======================================================================
=                          Titus_Andronicus                          =
======================================================================

                            Introduction
======================================================================
'The Lamentable Tragedy of Titus Andronicus', often shortened to
'Titus Andronicus', is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed to
have been written between 1588 and 1593. It is thought to be
Shakespeare's first tragedy and is often seen as his attempt to
emulate the violent and bloody revenge plays of his contemporaries,
which were extremely popular with audiences throughout the 16th
century.

Titus, a general in the Roman army, presents Tamora, Queen of the
Goths, as a slave to the new Roman emperor, Saturninus. Saturninus
takes her as his wife. From this position, Tamora vows revenge against
Titus for killing her son. Titus and his family retaliate, leading to
a cycle of violence.

'Titus Andronicus' was initially very popular, but by the later 17th
century it was not well esteemed. The Victorian era disapproved of it,
largely because of its graphic violence. Its reputation began to
improve around the middle of the 20th century, but it is still one of
Shakespeare's least respected plays.


                             Characters
======================================================================
* Titus Andronicus - renowned Roman general
* Lucius - Titus's eldest living son
* Quintus - Titus's son
* Martius - Titus's son
* Mutius - Titus's son
* Young Lucius - Lucius's son and Titus's grandson
* Lavinia - Titus's daughter
* Marcus Andronicus - Titus's brother and tribune to the people of
Rome
* Publius - Marcus's son
* Saturninus - Son of the late Emperor of Rome; afterwards declared
Emperor
* Bassianus - Saturninus's brother; in love with Lavinia
* Sempronius, Caius and Valentine - Titus's kinsmen
* Æmilius - Roman noble
* Tamora - Queen of the Goths; afterwards Empress of Rome
* Demetrius - Tamora's son
* Chiron - Tamora's son
* Alarbus - Tamora's son (non-speaking role)
* Aaron - a Moor; involved in a romantic relationship with Tamora
* Nurse
* Clown
* Messenger
* Roman Captain
* First Goth
* Second Goth
* Senators, Tribunes, Soldiers, Plebeians, Goths etc.


                              Synopsis
======================================================================
Shortly after the death of the Roman emperor, his two sons, Saturninus
and Bassianus, quarrel over who will succeed him. Their conflict seems
set to boil over into violence until a tribune, Marcus Andronicus,
announces that the people's choice for the new emperor is his brother,
Titus, who will shortly return to Rome from a victorious ten-year
campaign against the Goths. Titus arrives to much fanfare, bearing
with him as prisoners Tamora, Queen of the Goths; her three sons
Alarbus, Chiron, and Demetrius; and her secret lover, Aaron the Moor.
Despite Tamora's desperate pleas, Titus sacrifices her eldest son,
Alarbus, to avenge the deaths of twenty-one of his own sons during the
war. Distraught, Tamora and her two surviving sons vow to obtain
revenge on Titus and his family.

Meanwhile, Titus refuses the offer of the throne, arguing that he is
not fit to rule and instead supporting the claim of Saturninus, who
then is duly elected. Saturninus tells Titus that for his first act as
emperor, he will marry Titus's daughter Lavinia. Titus agrees,
although Lavinia is already betrothed to Saturninus's brother,
Bassianus, who refuses to give her up. Titus's sons tell Titus that
Bassianus is in the right under Roman law, but Titus refuses to
listen, accusing them all of treason. A scuffle breaks out, during
which Titus kills his own son, Mutius. Saturninus then denounces the
Andronici family for their effrontery and shocks Titus by marrying
Tamora. Putting into motion her plan for revenge, Tamora advises
Saturninus to pardon Bassianus and the Andronici family, which he
reluctantly does.

During a royal hunt the following day, Aaron persuades Demetrius and
Chiron to kill Bassianus so that they may rape Lavinia. They do so,
throwing Bassianus's body into a pit and dragging Lavinia deep into
the forest before violently raping her. To keep her from revealing
what has happened, they cut out her tongue and cut off her hands.
Meanwhile, Aaron writes a forged letter, which frames Titus's sons
Martius and Quintus for the murder of Bassianus. Horrified at the
death of his brother, Saturninus arrests Martius and Quintus and
sentences them to death.

Some time later, Marcus discovers the mutilated Lavinia and takes her
to her father, who is still shocked at the accusations levelled at his
sons, and upon seeing Lavinia, he is overcome with grief. Aaron then
visits Titus and falsely tells him that Saturninus will spare Martius
and Quintus if either Titus, Marcus, or Titus' remaining son, Lucius,
cuts off one of their hands and sends it to him. Though Marcus and
Lucius are willing, Titus has his own left hand cut off by Aaron and
sends it to the emperor. However, a messenger brings back Martius's
and Quintus's severed heads, along with Titus's own severed hand.
Desperate for revenge, Titus orders Lucius to flee Rome and raise an
army among their conquered enemy, the Goths.

Later, Lavinia writes the names of her attackers in the dirt, using a
stick held with her mouth and between her arms. Meanwhile, Aaron is
informed that Tamora has secretly given birth to a mixed-race baby,
fathered by Aaron, which will draw Saturninus's wrath. Though Tamora
wants the baby killed, Aaron kills the nurse to keep the child's race
a secret and flees to raise his son among the Goths. Thereafter,
Lucius, marching on Rome with an army, captures Aaron and threatens to
hang the infant. In order to save the baby, Aaron reveals the entire
revenge plot to Lucius.

Back in Rome, Titus's behaviour suggests he might be deranged.
Convinced of Titus's madness, Tamora, Demetrius, and Chiron (dressed
as the spirits of 'Revenge', 'Murder', and 'Rape', respectively)
approach Titus in order to persuade him to have Lucius remove his
troops from Rome. Tamora (as 'Revenge') tells Titus that she will
grant him revenge on all of his enemies if he convinces Lucius to
postpone the imminent attack on Rome. Titus agrees and sends Marcus to
invite Lucius to a reconciliatory feast. Revenge then offers to invite
the Emperor and Tamora as well, and is about to leave when Titus
insists that Rape and Murder stay with him. When Tamora is gone, Titus
has Chiron and Demetrius restrained, cuts their throats, and drains
their blood into a basin held by Lavinia. Titus tells Lavinia that he
will "play the cook", grind the bones of Demetrius and Chiron into
powder, and bake their heads into two pies, which he will serve to
their mother.

The next day, during the feast at his house, Titus asks Saturninus if
a father should kill his daughter when she has been raped. When
Saturninus answers that he should, Titus kills Lavinia and tells
Saturninus of the rape. When the Emperor calls for Chiron and
Demetrius, Titus reveals that they were baked in the pies Tamora has
already been eating. Titus then kills Tamora and is immediately killed
by Saturninus, who is subsequently killed by Lucius to avenge his
father's death. Lucius is then proclaimed Emperor. He orders that
Titus and Lavinia be laid in their family tomb, that Saturninus be
given a state burial, that Tamora's body be thrown to the wild beasts
outside the city, and that Aaron be hanged. Aaron, however, is
unrepentant to the end, regretting only that he did not do more evil
in his life. Lucius decides Aaron deserves to be buried chest-deep as
punishment and left to die of thirst and starvation, and Aaron is
taken away to be punished thus.


Setting
=========
The story of 'Titus Andronicus' is fictional, not historical, unlike
Shakespeare's other Roman plays, 'Julius Caesar', 'Antony and
Cleopatra', and 'Coriolanus', all of which are based on real
historical events and people (or, in the case of 'Coriolanus',
believed to be historical by late Romans, as well as in Shakespeare's
time). Even the time in which 'Titus' is set may not be based on a
real historical period. According to the prose version of the play
(see below), the events are "set in the time of Theodosius", who ruled
from 379 to 395. On the other hand, the general setting appears to be
what Clifford Huffman describes as "late-Imperial Christian Rome",
possibly during the reign of Justinian I (527-565). Also favouring a
later date, Grace Starry West argues,
: "the Rome of 'Titus Andronicus' is Rome after Brutus, after Caesar,
and after Ovid. We know it is a later Rome because the emperor is
routinely called Caesar; because the characters are constantly
alluding to Tarquin, Lucretia, and Brutus, suggesting that they
learned about Brutus' new founding of Rome from the same literary
sources we do, Livy and Plutarch."

Others are less certain of a specific setting, however. For example,
Jonathan Bate has pointed out that the play begins with Titus
returning from a successful ten-year campaign against the Goths, as if
at the height of the Roman Empire, but ends with Goths invading Rome,
as if at its death. Similarly, T.J.B. Spencer argues that
: "the play does not assume a political situation known to Roman
history; it is, rather a summary of Roman politics. It is not so much
that any particular set of political institutions is assumed in
'Titus', but rather that it includes 'all' the political institutions
that Rome ever had."


Sources
=========
In his efforts to fashion general history into a specific fictional
story, Shakespeare may have consulted the 'Gesta Romanorum', a well
known thirteenth-century collection of tales, legends, myths, and
anecdotes written in Latin, which took figures and events from history
and spun fictional tales around them. In Shakespeare's lifetime, a
writer known for doing likewise was Matteo Bandello, who based his
work on that of writers such as Giovanni Boccaccio and Geoffrey
Chaucer, and who could have served as an indirect source for
Shakespeare. So, too, could the first major English author to write in
this style, William Painter, who borrowed from, amongst others,
Herodotus, Plutarch, Aulus Gellius, Claudius Aelianus, Livy, Tacitus,
Giovanni Battista Giraldi, and Bandello himself. However, it is also
possible to determine more specific sources for the play. The primary
source for the rape and mutilation of Lavinia, as well as Titus'
subsequent revenge, is Ovid's 'Metamorphoses' (), which is featured in
the play itself when Lavinia uses it to help explain to Titus and
Marcus what happened to her.

In the sixth book of 'Metamorphoses', Ovid tells the story of the rape
of Philomela, daughter of Pandion I, King of Athens. Despite ill
omens, Philomela's sister, Procne, marries Tereus of Thrace and has a
son for him, Itys. After five years in Thrace, Procne yearns to see
her sister again, so she persuades Tereus to travel to Athens and
accompany Philomela back to Thrace. Tereus does so, but he soon begins
to lust after Philomela. When she refuses his advances, he drags her
into a forest and rapes her. He then cuts out her tongue to prevent
her from telling anyone of the incident and returns to Procne, telling
her that Philomela is dead. However, Philomela weaves a tapestry, in
which she names Tereus as her assailant, and has it sent to Procne.
The sisters meet in the forest and together plot their revenge. They
kill Itys and cook his body in a pie, which Procne then serves to
Tereus. During the meal, Philomela reveals herself, showing Itys' head
to Tereus and telling him what they have done. For the scene where
Lavinia reveals her rapists by writing in the sand, Shakespeare may
have used a story from the first book of 'Metamorphoses'; the tale of
the rape of Io by Zeus, where, to prevent her from divulging the
story, he turns her into a cow. Upon encountering her father, she
attempts to tell him who she is but is unable to do so until she
thinks to scratch her name in the dirt using her hoof.

