TITUS ANDRONICUS.] It is obfervable, that this play is printed in the quarto of 1611, with exa&nefs equal to that of the other books of thofe times. The firft edition was probably correded by the author, fo that here is very little room for conje&ure or emendation; and accordingly none of the editors have much molefted this piece with officious criticifm. JOHNSON.

There is an authority for afcribing this play to Shakspeare, which I think a very ftrong one, though not made use 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, Maifter 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 Midsummer Night's Dream, the Gentlemen of Verona, the Comedie 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 so 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 colle&ion of his works; nor, as far as I know, attribued 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 criticifm on the plays of our author, is, I believe, generally fund to extend or contra& itself in proportion to the value of the piece under confideration; and we fhall always do lile where we defire but little fhould 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 experi ments might be juftifiably made on it.

The author, who ver he was, might have borrowed the story, the names, the charaders, &c. from an old ballad, which is entered in the books of the Stationers' Company immediately after the play on the fa ne fubje&. John Danter] Feb. 6, 1593. A book entitled A Noble Roman Hiftorie of Titus Andronicus." "Enter'd unto him alfo the ballad thereof."

แ

Entered again April 19, 1602, by Tho. Pavyer. The leader 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 ftyle is lefs figurative than his others generally are, this tragedie is mentioned with difcredit in the induction to Ben Jonfon's Bartholomew Fair in 1614, as one that had then been ex

which, if we take the 1589; at which time

hibited five-and-twenty or thirty years' lowest number, throws it back to the year Shakspeare 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, hews at leaft it was a firft 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 Jonson, ought to have any weight; for Ben has not very fparingly cenfured The Tempest, and other pieces which are undoubtedly among the moft finished works of Shakspeare. The whole of Ben's Prologue to Every Man in his Humour, is a malicious faeer on him.

Painter, in his Palace of Pleafure, Tom. II. fpeaks of the ftory of Titus as well known, and particularly mentions the cruelty of Tamora: And io A Knack to know a Knave, 1594, is the following allufion to it:

as welcome fhall you be

"To me, my daughters, and my fon in law,
"As Titus was unto the Roman fenators,

"When he had made a conqueft 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 favour is, to be delivered down to pofterity with repeated remarks of contempt, a Therfites babbling among heroes, and introduced only to be derided.

See the notes at the conclufion of this piece. 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 most probable reafon that can be affigned, is, that he wrote a few lines in it, or gave fome affiftance to the author, in revifing it, or in fome other way aided him in bringing it forward on the ftage. The tradition mentioned by Ravenscroft in the time of King James II. warrants us in making one or other of thefe suppositions. I have been told" fays he in his preface to an alteration of this play published in 1687,) by fome anciently converfant with the ftage, 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 charaders." "A booke entitled A noble Roman Hiftorie of Tilus 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 aded 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 Lancafler, The old Taming of a Shrew, and Marlowe's King Edward H. by whom not one of Shakspeare's plays is faid to bave been performed. See the Differtation on King Henry VI. Vol. XV. p. 222.

From Ben Jonlon's Indu&ion 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 thofe who are not converfant with his writings, if particular paffages were examined, more words would be neceffary than the sub. ject is worth; thofe who are well acquainted with his works, cannot entertain a doubt on the queftion. I will however mention one mode by which it may he eafily 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 Feverfham, 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 among 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 firft folio edition of his works. Meres was in 1598, when his book ap peared, intimately conne&ed 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 interefted himself about this tragedy, or had written a few lines for the author. The internal evidence furnished by the piece itfeif, and proving it not to have been the produ&ion of Shakspeare, greatly outweighs any fugle teftimony on the other fide. Meres might have been mifinformed, 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 reprefentation 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. Johufon fuppofes: for Shakfpeare's name is not in the title- page of the edition printed in quartɔ in 1611, and therefore we may conclude, was not in the title-page of that in 1594, of which the other was undoubtedly a re-impref. fion. Had this mean performance been the work of Shakspeare, can it be fuppofed that the bookfellers would not have endeavoured to procure a fale for it by ftamping his name upon it?

In short, the high antiquity of the piece, its entry on the Sta tioners' books, and being afterwards printed without the name of our author, its being performed by the fervants of Lord Pembroke, &c. the fately march of the verfification, the whole colour of the compofition, its refemblance to several of our most ancient dramas, the diffimilitude of the flyle from our author's undoubted compofitions, and the tradition mentioned by Ravenfcroft, when fome of his contemporaties had not been long dead, (for Lowin and Taylor, two of his fellow-comedians, were alive a few years before the Reftoration, and Sir William D'Avenant, who had himself written for the ftage in 1629, did not die till April 1668;) all these circumftances combined, prove with irresistible force that the play of Titus Andronicas has been erroneously ascribed to Shakspeare.

MALONE.

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

Baffianus, Brother to Saturninus; in love with Lavinia.

Titus Andronicus, a noble Roman, General against the Goths.

Marcus Andronicus, Tribune of the People; and Brother to Titus.

Lucius,

Quintus, Sons to Titus Andronicus.
Martius,

Mutius,

Young Lucius, a Boy, Son to Lucius.

Publius, Son to Marcus the Tribune.

Emilius, a noble Roman.

Aaron, a Moor beloved by Tamora.

A Captain, Tribune, Meffenger, and Clown; Romans, Goths, and Romans.

Tamora, Queen of the Goths.

Lavinia, Daughter to Titus Andronicus.

A Nurfe, and a black Child.

Kinfmen of Titus, Senators, Tribunes, Officers, Soldiers, and Attendants.

SCENE, Rome; and the Country near it.