TITUS ANDRONICUS, Α TRAGEDY. BY WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE. ACCURATELY PRINTED FROM THE TEXT OF Mr. STEEVENS's LAST EDITION. Drnamented with Plates. London: PUBLISHED BY E. HARDING, NO. 98, PALL-MALL; J. WRIGHT, PICCADILLY; G. SAEL, STRAND; OBSERVATIONS. IT is obfervable, that this play is printed in the quarto of 1611, with exactness equal to that of the other books of those times. The first edition was probably corrected by the author, so that here is very little room for conjecture or emendation; and accordingly none of the editors have much molested this piece with officious criticifm. JOHNSON. There is an authority for afcribing this play to Shakspeare, which I think a very strong one, though not made ufe of, as I remember, by any of his commentators. It is given to him, among other plays, which are undoubtedly his, in a little book, called Palladis Tamia, or the Second Part of Wit's Commonwealth, written by Francis Meres, Maister of arts, and printed at London in 1598. The other tragedies, enumerated as his in that book, are King John, Richard the Second, Henry the Fourth, Richard the Third, and Romeo and Juliet. The comedies are, the Midfummer Night's Dream, the Gentlemen of Verona, the Comedy of Errors, the Love's Labour's Loft, the Love's Labour Won, and the Merchant of Venice. I have given this lift, as it ferves fo far to ascertain the date of these plays; and alfo, as it contains a notice of a comedy of Shakspeare, the Love's Labour Won, not included in any collection of his works; nor, as far as I know, attributed to him by any other authority. If there fhould be a play in being with that title, though without Shakspeare's name, I fhould be glad to fee it; and I think the editor would be fure of the publick thanks, even if it fhould prove no better than the Love's Labour's Loft. TYRWHITT. The work of criticism on the plays of our author, is, I believe, generally found to extend or contract itself in proportion to the value of the piece under confideration; and we shall always do little where we defire but little thould be done. I know not that this piece ftands in need of much emendation; though it might be treated as condemned criminals are in fome countries,-any experiments might be justifiably made on it. The author, whoever he was, might have borrowed the ftory, the names, the characters, &c. from an old ballad, which is entered in the books of the Stationers' Company immediately after the play on the fame fubject. "John Danter] Feb. 6, 1593. A book entitled A Noble Roman Hiftorie of Titus Andronicus.” "Entered "Entered unto him alfo the ballad thereof." Entered again April 19, 1602, by Tho. Pavyer. The reader will find it in Dr. Percy's Reliques of ancient English Poetry, Vol. I. Dr. Percy adds, that "there is reafon to conclude that this play was rather improved by Shakspeare with a few fine touches of his pen, than originally writ by him; for not to mention that the style is lefs figurative than his others generally are, this tragedy ismentioned with difcredit in the induction to Ben Jonfon's Bartholomew Fair in 1614, as one that had been exhibited 'five-and-twenty or thirty years' which, if we take the loweft number, throws it back to the year 1589, at which time Shak fpeare was but 25: an earlier date than can be found for any other of his pieces, and if it does not clear him entirely of it, thews at least it was a first attempt." Though we are obliged to Dr. Percy for his attempt to clear our great dramatick writer from the imputation of having produced this fanguinary performance, yet I cannot admit that the circumftance of its being difcreditably mentioned by Ben Jonfon, ought to have any weight; for Ben has not very fparingly cenfured The Tempest, and other pieces which are undoubtedly among the most finished works of Shakspeare. The whole of Ben's Prologue to Every Man in his Humour, is a malicious freer on him. Painter, in his Palace of Pleafure, Tom. II. fpeaks of the story of Titus as well known, and particularly mentions the cruelty of Tamora 2 And in 4 Knack to know a Knave, 1594, is the following allufion to it : as welcome fhall you be "To me, my daughters, and my son in law, "When he had made a conqust on the Goths." Whatever were the motives of Heming and Condell for admitting this tragedy among thofe of Shakspeare, all it has gained by their fa vour is, to be delivered down to pofterity with repeated remarks of contempt, a Therfites babbling among heroes, and introduced only to be derided. STEEVENS. On what principle the editors of the first complete edition of our poet's plays admitted this into their volume, cannot now be ascertained. The moft probable reason that can be affigned, is, that he wrote a few lines in it, or gave fome affistance to the author, in revifing it, or in fome other way aided him in bringing it forward on the stage. The tradition mentioned by Revenfcroft in the time of King James II. warrants us in making one or other of thefe fuppofitions. "I have been told" (fays he in his preface to an alteration of this play published in 1687,) by fome anciently converfant with the stage, that it was not originally his, but brought by a private author to be acted, and he only gave fome mafter touches to one or two of the principal parts or characters." A 2 "A booke "A booke entitled A noble Roman Hiftorie of Titus Andronicus" was entered at Stationers-Hall, Feb. 6, 1593-4. This was undoubtedly the play, as it was printed in that year (according to Langbaine, who alone appears to have seen the first edition,) and acted by the fervants of the Earls of Pembroke, Derby, and Suffex. It is obfervable that, in the entry no author's name is mentioned, and that the play was originally performed by the fame company of comedians who exhibited the old drama, entitled The Contention of the Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, The old Taming of a Shrew, and Marlowe's King Edward II. by whom not one of Shakspeare's plays is faid to have been performed. From Ben Jonfon's Induction to Bartholomew Fair, 1614, we learn that Andronicus had been exhibited twenty-five or thirty years before; that is, according to the lowest computation, in 1589; or taking a middle period, which is perhaps more juft, in 1587. To enter into a long difquifition to prove this piece not to have been written by Shakspeare, would be an idle wafte of time. To those who are not conversant with his writings, if particular paffages were examined, more words would be necessary than the fubject is worth; those who are well acquainted with his works, cannot entertain a doubt on the question.-I will however mention one mode by which it may be easily afcertained. Let the reader only perufe a few lines of Appius and Virginia, Tancred and Gifmund, The Battle of Alcazar, Jeronimo, Selimus Emperor of the Turks, The Wounds of Civil War, The Wars of Cyrus, Locrine, Arden of Feversham, King Edward I. The Spanish Tragedy, Solyman and Perfeda, King Leir, the old King John, or any other of the pieces that were exhibited before the time of Shakspeare, and he will at once perceive that Titus Andronicus was coined in the fame mint. The teftimony of Meres, mentioned in a preceding note, alone remains to be confidered. His enumerating this amorg Shakspeare's plays may be accounted for in the fame way in which we may account for its being printed by his fellow-comedians in the first foiio edition of his works. Meres was in 1598, when his book appeared, intimately connected with Drayton, and probably acquainted with fome of the dramatick poets of the time, from fome or other of whom he might have heard that Shakspeare interested himself about this tragedy, or had written a few lines for the author. The internal evidence furnished by the piece itself, and proving it not to have been the production of Shakspeare, greatly outweighs any fingle teftimony on the other fide. Meres might have been mif-informed, or inconfiderately have given credit to the rumour of the day. For fix of the plays which he has mentioned, (exclufive of the evidence which the representation of the pieces themselves might have furnished,) he had perhaps no better authority than the whisper of the theatre; for they were not then printed. He could not have been deceived by a title-page, as Dr. Johnfon fuppofes; for Shakspeare's name is not in the title-page of the edi |