Titus's revenge may also have been influenced by Seneca's play
'Thyestes', written in the first century AD. In the mythology of
Thyestes, which is the basis for Seneca's play, Thyestes, son of
Pelops, King of Pisa, who, along with his brother Atreus, was exiled
by Pelops for the murder of their half-brother, Chrysippus. They take
up refuge in Mycenae and soon ascend to co-inhabit the throne.
However, each becomes jealous of the other, and Thyestes tricks Atreus
into electing him as the sole king. Determined to re-attain the
throne, Atreus enlists the aid of Zeus and Hermes, and has Thyestes
banished from Mycenae. Atreus subsequently discovers that his wife,
Aerope, had been having an affair with Thyestes, and he vows revenge.
He asks Thyestes to return to Mycenae with his family, telling him
that all past animosities are forgotten. However, when Thyestes
returns, Atreus secretly kills Thyestes's sons. He cuts off their
hands and heads, and cooks the rest of their bodies in a pie. At a
reconciliatory feast, Atreus serves Thyestes the pie in which his sons
have been baked. As Thyestes finishes his meal, Atreus produces the
hands and heads, revealing to the horrified Thyestes what he has done.

Another specific source for the final scene is discernible when Titus
asks Saturninus if a father should kill his daughter when she has been
raped. This is a reference to the story of Verginia from Livy's 'Ab
urbe condita' (). Around 451 BC, a decemvir of the Roman Republic,
Appius Claudius Crassus, begins to lust after Verginia, a plebeian
girl betrothed to a former tribune, Lucius Icilius. She rejects
Claudius' advances, enraging him, and he has her abducted. However,
both Icilius and Verginia's father, famed centurion Lucius Verginius,
are respected figures and Claudius is forced to legally defend his
right to hold Verginia. At the Forum, Claudius threatens the assembly
with violence, and Verginius' supporters flee. Seeing that defeat is
imminent, Verginius asks Claudius if he may speak to his daughter
alone, to which Claudius agrees. However, Verginius stabs Verginia,
determining that her death is the only way he can secure her freedom.

For the scene where Aaron tricks Titus into cutting off one of his
hands, the primary source was probably an unnamed popular tale about a
Moor's vengeance, published in various languages throughout the
sixteenth century (an English version entered into the Stationers'
Register in 1569 has not survived). In the story, a married nobleman
with two children chastises his Moorish servant, who vows revenge. The
servant goes to the moated tower where the man's wife and children
live, and rapes the wife. Her screams bring her husband, but the Moor
pulls up the drawbridge before the nobleman can gain entry. The Moor
then kills both children on the battlements in full view of the man.
The nobleman pleads with the Moor that he will do anything to save his
wife, and the Moor demands he cut off his nose. The man does so, but
the Moor kills the wife anyway, and the nobleman dies of shock. The
Moor then flings himself from the battlements to avoid punishment.

Shakespeare also drew on various sources for the names of many of his
characters. For example, Titus could have been named after the Emperor
Titus Flavius Vespasianus, who ruled Rome from 79 to 81. Jonathan
Bate, Geoffrey Bullough and some other scholars have speculated that
the name 'Andronicus' could have come from Andronicus Comnenus,
Byzantine emperor from 1183 to 1185. Like Titus Andronicus, Andronicus
Comnenus was a violent ruler who was ultimately overthrown and
brutally killed by his own people. Andronicus Comnenus was also known
to shoot arrows with messages attached, another trait that is shared
with Titus Andronicus. In addition, both Andronicus Comnenus and Titus
Andronicus lost their right hand shortly before their death. Others
have speculated that Shakespeare took the name from the story
"Andronicus and the lion" in Antonio de Guevara's 'Epistolas
familiares'. That story involves a sadistic emperor named Titus who
amused himself by throwing slaves to wild animals and watching them be
slaughtered. However, when a slave called Andronicus is thrown to a
lion, the lion lies down and embraces the man. The emperor demands to
know what has happened, and Andronicus explains that he had once
helped the lion by removing a thorn from its foot. Bate speculates
that this story, with one character called Titus and another called
Andronicus, could be why several contemporary references to the play
are in the form 'Titus & Ondronicus'.

Geoffrey Bullough argues that Lucius's character arc (estrangement
from his father, followed by banishment, followed by a glorious return
to avenge his family honour) was probably based on Plutarch's 'Life of
Coriolanus'. As for Lucius' name, Frances Yates speculates that he may
be named after Saint Lucius, who introduced Christianity into Britain.
On the other hand, Jonathan Bate hypothesises that Lucius could be
named after Lucius Junius Brutus, founder of the Roman Republic,
arguing that "the man who led the people in their uprising was Lucius
Junius Brutus. This is the role that Lucius fulfills in the play."

The name of Lavinia was probably taken from the mythological figure of
Lavinia, daughter of Latinus, King of Latium, who, in Virgil's
'Aeneid', courts Aeneas as he attempts to settle his people in Latium.
A. C. Hamilton speculates that the name of Tamora could have been
based upon the historical figure of Tomyris, a violent and
uncompromising Massagetae queen. Eugene M. Waith suggests that the
name of Tamora's son, Alarbus, could have come from George Puttenham's
'The Arte of English Poesie' (1589), which contains the line "the
Roman prince did daunt/Wild Africans and the lawless Alarbes." G. K.
Hunter has suggested Shakespeare may have taken Saturninus's name from
Herodian's 'History of the Empire from the Death of Marcus', which
features a jealous and violent tribune named Saturninus. On the other
hand, Waith speculates that Shakespeare may have been thinking of an
astrological theory which he could have seen in Guy Marchant's 'The
Kalendayr of the shyppars' (1503), which states that Saturnine men
(i.e. men born under the influence of Saturn) are "false, envious and
malicious."

Shakespeare most likely took the names of Caius, Demetrius, Marcus,
Martius, Quintus, Æmilius, and Sempronius from Plutarch's 'Life of
Scipio Africanus'. Bassianus's name probably came from Lucius
Septimius Bassianus, better known as Caracalla, who, like Bassianus in
the play, fights with his brother over succession, one appealing to
primogeniture and the other to popularity.


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 and
a ballad;  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'
Complaint" is an entry in the Stationers' Register by the printer John
Danter on 6 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'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 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. 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, 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.

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') as did John Dover
Wilson and Geoffrey Bullough. This theory is by no means universally
accepted however. For example, R.M. 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').

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'). G.H. Metz felt that Mincoff was incorrect and
reasserted the primacy of the prose-play-ballad sequence. G.K. 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'). In his 1984 edition of the play for 'The Oxford
Shakespeare', E.M. Waith rejects Hunter's theory and supports the
original prose-play-ballad sequence.

On the other hand, Jonathan Bate favours Mincoff's theory of
'play-ballad-prose', in his 1995 edition for the 'Arden Shakespeare'
(3rd series). In the introduction to the 2001 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. In his 2006 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.


Date
======
The earliest known record of 'Titus Andronicus' is found in Philip
Henslowe's diary on 24 January 1594, where Henslowe recorded a
performance by Sussex's Men of "'Titus & ondronicus'", probably at
The Rose. Henslowe marked the play as "ne", which most critics take to
mean "new". There were subsequent performances on 29 January and 6
February. Also on 6 February, the printer John Danter entered into the
'Stationers' Register' "A booke intitled a Noble Roman Historye of
Tytus Andronicus". Later in 1594, Danter published the play in quarto
under the title 'The Most Lamentable Romaine Tragedie of Titus
Andronicus' (referred to by scholars as Q1) for the booksellers Edward
White and Thomas Millington, making it the first of Shakespeare's
plays to be printed. This evidence establishes that the latest
possible date of composition is late 1593.

One of the two known copies of the second edition of Titus Andronicus
is a part of The University of Edinburgh Heritage Collection. This was
donated by William Hog in 1700. In the 1860s this copy was lent to
Shakespeare scholar and collector James Orchard Halliwell-Phillips so
he could make a facsimile. This arrangement, brokered by David Laing,
eventually led to Halliwell-Phillips donating a vast collection of
books and manuscripts to Edinburgh University Library.

There is evidence, however, that the play may have been written some
years earlier than this. In 1614, Ben Jonson wrote in a preface to
'Bartholomew Fair' that "He that will swear, 'Jeronimo' or
'Andronicus' are the best plays, yet shall pass unexcepted at, here,
as a man whose judgement shows it is constant, and hath stood still
these five and twenty, or thirty years." The success and popularity of
Thomas Kyd's 'The Spanish Tragedy', to which Jonson alludes, is
attested by many contemporary documents, so by placing 'Titus'
alongside it, Jonson is saying that 'Titus' too must have been
extremely popular in its day, but by 1614, both plays had come to be
seen as old fashioned. If Jonson is taken literally, for the play to
have been between 25 and 30 years old in 1614, it must have been
written between 1584 and 1589, a theory which not all scholars reject
out of hand. For example, in his 1953 edition of the play for the
'Arden Shakespeare' 2nd Series, J.C. Maxwell argues for a date of late
1589. Similarly, E.A.J. Honigmann, in his 'early start' theory of
1982, suggests that Shakespeare wrote the play several years before
coming to London , and that 'Titus' was actually his first play,
written . In his 'Cambridge Shakespeare' edition of 1994 and again in
2006, Alan Hughes makes a similar argument, believing the play was
written very early in Shakespeare's career, before he came to London,
possibly .
However, the majority of scholars tend to favour a post-1590 date, and
one of the primary arguments for this is that the title page of Q1
assigns the play to three different playing companies; Derby's Men,
Pembroke's Men and Sussex's Men ("As it was Plaide by the Right
Honourable the Earle of Darbie, Earle of Pembrooke, and Earle of
Suſſex their Seruants"). This is highly unusual in copies of
Elizabethan plays, which usually refer to one company only, if any. If
the order of the listing is chronological, as Eugene M. Waith and
Jacques Berthoud, for example, believe it is, it means that Sussex's
Men were the last to perform the play, suggesting it had been on stage
quite some time prior to 24 January 1594. Waith hypothesises that the
play originally belonged to Derby's Men, but after the closure of the
London theatres on 23 June 1592 due to an outbreak of plague, Derby's
Men sold the play to Pembroke's Men, who were going on a regional tour
to Bath and Ludlow. The tour was a financial failure, and the company
returned to London on 28 September, financially ruined. At that point,
they sold the play to Sussex's Men, who would go on to perform it on
24 January 1594 at The Rose. If one accepts this theory, it suggests a
date of composition as some time in early to mid-1592. However,
Jonathan Bate and Alan Hughes have argued that there is no evidence
that the listing is chronological, and no precedent on other title
pages for making that assumption. Additionally, a later edition of the
play gives a different order of acting companies - Pembroke's Men,
Derby's Men, Sussex' Men and Lord Chamberlain's Men, suggesting the
order is random and cannot be used to help date the play.

