the close similarity of several
parallel passages already given in the table of plots. To
remove, nevertheless, any lingering doubt in this regard, I
will quote a few more parallels. In G, page 178, Titus
says:' “O how sweetly and pleasantly do the birds sing
in the air! each seeking its food; and the hunt has likewise
commenced in joy and splendour. But yet my heart is
oppressed and uneasy, for that I had last night a most dread-
ful dream, and know not what it portends. I must now
again join the Emperor, who is present at the hunt in
person.”

In 8, act il, scene 2, 1 ff, Titus says:

The hunt is up, the morn is bright and grey,
The fields are fragrant and the woods are green;
Uncouple here and let us make a bay,

And wake the Emperor and his lovely bride,
And rouse the prince and ring a hunter’s peal,
That all the court may echo with the noise.
Sons, let it be your charge, as it is ours,

To attend the Emperor’s person carefully ;

I have been troubled in my sleep this night,
But dawning day new comfort hath inspired.

G, pp. 180, 182, “ Empress: ‘Therefore come and take signal
revenge on her, treat her cruelly, and, if you love me, kill
her husband by her side; but if you do not I will curse you,
and henceforth never more regard you as sons of mine.’ ”

*The quotations from G, found in this paper, are taken from an English
translation, which is furnished in Cohn’s Shakespeare in Germany.

TAG ucd CLL

TT Ta eet
aR eS cadet wr esate re tNSacre itn taend

    
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
   
  
   
    
    
  
   

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.
S, act ii, scene 3, 114-15,

Tamora: Revenge it, as you love your mother’s life,
Or be ye not henceforth call’d my children.

G, p. 182. “Empress: ‘Therefore, my dear son, give me
your sword, that I may take away her life myself.’ ”
S, act ii, scene 3, 120-1,

Tamora: Give me thy poniard; you shall know, my boys,
Your mother’s hand shall right your mother’s wrong.

So much for the closeness of the prototype of G to S.
Similarly, parallel passages in S and D attest a like
dependence of S upon the English prototype of D. In D,
act ii, H. 2 v°, “ Titus: ‘O surpassing Philomel, killed by
Tereus’ knife !’”
S, act ii, scene 4, 26 ff.,

Marcus: But sure, some Tereus hath deflowered thee,
And, lest thou shouldst detect him, cut thy toneue,. =;
... Fair Philomela, she but lost her tongue, ...
...A craftier Tereus, cousin, has thou met.

In D, act iii, H. 3 v’, lamenting his daughter’s ruin,
“Titus: ‘Ha, ha, ha, ha!’ Marcus: ‘How now! ’tis no
time to laugh.’ Titus: ‘Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! how can I
weep? My heart is dried up; my tears are scattered,’ ”

S, act iii, scene 1, 264 ff,

Marcus: Now is a time to storm: why art thou still?
Titus: Ha, ha, ha!
Marcus: Why dost thou laugh? it fits not with this hour.
Titus: | Why I have not another tear to shed;

Besides, this sorrow is an enemy,

And would usurp upon my watery eyes,

And make them blind with tributary tears,

The above-quoted passages, both in the case of G and of D,
are only samples, to which others alike convincing might
easily be added.

afe en ee es
, eee na eure i ieiieeiiaibiaeiaa J. Pana eae tara nt ene

50 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

If, now, the theory that the English prototypes of G and
D were the sources of S is to stand the test, we shall expect
to find in S some slight alterations of action for the purpose
either of effecting changes in motive or at least of accom-
plishing dramatic improvement. The first instance of this
appears at the beginning of S. In G, Titus is on the stage
from the very start, and the scene opens with the suggestion
by Vespasian that Titus be made Emperor. ‘This the eldest
son of the late emperor hot-headedly resents, and puts
forward what he deems a better claim to the vacant office ;
whereupon Titus generously yields to him. In 8, on the
contrary the play opens with an altercation over the emperor-
ship between Saturninus and Bassianus and their followers.
Marcus, entering, puts an end to their dispute by the
announcement that the Roman people have elected Titus
Emperor. He eulogizes Titus at considerable length, glorify-
ing his brave deeds in war. A captain then announces
Titus’s approach, and soon the valiant general enters, amid a
tumultuous flourish. His services towards Rome, and those
of his house, are also attested by the public and ceremonial
burial of his dead sons. The objection on the part of
Saturninus to Titus’s election breaks out much later in the
scene, and Titus, as in G, generously yields. His yielding,
however, is interpreted by Saturninus as such offensive con-
descension as to make sincere gratitude impossible. At the
corresponding place in D, there is no dispute whatever, and
less chance than in § for flourish and demonstration. ‘The
improvement in § is obvious. For in G we have no
splendid entry and dramatically effective pageant such as we
look for on the return of a great hero to Rome. Further-
more, the dispute in G gives no motive, as in 8, for
Saturninus’s later hostility towards Titus, for the yielding
is in the German play regarded as a favor. Moreover, in D,
though some slight pageant is attempted,—a mere suggestion
of what we find in S,—no scheme is wrought out to give
potency and rationality to the later grudge of Saturninusmp sneer tet

       
  
 
 
 
 
  
   
  
  
    
 
  
   
 
   
  
   
 
  
 
 

THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 51

against Titus. From all this we see that, in the opening
scene of S, slender hints of what ought to be, have been
combined and elaborated into due formality and dramatic
completeness.

A similar example of dramatic improvement, in which
hints from both G and D have apparently been followed, is
afforded by the controversy over Lavinia between Tamora’s
two sons. In G (p. 172), Helicates and Saphonus felicitate
themselves on the life of luxury and ease which has resulted
from their captivity. Then, after comparing notes in a most
agreeable and sympathetic fashion, they come to the conclu-
sion that they are both enamored of the same person. Even
after this discovery, some time elapses before they plunge
into the temerity of anger. Helicates urges his greater age as
a basis for first claim to Lavinia’s love. Saphonus, on the
other hand, insists that his own lack of years is compensated
for by excess of courage, etc. In D, the scene opens with
the brothers in ihe very midst of their dispute. There ig,
however, no reasonableness in the claim of either; they
simply “have at” each other blindly, until Aran, entering,
carries them into a somewhat abstract discussion of very bad
ethics. In 8, act ii, scene 1, ll. 26 ff., the trouble begins
as follows:

Demetrius. Chiron, thy years want wit, thy wit wants edge,
And manners, to intrude where I am grac’d,
And may, for aught thou know’st, affected be.
Chiron. Demetrius, thou dost overween in all,
And so in this, to bear me down with braves.
"Tis not the difference of a year or two
Makes me less gracious or thee more fortunate.

