THE external evidence that bears upon the authorship of Titus Adronicus is of two kinds :

1. The testimony which assigns the play to Shakspere, wholly, or in part. 2. The testimony which fixes the period of its original production.

The direct testimony of the first kind is unimpeachable: Francis Meres, a contemporary, and probably a friend of Shakspere-a man intimately acquainted with the literary history of his day-not writing even in the later period of Shakspere's life, but as early as 1598,-compares, for tragedy, the excellence of Shakspere among the English, with Seneca among the Latins, and says, witness, "for tragedy, his Richard II., Richard III., Henry IV., King John, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Juliet."

The indirect testimony is nearly as important. The play is printed in the first folio edition of the poet's collected works-an edition published within seven years after his death by his intimate friends and "fellows;" and that edition contains an entire scene not found in either of the previous quarto editions which have come down to us. That edition does not contain a single other play upon which a doubt of the authorship has been raised; for even those who deny the entire authorship of Henry VI. to Shakspere, have no doubt as to the partial authorship.

Against this testimony of the editors of the first folio, that Shakspere was the author of Titus Andronicus, there is only one fact to be opposed-that his name is not on the titlepage of either of the quarto editions, although those editions show us that it was acted by the company to which Shakspere belonged. But neither was the name of Shakspere affixed to the first editions of Richard II., Richard III., and Henry IV., Part I.; nor to the first three editions of Romeo and Juliet; nor to Henry V. These similar facts, therefore, leave the testimony of Hemings and Condell unimpeached.

But the evidence of Meres that Shakspere was the author of Titus Andronicus, in the same sense in which he assigns him the authorship of Romeo and Juliet—that of being the sole author is supposed to be shaken by the testimony of a writer who came nearly a century after Meres. Malone says "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 reason that can be assigned is, that he wrote a few lines in it, or gave some assistance to the author in revising it, or in some other way aided him in bringing it forward on the stage. The tradition mentioned by Ravenscroft in the time of King James II. warrants us in making one or other of these suppositions. I have been told' (says he in his preface to an alteration of this play published in 1687), '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 characters."" A few lines further on Malone quotes Langbaine, who refers to this tradition; and he therefore ought to have told us what Langbaine says with regard to Ravenscroft's assertion. We will supply the deficiency. Langbaine first notices an early edition of Titus Andronicus, now lost, printed in 1594; he adds-""Twas about the time of the Popish Plot revived and altered by Mr. Ravenscroft." Ravenscroft was a living author when Langbaine published his Account of the English Dramatic Poets,' in 1691; and the writer of that account says, with a freedom that is seldom now adopted except in anonymous criticism"Though he would be thought to imitate 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." This is introductory to an account of those plays which Ravenscroft claimed as his own. But, under the head of Shakspere, Langbaine says that Ravenscroft boasts, in his preface to Titus, “That he thinks it a greater theft to rob the dead of their praise than the living of their money;" and Langbaine goes on to show that Ravenscroft's practice "agrees not with his protestation," by quoting some remarks of Shadwell upon plagiaries, who insinuates that Ravenscroft got up the story that Shakspere only gave some master-touches to Titus Andronicus, to exalt his own merit in having altered it. The play was revived "about the time of the Popish Plot,"-1678. It was first printed in 1687, with this Preface. But Ravenscroft then suppresses the original Prologue; and Langbaine, with a quiet sarcasm, says "I will here furnish him with part of his Prologue, which he has 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.'"

Malone, we think, was bound to have given us all this-if the subject, of which he affects to make light, was worth the production of any evidence. We believe that, with this

commentary, the tradition of Edward Ravenscroft will not outweigh the living testimony of Francis Meres.

We now come to the second point-the testimony which fixes the date of the original production of Titus Andronicus. There are two modes of viewing this portion of the evidence; and we first present it with the interpretation which deduces from it that the tragedy was not written by Shakspere.

We have mentioned in our Introductory Notice to this play-but it is necessary to repeat it-that Ben Jonson, in the Induction to his 'Bartholomew Fair,' first acted in 1614, says-" He that will swear Jeronimo, or Andronicus, are the best plays yet, shall pass unexcepted at here, as a man whose judgment shows it is constant, and hath stood still these five-and-twenty or thirty years. Though it be an ignorance, it is a virtuous and staid ignorance; and, next to truth, a confirmed error does well." Percy offers the following comment upon this passage, in his 'Reliques of Ancient Poetry :'conclude that this play was rather improved by Shakespeare with a few fine touches of his "There is reason to pen, than originally written by him; for, not to mention that the style is less figurative than his others generally are, this tragedy is mentioned with discredit in the Induction to Ben Jonson's' Bartholomew Fair,' in 1614, as one that had been then exhibited five-andtwenty or thirty years;' which, if we take the lowest number, throws it back to the year 1589, at which time Shakespeare was but 25: an earlier date than can be found for any other of his pieces." It is scarcely necessary to point out, that with the views we have uniformly entertained as to the commencement of Shakspere's career as a dramatic author, the proof against his authorship of Titus Andronicus thus brought forward by Percy is to us amongst the most convincing reasons for not hastily adopting the opinion that he was not its author. The external evidence of the authorship, and the external evidence of the date of the authorship, entirely coincide: each supports the other. The continuation of the argument derived from the early date of the play naturally runs into the internal evidence of its authenticity. The fact of its early date is indisputable; and here, for the present, we leave it.

:

We can scarcely subscribe to Mr. Hallam's strong opinion, given with reference to this question of the authorship of Titus Andronicus, that, "in criticism of all kinds, we must acquire a dogged habit of resisting testimony, when res ipsa per se vociferatur to the contrary." The res ipsa may be looked upon through very different media by different minds testimony, when it is clear, and free from the suspicion of an interested bias, although it appear to militate against conclusions that, however strong, are not infallible, because they depend upon very nice analysis and comparison, must be received, more or less, and cannot be doggedly resisted. Mr. Hallam says, "Titus Andronicus is now, by common consent, denied to be, in any sense, a production of Shakspeare." Who are the interpreters of the "common consent?" Theobald, Jonson, Farmer, Steevens, Malone, M. Mason. These critics are wholly of one school; and we admit that they represent the common consent" of their own school of English literature upon this point-till within a few years the only school. But there is another school of criticism, which maintains that Titus Andronicus is, in every sense, a production of Shakspere. The German critics, from W. Schlegel to Ulrici, agree to reject the "common consent" of the English critics. The subject, therefore, cannot be hastily dismissed; the external testimony cannot be doggedly resisted. But, in entering upon the examination of this question with the best care we can bestow, we consider that it possesses an importance much higher than belongs to the proof, or disproof, from the internal evidence, that this painful tragedy was written by Shakspere.

66