As such, even amongst scholars who favour a post-1590 date, 1592 is by
no means universally accepted. Jacques Berthoud, for example, argues
that Shakespeare had close associations with Derby's Men and "it would
seem that 'Titus Andronicus' must already have entered the repertoire
of Derby's Men by the end of 1591 or the start of 1592 at the latest."
Berthoud believes this places the date of composition some time in
1591. Another theory is provided by Jonathan Bate, who finds it
significant that Q1 lacks the "sundry times" comment found on
virtually every sixteenth-century play; the claim on a title page that
a play had been performed "sundry times" was an attempt by publishers
to emphasise its popularity, and its absence on Q1 indicates that the
play was so new, it hadn't been performed anywhere. Bate also finds
significance in the fact that prior to the rape of Lavinia, Chiron and
Demetrius vow to use Bassianus' body as a pillow. Bate believes this
connects the play to Thomas Nashe's 'The Unfortunate Traveller', which
was completed on 27 June 1593. Verbal similarities between 'Titus' and
George Peele's poem 'The Honour of the Garter' are also important for
Bate. The poem was written to celebrate the installation of Henry
Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland as a Knight of the Garter on 26 June
1593. Bate takes these three pieces of evidence to suggest a timeline
which sees Shakespeare complete his 'Henry VI' trilogy prior to the
closing of the theatres in June 1592. At this time, he turns to
classical antiquity to aid him in his poems 'Venus and Adonis' and
'The Rape of Lucrece'. Then, towards the end of 1593, with the
prospect of the theatres being reopened, and with the classical
material still fresh in his mind, he wrote 'Titus' as his first
tragedy, shortly after reading Nashe's novel and Peele's poem, all of
which suggests a date of composition of late 1593.

Other critics have attempted to use more scientific methods to
determine the date of the play. For example, Gary Taylor has employed
stylometry, particularly the study of contractions, colloquialisms,
rare words and function words. Taylor concludes that the entire play
except Act 3, Scene 2 was written just after 'Henry VI, Part 2' and
'Henry VI, Part 3', which he assigns to late 1591 or early 1592. As
such, Taylor settles on a date of mid-1592 for 'Titus'. He also argues
that 3.2, which is only found in the 1623 Folio text, was written
contemporaneously with 'Romeo and Juliet', in late 1593.

However, if the play was written and performed by 1588 (Hughes), 1589
(Maxwell), 1591 (Berthoud), 1592 (Waith and Taylor), or 1593 (Bate),
why did Henslowe refer to it as "ne" in 1594? R.A. Foakes and R.T.
Rickert, modern editors of 'Henslowe's Diary', argue that "ne" could
refer to a newly licensed play, which would make sense if one accepts
Waith's argument that Pembroke's Men had sold the rights to Sussex's
Men upon returning from their failed tour of the provinces. Foakes and
Rickert also point out that "ne" could refer to a newly revised play,
suggesting editing on Shakespeare's part some time in late 1593. Waith
sees this suggestion as especially important insofar as John Dover
Wilson and Gary Taylor have shown that the text as it exists in Q1
'does' seem to indicate editing. However, that "ne" does actually
stand for "new" is not fully accepted; in 1991, Winifred Frazer argued
that "ne" is actually an abbreviation for "Newington Butts". Brian
Vickers, amongst others, finds Frazer's arguments convincing, which
renders interpretation of Henslow's entry even more complex.


Text
======
The 1594 quarto text of the play, with the same title, was reprinted
by James Roberts for Edward White in 1600 (Q2). On 19 April 1602,
Millington sold his share in the copyright to Thomas Pavier. However,
the next version of the play was published again for White, in 1611,
under the slightly altered title 'The Most Lamentable Tragedie of
Titus Andronicus', printed by Edward Allde (Q3).

Q1 is considered a 'good text' (i.e. not a bad quarto or a reported
text), and it forms the basis for most modern editions of the play. Q2
appears to be based on a damaged copy of Q1, as it is missing a number
of lines which are replaced by what appear to be guess work on the
part of the compositor. This is especially noticeable at the end of
the play where four lines of dialogue have been added to Lucius'
closing speech; "See justice done on Aaron, that damned Moor,/By whom
our heavy haps had their beginning;/Then afterwards to order well the
state,/That like events may ne'er it ruinate." Scholars tend to assume
that when the compositor got to the last page and saw the damage, he
presumed some lines were missing, when in fact none were. Q2 was
considered the control text until 1904, when the copy of Q1 now at the
Folger Shakespeare Library was discovered in Sweden. Together with a
1594 printing of 'Henry VI, Part II', the Folger's Q1 'Titus' is the
earliest extant printed Shakespearean play. Q2 also corrects a number
of minor errors in Q1. Q3 is a further degradation of Q2, and includes
a number of corrections to the Q2 text, but introduces many more
errors.

The 'First Folio' text of 1623 (F1), under the title 'The Lamentable
Tragedy of Titus Andronicus', is based primarily on the Q3 text (which
is why modern editors use Q1 as the control rather than the usual
practice in Shakespeare of using the 'Folio' text). However, the
'Folio' text includes material found in none of the quarto editions,
primarily Act 3, Scene 2 (also called the 'fly-killing scene'). It is
believed that while Q3 was probably the main source for the 'Folio',
an annotated prompter's copy was also used, particularly in relation
to stage directions, which differ significantly from all of the quarto
texts.

As such, the text of the play that is today known as 'Titus
Andronicus' involves a combination of material from Q1 and F1, the
vast majority of which is taken from Q1.


The Peacham drawing
=====================
An important piece of evidence relating to both the dating and text of
'Titus' is the so-called 'Peacham drawing' or 'Longleat manuscript';
the only surviving contemporary Shakespearean illustration, now
residing in the library of the Marquess of Bath at Longleat. The
drawing appears to depict a performance of 'Titus', under which is
quoted some dialogue. Eugene M. Waith argues of the illustration that
"the gestures and costumes give us a more vivid impression of the
visual impact of Elizabethan acting than we get from any other
source."

Far from being an acknowledged source of evidence however, the
document has provoked varying interpretations, with its date in
particular often called into question. The fact that the text
reproduced in the drawing seems to borrow from Q1, Q2, Q3 'and' F1,
while also inventing some of its own readings, further complicates
matters. Additionally, a possible association with Shakespearean
forger John Payne Collier has served to undermine its authenticity,
while some scholars believe it depicts a play other than 'Titus
Andronicus', and is therefore of limited use to Shakespeareans.


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.

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,
:" 'tis the most incorrect and indigested piece in all his works. It
seems rather a heap of rubbish than a structure."

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."

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."

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."

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 Bedlam dressed in cap and bells."

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 Marlowe", and its only suitable director would be Mel
Brooks.

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." 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



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 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."

Director Julie Taymor, who staged a production Off-Broadway in 1994
and directed a film version in 1999, says she was drawn to the play
because she found it to be the " relevant of Shakespeare's plays for
the modern era". 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".

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 Rwanda and Bosnia."


Authorship
============
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, Alexander Pope, Lewis Theobald, Samuel Johnson, George Steevens,
Edmond Malone, William Guthrie, John Upton, Benjamin Heath, Richard
Farmer, John Pinkerton, and John Monck Mason, and in the nineteenth
century, William Hazlitt and Samuel Taylor Coleridge. All doubted
Shakespeare's authorship. So strong had the anti-Shakespearean
movement become during the eighteenth century that in 1794, 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." 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 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.

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 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 or Kyd, with some by Marlow". In 1919, T. M.
Parrott reached the conclusion that Peele wrote Act 1, 2.1 and 4.1,
and in 1931, Philip Timberlake corroborated Parrott's findings.

The first major critic to challenge Robertson, Parrott and Timberlake
was E. K. Chambers, who successfully exposed inherent flaws in
Robertson's methodology. In 1933, Arthur M. Sampley employed the
techniques of Parrott to argue 'against' Peele as co-author, and in
1943, Hereward Thimbleby Price also argued that Shakespeare wrote
alone.

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. In 1957, R. F. Hill approached the
issue by analysing the distribution of rhetorical devices 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. In 1979, Macdonald Jackson employed a rare word test,
and ultimately came to an identical conclusion as Parrott, Timberlake
and Hill. In 1987, Marina Tarlinskaja used a quantitative analysis of
the occurrence of stresses in the iambic pentameter line, and she too
concluded that Peele wrote Act 1, 2.1 and 4.1. 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.

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.

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 vocatives. His
findings led him to assert that Peele wrote Act 1, 2.1 and 4.1.
Vickers' findings have not been universally accepted. 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 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. 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.

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.


Language
==========
The language of 'Titus' has always had a central role in criticism of
the play insofar as those who doubt Shakespeare's authorship have
often pointed to the apparent deficiencies in the language as evidence
of that claim. However, the quality of the language has had its
defenders over the years, critics who argue that the play is more
linguistically complex than is often thought, and features a more
accomplished use of certain linguistic motifs than has hitherto been
allowed for.

One of the most basic such motifs is repetition. Several words and
topics occur time and again, serving to connect and contrast
characters and scenes, and to foreground certain themes. Perhaps the
most obvious recurring motifs are those of honour, virtue and
nobility, all of which are mentioned multiple times throughout the
play, especially during the first act; the play's opening line is
Saturninus' address to "Noble patricians, patrons of my right" (l.1).
In the second speech of the play, Bassianus states "And suffer not
dishonour to approach/The imperial seat, to virtue consecrate,/To
justice, continence and nobility;/But let desert in pure election
shine" (ll.13-16). From this point onwards, the concept of nobility is
at the heart of everything that happens. H. B. Charlton argues of this
opening Act that "the standard of moral currency most in use is
honour".

When Marcus announces Titus' imminent arrival, he emphasises Titus'
renowned honour and integrity: "And now at last, laden with honour's
spoils,/Returns the good Andronicus to Rome,/Renowned Titus,
flourishing in arms./Let us entreat by honour of his name/Whom
worthily you would have now succeed" (ll.36-40). Marcus' reference to
Titus' name is even itself an allusion to his nobility insofar as
Titus' full title (Titus Pius) is an honorary epitaph which "refers to
his devotion to patriotic duty".