The author of S has employed the dramatic method of D in
entering im medias res, and has given to the quarrel, as in G,
some reasonable cause: Demetrius throughout the scene keeps
harping on his extra years; in Il. 73-74 he says, “ Youngling,
learn thou to make some meaner choice; Lavinia is thine

 

bia oe

eis Lie eae »

aC MRL sak ie sal ROR eile os i rue52 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

elder brother’s hope,”—a taunt which only makes Chiron
strive the harder to prove his own worth.

Another decided improvement is achieved in S by the epl-
sode of the human sacrifice. In D there is much talk about
offering up Aran, but nothing comes of all the discussion :
Aran is released. The incident does not occur in G, but in
S the eldest son of Tamora, Alarbus, is actually sacrificed,
off the stage, to the shades of Titus’s dead sons. The gain
in S is twofold. In the first place, the heathen custom of
immolation is scrupulously followed and not merely hinted
at; and, in the second place, Tamora’s later unrelenting
cruelty toward Lavinia is made to appear less inhuman
because it now becomes revenge. There is no loss, either,
in taking away the motive for Aaron’s crimes: he is a
villain in grain by his own frank confession (act ii, scene 1,
1]. 205-6) :

Let fools do good, and fair men call for grace,
Aaron will have his soul black like his face.

The kidnapping of Lavinia in 8, as I have hinted before,
shows a great betterment of its sole original in G. In G,
after the betrothal of Lavinia, the Emperor, finding himself
infatuated with A®tiopissa, returns Lavinia to her father
with the message that she is not the equal of his present
empress. This conduct is not only absurd in itself, but it
is artistically unfortunate, for, while it does release the
Emperor from his previous contract, it serves to humiliate
Lavinia undeservedly. In §, on the contrary, the kidnap-
ping by Bassianus both thwarts the marriage and gives
Saturninus another grievance against Titus, whom he insists
on regarding as a party to the intrigue.

Another instance of a change for the better is in the clos-
ing scene of S: Aaron is condemned to be buried breast-deep
in the earth and starved to death,—a bit of torture which we
are left to imagine as taking place after the play isover. In
D, as the final act of nemesis, Aran is burned alive on the

Be ee ay pa ares naTHE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 53

stage. This scene is precisely what one expects in an early
play planned chiefly for spectacular effect. It is the trap-
door episode of the Jew of Malta over again, as is shown by
two illustrations in the first edition of D1. The Jew of Malta
was running at about the same time at which the English
original of D must have been presented. No doubt there
was a specially constructed stage-apparatus for the Jew,
which another play may well have utilized2

One further example, out of several that might be added,
must suffice. In both G and D, the hand of Titus only is
demanded in return for the ines of his two sons. The
‘subsequent dispute, therefore, among Titus, Marcus, and
Lucius, as to which of them shall suffer the sacrifice causes
us surprise. Nor is it to be supposed that the demand,
although couched in vague terms, is understood by all to he

*The first illustration pictures the confusion in the last scene. On a
platter lie the heads of Quiro and Demetrius, grinning at each other;
nearby are the supine corpse of Rozelyna and the banquet table upset; and,
as the cynosure of all eyes, Aran is ablaze with enveloping flames. The
second illustration represents a moment earlier: Aran is seen in mid-air,
just after his precipitation through the trap-door, with his hands tied
behind him; chains suspended from the roof are fastened to his ankles.
The resulting shock bids fair to exceed the strappado. And, as if to typify
the unruffled complacency of the audience even amid such harrowing
scenes, there is visible at the top of the scenery a cat, which peers down
on the gruesome sight and appears to be licking her chops at the plente-
ous quarry.

7 Some critics regard the last scene in the Jew of Malta as a Jater addition
or substitution by Heywood or some other hack. For those, however, who
still believe the scene to be Marlowe’s, the instance of dramatic change
which I have here cited ought to have importance. It should also be
noted that in Ravenscroft’s revision of Titus Andronicus the Moor is
tortured and burned on the stage as in D. Now it is possible that some of
Ravenscroft’s friends, “anciently conversant with the stage,” may have
told him of the great success of this scene in the English original of D,
and that he was led to revive it. For, although the tradition as to the
authorship of a play might soon die out even among those intimately
associated with the theatre, “ stage-business,’”’ on the other hand, would be
much more likely to be perpetuated; for actors, as a> Us, take’ more
interest in stage-devices us an ia ahcneeo4 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

for the hand of any one of them; for in D we find Marcus
saying, “Though Titus’s hand is required, I will send
mine;” and in G, the Moor confides to the audience the
Empress’s motive for the trickery,—namely, that Titus may
hereafter be incapable of overthrowing Rome. Now in 8
the dispute is furnished with an adequate motive: tbe
demand is for the hand of Titus, Marcus, or Lucius.

Convincing as the traces of this dramatic mending are,
however, they are not the only evidence of revision which we
may hope to find in 8. If our main theory be true, we may
also look for the presence in S of images and conceits and
dramatic artifices which have been suggested to the mind
of the author by somewhat dissimilar counterparts in G and
D; or, to put it in another way, we shall expect to find that
the mind of the author has been so stimulated by certain
hints in his originals that he has created images and conceits
and dramatic artifices which are not identical with their
correspondences in G and D but are rather the result of the
mental reaction which these have excited. As a matter of
fact, the evidence of just such a mental reaction is apparent
in several places in 8. In D, act ii, F 3, r°, for instance,
when Titus has failed to move the judges and tribunes to
save the lives of his sons, he says: “The judge knows how
to bend the law like wax.”

In §, act ii, scene 1, 45, at the very same point in the
action he says: ‘‘A stone is soft as wax, tribunes more hard
than stones.”

Again in D, act ii, H 3, v’, “Titus: ‘Thus hath venge-
ance kindled its fire in this breast,—a fire like the fire of
Aetna, a fire like that of Troy.’ ”

In 8, at the same place, act ili, scene 1, 242-3:

Marcus: Now let hot Aetna cool in Sicily,
And be my heart an ever-burning hell.

Notice in the following dnstance how there has been a com-
bination in S of he bo" conceiis) in o and D.

C2G76 .¢

GAG Ge eae

Greed
Ce C
CUO Gar Cl erxe

Cree
CLEC
CHORE
Cee ea GCG XC SG 3e XC
C26

C ¢ C Cc €

¢

aoa arTHE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 55

In D, act iii, F 4, v°, “Titus: ‘Can I not soften the
Roman prince with the tears which like a salt sea course
down my wrinkled face?... I'll give my heart’s blood to
explate the evils of my sons.’”

In G, p. 194, “Titus: ‘Here will I lie and not leave off
crying until I have flooded the earth with my tears; in
winter they shall melt away the snow and frost.’ ”

In 8, act iii, scene 1, 14 ff,

itus: Let my tears stanch the earth’s dry appetite;
My sons’ sweet blood will make it shame and blush.
O earth, I will befriend thee more with rain,
That shall distill from these two ancient urns,
Than youthful April shall with all his showers:
In summer’s drought I’ll drop upon thee still ;
In winter with warm tears I’ll melt the snow,
And keep eternal spring-time on thy face,
So thou refuse to drink my dear sons’ blood.

