Editing Titus Andronicus (section)

===Critical history===
Although ''Titus'' was extremely popular in its day, over the course of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries it became perhaps Shakespeare's most maligned play, and it was only in the latter half of the 20th century that this pattern of denigration showed any signs of subsiding.<ref>For a thorough overview of the early critical history of the play, see Dover Wilson (1948: vii–xix).</ref>

One of the earliest critical disparagements of the play occurred in 1687, in the introduction to [[Edward Ravenscroft]]'s theatrical adaptation, ''Titus Andronicus, or the Rape of Lavinia. A Tragedy, Alter'd from Mr. Shakespeare's Works''. Speaking of the original play, Ravenscroft wrote,
:"&thinsp;'tis the most incorrect and indigested piece in all his works. It seems rather a heap of rubbish than a structure."<ref>Quoted in Bate (1995: 79)</ref>

In 1765, [[Samuel Johnson]] questioned the possibility of even staging the play, pointing out that
: "the barbarity of the spectacles, and the general massacre which are here exhibited, can scarcely be conceived tolerable to any audience."<ref>Quoted in Bate (1995: 33)</ref>

In 1811, [[August Wilhelm Schlegel]] wrote that the play was
: "framed according to a false idea of the tragic, which by an accumulation of cruelties and enormities, degenerated into the horrible and yet leaves no deep impression behind."<ref>A. W. Schlegel, ''Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature'' (London: George Bell & Sons, 1879), 442</ref>

In 1927, [[T. S. Eliot]] argued that it was
: "one of the stupidest and most uninspired plays ever written, a play in which it is incredible that Shakespeare had any hand at all, a play in which the best passages would be too highly honoured by the signature of Peele."<ref>T. S. Eliot, "Seneca in Elizabethan Translation", ''Selected Essays 1917–1932'' (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1950), 67</ref>

In 1948, [[John Dover Wilson]] wrote that the play
: "seems to jolt and bump along like some broken-down cart, laden with bleeding corpses from an Elizabethan scaffold, and driven by an executioner from [[Bethlem Royal Hospital|Bedlam]] dressed in cap and bells."<ref>Dover Wilson (1948: xii)</ref>

He goes on to say that if the play had been by anyone other than Shakespeare, it would have been lost and forgotten; it is only because tradition holds that Shakespeare wrote it (which Dover Wilson highly suspects) that it is remembered, not for any intrinsic qualities of its own.

However, although the play continued to have its detractors, it began to acquire its champions as well. In his 1998 book, ''[[Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human]]'', [[Harold Bloom]] defended ''Titus'' from various critical attacks it has had over the years, insisting the play is meant to be a "parody" and it is only bad "if you take it straight". He claims the uneven reactions audiences have had are a result of directors misunderstanding Shakespeare's intent, which was "mocking and exploiting [[Christopher Marlowe|Marlowe]]", and its only suitable director would be [[Mel Brooks]].<ref>Bloom (1998; 77–86)</ref>

Another champion came in 2001, when Jacques Berthoud pointed out that until shortly after [[World War II]], "''Titus Andronicus'' was taken seriously only by a handful of textual and bibliographic scholars. Readers, when they could be found, mostly regarded it as a contemptible farrago of violence and bombast, while theatrical managers treated it as either a script in need of radical rewriting, or as a show-biz opportunity for a star actor."<ref name="Massai xxi"/> By 2001 however, this was no longer the case, as many prominent scholars had come out in defence of the play.

One such scholar was [[Jan Kott]]. Speaking of its apparent gratuitous violence, Kott argued that

{{quote|''Titus Andronicus'' is by no means the most brutal of Shakespeare's plays. More people die in ''[[Richard III (play)|Richard III]]''. ''[[King Lear (play)|King Lear]]'' is a much more cruel play. In the whole Shakespearean repertory I can find no scene so revolting as [[Cordelia (King Lear)|Cordelia's]] death. In reading, the cruelties of ''Titus'' can seem ridiculous. But I have seen it on the stage and found it a moving experience. Why? In watching ''Titus Andronicus'' we come to understand – perhaps more than by looking at any other Shakespeare play – the nature of his genius: he gave an inner awareness to passions; cruelty ceased to be merely physical. Shakespeare discovered the moral hell. He discovered heaven as well. But he remained on earth.<ref>Kott (1964: 27)</ref>}}

In his 1987 edition of the play for the ''Contemporary Shakespeare'' series, [[A. L. Rowse]] speculates as to why the fortunes of the play have begun to change during the 20th century:
: "in the civilised [[Victorian era|Victorian age]] the play could not be performed because it could not be believed. Such is the horror of our own age, with the appalling barbarities of prison camps and resistance movements paralleling the torture and mutilation and feeding on human flesh of the play, that it has ceased to be improbable."<ref>A. L. Rowse, ''Titus Andronicus''; Contemporary Shakespeare Series (Maryland: University of America Press, 1987), 15</ref>