Bassianus then cites his own admiration for all of the Andronici:
"Marcus Andronicus, so I do affy/In thy uprightness and integrity,/And
so I love and honour thee and thine,/Thy noble brother Titus, and his
sons" (ll.47-50). Upon Titus' arrival, an announcement is made:
"Patron of virtue, Rome's best champion,/Successful in the battles
that he fights,/With honour and with fortune is returned" (ll.65-68).
Once Titus has arrived on stage, it is not long before he too is
speaking of honour, virtue and integrity, referring to the family tomb
as a "sweet cell of virtue and nobility" (l.93). After Titus chooses
Saturninus as Emperor, they praise one another's honour, with
Saturninus referring to Titus' "honourable family" (ll.239) and Titus
claiming "I hold me highly honoured of your grace" (ll.245). Titus
then says to Tamora, "Now, madam, are you prisoner to an Emperor -/To
him that for your honour and your state/Will use you nobly and your
followers" (ll.258-260).

Even when things begin to go awry for the Andronici, each one
maintains a firm grasp of his own interpretation of honour. The death
of Mutius comes about because Titus and his sons have different
concepts of honour; Titus feels the Emperor's desires should have
precedence, his sons that Roman law should govern all, including the
Emperor. As such, when Lucius reprimands Titus for slaying one of his
own sons, Titus responds "Nor thou, nor he, are any sons of mine;/My
sons would never so dishonour me" (l.296). Moments later, Saturninus
declares to Titus "I'll trust by leisure him that mocks me once,/Thee
never, nor thy traitorous haughty sons,/Confederates all to dishonour
me" (ll.301-303). Subsequently, Titus cannot quite believe that
Saturninus has chosen Tamora as his empress and again sees himself
dishonoured; "Titus, when wert thou wont to walk alone,/Dishonoured
thus and challeng'd of wrongs" (ll.340-341). When Marcus is pleading
with Titus that Mutius should be allowed to be buried in the family
tomb, he implores, "Suffer thy brother Marcus to inter/His noble
nephew here in virtue's nest,/That died in honour and Lavinia's cause"
(ll.375-377). Having reluctantly agreed to allow Mutius a royal
burial, Titus then returns to the issue of how he feels his sons have
turned on him and dishonoured him: "The dismall'st day is this that
e'er I saw,/To be dishonoured by my sons in Rome" (ll.384-385). At
this point, Marcus, Martius, Quintus and Lucius declare of the slain
Mutius, "He lives in fame, that died in virtue's cause" (ll.390).

Other characters also become involved in the affray resulting from the
disagreement among the Andronici, and they too are equally concerned
with honour. After Saturninus has condemned Titus, Bassianus appeals
to him, "This noble gentleman, Lord Titus here,/Is in opinion and in
honour wronged" (ll.415-416). Then, in a surprising move, Tamora
suggests to Saturninus that he should forgive Titus and his family.
Saturninus is at first aghast, believing that Tamora is now
dishonouring him as well; "What madam, be dishonoured openly,/And
basely put it up without revenge?" (ll.442-443), to which Tamora
replies,



The irony here, of course, is that her false appeal to honour is what
begins the bloody cycle of revenge which dominates the rest of the
play.

Although not all subsequent scenes are as heavily saturated with
references to honour, nobility and virtue as is the opening, they are
continually alluded to throughout the play. Other notable examples
include Aaron's description of Tamora; "Upon her wit doth earthly
honour wait,/And virtue stoops and trembles at her frown" (2.1.10-11).
An ironic and sarcastic reference to honour occurs when Bassianus and
Lavinia encounter Aaron and Tamora in the forest and Bassianus tells
Tamora "your swarthy Cimmerian/Doth make your honour of his body's
hue,/Spotted, detested, and abominable" (2.3.72-74). Later, after the
Clown has delivered Titus' letter to Saturninus, Saturninus declares
"Go, drag the villain hither by the hair./Nor age nor honour shall
shape privilege" (4.4.55-56). Another example is seen outside Rome,
when a Goth refers to Lucius "Whose high exploits and honourable
deeds/Ingrateful Rome requites with foul contempt" (5.1.11-12).

A further significant motif is metaphor related to violence: "the
world of 'Titus' is not simply one of meaningless acts of random
violence but rather one in which language engenders violence and
violence is done to language through the distance between word and
thing, between metaphor and what it represents." For example, in 3.1
when Titus asks Aaron to cut off his hand because he believes it will
save his sons' lives he says, "Lend me thy hand, and I will give thee
mine." Therefore, in the language of 'Titus', "to lend one's hand is
to risk dismemberment."

No discussion of the language of 'Titus' is complete without reference
to Marcus's speech upon finding Lavinia after her rape:



In this much discussed speech, the discrepancy between the beautiful
imagery and the horrific sight before us has been noted by many
critics as jarring, and the speech is often severely edited or
completely removed for performance; in the 1955 RSC production, for
example, director Peter Brook cut the speech entirely. There is also a
great deal of disagreement amongst critics as to the essential meaning
of the speech. John Dover Wilson, for example, sees it as nothing more
than a parody, Shakespeare mocking the work of his contemporaries by
writing something so bad. He finds no other tonally analogous speech
in all of Shakespeare, concluding it is "a bundle of ill-matched
conceits held together by sticky sentimentalism". Similarly, Eugene M.
Waith determines that the speech is an aesthetic failure that may have
looked good on the page but which is incongruous in performance.

However, defenders of the play have posited several theories which
seek to illustrate the thematic relevance of the speech. For example,
Nicholas Brooke argues that it "stands in the place of a choric
commentary on the crime, establishing its significance to the play by
making an emblem of the mutilated woman". Actress Eve Myles, who
played Lavinia in the 2003 RSC production, suggests that Marcus "tries
to bandage her wounds with language", thus the speech has a calming
effect and is Marcus's attempt to soothe Lavinia.

Another theory is suggested by Anthony Brian Taylor, who argues simply
that Marcus is babbling; "beginning with references to 'dream' and
'slumber' and ending with one to sleep, the speech is an old man's
reverie; shaken by the horrible and totally unexpected spectacle
before him, he has succumbed to the senile tendency to drift away and
become absorbed in his own thoughts rather than confront the harshness
of reality." Jonathan Bate however, sees the speech as more complex,
arguing that it attempts to give voice to the indescribable. Bate thus
sees it as an illustration of language's ability to "bring back that
which has been lost", i.e. Lavinia's beauty and innocence is
figuratively returned in the beauty of the language. Similarly, for
Brian Vickers, "these sensual pictorial images are appropriate to
Lavinia's beauty now forever destroyed. That is, they serve one of the
constant functions of tragedy, to document the 'metabolé', that tragic
contrast between what people once were and what they have become."
Jacques Berthoud provides another theory, arguing that the speech
"exhibits two qualities seldom found together: an unevasive emotional
recognition of the horrors of her injuries, and the knowledge that,
despite her transformation into a living grave of herself, she remains
the person he knows and loves." Thus, the speech evokes Marcus's
"protective identification" with her. D. J. Palmer feels that the
speech is an attempt to rationalise in Marcus's own mind the sheer
horror of what he is seeing;



In contradistinction to Dover Wilson and Waith, several scholars have
argued that while the speech may not work on the page, it can work in
performance. Discussing the Deborah Warner RSC production at The Swan
in 1987, which used an unedited text, Stanley Wells argues that Donald
Sumpter's delivery of the speech "became a deeply moving attempt to
master the facts and thus to overcome the emotional shock of a
previously unimagined horror. We had the sense of a suspension of
time, as if the speech represented an articulation, necessarily
extended in expression, of a sequence of thoughts and emotions, that
might have taken no more than a second or two to flash through the
character's mind, like a bad dream." Also speaking of the Warner
production and Sumpter's performance, Alan C. Dessen writes "we
observe Marcus, step-by-step, use his logic and Lavinia's reactions to
work out what has happened, so that the spectators both see Lavinia
directly 'and' see through his eyes and images. In the process the
horror of the situation is filtered through a human consciousness in a
way difficult to describe but powerful to experience."

Looking at the language of the play in a more general sense has also
produced a range of critical theories. For example, Jacques Berthoud
argues that the rhetoric of the play is explicitly bound up with its
theme; "the entire dramatic script, soliloquies included, functions as
a network of responses and reactions. [The language's] primary and
consistent function is interlocutory." An entirely different
interpretation is that of Jack Reese, who argues that Shakespeare's
use of language functions to remove the audience from the effects and
implications of violence; it has an almost Brechtian . Using the
example of Marcus' speech, Reese argues that the audience is
disconnected from the violence through the seemingly incongruent
descriptions of that violence. Such language serves to "further
emphasise the artificiality of the play; in a sense, they suggest to
the audience that it is hearing a poem read rather than seeing the
events of that poem put into dramatic form." Gillian Kendall, however,
reaches the opposite conclusion, arguing that rhetorical devices such
as metaphor augment the violent imagery, not diminish it, because the
figurative use of certain words complements their literal
counterparts. This, however, "disrupts the way the audience perceives
imagery." An example of this is seen in the body politic/dead body
imagery early in the play, as the two images soon become
interchangeable. Another theory is provided by Peter M. Sacks, who
argues that the language of the play is marked by "an artificial and
heavily emblematic style, and above all a revoltingly grotesque series
of horrors which seem to have little function but to ironise man's
inadequate expressions of pain and loss".


                            Performance
======================================================================
The earliest definite recorded performance of 'Titus' was on 24
January 1594, when Philip Henslowe noted a performance by Sussex's Men
of 'Titus & ondronicus'. Although Henslowe does not specify a
theatre, it was most likely The Rose. Repeated performances were
staged on 28 January and 6 February. On 5 and 12 June, Henslowe
recorded two further performances of the play, at the Newington Butts
Theatre by the combined Admiral's Men and Lord Chamberlain's Men. The
24 January show earned three pounds eight shillings, and the
performances on 29 January and 6 February earned two pounds each,
making it the most profitable play of the season. The next recorded
performance was on 1 January 1596, when a troupe of London actors,
possibly Chamberlain's Men, performed the play during the Christmas
festivities at Burley-on-the-Hill in the manor of Sir John Harington,
Baron of Exton.

Some scholars, however, have suggested that the January 1594
performance may not be the first recorded performance of the play. On
11 April 1592, Henslowe recorded ten performances by Derby's Men of a
play called 'Titus and Vespasian', which some, such as E. K. Chambers,
have identified with Shakespeare's play. Most scholars, however,
believe that 'Titus and Vespasian' is more likely a different play
about the two real life Roman Emperors, Vespasian, who ruled from 69
to 79, and his son Titus, who ruled from 79 to 81. The two were
subjects of many narratives at the time, and a play about them would
not have been unusual. Dover Wilson further argues that the theory
that 'Titus and Vespasian' is 'Titus Andronicus' probably originated
in an 1865 English translation of a 1620 German translation of
'Titus', in which Lucius had been renamed Vespasian.

