^{Note 1 in page 1} I 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 preparation 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.

^{Note 1 in page 2} Cohn, Athenæum, 1851, p. 22.

^{Note 2 in page 2} Fleay, as quoted by Ward: A History of English Dramatic Literature, London, 1899, vol. ii, p. 55.

^{Note 3 in page 2} “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.

^{Note 4 in page 2} Shakespeare's Schauspiele Erläutert, Leipzig, 1823, vol. i, p. 304.

^{Note 1 in page 3} Shakespeare's Plays, New York, 1847, vol. iii, Introduction to Titus Andronicus, p. 7.

^{Note 2 in page 3} The Pictorial Edition of Shakspere, London, 1838–42, vol. containing T. A., p. 57.

^{Note 3 in page 3} Zu Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare Jahrbuch, v, pp. 82 ff.

^{Note 4 in page 3} Die Schauspiele der englischen Komödianten, Berlin, 1889, Introduction to Titus Andronicus, p. 4.

^{Note 5 in page 3} William Shakespeare, translation by William Archer, London, 1898, vol. i, pp. 36–41.

^{Note 6 in page 3} 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.

^{Note 7 in page 3} Über Titus Andronicus, Marburg, 1891.

^{Note 8 in page 3} William Shakespeare's Lehrjahre, Weimar, 1897, pp. 50, 51.

^{Note 9 in page 3} Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1891, pp. 708 ff.

^{Note 1 in page 4} Shakespear, London, 1765, vol. vi, p. 364.

^{Note 2 in page 4} Shakspeare's Sonnets and his Private Friends, London, 1866, pp. 580 ff.

^{Note 3 in page 4} The Life and Work of William Shakespeare, London, 1886, p. 282.

^{Note 4 in page 4} Was Robert Greene substantially the author of Titus Andronicus ? Englische Studien, 1896, pp. 389–436.

^{Note 5 in page 4} Titus Andronicus, or the Rape of Larinia, 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 Plot [1678]. ... In the hurry of those distracted times the prologue and epilogue 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 1 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 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, 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 protestation I leave to the comparison of his works with those of Molliere; 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 Shakespeare, 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 alterations, 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.'“

^{Note 1 in page 6} English Writers, London, 1893, vol. x, p. 45.

^{Note 1 in page 7} Shakspere: Primer, p. 61.

^{Note 2 in page 7} Outlook, June 2, 1900, p. 293.

^{Note 3 in page 7} Titus Andronicus, New York, 1892, pp. 15–16.

^{Note 4 in page 7} Shakespeare, Irving ed., London, 1890, vol. vii, p. 259.

^{Note 1 in page 8} Variorum Shakespeare, London, 1803, edited by Johnson and others, vol. i, B. 2, v°. The first edition of Palace of Pleasure appeared in 1566–7.

^{Note 2 in page 8} 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.

^{Note 3 in page 8} 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 II.” 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; (3) there is a blackamoor bent on revenge; (4) his brutality is relentless and appalling; (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, w^t thayre tragical end of them and thayre Il cheldren executed by a blacke morryon .... IIII^d.” See Extracts from the Register of the Stationers' Company of Works entered for 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, Part 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 writings 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. Varnhagen, 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 (Völundr), Titus Andronicus to Niur, and Lavinia to Bövildr. 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.

^{Note 1 in page 9} See Albert Cohn's Shakespeare in Germany, London and Berlin, 1865, pp. 161–236.

^{Note 1 in page 10} Colin, Shakespeare in Germany, p. cv.

^{Note 2 in page 10} 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.

^{Note 1 in page 11} Shakespeare in Germany, p. cxii.

^{Note 2 in page 11} Athenæum, 1851, p. 22.

^{Note 3 in page 11} Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1870, pp. 99 ff.

^{Note 4 in page 11} Über Titus Andronicus, p. 18.

^{Note 1 in page 12} Shakspere: Primer, p. 62.

^{Note 2 in page 12} English Writers, 1893, vol. x, p. 43.

^{Note 3 in page 12} A Life of William Shakespeare, London, 1898, p. 65.

^{Note 4 in page 12} William Shakespeare's Lehrjahre, Weimar, 1897, pp. 50–51.

^{Note 5 in page 12} Gott. Gel. Anz., 1891, pp. 709–10.

^{Note 6 in page 12} Die Schauspiele der Englischen Komödianten, 1889, Introduction to T. A., p. 5.

^{Note 7 in page 12} Shakespeare, Irving ed., vol. vii, p. 258.