[[File:Kirk-TitusAct4ProtectSon.jpg|thumb|upright=0.70|[[Thomas Kirk (artist)|Thomas Kirk]]'s illustration of Aaron protecting his son from Chiron and Demetrius in Act 4, Scene 2; engraved by J. Hogg (1799)]]
Director [[Julie Taymor]], who staged a production [[Off-Broadway]] in 1994 and directed a [[Titus (film)|film version]] in 1999, says she was drawn to the play because she found it to be the "{{grey|[most]}} relevant of Shakespeare's plays for the modern era".<ref name="JulieTaymor">Julie Taymor, DVD commentary for ''Titus''; 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2000</ref> As she believes we live in the most violent period in history, Taymor feels that the play has acquired more relevance for us than it had for the Victorians; "it seems like a play written for today, it reeks of now".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3888 |title=A conversation with Julie Taymor |date=19 January 2000 |publisher=Charlie Rose.com |access-date=21 November 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130329023703/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3888 |archive-date=29 March 2013}}</ref>

Jonathan Forman, when he reviewed Taymor's film for the ''[[New York Post]]'', agreed and stated:
: "It is the Shakespeare play for our time, a work of art that speaks directly to the age of [[Rwandan genocide|Rwanda]] and [[Bosnian War|Bosnia]]."<ref>{{cite news | title=Lion Queen Tames Titus | last=Forman | first=Jonathan | newspaper=[[New York Post]] | date=30 December 1999}}</ref>

====Authorship====
{{Main|Authorship of Titus Andronicus {{!}} Authorship of ''Titus Andronicus''}}
Perhaps the most frequently discussed topic in the play's critical history is that of authorship. None of the three quarto editions of ''Titus'' name the author, which was normal for Elizabethan plays. However, [[Francis Meres]] does list the play as one of Shakespeare's tragedies in ''[[Palladis Tamia]]'' in 1598. Additionally, [[John Heminges]] and [[Henry Condell]] felt sure enough of Shakespeare's authorship to include it in the ''First Folio'' in 1623. As such, with what little available solid evidence suggesting that Shakespeare did indeed write the play, questions of authorship tend to focus on the perceived lack of quality in the writing, and often the play's resemblance to the work of contemporaneous dramatists.

The first to question Shakespeare's authorship is thought to have been Edward Ravenscroft in 1678, and over the course of the eighteenth century, numerous renowned Shakespeareans followed suit; [[Nicholas Rowe (writer)|Nicholas Rowe]], [[Alexander Pope]], [[Lewis Theobald]], [[Samuel Johnson]], [[George Steevens]], [[Edmond Malone]], [[William Guthrie (historian)|William Guthrie]], [[John Upton (Spenser editor)|John Upton]], [[Benjamin Heath]], [[Richard Farmer]], [[John Pinkerton]], and [[John Monck Mason]], and in the nineteenth century, [[William Hazlitt]] and [[Samuel Taylor Coleridge]].<ref>Vickers (2002: 152n11)</ref> All doubted Shakespeare's authorship. So strong had the anti-Shakespearean movement become during the eighteenth century that in 1794, [[Thomas Percy (bishop of Dromore)|Thomas Percy]] wrote in the introduction to ''[[Reliques of Ancient English Poetry]]'', "Shakespeare's memory has been fully vindicated from the charge of writing the play by the best critics."<ref>Quoted in Waith (1984: 12)</ref> Similarly, in 1832, the ''Globe Illustrated Shakespeare'' claimed there was universal agreement on the matter due to the un-Shakespearean "barbarity" of the play.

However, despite the fact that so many Shakespearean scholars believed the play to have been written by someone other than Shakespeare, there were those throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century who argued against this theory. One such scholar was [[Edward Capell]], who, in 1768, said that the play was badly written but asserted that Shakespeare did write it. Another major scholar to support Shakespeare's authorship was [[Charles Knight (publisher)|Charles Knight]] in 1843. Several years later, a number of prominent German Shakespeareans also voiced their belief that Shakespeare wrote the play, including [[August Wilhelm Schlegel]] and [[Hermann Ulrici]].<ref>See Vickers (2002: 150–156) for a summary of the pre-20th century pro- and anti-Shakespearean arguments.</ref>

Twentieth century criticism moved away from trying to prove or disprove that Shakespeare wrote the play, and instead came to focus on the issue of co-authorship. Ravenscroft had hinted at this in 1678, but the first modern scholar to look at the theory was [[J. M. Robertson|John Mackinnon Robertson]] in 1905, who concluded that "much of the play is written by George Peele, and it is hardly less certain that much of the rest was written by [[Robert Greene (dramatist)|Robert Greene]] or Kyd, with some by Marlow".<ref>Robertson (1905: 479)</ref> In 1919, T. M. Parrott reached the conclusion that Peele wrote Act 1, 2.1 and 4.1,<ref>Parrott (1919: 21–27)</ref> and in 1931, Philip Timberlake corroborated Parrott's findings.<ref>Philip Timberlake, ''The Feminine Ending in English Blank Verse: A Study of its Use by Early Writers in the Measure and its Development in the Drama up to the Year 1595'' (Wisconsin: Banta, 1931), 114–119</ref>