Although it is known that the play was definitely popular in its day,
there is no other recorded performance for many years. In January
1668, it was listed by the Lord Chamberlain as one of twenty-one plays
owned by the King's Company which had, at some stage previously, been
acted at Blackfriars Theatre; "A Catalogue of part of his Mates
Servants Playes as they were formally acted at the Blackfryers &
now allowed of to his Mates Servants at ye New Theatre." However, no
other information is provided. During the late seventeenth, eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries, adaptations of the play came to dominate the
stage, and after the Burley performance in 1596 and the possible
Blackfriars performance some time prior to 1667, there is no definite
recorded performance of the Shakespearean text in England until the
early twentieth century.

After over 300 years absence from the English stage, the play returned
on 8 October 1923, in a production directed by Robert Atkins at The
Old Vic, as part of the Vic's presentation of the complete dramatic
works over a seven-year period. The production featured Wilfred Walter
as Titus, Florence Saunders as Tamora, George Hayes as Aaron and Jane
Bacon as Lavinia. Reviews at the time praised Hayes' performance but
criticised Walter's as monotonous. Atkins staged the play with a
strong sense of Elizabethan theatrical authenticity, with a plain
black backdrop, and a minimum of props. Critically, the production met
with mixed reviews, some welcoming the return of the original play to
the stage, some questioning why Atkins had bothered when various
adaptations were much better and still extant. Nevertheless, the play
was a huge box office success, one of the most successful in the
Complete Works presentation.

The earliest known performance of the Shakespearean text in the United
States was in April 1924 when the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity of Yale
University staged the play under the direction of John M. Berdan and
E. M. Woolley as part of a double bill with Robert Greene's 'Friar
Bacon and Friar Bungay'. While some material was removed from 3.2, 3.3
and 3.4, the rest of the play was left intact, with much attention
devoted to the violence and gore. The cast list for this production
has been lost.

The best known and most successful production of the play in England
was directed by Peter Brook for the RSC at the Royal Shakespeare
Theatre in 1955, starring Laurence Olivier as Titus, Maxine Audley as
Tamora, Anthony Quayle as Aaron and Vivien Leigh as Lavinia. Brook had
been offered the chance to direct 'Macbeth' but had controversially
turned it down, and instead decided to stage 'Titus'. The media
predicted that the production would be a massive failure, and possibly
spell the end of Brook's career, but on the contrary, it was a huge
commercial and critical success, with many of the reviews arguing that
Brook's alterations improved Shakespeare's script (Marcus' lengthy
speech upon discovering Lavinia was removed and some of the scenes in
Act 4 were reorganised). Olivier in particular was singled out for his
performance and for making Titus a truly sympathetic character. J. C.
Trewin for example, wrote "the actor had thought himself into the hell
of Titus; we forgot the inadequacy of the words in the spell of the
projection." The production is also noted for muting the violence:
Chiron and Demetrius were killed off stage; the heads of Quintus and
Martius were never seen; the nurse is strangled, not stabbed; Titus'
hand was never seen; blood and wounds were symbolised by red ribbons.
Edward Trostle Jones summed up the style of the production as
employing "stylised distancing effects". The scene where Lavinia first
appears after the rape was singled out by critics as being especially
horrific, with her wounds portrayed by red streamers hanging from her
wrists and mouth. Some reviewers however, found the production too
beautified, making it unrealistic, with several commenting on the
cleanness of Lavinia's face after her tongue has supposedly been cut
out. After its hugely successful Royal Shakespeare Theatre run, the
play went on tour around Europe in 1957. No video recordings of the
production are known, although there are many photographs available.

The success of the Brook production seems to have provided an impetus
for directors to tackle the play, and ever since 1955, there has been
a steady stream of performances on the English and American stages.
After Brook, the next major production came in 1967, when Douglas
Seale directed an extremely graphic and realistic presentation at the
Centre Stage in Baltimore with costumes that recalled the various
combatants in World War II. Seale's production employed a strong sense
of theatrical realism to make parallels between the contemporary
period and that of 'Titus', and thus comment on the universality of
violence and revenge. Seale set the play in the 1940s and made pointed
parallels with concentration camps, the massacre at Katyn, the
Nuremberg Rallies and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Saturninus
was based on Benito Mussolini and all his followers dressed entirely
in black; Titus was modelled after a Prussian Army officer; the
Andronici wore Nazi insignia and the Goths at the end of the play were
dressed in Allied Forces uniforms; the murders in the last scene are
all carried out by gunfire, and at the end of the play swastikas
rained down onto the stage. The play received mixed reviews with many
critics wondering why Seale had chosen to associate the Andronici with
Nazism, arguing that it created a mixed metaphor.

Later in 1967, as a direct reaction to Seale's realistic production,
Gerald Freedman directed a performance for Joseph Papp's Shakespeare
Festival at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park, Manhattan, starring
Jack Hollander as Titus, Olympia Dukakis as Tamora, Moses Gunn as
Aaron and Erin Martin as Lavinia. Freedman had seen Seale's production
and felt it failed because it worked by "bringing into play our sense
of reality in terms of detail and literal time structure". He argued
that when presented realistically, the play simply does not work, as
it raises too many practical questions, such as why does Lavinia not
bleed to death, why does Marcus not take her to the hospital
immediately, why does Tamora not notice that the pie tastes unusual,
exactly how do both Martius and Quintus manage to fall into a hole?
Freedman argued that "if one wants to create a fresh emotional
response to the violence, blood and multiple mutilations of 'Titus
Andronicus', one must shock the imagination and subconscious with
visual images that recall the richness and depth of primitive
rituals." As such, the costumes were purposely designed to represent
no particular time or place but were instead based on those of the
Byzantine Empire and feudal Japan. Additionally, the violence was
stylised; instead of swords and daggers, wands were used and no
contact was ever made. The colour scheme was hallucinatory, changing
mid-scene. Characters wore classic masks of comedy and tragedy. The
slaughter in the final scene was accomplished symbolically by having
each character wrapped in a red robe as they died. A narrator (Charles
Dance) was also used, who, prior to each act, would announce what was
going to happen in the upcoming act, thus undercutting any sense of
realism. The production received generally positive reviews, with
Mildred Kuner arguing "Symbolism rather than gory realism was what
made this production so stunning."

In 1972, Trevor Nunn directed an RSC production at the Royal
Shakespeare Theatre, as part of a presentation of the four Roman
plays, starring Colin Blakely as Titus, Margaret Tyzack as Tamora,
Calvin Lockhart as Aaron and Janet Suzman as Lavinia. Colin Blakely
and John Wood as a vicious and maniacal Saturninus received
particularly positive reviews. This production took the realistic
approach and did not shirk from the more specific aspects of the
violence; for example, Lavinia has trouble walking after the rape,
which, it is implied, was anal rape. Nunn believed the play asked
profound questions about the sustainability of Elizabethan society,
and as such, he linked the play to the contemporary period to ask the
same questions of late twentieth-century England; he was "less
concerned with the condition of ancient Rome than with the morality of
contemporary life". In his program notes, Nunn wrote "Shakespeare's
Elizabethan nightmare has become ours." He was especially interested
in the theory that decadence had led to the collapse of Rome. At the
end of 4.2, for example, there was an on-stage orgy, and throughout
the play, supporting actors appeared in the backgrounds dancing,
eating, drinking and behaving outrageously. Also in this vein, the
play opened with a group of people paying homage to a waxwork of an
obese emperor reclining on a couch and clutching a bunch of grapes.

The play was performed for the first time at the Stratford Shakespeare
Festival in Ontario, Canada in 1978, when it was directed by Brian
Bedford, starring William Hutt as Titus, Jennifer Phipps as Tamora,
Alan Scarfe as Aaron and Domini Blithe as Lavinia. Bedford went with
neither stylisation nor realism; instead the violence simply tended to
happen off-stage, but everything else was realistically presented. The
play received mixed reviews with some praising its restraint and
others arguing that the suppression of the violence went too far. Many
cited the final scene, where despite three onstage stabbings, not one
drop of blood was visible, and the reveal of Lavinia, where she was
totally bloodless despite her mutilation. This production cut Lucius'
final speech and instead ended with Aaron alone on the stage as Sibyl
predicts the fall of Rome in lines written by Bedford himself. As
such, "for affirmation and healing under Lucius the production
substituted a sceptical modern theme of evil triumphant and Rome's
decadence."

A celebrated, and unedited production, (according to Jonathan Bate,
not a single line from Q1 was cut) was directed by Deborah Warner in
1987 at The Swan and remounted at Barbican's Pit in 1988 for the RSC,
starring Brian Cox as Titus, Estelle Kohler as Tamora, Peter
Polycarpou as Aaron and Sonia Ritter as Lavinia. Met with almost
universally positive reviews, Jonathan Bate regards it as the finest
production of any Shakespearean play of the entire 1980s. Using a
small cast, Warner had her actors address the audience from time to
time throughout the play and often had actors leave the stage and
wander out into the auditorium. Opting for a realist presentation, the
play had a warning posted in the pit "This play contains scenes which
some people may find disturbing", and numerous critics noted how,
after the interval at many shows, empty seats had appeared in the
audience. Warner's production was considered so successful, both
critically and commercially, that the RSC did not stage the play again
until 2003.

In 1988, Mark Rucker directed a realistic production at Shakespeare
Santa Cruz, starring J. Kenneth Campbell as Titus, Molly Maycock as
Tamora, Elizabeth Atkeson as Lavinia, and an especially well-received
performance by Bruce A. Young as Aaron. Campbell presented Titus in a
much more sympathetic light than usual; for example, he kills Mutius
by accident, pushing him so that he falls against a tree, and his
refusal to allow Mutius to be buried was performed as if in a dream
state. Prior to the production, Rucker had Young work out and get in
shape so that by the time of the performance, he weighed 240 lbs.
Standing at six-foot four, his Aaron was purposely designed to be the
most physically imposing character on the stage. Additionally, he was
often positioned as standing on hills and tables, with the rest of the
cast below him. When he appears with the Goths, he is not their
prisoner, but willingly enters their camp in pursuit of his baby, the
implication being that without this one weakness, he would have been
invincible.

In 1994, Julie Taymor directed the play at the Theater for the New
City. The production featured a prologue and epilogue set in the
modern era, foregrounded the character of Young Lucius, who acts as a
kind of choric observer of events, and starred Robert Stattel as
Titus, Melinda Mullins as Tamora, Harry Lennix as Aaron and Miriam
Healy-Louie as Lavinia. Heavily inspired in her design by Joel-Peter
Witkin, Taymor used stone columns to represent the people of Rome, who
she saw as silent and incapable of expressing any individuality or
subjectivity. Controversially, the play ended with the implication
that Lucius had killed Aaron's baby, despite his vow not to.