^{Note 8 in page 12} The Works of Shakespeare, London, 1899, vol. vii, p. 287.

^{Note 9 in page 12} Englische Studien, 1896, p. 398.

^{Note 10 in page 12} 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 the 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, consisting of a “Zang,” “Tegen-zang,” and “Toe-zang,” are subjoined.

^{Note 1 in page 13} See W. J. A. Jonckbloet's Geschichte der Niederländischen Literatur, Leipzig, 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.”

^{Note 2 in page 13} See 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.

^{Note 1 in page 14} Aran en Titus. Mutua vindicatio, interprete schola Thielana. Thilae, Apud Gosuinum à Duym, Bibliopol. Anno ciiclviii. See J. A. Worp, De Invloed van Seneca's Treurspelen op ons Tooneel, Amsterdam, 1892, p. 53.

^{Note 2 in page 14} Schauspiel von Tito Andronico und der hoffärtige Kayserinn und dem Mohr Aran. This play was performed in Copenhagen by German comedians in 1719. See Die Schauspiele, etc., Introduction, p. 15.

^{Note 3 in page 14} 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 mörderische, gotthische mohr sampt dessen Fall und End. See Die Schauspiele der Eng. Köm., Introduction to T. A., p. 15.

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

^{Note 4 in page 14} Bydragen tot de Tooneel-poëzy, Leyden, 1823, p. 19.

^{Note 1 in page 15} Nederl. Spectator, 1870, p. 293.

^{Note 2 in page 15} Geschichte der Nederl. Lit., vol. ii, p. 289.

^{Note 3 in page 15} “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, ibid., p. 292.

In the edition of 1656 of Aram en Titus, among a number of recommendations, occurs the following by Vechters: “Headers, 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.”

^{Note 4 in page 15} Athenæum, 1850, p. 738.

^{Note 5 in page 15} 'sGravenhaagsche Bijzonderheden, 1857; cited by J. A. Worp, Nederlandsche Spectator, 1886, No. 41, p. 342.

^{Note 6 in page 15} Shakspere's Invloed, etc., pp. 30–42.

^{Note 7 in page 15} Academisch Proefscrift, Groningen, 1879, pp. 51 ff.

^{Note 8 in page 15} Berichte der philol. hist. Classe der König. Säch. Gesell., etc., 1886, p. 97.

^{Note 1 in page 16} Nederlandsche Spectator, 1886, No. 41, pp. 341–2.

^{Note 1 in page 17} 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.

^{Note 2 in page 17} Die Schauspiele der Englischen Komödianten, Introduction to T. A., p. 11, note.

^{Note 1 in page 18} The title of this play is Raache gegen Raache oder der streitbare Römer, Titus Andronicus. A reprint of the Program, edited by Albert Cohn, is to be found in the Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1888, pp. 266–81.

^{Note 2 in page 18} Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1888, p. 269.

^{Note 3 in page 18} Berichte, etc., 1886, p. 105. In the introduction to his translation of the Cid of Corneille, Greflinger promised that Der Beklägliche Zwang, Laura, and Andronicus mil dem Aaron were to follow. Lope de Vega's Fuerza Lastimosa 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.

^{Note 4 in page 18} Die Schauspiele, etc., p. 15.

^{Note 5 in page 18} Über Titus Andronicus, p. 17.

^{Note 1 in page 19} In the Linz Program the daughter of Titus is called Lavinia, as in Shakspere.

^{Note 1 in page 20} Not mentioned in the Program.

^{Note 1 in page 42} P. 18, above.

^{Note 2 in page 42} See Sir John Bowling's Sketch of the Language and Literature of Holland, Amsterdam, 1829, p. 47.

^{Note 1 in page 43} See H. E. Moltzer's Shakspere's Invloed op het Nederlandsch Tooneel, pp. 34–41.

^{Note 1 in page 44} P. 26, above.

^{Note 1 in page 45} P. 22, above.

^{Note 1 in page 46} Except Act iii, scene 2, which we are justified in eliminating.

^{Note 1 in page 47} 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.

^{Note 1 in page 48} The quotations from G, found in this paper, are taken from an English translation, which is furnished in Cohn's Shakespeare in Germany.

^{Note 1 in page 53} 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 plenteous quarry.

^{Note 2 in page 53} Some critics regard the last scene in the Jew of Malta as a later 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 rule, take more interest in stage-devices than in authors.

^{Note 1 in page 65} It 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.