As we see, the figure of the tears which is carried out to
greater extravagance in G than in D has passed from the
former into S, and to it has been added a hyperbole suggested
by “heart’s blood” in D.

In D, act ii, E 3, r°, Marcus, while looking down into the
dark pit where the two sons of Titus have been suffocated,
says: “ I see something glittering.”

In §, act ii, scene 3, 222 ff., while Martius is in the pit
and Quintus is trying to help him out, the following con-
versation takes place :

Martius: Lord Bassianus lies embrewed here,
All on a heap, like to a slaughter’d lamb,
In this detested, dark, blood-drinking pit.
Quintus: If it be dark, how dost thou know ’tis he ?
Martius: Upon his bloody finger he doth wear
A precious ring, that lightens all the hole,
Which, like a taper in some monument,
Doth shine upon the dead man’s earthly cheeks,
And shows the ragged entrails of the pit.56 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

Again in D, act iii, G1, v°, Titus, when bewailing his
daughter’s fate, cries out: “If Apelles’ hand with a bloody
pencil had drawn this villany, who could behold it without
his heart breaking before a drop of water had trickled from
his eyes?”

In §, act iii, scene 1, 103 ff,

Titus: Had I but seen thy picture in this plight,
: It would have madded me; what shall I do
Now I behold thy lively body so?

In G, page 200, there is the stage direction: “Titus takes
up his hand, raises it, and looks up to heaven, sighs, mutters,
vows, strikes his breast, and puts down the hand after having
sworn.” At this juncture in S, act iii, scene 1, 207-8,
he: says:

O, here I lift this one hand up to heaven,
And bow this feeble ruin [i. e., his mutilated arm] to the earth.

In the following example the real action which takes place
in D, namely, the actual incitement to vengeance by the two
severed heads, furnishes Titus in S, act iii, scene 1, 272-5,
with these lines:

For these two heads do seem to speak to me,

And threat me I shall never come to bliss

Till all these mischiefs be return’d again

Even in their throats that have committed them.

The last example of this mental reaction which I shall cite
is perhaps the most striking of all. In G, page 168, the
Moor soliloquizes thus: “. .. So that I became renowned all
over the world by my great superhuman deeds and obtained
the name, ‘The Lightning and Thunder of Ethiopia.’ ”

In D, act 1, C 2, r°, when asked who he is he brags: “I
am the Gothic God of Arms, who did terrorize the Roman
army by the thunderings of my voice, by the lightnings of
mine eyes.”

Pstarhr nines ee Ca een
BT aud aid r ee

   
    
    
 
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

iTHE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 57

In his soliloquy in S, though he employs as figures “light-
ning and thunder” he connects them in a different way with
Tamora,—act ii, beginning :

Now climbeth Tamora Olympus’ top,

Safe out of fortune’s shot, and sits aloft,
Secure of thunder’s crack or lightning’s flash,
Advane’d above pale envy’s threatening reach.

The practical agreement here in G and D and a difference of
application in S add convincingness to the previous examples ;
surely, if the evidence of this mental reaction counts for
aught, the main theory of this article is considerably rein-
forced.

Closely akin to the traces of this mental reaction is the
evidence in S of great improvement in phraseology. It may
be urged that, after having been adapted into German and
Dutch and then translated back into English, G and D do
not represent their old prototypes verbatim ; and that com-
parison with § in respect to phraseology is therefore unfair.
Within certain limits, to be sure, this objection is valid; a
few passages, for instance, by sheer wear and tear may have
degenerated into scarcely recognizable semblances of their
original selves. But, allowing generously for this, we should
yet expect to find the greater parts of the two adaptations
closely similar to their prototypes. Indeed it would seem
odd, even in an adaptation, if we did not meet continually
with lines which agreed almost word for word with their
originals. The German Hamlet and the German Romeo and
Juliet, for example, although there is strong reason to believe
that they depend upon Shakspere’s two plays before he had
revised them, nevertheless preserve many lines of our present
versions intact. Certainly, then, a considerable number of
whole lines must, by mere chance, if in no other way, have
crept into G and D without alteration. Such being the case,
the absence from G and D of one verbatim line of 5 is a
convincing sign of thorough-going revision on the part of S.58 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

Moreover, the evidence of revision is further substantiated
when in both G and D speeches vary alike, in respect to
sentiment, from the corresponding passages in S. In §,
act ili, scene 1, 194 ff., Titus says in eulogy of his hand
merely this:

Good Aaron, give his majesty my hand:
Tell him it was a hand that warded him
From thousand dangers; bid him bury it;
More hath it merited,—that let it have.

Here, obviously, the pathos consists in the brevity, the
self-control, the only half-uttered resentment with which
reference is made to the valorous old hand. In both G and
D, on the contrary, instead of this chastened brevity and
stirring pathos there is mere colorless boasting. G, p. 192,
reads: “ Noble hand, how have your faithful services been
requited! O ungrateful Rome, this hand often saved you
from your cruel enemies. Had it not done so, you would ere
this have been torn to pieces,—there would be no trace of
Rome now. How often, noble hand, had you to do battle
against a thousand hands! the most perilous and sanguinary
wars have been fought by you.”

In D, act ii, G 4 v°, the eulogy is still longer and much
less restrained. “Here is the golden hand,” Titus brags,—
“the hand which with its dagger bathed for the common
good the ‘Granaden’ in a rain of human blood; the hand
which has lorded it over the Germans in the Alps; the
hand which paved the Pontus gulf with bodies; the hand
which laid low the Epirots in the mountains; the hand
which twice annihilated the Gothic army ;” ete., for half a
page more.

And, indeed, even when a comparison of only one of the
plays with S is possible, considerable trace of revision can
often be seen from the phraseology.

In §, act ili, scene 1, 215 ff., for example, Titus’s behavior
is tinged with lunacy :—

   

 

aul sie carlaTHE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.

Marcus. O brother, speak with possibilities,
And do not break into these deep extremes.
Titus. Is not my sorrow deep, having no bottom ?
Then be my passions bottomless with them.
Marcus. But yet let reason govern thy lament.
Titus. If there were reason for these miseries,
Then into limits could I bind my woes.
When heaven doth weep, doth not the earth o’erflow ?
If the winds rage, doth not the sea wax mad,
Threatening the welkin with his big-swoln face ?
And wilt thou have a reason for this coil?
I am the sea; hark, how her sighs do blow!
She is the weeping welkin, I the earth:
Then must my sea be moved with her sighs;
Then must my earth with her continual tears
Become a deluge, overflow’d and drown’d ;
For why, my bowels cannot hide her woes,
But like a drunkard must I vomit them.

