any other authority. If there should be a play in being, with that title, though without Shakspeare's name, I should be glad to see it; and I think the editor would be sure of the public thanks, even if it should prove no better than the Love's Labour lost.

TYRWHITT.

This is one of those plays which I have always thought, with the better judges, ought not to be acknowledged in the list of Shakspeare's genuine pieces. And, perhaps, I may give a proof to strengthen this opinion, that may put the matter out of question. Ben Jonson, in the introduction to his BartholomewFair, which made its first appearance in the year 1614, couples Jeronymo and Andronicus together in reputation, and speaks of them as plays then of twenty-five or thirty years standing. Consequently Andronicus must have been on the stage before Shakspeare left Warwickshire, to come and reside in London: and I never heard it so much as intimated, that he had turned his genius to stage-writing before he associated with the players, and became one of their body. However, that he afterwards introduced it a-new on the stage, with the addition of his own masterly touches, is incontestible, and thence, I presume, grew his title to it. The diction in general, where he has not taken the pains to raise it, is even beneath that of the Three Parts of Henry VI. The story we are to suppose merely fictitious. Andronicus is a surname of pure Greek derivation. Tamora is neither mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, nor any body

127

else that I can find. Nor had Rome, in the time of her emperors, any wars with the Goths that I know of, not till after the translation of the empire, I mean to Byzantium, and yet the scene of our play is laid at Rome, and Saturninus is elected to the empire at the capitol.

THEOBALD.

All the editors and critics agree with Mr. Theobald, in supposing this play spurious. I see no reason for differing from them; for the colour of the stile is wholly different from that of the other plays, and there is an attempt at regular versification, and artificial closes, not always inelegant, yet 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 Shakspeare wrote any part, though Theobald declares it incontestible, I see no reason for believing.

The testimony produced by Mr. Tyrwhitt for ascribing this play to Shakspeare is by no means equal to the argument against its authenticity, arising from the total difference of conduct, language, and sentiments, by which it stands apart from all the rest. Meeres had probably no other evidence than that of a title-page, which, though in our time it be sufficient, was then of no great authority; for all the plays which were rejected by the first collectors of Shakspeare's works, and admitted in later editions, and again rejected by the critical editors, had Shakspeare's name on the title, as we must suppose, by the fraudulence of the printers, who, while there were yet no gazettes,

nor advertisements, nor any means of circulating literary intelligence, could usurp at pleasure any celebrated name. Nor had Shakspeare any interest in detecting the imposture, as none of his fame or profit was produced by the press.

The chronology of this play does not prove it not to be Shakspeare's. If it had been written twenty-five years, in 1614, it might have been written when Shakspeare was twenty-five years old. When he left Warwickshire I know not, but at the age of twentyfive it was rather too late to fly for deer-stealing.

Ravenscroft, who in the reign of Charles II. revised this play, and restored it to the stage, tells us, in his preface, from a theatrical tradition, I suppose, which in his time might be of sufficient authority, that this play was touched in different parts by Shakspeare, but written by some other poet. I do not find Shakspeare's touches very discernible.

JOHNSON.

It may not be amiss to remark, that this tragedy, which (setting aside the feebleness of composition) would be regarded as too bloody on the modern stage, appears to have been highly relished in 1686, when it was revived with alterations by Ravenscroft. Instead of diminishing any of its horrors, he seized every opportunity of making large additions of them, insomuch that when Tamora stabs her child, the Moor utters the following lines:

She has out-done me ev'n in mine own art,
Out-done me in murder-kill'd her own child!
Give it me--I'll eat it.

STEEVENS.

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

BASSIANUS, Brother to Saturninus; in love with Lavinia.

TITUS ANDRONICUS, a noble Roman, General against the Goths.

MARCUS ANDRONICUS, Tribune of the People; and Brother to Titus.

LUCIUS,

QUINTUS,

MARTIUS,

MUTIUS,

Sons to Titus Andronicus.

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, Messenger, and Clown; Romans.

Goths, and Romans.

TAMORA, Queen of the Goths.

LAVINIA, Daughter to Titus Andronicus.

A Nurse, and a black Child.

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

and Attendants.

SCENE, Rome; and the Country near it.