In 1995, Gregory Doran directed a production at the Royal National
Theatre, which also played at the Market Theatre in Johannesburg,
South Africa, starring Antony Sher as Titus, Dorothy Ann Gould as
Tamora, Sello Maake as Aaron and Jennifer Woodbine as Lavinia.
Although Doran explicitly denied any political overtones, the play was
set in a modern African context and made explicit parallels to South
African politics. In his production notes, which Doran co-wrote with
Sher, he stated, "Surely, to be relevant, theatre must have an
umbilical connection to the lives of the people watching it." One
particularly controversial decision was to have the play spoken in
indigenous accents rather than Received Pronunciation, which allegedly
resulted in many white South Africans refusing to see the play.
Writing in 'Plays International' in August 1995, Robert Lloyd Parry
argued "the questions raised by 'Titus' went far beyond the play
itself [to] many of the tensions that exist in the new South Africa;
the gulf of mistrust that still exists between blacks and whites ...
'Titus Andronicus' has proved itself to be political theatre in the
truest sense."

For the first time since 1987, the RSC staged the play in 2003, under
the direction of Bill Alexander and starring David Bradley as Titus,
Maureen Beattie as Tamora, Joe Dixon as Aron and Eve Myles as Lavinia.
Convinced that Act 1 was by George Peele, Alexander felt he was not
undermining the integrity of Shakespeare by drastically altering it;
for example, Saturninus and Tamora are present throughout, they never
leave the stage; there is no division between the upper and lower
levels; all mention of Mutius is absent; and over 100 lines were
removed.

In 2006, two major productions were staged within a few weeks of one
another. The first opened on 29 May at Shakespeare's Globe, directed
by Lucy Bailey and starring Douglas Hodge as Titus, Geraldine
Alexander as Tamora, Shaun Parkes as Aaron and Laura Rees as Lavinia.
Bailey focused on a realistic presentation throughout the production;
for example, after her mutilation, Lavinia is covered from head to toe
in blood, with her stumps crudely bandaged, and raw flesh visible
beneath. So graphic was Bailey's use of realism that at several
productions, audience members fainted upon Lavinia's appearance. The
production was also controversial insofar as the Globe had a roof
installed for the first time in its history. The decision was taken by
designer William Dudley, who took as his inspiration a feature of the
Colosseum known as a velarium - a cooling system which consisted of a
canvas-covered, net-like structure made of ropes, with a hole in the
centre. Dudley made it as a PVC awning which was intended to darken
the auditorium.

The second 2006 production opened at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre on
9 June as part of the 'Complete Works Festival'. Directed by Yukio
Ninagawa, it starred Kotaro Yoshida as Titus, Rei Asami as Tamora,
Shun Oguri as Aaron and Hitomi Manaka as Lavinia. Performed in
Japanese, the original English text was projected as surtitles onto
the back of the stage. In stark contrast to Bailey's production,
theatricality was emphasised; the play begins with the company still
rehearsing and getting into costume and the stage hands still putting
the sets together. The production followed the 1955 Brook production
in its depiction of violence; actress Hitomi Manaka appeared after the
rape scene with stylised red ribbons coming from her mouth and arms,
substituting for blood. Throughout the play, at the back of the stage,
a huge marble wolf can be seen from which feed Romulus and Remus, with
the implication being that Rome is a society based on animalistic
origins. The play ends with Young Lucius holding Aaron's baby out to
the audience and crying out "The horror! The horror!"

Several reviews of the time made much of the manner in which each
production approached the appearance of Lavinia after the rape: "At
Shakespeare's Globe, the groundlings are fainting at the mutilations
in Lucy Bailey's coarse but convincing production. To
Stratford-upon-Avon, Yukio Ninagawa brings a Japanese staging so
stylised that it keeps turning the horror into visual poetry."
Speaking of Bailey's production, Eleanor Collins of , said of the
scene, "audience members turned their heads away in real distress".
Charles Spencer of 'The Daily Telegraph' called Lavinia "almost too
ghastly to behold". Michael Billington of 'The Guardian' said her slow
shuffle onto the stage "chills the blood". Sam Marlowe of 'The Times'
saw Bailey's use of realism as extremely important for the moral of
the production as a whole: "violated, her hands and her tongue cruelly
cut away, she stumbles into view drenched in blood, flesh dangling
from her hacked wrists, moaning and keening, almost animalistic. It's
the production's most powerful symbolic image, redolent of the
dehumanising effects of war." Of Ninagawa's production, some critics
felt the use of stylisation damaged the impact of the scene. Benedict
Nightingale of 'The Times', for example, asked "is it enough to
suggest bloodletting by having red ribbons flow from wrists and
throats?" Similarly, 'The Guardian's' Michael Billington, who had
praised Bailey's use of realistic effects, wrote "At times I felt that
Ninagawa, through stylised images and Handelian music, unduly
aestheticised violence." Some critics, however, felt the stylisation
was more powerful than Bailey's realism; Neil Allan and Scott Revers
of , for example, wrote "Blood itself was denoted by spools of red
thread spilling from garments, limbs and Lavinia's mouth. Cruelty was
stylised; the visceral became the aesthetic." Similarly, Paul Taylor,
writing for 'The Independent', wrote "Gore is represented by swatches
of red cords that tumble and trail from wounded wrists and mouths. You
might think that this method had a cushioning effect. In fact it
concentrates and heightens the horror." Ninagawa himself said "The
violence is all there. I am just trying to express these things in a
different way from any previous production." In her 2013 essay,
"Mythological Reconfigurations on the Contemporary Stage: Giving a New
Voice to Philomela in 'Titus Andronicus'", which directly compares the
depictions of the two Lavinias, Agnès Lafont writes of Ninagawa's
production that Lavinia's appearance functions as a "visual emblem":
"Bloodshed and beauty create a stark dissonance ... Distancing itself
from the violence it stages thanks to 'dissonance', the production
presents Lavinia onstage as if she were a painting ... Ninagawa's work
distances itself from cruelty, as the spectacle of suffering is
stylised. Ribbons that represent blood ... are symbolic means of
filtering the aching spectacle of an abused daughter, and yet the
spectacle retains its shocking potential and its power of empathy all
the while intellectualizing it."

In 2007, Gale Edwards directed a production for the Shakespeare
Theatre Company at the Harman Center for the Arts, starring Sam
Tsoutsouvas as Titus, Valerie Leonard as Tamora, Colleen Delany as
Lavinia, and Peter Macon as Aaron. Set in an unspecific modern milieu,
props were kept to a minimum, with lighting and general staging kept
simple, as Edwards wanted the audience to concentrate on the story,
not the staging. The production received generally very favourable
reviews.

In 2011, Michael Sexton directed a modern military dress production at
The Public Theater on a minimalistic set made of plywood boards. The
production had a low budget and much of it was spent on huge volumes
of blood that literally drenched the actors in the final scene, as
Sexton said he was determined to outdo his contemporaries in terms of
the amount of on-stage blood in the play. The production starred Jay
O. Sanders (who was nominated for a Lucille Lortel) as Titus,
Stephanie Roth Haberle as Tamora, Ron Cephas Jones as Aaron and
Jennifer Ikeda as Lavinia.

In 2013, Michael Fentiman directed the play for the Royal Shakespeare
Company, with Stephen Boxer as Titus, Katy Stephens as Tamora, Kevin
Harvey as Aaron, and Rose Reynolds as Lavinia. Emphasising the gore
and violence, the production carried a trailer with warnings of
"graphic imagery and scenes of butchery". It played at The Swan until
October 2013. Also in 2013, the Hudson Shakespeare Company staged a
production directed by Jon Ciccarelli as part of a special Halloween
festival for the Historic Jersey City and Harsimus Cemetery. The
production contrasted a military and modern Goth culture, but quickly
disintegrated into an anarchic state, stressing the black comedy of
the play.

Outside Britain and the United States, other significant productions
include Qiping Xu's 1986 production in China, which drew political
parallels to Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards;
Peter Stein's 1989 production in Italy which evoked images of
twentieth century Fascism; Daniel Mesguich's 1989 production in Paris,
which set the entire play in a crumbling library, acting as a symbol
for Roman civilisation; Nenni Delmestre's 1992 production in Zagreb
which acted as a metaphor for the struggles of the Croatian people;
and Silviu Purcărete's 1992 Romanian production, which explicitly
avoided using the play as a metaphor for the fall of Nicolae Ceaușescu
(this production is one of the most successful plays ever staged in
Romania, and it was revived every year up to 1997).


Plays
=======
The first known adaptation of the play originated in the later years
of the sixteenth century. In 1620, a German publication entitled
contained a play called  ('A most lamentable tragedy of Titus
Andronicus and the haughty empress, wherein are found memorable
events'). Transcribed by Frederick Menius, the play was a version of
'Titus' performed by Robert Browne and John Greene's group of
travelling players. The overriding plot of 'Tito Andronico' is
identical to 'Titus', but all the character names are different, with
the exception of Titus himself. Written in prose, the play does not
feature the fly killing scene (3.2), Bassianus does not oppose
Saturninus for the throne, Alarbus is absent, Quintus and Mutius are
only seen after their death, many of the classical and mythological
allusions have been removed; stage directions are much more elaborate,
for example, in the banquet scene, Titus is described as wearing
blood-soaked rags and carrying a butcher's knife dripping with blood.

Another European adaptation came in 1637, when Dutch dramatist Jan Vos
wrote a version of the play entitled 'Aran en Titus', which was
published in 1641, and republished in 1642, 1644, 1648 and 1649,
illustrating its popularity. The play may have been based on a 1621
work, now lost, by Adriaen Van den Bergh, which may itself have been a
composite of the English 'Titus' and the German 'Tito Andronico'. Vos'
play focuses on Aaron, who, in the final scene, is burned alive on
stage, beginning a tradition amongst adaptations of foregrounding the
Moor and ending the play with his death.

The earliest English language adaptation was in 1678 at Drury Lane, by
Edward Ravenscroft: 'Titus Andronicus, or the Rape of Lavinia. A
Tragedy, Alter'd from Mr. Shakespeares Works', probably with Thomas
Betterton as Titus and Samuel Sandford as Aaron. In his preface,
Ravenscroft wrote "Compare the Old Play with this you'l finde that
none in all that Authors Works ever receiv'd greater Alterations or
Additions, the language not only Refin'd, but many Scenes entirely
New: Besides most of the principal Characters heighten'd and the Plot
much incresas'd." The play was a huge success and was revived in 1686,
and published the following year. It was revived again in 1704 and
1717. The 1717 revival was especially successful, starring John Mills
as Titus, Mrs. Giffard as Tamora, James Quin as Aaron, and John
Thurmond as Saturninus. The play was revived again in 1718 and 1719
(with John Bickerstaff as Aaron) and 1721 (with Thomas Walker in the
role). Quin had left Drury Lane in 1718 and gone to Lincoln's Inn
Fields, which was owned by John Rich. Rich's actors had little
Shakespearean experience, and Quin was soon advertised as the main
attraction. In 1718, the adaptation was presented twice at Lincoln,
both times with Quin as Aaron. In the 1720-1721 season, the play
earned £81 with three performances. Quin became synonymous with the
role of Aaron, and in 1724 he chose the adaptation as the play to be
performed at his benefit.