In this surcharged passage Titus’s momentary madness
finds relief in extravagant images, which are forged with a
readiness and ease somewhat suggestive of Macbeth’s teem-
ing fancy. In D, act iii, H 3, v°, Titus fairly out-Herods
Herod, or else lapses into the unintelligible, as in the follow-
ing: “ Whoisthere? Is it Titus? Yes, itis; I know him
by his gait. Stand, Gradamard! stand! stand! you shall
not escape me. Away, away! Klaudillus, away! I must
hasten to the Styx. Let loose, Melanus! let loose! it is
Pollander’s bride. Here, Aran, here! come here and weep
out your eyes. Why does the cur howl? All the sprites
cry out; here! The sun faints away for fear; hell seems
broken loose,” etc., to the extent of about three pages.
Such raging savors of the pre-Shaksperian drama, in which
it was sometimes customary to have a character go mad on
the stage. Indeed, Titus’s incoherency here reminds one
of the temporary madness of old Jeronimo in Kyd’s portion of
the Spanish Tragedy. At any rate, it is hard to believe that
Titus’s forcible figures in S could ever have degenerated into
such empty lunacy as we find here in D.

aaa ee ee

pees tata tad gah i RS60 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

Not less are we forced to admit revision when continually
we observe commonplace and crudely obvious lines in G and
D replaced in S by subtle and connotative phrasing. Thus,
in both G and D, the Moor refers to his relations with
Tamora in terms of gross and noisome indecency. In §, on
the contrary, act ii, scene 1, 19-24, his speech compared with
G and D is couched in delicate suggestion :

I will be bright, and shine in pearl and gold,
To wait upon this new-made empress.

To wait, said I? to wanton with this queen,
This goddess, this Semiramis, this nymph,
This siren, that will charm Rome's Saturnine,
And see his shipwrack and his commonweal’s.

The same, too, may be said of the conversation of mutual
revilement between Tamora and Lavinia. In S the speeches
are wittily pungent and characterized by verbal quibbling.
In D they are too insultingly outspoken to bear repetition.
In G, likewise, they are a mere empty bandying of con-
tumely, with no hidden sting. Similarly, a comparison of
the latter part of this scene in G and 8, where Lavinia is
begging for her life, bears out the idea of revision on the
part of 8. G, p. 182, “Andronica: ‘O you most merciless
woman, is there not a spark of compassion in you?’ ”

S, act ii, scene 3, 136, “ Lavinia: ‘O Tamora! thou bear’st
a woman’s face,—’ ”

G, p. 184, ‘Andronica: ‘O is there no help? Is there
no pity ?’”

5S, 1. 182, “ Lavinia: ‘No grace? No womanhood 2?”

Here, again, we see that the phrasing in S nicely hits off
the situation, and contains below the surface lingering poig-
nancy and appeal,—just what a revising dramatist would
have striven for.

One more example, which I shall add without comment,
must suffice in this brief discussion of phraseology. In G,
p. 196, when Titus discovers his daughter in her mutilated
condition, he says in part: “When I used to return in

Cee Tee
FARE gS te aad eran elTHE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 61

triumph to Rome, suffering much pain from wounds received
from the enemy, and saw you joyfully hastening to meet me
with your lute, you made me forget my pain, and refreshed
my old heart with your pretty innocent talk. But wherewith
will you now play the lute to gladden me, and wherewith will
you speak? You are robbed of all this.”

In D, act iii, G 1, v°, the part of Titus’s lament which
concerns his daughter’s mouth and tongue reads: “ How
your mouth flows with blood, which so often distilled nectar !
. .. My dear love, where is the golden tongue, which sang
father’s golden fame with golden verses? ... The chatter-
ing fiddles, the zither, and the cymbals pall on me, when
compared with your throat.”

In §, act ili, scene 1, 82-86, the corresponding passage
is as follows:

O that delightful engine of her thoughts,

That blabb’d them with such pleasing eloquence,
Is torn from forth that pretty hollow cage
Where, like a sweet melodious bird, it sung
Sweet varied notes, enchanting every ear!

To recapitulate the new evidence produced in this article
to substantiate our main theory, we have seen (1) that the
version represented by the Program depends upon an old
Dutch play, no longer extant, which must also have been the
source of D; (2) that this Dutch play was pretty certainly
the result of an adaptation of an old English play, which was
carried into Holland and performed by the English Actors ;
(3) that the almost exact agreement, in point of action,
between the Program and D forces us to impute such differ-
ences from S as are now to be found in D to the work of
the English Actors; (4) that, as these changes are altogether
too arbitrary to be explained even by recourse to the English
Actors, D, judged purely on these grounds, can scarcely point
back to an adaptation of S; (5) that G, as an adaptation of
S, is open to like suspicion ; (6) that such suspicion becomes62 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

a positive objection when we further see that the English
prototypes of G and D probably antedate 8, since G and D
almost exactly supplement each other to produce the plot
of 8; (7) that this objection of priority is strengthened by
nine agreements in G and D, which in no sense owe their
origin to S; (8) that the English prototypes of G and D
not only antedate 8, but prove to be the direct sources
of S, as is shown by the closeness of parallel passages ; (9)
that the main theory of this article is again substantiated
threefold (a) by the evidence in S of dramatic improvement
over its sources in respect to action; (6) by the trace of the
“mental reaction ” in the author of S; (c) by the many signs
of improvement in phraseology.

In a subsequent paper, which I hope to publish in the
course of a year, I intend to treat this question of sources in
greater detail than I could attempt to do within the limits of
the present article. I shall there endeavor to clear up such
considerations as are here left only partially treated. For
example, it may naturally have occurred to the reader that a
single lost English play (instead of two). may suffice as the
source of both G and D. Such an assumption, it is true,
is not impossible, for the material of 8 is practically all
accounted for. But let us see where this theory will lead us.
From categories I and II we have seen that G fails to pre-
serve several important episodes which are found in D and
S; and that D omits several such episodes, which are found
inGandS. Furthermore, from category IV it has appeared
that, in excess of the combined contents of G and D, S con-
tains not one point as important as most of those which have
been omitted from either G or D; indeed, that it contains
nothing of this kind which could be called an entire episode.
On the theory of a single source for G and D, these two plays
must have preserved, between them, by mere chance all the
important episodes in the old play on which they supposedly
depend. Now does it not seem odd that G, which on the

Tae teTHE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 63

basis of this theory is cut down considerably from its source,
and D, which likewise varies from its source a great deal, did
not both happen to omit some important episode,—such as,
for instance, that concerned with the black child,—which S
on the other hand preserved ?