[[File:Illustration from Graves.jpg|left|thumb|Illustration of Aaron protecting his son from Chiron and Demetrius in Act 4, Scene 2; from Joseph Graves' ''Dramatic tales founded on Shakespeare's plays'' (1840)]]
The first major critic to challenge Robertson, Parrott and Timberlake was [[E. K. Chambers]], who successfully exposed inherent flaws in Robertson's methodology.<ref>Vickers (2002: 137)</ref> In 1933, Arthur M. Sampley employed the techniques of Parrott to argue ''against'' Peele as co-author,<ref>Sampley (1936: 693)</ref> and in 1943, [[Hereward Thimbleby Price]] also argued that Shakespeare wrote alone.<ref>Price (1943: 55–65)</ref>

Beginning in 1948, with John Dover Wilson, many scholars have tended to favour the theory that Shakespeare and Peele collaborated in some way. Dover Wilson, for his part, believed that Shakespeare edited a play originally written by Peele.<ref>Dover Wilson (1948: xxxvi–xxxvii)</ref> In 1957, R. F. Hill approached the issue by analysing the distribution of [[rhetorical device]]s in the play. Like Parrott in 1919 and Timberlake in 1931, he ultimately concluded that Peele wrote Act 1, 2.1 and 4.1, while Shakespeare wrote everything else.<ref>Hill (1957: 60–68)</ref> In 1979, Macdonald Jackson employed a rare word test, and ultimately came to an identical conclusion as Parrott, Timberlake and Hill.<ref>''Studies in Attribution: Middleton and Shakespeare'' (Salzburg: Salzburg University Press, 1979), 147–153</ref> In 1987, Marina Tarlinskaja used a quantitative analysis of the occurrence of [[Stress (linguistics)|stresses]] in the [[iambic pentameter]] line, and she too concluded that Peele wrote Act 1, 2.1 and 4.1.<ref>''Shakespeare's Verse: Iambic Pentameter and the Poet's Idiosyncrasies'' (New York: P. Lang, 1987), 121–124</ref> In 1996, Macdonald Jackson returned to the authorship question with a new metrical analysis of the function words "and" and "with". His findings also suggested that Peele wrote Act 1, 2.1 and 4.1.<ref>Jackson (1996: 138–145)</ref>

However, there have always been scholars who believe that Shakespeare worked on the play alone. Many of the editors of the various twentieth century scholarly editions of the play for example, have argued against the co-authorship theory; Eugene M. Waith in his ''Oxford Shakespeare'' edition of 1985, Alan Hughes in his ''Cambridge Shakespeare'' edition of 1994 and again in 2006, and Jonathan Bate in his ''Arden Shakespeare'' edition of 1995. In the case of Bate however, in 2002, he came out in support of Brian Vickers' book ''Shakespeare, Co-Author'' which restates the case for Peele as the author of Act 1, 2.1 and 4.1.<ref>Chernaik (2004: 1030)</ref>

As well as analysing the distribution of a large number of rhetorical devices throughout the play, Vickers also devised three new authorship tests; an analysis of polysyllabic words, an analysis of the distribution of [[alliteration]] and an analysis of [[Vocative case|vocatives]]. His findings led him to assert that Peele wrote Act 1, 2.1 and 4.1.<ref>Vickers (2002: 219–239)</ref> Vickers' findings have not been universally accepted.<ref>Carroll (2004)</ref> Subsequent investigation by the ''New Oxford Shakespeare'' published in the edition's ''Authorship Companion'' found that scene 4.1 is in fact by Shakespeare not Peele<ref>Pruitt (2017)</ref> and that the Fly Scene (3.2), present only in 1623 Folio edition, is a late addition to the play, probably made by Thomas Middleton after Shakespeare died in 1616.<ref>Taylor and Duhaime (2017)</ref> These findings are disputed by Darren Freebury-Jones in ''Shakespeare's Borrowed Feathers'', who provides fresh evidence for Peele's authorship of 4.1 and argues that the Fly Scene, though absent from earlier editions, probably formed part of the original play but was omitted when Shakespeare and Peele's scenes were merged.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Freebury-Jones |first=Darren |title=Shakespeare's Borrowed Feathers: How Early Modern Playwrights Shaped the World's Greatest Writer |date=2024 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-1-5261-7732-2 |location=Manchester}}</ref>

[[Thomas North]]'s 1557 translation of ''Dial of Princes'' has led to North being recognized as the author of the lost ''Titus and Vespasian'', written in 1562, and that ''Titus Andronicus'' should be added to Shakespeare's list of 'borrowed' Roman plays.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schlueter |first=J. |date=2014 |title=A Shakespeare/North Collaboration: Titus Andronicus and Titus and Vespasian |url=https://ldr.lafayette.edu/concern/publications/x346d459z |journal=Cambridge University Press |pages=85–101}}</ref>