Ravenscroft made drastic alterations to the play. He removed all of
2.2 (preparing for the hunt), 3.2 (the fly killing scene), 4.3 (firing
the arrows and sending the clown to Saturninus) and 4.4 (the execution
of the clown). Much of the violence was toned down; for example both
the murder of Chiron and Demetrius and Titus' amputation take place
off stage. A significant change in the first scene, and one with major
implications for the rest of the play, is that prior to the sacrifice
of Alarbus, it is revealed that several years previously, Tamora had
one of Titus' sons in captivity and refused to show him clemency
despite Titus' pleas. Aaron has a much larger role in Ravenscroft than
in Shakespeare, especially in Act 1, where lines originally assigned
to Demetrius and Tamora are given to him. Tamora does not give birth
during the action, but earlier, with the baby secretly kept by a
nurse. To maintain the secret, Aaron kills the nurse, and it is the
nurse's husband, not Lucius, who captures Aaron as he leaves Rome with
the child. Additionally, Lucius' army is not composed of Goths, but of
Roman centurions loyal to the Andronici. The last act is also
considerably longer; Tamora and Saturninus both have lengthy speeches
after their fatal stabbings. Tamora asks for her child to be brought
to her, but she stabs it immediately upon receiving it. Aaron laments
that Tamora has now outdone him in evil; "She has out-done me in my
own Art -/Out-done me in Murder - Kille'd her own Child./Give it me -
I'le eat it." He is burned alive as the climax of the play.

In January and February 1839 an adaptation written and directed by and
also starring Nathaniel Bannister was performed for four nights at the
Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia. The playbill had a note reading
"The manager, in announcing this play, adapted by N. H. Bannister from
the language of Shakespeare alone, assures the public that every
expression calculated to offend the ear, has been studiously avoided,
and the play is presented for their decision with full confidence that
it will merit approbation." In his 'History of the Philadelphia
Stage', Volume IV (1878), Charles Durang wrote, "Bannister ably
preserved the beauties of its poetry, the intensity of its incidents,
and excluded the horrors with infinite skill, yet preserved all the
interest of the drama." Nothing else is known about this production.

The most successful adaptation of the play in Britain premiered in
1850, written by Ira Aldridge and C. A. Somerset. Aaron was rewritten
to make him the hero of the piece (played by Aldridge), the rape and
mutilation of Lavinia were removed, Tamora (Queen of Scythia) became
chaste and honourable, with Aaron as her friend only, and Chiron and
Demetrius act only out of love for their mother. Only Saturninus is a
truly evil character. Towards the end of the play, Saturninus has
Aaron chained to a tree, and his baby flung into the Tiber. Aaron
frees himself however and leaps into the river after the child. At the
end, Saturninus poisons Aaron, but as Aaron dies, Lavinia promises to
look after his child for him, due to his saving her from rape earlier
in the piece. An entire scene from 'Zaraffa, the Slave King', a play
written specifically for Aldridge in Dublin in 1847, was included in
this adaptation. After the initial performances, Aldridge kept the
play in the repertoire, and it was extremely successful at the box
office and continued to be staged in England, Ireland, Scotland and
Wales until at least 1857, when it received a glowing review from 'The
Sunday Times' on 26 April. It was generally agreed amongst reviewers
of the period that the Aldridge/Somerset rewrite was considerably
superior to Shakespeare's original. For example, 'The Era' reviewer
wrote,



The next adaptation was in 1951, when Kenneth Tynan and Peter Myers
staged a thirty-five-minute version entitled 'Andronicus' as part of a
Grand Guignol presentation at the Irving Theatre. Produced in the
tradition of Theatre of Cruelty, the production edited together all of
the violent scenes, emphasised the gore, and removed Aaron entirely.
In a review in the 'Sunday Times' on 11 November, Harold Hobson wrote
the stage was full of "practically the whole company waving gory
stumps and eating cannibal pies".

In 1957 the Old Vic staged a heavily edited ninety-minute performance
as part of a double bill with an edited version of 'The Comedy of
Errors'. Directed by Walter Hudd, both plays were performed by the
same company of actors, with Derek Godfrey as Titus, Barbara Jefford
as Tamora, Margaret Whiting as Lavinia and Robert Helpmann as
Saturninus. Performed in the manner of a traditional Elizabethan
production, the play received mixed reviews. 'The Times', for example,
felt that the juxtaposition of the blood tragedy and the frothy comedy
was "ill-conceived".

In 1970, Swiss dramatist Friedrich Dürrenmatt adapted the play into a
German language comedy entitled  ('Titus Andronicus: Comedy After
Shakespeare'). Of the adaptation he wrote "it represents an attempt to
render Shakespeare's early chaotic work fit for the German stage
without having the Shakespearean atrocities and grotesqueries passed
over in silence." Working from a translation of the 'First Folio' text
by Wolf Graf von Baudissin, Dürrenmatt altered much of the dialogue
and changed elements of the plot; the fly killing scene (3.2) and the
interrogation of Aaron (5.1) were removed; Titus has Aaron cut off his
hand, and after he realises he has been tricked, Marcus brings Lavinia
to him rather than the other way around as in the original play.
Another major change is that after Aaron is presented with his love
child, he flees Rome immediately, and successfully, and is never heard
from again. Dürrenmatt also added a new scene, where Lucius arrives at
the Goth camp and persuades their leader, Alarich, to help him. At the
end of the play, after Lucius has stabbed Saturninus, but before he
has given his final speech, Alarich betrays him, kills him, and orders
his army to destroy Rome and kill everyone in it.

In 1981, John Barton followed the 1957 Old Vic model and directed a
heavily edited version of the play as a double bill with 'The Two
Gentlemen of Verona' for the RSC, starring Patrick Stewart as Titus,
Sheila Hancock as Tamora, Hugh Quarshie as Aaron and Leonie Mellinger
as Lavinia. Theatricality and falseness were emphasised, and when
actors were off stage, they could be seen at the sides of the stage
watching the performance. The production received lukewarm reviews,
and had an average box office.

In 1984, German playwright Heiner Müller adapted the play into
('Anatomy Titus: Fall of Rome. A Shakespearean Commentary').
Interspersing the dialogue with a chorus like commentary, the
adaptation was heavily political and made reference to numerous
twentieth century events, such as the rise of the Third Reich,
Stalinism, the erection of the Berlin Wall and the attendant
emigration and defection issues, and the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.
Müller removed the entire first act, replacing it was a narrated
introduction, and completely rewrote the final act. He described the
work as "terrorist in nature", and foregrounded the violence; for
example Lavinia is brutally raped on stage and Aaron takes several
hacks at Titus' hand before amputating it. First performed at the
Schauspielhaus Bochum, it was directed by Manfred Karge and Matthias
Langhoff, and is still regularly revived in Germany.

In 1989, Jeanette Lambermont directed a heavily edited kabuki version
of the play at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival, in a double bill
with 'The Comedy of Errors', starring Nicholas Pennell as Titus,
Goldie Semple as Tamora, Hubert Baron Kelly as Aaron and Lucy Peacock
as Lavinia.

In 2005, German playwright Botho Strauß adapted the play into  ('Rape:
After Titus Andronicus by Shakespeare'), also commonly known by its
French name, . Set in both a contemporary and an ancient world
predating the Roman Empire, the adaptation begins with a group of
salesmen trying to sell real estate; gated communities which they
proclaim as , where women and children are secure from "theft, rape
and kidnapping". Mythology is important in the adaptation; Venus is
represented as governing nature, but is losing her power to the
melancholic and uninterested Saturn, leading to a society rampant with
(lack of meaning, insignificance). Written in prose rather than blank
verse, changes to the text include the rape of Lavinia being Tamora's
idea instead of Aaron's; the removal of Marcus; Titus does not kill
his son; he does not have his hand amputated; Chiron is much more
subservient to Demetrius; Aaron is more philosophical, trying to find
meaning in his acts of evil rather than simply revelling in them;
Titus does not die at the end, nor does Tamora, although the play ends
with Titus ordering the deaths of Tamora and Aaron.

In 2008, Müller's 'Anatomie Titus' was translated into English by
Julian Hammond and performed at the Cremorne Theatre in Brisbane, the
Canberra Theatre, the Playhouse in the Sydney Opera House and the
Malthouse Theatre, Melbourne by the Bell Shakespeare Company and the
Queensland Theatre Company. Directed by Michael Gow and with an
all-male cast, it starred John Bell as Titus, Peter Cook as Tamora,
Timothy Walter as Aaron and Thomas Campbell as Lavinia. Racism was a
major theme in this production, with Aaron initially wearing a gorilla
mask, and then poorly applied blackface, and his baby 'played' by a
golliwogg.

In 2012, as part of the Globe to Globe Festival at Shakespeare's
Globe, the play was performed under the title 'Titus 2.0'. Directed by
Tang Shu-wing, it starred Andy Ng Wai-shek as Titus, Ivy Pang
Ngan-ling as Tamora, Chu Pak-hong as Aaron and Lai Yuk-ching as
Lavinia. Performed entirely in Cantonese, from an original script by
Cancer Chong, the play had originally been staged in Hong Kong in
2009. The production took a minimalist approach and featured very
little blood (after Lavinia has her hands cut off, for example, she
simply wears red gloves for the rest of the play). The production
features a narrator throughout, who speaks both in first person and
third person, sometimes directly to the audience, sometimes to other
characters on the stage. The role of the narrator alternates
throughout the play, but is always performed by a member of the main
cast. The production received excellent reviews, both in its original
Hong Kong incarnation, and when restaged at the Globe.

In 2014, Noelle Fair and Lisa LaGrande adapted the play into
'Interpreting her Martyr'd Signs', the title of which is taken from
Titus' claim to be able to understand the mute Lavinia. Focusing on
the backstories of Tamora and Lavinia, the play is set in Purgatory
shortly after their deaths, where they find themselves in a waiting
area with Aaron as their salvation or damnation is decided upon. As
they try to come to terms with their unresolved conflict, Aaron serves
as a master of ceremonies, initiating a dialogue between them, leading
to a series of flashbacks to their lives prior to the beginning of the
play.

'Gary: A Sequel to Titus Andronicus', an absurdist comic play by
Taylor Mac and directed by George C. Wolfe, began previews at the
Booth Theatre on Broadway on 11 March 2019 with an opening of 21 April
2019. The cast included Nathan Lane, Kristine Nielsen, and Julie White
and involved servants tasked with cleaning up the carnage from the
original play.