Finally, this theory of two old English plays instead of
one is not, even to the extent which I have seemed to indi-
cate, a construction. It is supported by positive evidence.
Henslowe’s diary actually contains a number of entries which
account for the two plays in question. ‘The play there
mentioned, under the date of April 11, 1591, and six times
after that, as “tittus and Vespacia” or “titus and Vespacia ”
and later abbreviated three times to “tittus” or “ titus,’ I
hold to be the lost source of G.’ And the play mentioned
under the date of January 23, 1593, and twice after that, as
‘titus and ondronicus” or “ tittus and ondronicus” and later
abbreviated twice to “andronicous,” I believe to be the lost

1The entries in Henslowe’s diary (see ed. J. P. Collier, etc., pp. 20,
24-31, 33, 35, 36) are as follows:

In the name of God, Amen, 1591, beginge the 19 of febreary, my lord
Stranges mene, as foloweth:

Rd at tittus and Vespacia,* the 11 of aprell 1591...... nyt iiijs

Rd at tittus and vespacia, the 20 of aprell 1591........ lyjs
Rd at titus and Vespacia, the 3 of maye 1592........ =e lvijs
Rd at tittus and vespacia, the 8 of maye 1592......... : XxXX§
Rd at tittus and Vespacia, the 15 of maye 1592........ yo

Rd at titus and vespacia, the 24 of maye 1592......... XXXS
Rd at tittus and Vespacia, the 6 of June 1592......... XXXxijs

Then comes another set of entries, without mention of the company that
gave the plays, but with the following salutation :
In the Name of God Amen, 1592, begininge the 29 of Desember.

Rd at titus, the 6 of Janewary 15927........ Ueliceneen: a lijs
Rd at tittus, the 15 of Jenewary 1593.......sc.sseseeee XXXS
Rd at titus, the 29 of Jenewary 1592............ Rc neceear | ~XXXS

*According to Collier, Henslowe placed a ‘‘ne” in the margin opposite
this entry to indicate that the play was new.
+After this entry 1593 is substituted for 1592.

TRS Pa eas, AE
el Ne oc eee64 HAROLD DE W. FULLER.

source of D.’ From this it will be seen that I take none of
the entries in Henslowe’s diary to refer to S. For this
identification of the old English plays with the entries in
Henslowe I am indebted to Professor G. P. Baker of
Harvard University. Proceeding on the theory set forth
in this article, he was able to find traces of the lost plays
by an ingenious and thoroughly logical interpretation of
Henslowe’s entries and of the intricate transactions of the
English companies, which at various times performed the
plays. Professor Baker has been kind enough to subjoin to
this present paper a statement of his argument.’

Another point which I shall later treat more fully is
the relation, in point of phraseology, between G and D and
their English sources. I shall then attempt to show that G,
as a pure and simple adaptation, represents, in almost every
case, a compression rather than an elaboration of its sources ;
that the adapter did not attempt to reveal his own indi-
viduality, but only tried to suit the needs of the German
stage. In D, on the other hand, we shall find that Vos,
though, as we have seen, he scrupulously followed the plot
of his original, yet in all probability treated the dialogue
with some freedom. In many cases, to be sure, a comparison
of D with S shows a close following of even the dialogue,
but in several other places we shall have to admit, I think,

‘In the name of God Amen, beginenge the 27 of desember 1593, the
earle of Susex his men.

Rd at titus and ondronicus,* the 23 of Jenewary ......... je -yiljis
Rd at titus and ondronicous, the 28 of Janewary 1593 .. REN S
Rd at tittus and ondronicus, the 6 of febery 1593.......... XxX 5

In the name of God Amen, beginninge at Newington, my Lord Admeralle
and my Lorde chamberlen men, as foloweth, 1594 :—

5 of June 1594, Rd at andronicous....... ei bas Lh See et ees xijs
2 of June loo diab andronicous 1). 2.6..6, cas.0.. a vijs

“According to Collier, Henslowe placed a “ne” in the margin opposite
this entry to indicate that the play was new.

     
  

 

PPAR RO RTE i aa
RANA cola Sere oe)‘THE SOURCES OF TITUS ANDRONICUS. 65

that Vos compressed and expanded, and that he wove into
the play to some extent his own thoughts and feelings.’

The consideration of the authorship and of the date of S
I shall also reserve for the present. I must, therefore, run
the risk, temporarily, of seeming dogmatic when I state that
I believe Shakspere to be the author of practically every line
of S, and that § belongs to the year 1594.

Haroutp DEW. FULLER.

1Tt may excite surprise that I have failed to mention the old ballad,
entitled Titus Andronicus’s Complaint. Inasmuch as only a few, beside
Bishop Percy, have seriously insisted on this as a partial source of the
play, it has hardly seemed worth while to include a discussion of the matter
here. In the light of our new theory, furthermore, the ballad appears
beyond question to be a following of the play and not a source.

5 a ep aap eee acts.

ad ek ee eS bo“TITTUS AND VESPACIA” AND “TITUS AND
ONDRONICUS” IN HENSLOWE’S DIARY.

The entries in Henslowe’s Diary as to “tittus and Ves-
pacia” and ‘titus and Ondronicus”’ seem to me, if they
be carefully considered, to support Mr. Fuller’s conclusions
in regard to the origin of Shakspere’s Titus Andronicus.
I believe, with him, that we have in the entries which he
has quoted in his article the two plays he names as the
sources for Shakspere’s play—the original of G in “tittus
and Vespacia”; the original of D in the “titus and On-
dronicus”’ entered as “ne” Jan. 23, 1593-4, when the
Sussex men were playing at the Rose.' Note that the
title-page of the first extant quarto (1600) says that the
play was given by Pembroke’s, Derby’s, Sussex’ and the
Chamberlain’s companies, and that—this is important—the
order of the last two companies on this title-page is the
order of their control of the play as shown in Henslowe’s
Diary.’ May it not be, then, that the assignment is correct
and that the Pembroke and the Derby company, in the order
named, used the play before the Sussex and the Chamberlain
men? I think if we assume, for the moment, that whoever
put the statement on the title-page was thinking simply of
a Titus Andronicus play and not of the special play before
him, it may be shown that the statement was entirely correct,
and that a Titus Andronicus play passed successively from
Pembroke’s company to Derby’s, Sussex’, and the Chamber-
lain’s men. The fact that on this first quarto no author was
named for the play may have helped in the treatment of two
successive Andronicus plays as one.

