Editing Titus Andronicus (section)

===Ballad, prose history, and source debate===
Any discussion of the sources of ''Titus Andronicus'' is complicated by the existence of two other versions of the story; a prose history<ref>{{cite web |title=The prose history of ''Titus Andronicus'' |department=Apendix&nbsp;A |series=Shakespeare-Howards |website=edwardoxenford.org |url=http://www.edwardoxenford.org/shakespeare-howards/appendix-a-the-prose-history-of-titus-andronicus/ }}</ref> and a ballad;<ref>{{cite web |title=Ballad |id=30266 |website=ebba.english.ucsb.edu |publisher=University of California |place=Santa Barbara, CA |url=http://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/ballad/30266/xml }}</ref>  both are anonymous and undated.
Ultimately, there is no clear critical consensus on the issue of the order in which the ''play'', ''prose'', and ''ballad'' were written, with the only tentative agreement being that at the latest, all three were probably in existence by 1594.

The first definite reference to the ballad [[Titus Andronicus (ballad)|"Titus Andronicus' Complaint"]] is an entry in the Stationers' Register by the printer John Danter on 6&nbsp;February 1594, where the entry "A booke intitled a Noble Roman Historye of Tytus Andronicus" is immediately followed by "Entred also vnto[''[[sic]]''] him, the ballad thereof". The earliest surviving copy of the ballad is in [[Richard Johnson (16th century)|Richard Johnson]]'s ''The Golden Garland of Princely Pleasures and Delicate Delights'' (1620), but the date of its composition is unknown.

The prose was first published in [[chapbook]] form some time between 1736–1764 by [[Cluer Dicey]] under the title ''The History of Titus Andronicus, the Renowned Roman General'' (the ballad was also included in the chapbook), however it is believed to be much older than that. The [[copyright]] records from the Stationers' Register in Shakespeare's own lifetime provide some tenuous evidence regarding the dating of the prose. On 19 April 1602, the publisher [[Thomas Millington (publisher)|Thomas Millington]] sold his share in the copyright of "A booke intitled a Noble Roman Historye of Tytus Andronicus" (which Danter had initially entered into the Register in 1594) to [[Thomas Pavier]]. The orthodox belief is that this entry refers to the play.

The next version of the play to be published was for Edward White, in 1611, printed by [[Edward Allde]], thus prompting the question of why Pavier never published the play, despite having owned the copyright for nine years. [[Joseph Quincy Adams, Jr.|J.Q. Adams]] believes that the original Danter entry in 1594 is not a reference to the play but instead to the prose version, and that the subsequent transferrals of copyright relate to the prose, not the play, explaining why the play was never published by Pavier. Similarly, [[W. W. Greg|Greg]] believes that all copyright to the play lapsed upon Danter's death in 1600, hence the 1602 transferral from Millington to Pavier was illegitimate unless it refers to something other than the play; i.e. the prose. Both scholars conclude that the evidence seems to imply the prose existed by early 1594 at the latest.{{refn|
For an extensive examination of the complex copyright history of the play and prose, see {{harvp|Adams|Greg|1936|at=vol.&nbsp;1}}<ref>
{{cite book
 |last1=Adams |first1=J.Q., Jr. |author1-link=Joseph Quincy Adams, Jr.
 |last2=Greg  |first2=W.W.      |author2-link=W. W. Greg
 |year=1936
 |title=A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration
 |volume=1:&nbsp;Stationers' Records, Plays to 1616
 |place=London, UK
 |publisher=Bibliographic Society
 |publication-date=1939
}}
</ref>
}}

However, even if the prose version existed in 1594, there is no solid evidence to suggest the order in which the play, ballad, and prose were written, and which served as source for which. Traditionally, the prose has been seen as the original, with the play derived from it, and the ballad derived from both play and prose. Adams, for example, firmly believed in this order (''prose-play-ballad'')<ref>{{harvp|Adams|Greg|1936|at=vol.&nbsp;1, p.&nbsp;8}}</ref> as did [[J. Dover Wilson|John Dover Wilson]]<ref>{{harvp|Dover Wilson|1948|p={{mvar|viii}} }}</ref> and Geoffrey Bullough.<ref>{{harvp|Bullough|1966|pp=7–20}}</ref> This theory is by no means universally accepted however. For example, R.M.&nbsp;Sargent agrees with Adams and Bullough that the prose was the source of the play, but he argues that the poem was also a source of the play (''prose-ballad-play'').<ref>{{harvp|Sargent|1971}}</ref>

[[Marco Mincoff]] rejects both theories, arguing instead that the play came first, and served as a source for both the ballad and the prose (''play-ballad-prose'').<ref>{{harvp|Mincoff|1971}}</ref> G.H.&nbsp;Metz felt that Mincoff was incorrect and reasserted the primacy of the prose-play-ballad sequence.<ref>{{harvp|Metz|1975}}</ref> G.K.&nbsp;Hunter however, believes that Adams, Dover Wilson, Bullough, Sargent, Mincoff, and Metz were ''all'' wrong, and the play was the source for the prose, with both serving as sources for the ballad (''play-prose-ballad'').<ref>{{harvp|Hunter|1983a}}; {{harvp|Hunter|1983b}}</ref> In his 1984 edition of the play for ''[[The Oxford Shakespeare]]'', E.M.&nbsp;Waith rejects Hunter's theory and supports the original prose-play-ballad sequence.<ref>{{harvp|Waith|1984|pp=30–34}}</ref>

On the other hand, Jonathan Bate favours Mincoff's theory of ''play-ballad-prose'', in his 1995 edition for the ''[[Arden Shakespeare]]'' (3rd&nbsp;series).<ref>{{harvp|Bate|1995|pp=83–85}}</ref> In the introduction to the 2001&nbsp;edition of the play for the ''Penguin Shakespeare'' (edited by Sonia Massai), [[Jacques Berthoud]] agrees with Waith and settles on the initial ''prose-play-ballad'' sequence.<ref>{{harvp|Massai|2001|p={{mvar|xxix}} }}</ref> In his 2006&nbsp;revised edition for the ''[[New Cambridge Shakespeare]]'', Alan Hughes also argues for the original ''prose-play-ballad'' hypothesis, but proposes that the source for the ballad was exclusively the prose, not the play.<ref>{{harvp|Hughes|2006|p=10}}</ref>