Of the Pembroke men to 1594, when “ titus and Ondroni-

cus” was acted as a new play, we know surely little more

1 Diary, ed. J. P. Collier, p. 33. "Idem, pp. 33, 35, 36.
66

  
   
 
 
    
  
 
 
 
   
  
   
  
  

 

en

Ria wae Fr tae re
RR Nyt Pa rail tr eeTITUS AND ONDRONICUS. 67

than that they were at Leicester in 1592,' were in hard straits
by September, 1593,? and had some of their plays printed
in 1594-95.3 They are usually supposed to have originated,
or to have grown into prominence, not long before 1588-—89.*
It is to be observed that the Vos play is much more bloody
than G, and more complicated. In the number of incidents
and the bloodiness of them, it certainly suggests for its original
a play of the late 80’s—the time of the efflorescence of the
drama of blood. We know that Shakespeare used Pembroke
plays in his work—The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of
York, and The Taming of a Shrew.’ Moreover, when “ titus
and Ondronicus” first appeared in connection with the
Chamberlain’s company, the plays given were novelties from
the list of the Admiral’s men, or plays not marked as new
yet not from the repertory of the Chamberlain’s men when,
as Lord Strange’s men, they had acted at the Rose in 1592.°
When we notice that Bellindon, Cutlacke, and The Jew
were given repeatedly by the Admiral’s men after the
Chamberlain’s men left them,’ but that the other four plays
never reappeared, we must believe that after February, 1593,
when my Lord Strange’s men ceased to play at the Rose,
and June, 1594, these plays were written for them; or they
acquired them from some other company ; or Henslowe had
obtained them from some company and sold them to the
Chamberlain’s men when they ceased to act with the Admi-
ral’s men. When we remember that from April to late
December, 1593, the plague raged in London,’ forcing the

1W. Kelly, Notices of Leicester, under 1592.

2 J. P. Collier, Memoirs of Alleyn, p. 32.

3H. Arber, Stationers’ Register: First Pt. of Contention, True Tragedy, Tam-
ang of a Shrew.

4F, G. Fleay, History of the Stage, p. 87.

5 See title-page of first editions of these plays (1595, 1594].

6 Diary, pp. 20-30.

TIdem, pp. 36 et seq. For evidence as to separation of the companies see
later part of this article.
8F. G. Fleay, History of the Stage, p. 94.

re aa68 GEORGE P. BAKER.

company (Lord Strange’s) to travel ;' that we do not hear of
it in London again before June, 1594; that, when on the road,
it was likely to depend on London successes rather than on
entirely new plays; that one of the four plays, “'Taming of
a Shrew,” is known to have been a Pembroke play; that
another, ‘‘ Hamlet,” is suspected to be;? that the title of the
third, ‘ Hester and Ahasuerus,” suggests a type of play popu-
lar in the 80’s rather than the 90’s; and that Mr. Fuller has
given strong reasons for questioning the Shakespearean author- _ -
ship of “titus and Ondronicus,” we certainly have cause to
consider seriously whether Mr. Fleay is not right in saying
that by June, 1594, the Chamberlain’s men had gained in
some way the right to act a group of Pembroke plays.®
Evidence to be examined will strengthen the suspicion aroused.
But how could this play have passed to the Earl of Derby’s
men? A company of that name was acting between 1578 *
and September, 1593, when the Earl died and Lord Strange
succeeded to the title. If given by this company, the An-
dronicus play must have been presented between September,
1593, and April 16, 1594, when the new Lord Derby died.
His company shortly after passed under the patronage of
the Lord Chamberlain. Now, on September 28, 1593,
Henslowe wrote to Edward Alleyn, who, since the spring,
had been traveling in the country with the Lord Strange’s
men—the plague in the city had closed the theatres—that
the Pembroke men, unable “to save their charges,” had
been hanging about the city for some six weeks in hard case,
“fain to pawn their apparel.”° Anyone conversant with the
history of the Elizabethan stage knows that when companies
were in sore straits their plays found their way into print
| and into the hands of other companies. Who more likely to

1 Memoirs of Alleyn, chap. III.

2 Chronicles of the English Drama, I, p. 33.
3 Idem, p. 134.

* Records of Nottingham, B. Quaritch, under 1578.
5 J. P. Collier, Memoirs of E. Alleyn, p. 32.

rer Tre oe a er °
Ae ese au eT NETITUS AND ONDRONICUS. 1469

take plays and apparel in pawn than the usurious Henslowe,
ever ready to grasp a business opportunity? Whether the
Pembroke men went completely to pieces or not does not
affect this argument, though it is to be noted that in the
present somewhat incomplete investigation of the movements
of theatrical companies between 1590 and 1600, we have no
trace of Pembroke’s men between 1593 and 1596. It seems
to me very possible that Henslowe acquired the play and
then allowed the Earl of Derby’s company to give it at some
time between the Ist of October, 1593, and the Ist of
January, 1594,’ for that he owned certain plays himself
which he let the different companies. occupying his theatre
present will be clear to anyone who studies, for instance, the
entries in his Diary as to the Jew of Malta. On the 23rd
of January, 1594, the Sussex men produced “titus and
ondronicus” with Henslowe’s troublesome “ne” against
it. The entries in the Diary for the Sussex plays’ look a
little as if a somewhat limited repertory did not pay very
well, and so Henslowe brought forth his piéce de résistance
in all times of theatrical need ?—the Jew of Malta—and this
novelty, Titus Andronicus. I do not believe, however, that
it was anything more than a revamping of the old Pembroke
and Derby “Andronicus,” for anyone who has carefully
studied the Diary knows that the mysterious “ne” most often
means nothing more than an old play revised to make it
pass as a novelty. See, for instance, the entries in regard to
Henry VI?

The passing of the play to the Lord Chamberlain’s men is
easy to trace. The last entry for it was on June 12, 1594,
when the Lord Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain’s men
were at the Newington Butts theatre. It is to be noted, as
Mr. Fleay has pointed out,’ that after the entry of June 13th

1Time must be allowed for the revamping considered ten lines beyond.
2 Diary, p. 33. 3Tdem, pp. 20-36.

4 Tdem, p. 22 et seq., and Miss Jane Lee, Trans. N. Sh. So., 1876.

5 History of the Stage, p. 140; Diary, p. 36, note 2.

3 Pere ot70 GEORGE P. BAKER.

Henslowe drew a line, and that after that date the plays
“Andronicus,” “Hamlet,” and “The Taming of a Shrew,”
two of these certainly originals of Shakspere plays, disappear
from the list, though the “Jew of Malta” and other of the
earlier plays are repeatedly given thereafter. The interpreta-
tion naturally is that Henslowe’s words “ beginning at New-
ington’’* apply only until the last entry before the line, and
that after June 13th the two companies separated, the Admiral’s
men going to the Rose or some more popular theatre. The
immediate and sustained increase after June 18th in receipts
for plays already given supports this theory.

A letter of Lord Hunsdon of October 8, 1594,? shows us
that by that date the Chamberlain’s men were seeking to act
at the Cross Keys in Gracious Street, when, by Henslowe’s
Diary,’ we know that the Lord Admiral’s company was act-
ing in a theatre under Henslowe’s management, presumably
the Rose. The plays which the Admiral’s men were giving
were those carried beyond the line by Henslowe, with the
addition of some novelties. The total disappearance of the
Titus Andronicus play would seem to show that it had passed
out of Henslowe’s hands. It should be remarked that proba-
bly the Chamberlain’s men had already used this play as my
Lord Derby’s men. If they had liked it, it would be natural
for them to buy it. Noargument against this can be made from
the small receipts of the last two performances of “ andronicous”’
noted by Henslowe, for until the line was reached not even a
new play could bring more than 17 sh., but after it was passed
all the receipts increased decidedly. This argument, based on
well-known theatrical customs of Elizabeth’s day, shows, then,
that the entries may mean that a Titus Andronicus play came
into the hands of the Lord Chamberlain’s men after it had
passed successively from Pembroke’s men, its original posses-
sors, to Lord Derby’s men and the Earl of Sussex’.

1Diary, p. 35.

°F. G. Fleay, History of the Staye, p. 134. > Diary, p. 48.

 

oa Temas. HOR

le Case aeareo arnnbetoersTITUS AND ONDRONICUS. nt

But how did this play get over to Holland? In February,
1591, R. Jones, R. Browne and others are known to have
arranged a trip to Holland, Zeeland, ete.! They and Edward
Alleyn in 1583 were members of the Earl of Worcester’s
company.” In January 1588-89 we find Edward Alleyn
buying out the share of R. Jones in plays, costumes, and
belongings of the Worcester company, owned in common by
Browne, Jones, John Alleyn, and Edward Alleyn.? That
is, then, Browne in 1590 probably still controlled some of
the Worcester plays. He and his companions were, too,
men of experience in theatrical matters. In such ventures
as theirs they would of course equip themselves with all
the most recent successes, and they could have had little diffi-
culty in obtaining the right of foreign production for plays
which they would never have been allowed by the owners to
give in London itself. In this way the original of D, suc-
cessively a Pembroke, Derby, Sussex, Chamberlain play, could
have found its way to Holland.

Now what of the original of G? In the first place, the
short list of characters as compared with S or D, the fact that
in G some of the figures are known by titles only, and the
greater simplicity of the plot suggest, unless the play was
very greatly changed after it came into Germany, an earlier
date for the original of G than for the original of D. I sus-
pect that the original of G was a play of the early 80’s and
that it went over to Germany with the group of actors to
which Pope and Bryan belonged. They were at the court of
Saxony in 1586.4. By 1593, or earlier, both Pope and Bryan
had become members of Lord Strange’s company at the Rose.’
This “tittus and Vespacia,” the original of G, might have
been originally a Leicester, Worcester or Queen’s play.

1A. Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany, pp. xxvili-ix. R. Browne and a com-
pany had been at Leyden in October, 1590, p. xxx1.
2W. Kelly, Notices of Leicester, p. 212.
3 J.P. Collier, Memoirs of Alleyn, p. 198.
4A, Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany, pp. XX1V-XXV.
5 J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Illustrations of Shakespeare, 1, 33.

Pile ht Mia Sitar ats eal a72 GEORGE P. BAKER.

Alleyn’s connection with Lord Strange’s company in 15937
would have given it a chance to use the Worcester plays to
which he had rights. It is now pretty generally accepted, I
believe, that the Leicester men passed under the patent of
Lord Strange on the death of the Earl of Leicester in 1588.7
That plays of at least one of the two Queen’s companies were
used by Lord Strange’s men in 1592-93 may be seen from
pages 20-28 of Henslowe’s Diary and from what is known
of Robert Greene.

If, then, in June, 1594, the Chamberlain’s men acquired
the right to use the “ titus and Ondronicus,” they must have
possessed in it the original of D, and in their old “ tittus and
Vespacia,” the original of G. Here, then, are just the con-
ditions preceding Shakspere’s Titus Andronicus at which
Mr. Fuller has arrived by a study of the internal evidence of
the last play and the German and the Dutch Titus plays.
The corroboration that the external and the internal evidence
give each other is at least striking.

But why is it necessary, it may be asked, to refuse to believe
that the so-called new “ titus and Ondronicus,” given by the
Sussex men January 23, 1594, was not Shakspere’s play as
we have it to-day? In the first place, we have no evidence
of any connection before 1600 between Shakspere and other
companies than the Lord Strange’s and the Chamberlain’s
men, and they are practically the same company. Secondly,
if we try to assume that Henslowe may have called in Shak-
spere to rewrite this play for him, we must remember that
Shakspere was not merely a writer but also an actor, and that
his company, Lord Strange’s, was in the provinces during the
plague which closed the theatres from April 28, 15938, to the
end of December, and that it is not heard of in London until
June 3, 1594.3 The strong probability is that he was with his

‘J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Illustrations of Shakespeare,—as to Alleyn’s
presence in the company at this date.

*S. Lee, Shakespeare, p. 35.

°F. G. Fleay, History of the Stage, p. 94; J. P. Collier, Memoirs of Alleyn,
pp. 25-38.

te

  
 
  
 

 

Eee TAT” Te
as Sard AiG: sitar!
ne erent ile tot

      
   
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   

TITUS AND ONDRONICUS. es

company at this time. Thirdly, Henslowe had been producing
a set of plays totally different from those of Lord Strange’s
company or of any of the companies which immediately
thereafter were in his theatre. Evidently it was the regular
repertory of the Sussex men. So shrewd a man as he would
not tempt the public first, when the regular repertory began
to lose its attraction, by producing entirely new plays. He
would, as Henslowe did, fall back on an old favorite from
his own list of plays, the “Jew of Malta,”? or on revamping
old plays, such as I hold this “ titus and Ondronicus” to be.
Moreover, that this last named play is not a making over of
“tittus and Vespacia” seems clear to me for two reasons:
first, the “and” in the title, and secondly, the abbreviation
of the play in later entries to “Andronicus” instead of
“Titus.” A man who had known and helped to produce a
“‘tittus and Vespacia” might easily be led, if as illiterate as
Henslowe, into accepting “ titus and Ondronicus” as a fitting
title to distinguish it from “ tittus and Vespacia,” but surely
if the “tittus and Vespacia”’ had merely been made over into
a “Titus Andronicus” he would not have made any such dis-
tinction. If it be said that the “and” is a mere slip, and that
“tittus and Vespacia” had become a part of “titus and
Ondronicus,’” why does Henslowe, who wrote with difficulty
and abbreviated his titles after a first entry with the greatest.
care, choose the long and difficult name to write, “Androni-
cus,” for the short name to which he was well accustomed,
“Titus”? It seems to me this shows that he meant to
keep clear in his Diary the accounts for two plays with titles
so similar that they were likely to cause confusion.

Moreover, I think the remaining external evidence supports
the theory that “ titus and Ondronicus” is a play distinct from
Shakespeare’s. There was entered to J. Danter, February 6,
1593-94, “A Noble Roman Historye of Tytus Andronicus,”
and, immediately below, “the ballad thereof.”* Now there

! Diary, p. 33. 2 Idem, pp. 35, 36.
3 Arber, Stationers’ Register, 11, 644.74 GEORGE P. BAKER.

is no way of showing whether the first entry is fora play ora
history, or that it stands for “titus and Ondronicus,” properly
shortened. Secondly, the only existing ballad on Titus An-
dronicus, given in Percy’s Reliques, is not dated, and there is
no proof that it and the ballad entered are one and the same.
A successful revamping of the story by Shakespeare after
June, 1594, would probably have called forth a new edition of
the ballad closely following the details of his play. Thirdly,
Langbaine’s statement that there was a 1594 edition of Titus
Andronicus’ counts for little, for no copy is extant, or else-
where recorded ; and his assertion that the title-page stated
that the play had been given by the companies of the Earls
of Derby, Pembroke, and Essex sounds like a faulty remem-
brance of the title-page of the 1600 edition, for the order is
wrong, one company is omitted, and Sussex must be meant
by Essex, for no Essex company can be traced after 1587.
If, too, it be held that a passage in A Knack to Know a Knave,
entered and printed in 1594, must refer to Shakespeare’s play,
we get into a curious tangle. The passage reads :—

 

Osrick : My gracious lord, as welcome shall you be,
To me, my daughter, and my son-in-law,

As Titus was unto the Roman senators,

/ When he had made a conguest on the Goths;

| That in requital of his service done,

Did offer him the imperial diadem.

As they, in Titus, we in your grace, shall find

The perfect figure of a princely mind?

Naturally, this play should refer to “tittus and Vespacia,”
for it was produced side by side with it,? was not given after
January 13, 1593, and was entered for printing January 7,
1594." “ Titus and Ondronicus ”—which for the moment we
shall treat as Shakespeare’s—was produced as new January

‘English Dramatic Poets, p. 464, ed. 1691. He does not say that he saw
the edition.

7 Hazlitt’s Dodsley, v1, 572.
°Diary, pp. 28-30. *Arber, Stationers’ Register, 11, 648.

mapas kV sees! Oe rt errs

ee et acai peer Leal Hh

aar 5 pk nee oe
Pat PR ena PHP

Tk Lbesibbiiea Da tA

    
  
 
    
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
  
 
 

TITUS AND ONDRONICUS. 75

23, 1594. On the other hand, more is made in D and S than
in G of presenting the control of the state to Titus, and only
in D and § does Titus conquer Goths. In G he overcomes
the Ethiopians. Wither, then, the passage refers to an original
of G in which the Ethiopians were Goths, or it refers to an
earlier form of “titus and Ondronicus.”’ Finally, when, on
April 19, 1602, Thomas Millington assigned his rights to
certain books to T. Pavier, “ Titus and Andronic”’ was among
them. On August 4, 1626, Pavier’s widow assigned rights to
EK. Brewster and R. Birde. Again “Titus and Andronicus”
appears. On November 8, 1630, Birde assigned his rights to
“Titus and Andronicus,’ among other books, to R. Cotes.’
In 1600 and 1611 Edward White printed the first and the
second extant editions of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus.
Mr. Arthur Symons, in his introduction to the Praetorius
reprint of Titus Andronicus, says: “It is difficult to ac-
count for the fact that a book which in 1602 was the property
of Thomas Millington should in 1600 have been printed for
Edward White, and that, after the transference of the copy-
right from Millington to Pavier, a second edition of the same
book should have been printed in 1611 for the same Edward
White. No edition with Millington’s name on the title has
yet been found.” * But does not all this clear up in the light
of the theory already advanced? E. White held the rights
to Shakespeare’s play; Millington, who had printed “The
True Tragedy,” a Pembroke play which came to him in 1594,
owned this other Pembroke play, and in his 1602 assignment
to Pavier called it, as it was called in Henslowe’s Diary,
‘Titus and Andronicus.” Note that this and appears in all
the successive assignments. It is worth remarking, too, that
in the 1626 assignment of Pavier’s books he gives over all his
rights to Shakespeare’s plays as a set,* but that “books” on
“Titus and Andronicus,” ‘ Hamlet,’ and “ Henry V” are

1See Mr. Fuller’s parallel summaries.
2 Stationers’ Register, 111 204; Iv, 164; 1v, 242.
3 Page Vv. 4 Stationers’ Register, Iv, 164.pe = y 2 sl sil
nate ao i a EO is bie
SD tT gars RE Cy

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

76 GEORGE P. BAKER.

mentioned separately. We know there was a non-Shakes-
pearean play on Hamlet; we know, too, that Millington, who
assigned to Pavier, published a garbled “ Henry V”;* we sus-
pect that he owned the non-Shakespearean “Titus Andronicus.”
The external evidence, then, both of the Diary and of the
Stationers’ Register seems to support Mr. Fuller’s theory.

I agree heartily, then, with Mr. Fuller that two plays,
“Titus and Vespacia,” the original of G, and “Titus An-
dronicus,” the original of D, in the hands of the Lord
Chamberlain’s company by perhaps late June, 1594, were
made over by Shakspere at some time after June 15th, 1594,
and before September 7th, 1598,7 into the play which stands
under his name. In closing, it is well worth noting that
to accept the interpretation here advanced, that is, to put
the original of G before 1586, the original of D between
1588 and 1590, a revamped Titus and Vespacia in April,
1591-92, a revamped Titus Andronicus in January, 1594,
and Shakspere’s final working over of the two plays after
June 15, 1594, is to corroborate the words of Ben Jonson
in Bartholomew Fair: “He that will swear Jeronimo or
Andronicus are the best plays yet, shall pass unaccepted at
here [in Oct., 1614] as a man whose judgment shows it is
constant and hath stood still these five and twenty or thirty
years.” Even as far back as 1585 the story of Titus had
been staged.

GEORGE P. BAKER.

™P. Daniel, NV. Sh. So., Hen. V., p. x.
* When the Palladis Tamia of Meres was entered in the Stationers’ Register.PPE eS ANP EPMA OP ARE AA Te oN ‘ mh
pbageteet eeFD ae SPN at a oe

 

 

 

 

 

poyeiadie ree aoe
aeALDERMAN LIBRARY

The return of this book is due on the date
indicated below

 

DUE | DUE

 

 

Usually books are lent out for two weeks, but
there are exceptions and the borrower should
note carefully the date stamped above. Fines
are charged for over-due books at the rate of five
cents a day; for reserved books the rate is twen-
ty-five cents a day. (For detailed regulations
please see folder on “Loan of Books.”) Books
must be presented at the desk if renewal is
desired.si i a SN i ee rte

Ba i ae a aR Se BN a Se ea ae All HEN AES at SE car

Na a a A aim eS

a a a a Ne a et iat

DX G01 848 Eis