Musicals
==========
'Titus Andronicus: The Musical!', written by Brian Colonna, Erik
Edborg, Hannah Duggan, Erin Rollman, Evan Weissman, Matt Petraglia,
and Samantha Schmitz, was staged by the Buntport Theater Company in
Denver, Colorado four times between 2002 and 2007. Staged as a band of
travelling thespian players who are attempting to put on a serious
production of 'Titus', and starring Brian Colonna as Titus, Erin
Rollman as Tamora (and Marcus), Hannah Duggan as both Aaron and
Lavinia (when playing Aaron she wore a fake moustache), Erik Edborg as
Lucius and Saturninus, and Evan Weissman as Someone Who Will Probably
Die (he is killed over thirty times during the play). The piece was
very much a farce, and included such moments as Lavinia singing an
aria to the tune of "Oops!...I Did It Again" by Britney Spears, after
her tongue has been cut out; Saturninus and Lucius engaged in a sword
fight, but both being played by the same actor; Chiron and Demetrius
'played' by a gas can and a car radio respectively; the love child
being born with a black moustache. A number of critics felt that the
play improved on Shakespeare's original, and several wondered what
Harold Bloom would have made of it.

'Tragedy! A Musical Comedy', written by Michael Johnson and Mary
Davenport was performed at the 2007 New York International Fringe
Festival in the Lucille Lortel Theatre. Directed by Johnson, the piece
starred Francis Van Wetering as Titus, Alexandra Cirves as Tamora,
Roger Casey as Aaron (aka The Evil Black Guy) and Lauren Huyett as
Lavinia. Staged as a farce, the production included moments such as
Lavinia singing a song entitled "At least I can still sing" after
having her hands cut off, but as she reaches the finale, Chiron and
Demetrius return and cut out her tongue; Lucius is portrayed as a
homosexual in love with Saturninus, and everyone knows except Titus;
Titus kills Mutius not because he defies him, but because he discovers
that Mutius wants to be a tap dancer instead of a soldier; Bassianus
is a transvestite; Saturninus is addicted to prescription medication;
and Tamora is a nymphomaniac.


Film
======
In 1969, Robert Hartford-Davis planned to make a feature film starring
Christopher Lee as Titus and Lesley-Anne Down as Lavinia, but the
project never materialised.

The 1973 horror comedy film 'Theatre of Blood', directed by Douglas
Hickox featured a very loose adaptation of the play. Vincent Price
stars in the film as Edward Lionheart, who regards himself as the
finest Shakespearean actor of all time. When he fails to be awarded
the prestigious Critic's Circle Award for Best Actor, he sets about
exacting bloody revenge on the critics who gave him poor reviews, with
each act inspired by a death in a Shakespeare play. One such act of
revenge involves the critic Meredith Merridew (played by Robert
Morley). Lionheart abducts Merridew's prized poodles, and bakes them
in a pie, which he then feeds to Merridew, before revealing all and
force-feeding the critic until he chokes to death.

A 1997 straight-to-video adaptation, which cuts back on the violence,
titled 'Titus Andronicus: The Movie', was directed by Lorn Richey and
starred Ross Dippel as Titus, Aldrich Allen as Aaron, and Maureen
Moran as Lavinia. Another straight-to-video- adaptation was made in
1998, directed by Christopher Dunne, and starring Robert Reese as
Titus, Candy K. Sweet as Tamora, Lexton Raleigh as Aaron, Tom Dennis
as Demitrius, with Levi David Tinker as Chiron and Amanda Gezik as
Lavinia. This version enhanced the violence and increased the gore.
For example, in the opening scene, Alarbus has his face skinned alive,
and is then disembowelled and set on fire.

In 1999, Julie Taymor directed an adaptation entitled 'Titus',
starring Anthony Hopkins as Titus, Jessica Lange as Tamora, Harry
Lennix as Aaron (reprising his role from Taymor's 1994 theatrical
production) and Laura Fraser as Lavinia. As with Taymor's stage
production, the film begins with a young boy playing with toy soldiers
and being whisked away to Ancient Rome, where he assumes the character
of young Lucius. A major component of the film is the mixing of the
old and modern; Chiron and Demetrius dress like modern rock stars, but
the Andronici dress like Roman soldiers; some characters use chariots,
some use cars and motorcycles; crossbows and swords are used alongside
rifles and pistols; tanks are seen driven by soldiers in ancient Roman
garb; bottled beer is seen alongside ancient amphorae of wine;
microphones are used to address characters in ancient clothing.
According to Taymor, this anachronistic structure was created to
emphasise the timelessness of the violence in the film, to suggest
that violence is universal to all humanity, at all times: "Costume,
paraphernalia, horses or chariots or cars; these represent the essence
of a character, as opposed to placing it in a specific time. This is a
film that takes place from the year 1 to the year 2000." At the end of
the film, young Lucius takes the baby and walks out of Rome back to
his era as he reverts to the boy; an image of hope for the future,
symbolized by the rising sun in the background. Originally, the film
was to end as Taymor's 1994 production had, with the implication that
Lucius is going to kill Aaron's baby, but during production of the
film, actor Angus Macfadyen, who played Lucius, convinced Taymor that
Lucius was an honorable man and wouldn't go back on his word. Lisa S.
Starks reads the film as a revisionist horror film and feels that
Taymor is herself part of the process of twentieth century
re-evaluation of the play: "In adapting a play that has traditionally
evoked critical condemnation, Taymor calls into question that
judgement, thereby opening up the possibility for new readings and
considerations of the play within the Shakespeare canon."

'William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus', directed by Richard Griffin
and starring Nigel Gore as Titus, Zoya Pierson as Tamora, Kevin Butler
as Aaron and Molly Lloyd as Lavinia, was released direct to video in
2000. Shot on DV in and around Providence, Rhode Island with a budget
of $12,000, the film is set in a modern business milieu. Saturninus is
a corporate head who has inherited a company from his father, and the
Goths feature as contemporary goths.

In 2017, 'Titus Andronicus' was adapted as 'The Hungry' by director
Bornilla Chatterjee set in contemporary New Delhi, India. It stars
Naseeruddin Shah as Tathagat Ahuja (representing Titus), Tisca Chopra
as Tulsi Joshi (representing Tamora), Neeraj Kabi as Arun Kumar
(Aaron) and Sayani Gupta as Loveleen Ahuja (Lavinia).


Television
============
In 1970, Finnish TV channel Yle TV1 screened an adaptation of the play
written and directed by Jukka Sipilä, starring Leo Lastumäki as Titus,
Iris-Lilja Lassila as Tamora, Eugene Holman as Aaron and Maija Leino
as Lavinia.

In 1985, the BBC produced a version of the play for their 'BBC
Television Shakespeare' series. Directed by Jane Howell, the play was
the thirty-seventh and final episode of the series and starred Trevor
Peacock as Titus, Eileen Atkins as Tamora, Hugh Quarshie as Aaron and
Anna Calder-Marshall as Lavinia. Because 'Titus' was broadcast several
months after the rest of the seventh season, it was rumoured that the
BBC were worried about the violence in the play and that disagreements
had arisen about censorship. This was inaccurate however, as the delay
was actually caused by a BBC strike in 1984. The episode had been
booked into the studio in February and March 1984, but the strike
meant it could not shoot. When the strike ended, the studio could not
be used as it was being used by another production, and then when the
studio became available, the RSC was using Trevor Peacock, and filming
did not take place until February 1985, a year later than planned.
Initially, director Jane Howell wanted to set the play in present-day
Northern Ireland, but she ultimately settled on a more conventional
approach. All the body parts seen throughout were based upon real
autopsy photographs, and were authenticated by the Royal College of
Surgeons. The costumes of the Goths were based on punk outfits, with
Chiron and Demetrius specifically based on the band KISS. For the
scene when Chiron and Demetrius are killed, a large carcass is seen
hanging nearby; this was a genuine lamb carcass purchased from a
kosher butcher and smeared with Vaseline to make it gleam under the
studio lighting. In an unusual design choice, Howell had the Roman
populace all wear identical generic masks without mouths, so as to
convey the idea that the Roman people were faceless and voiceless, as
she felt the play depicted a society which "seemed like a society
where everyone was faceless except for those in power". The production
was one of the most lauded plays of the series and garnered almost
universally positive reviews.

For the most part, the adaptation followed Q1 exactly (and F1 for 3.2)
with some minor alterations. For example, a few lines were cut from
various scenes, such as Lavinia's "Ay, for these slips have made him
noted long" (2.3.87), thus removing the continuity error regarding the
duration of the Goths' residence in Rome. Other examples include
Titus' "Ah, wherefore dost thou urge the name of hands,/To bid Aeneas
tell the tale twice o'er,/How Troy was burnt and he made miserable?"
(3.2.26-28), Marcus' "What, what! The lustful sons of
Tamora/Performers of this heinous, bloody deed" (4.1.78-79), and Titus
and Marcus' brief conversation about Taurus and Aries (4.3.68-75). The
adaptation also includes some lines from Q1 which were removed in
subsequent editions; at 1.1.35 Titus' "bearing his valiant sons/in
coffins from the field" continues with "and at this day,/To the
Monument of that Andronicy/Done sacrifice of expiation,/And slaine the
Noblest prisoner of the Gothes." These lines are usually omitted
because they create a continuity problem regarding the sacrifice of
Alarbus, which has not happened yet in the text. However, Howell got
around this problem by beginning the play at 1.1.64 - the entrance of
Titus. Then, at 1.1.168, after the sacrifice of Alarbus, lines 1.1.1
to 1.1.63 (the introductions of Bassianus and Saturninus) take place,
thus Titus' reference to Alarbus' sacrifice makes chronological sense.

Another notable stylistic technique used in the adaptation is multiple
addresses direct to camera. For example, Saturninus' "How well the
tribune speaks to calm my thoughts" (1.1.46); Tamora's vow to
slaughter the Andronici at 1.1.450-455 (thus absolving Saturninus from
any involvement); Aaron's soliloquy in 2.1; Aaron's "Ay, and as good
as Saturninus may" (2.1.91); Aaron's soliloquy in 2.3; Tamora's "Now
will I hence to seek my lovely Moor,/And let my spleenful sons this
trull deflower" (2.3.190-191); Aaron's two asides in 3.1 (ll.187-190
and 201-202); Lucius' "Now will I to the Goths and raise a power,/To
be revenged on Rome and Saturnine" (3.1.298-299); Marcus' "O, heavens,
can you hear a good man groan" speech (4.1.122-129); Young Lucius'
asides in 4.2 (ll.6 and 8-9); Aaron's "Now to the Goths, as swift as
swallow flies,/There to dispose this treasure in mine arms,/And
secretly to greet the Empress' friends" (4.2.172-174); and Tamora's
"Now will I to that old Andronicus,/And temper him with all the art I
have,/To pluck proud Lucius from the warlike Goths" (4.4.107-109).

The most significant difference from the original play concerned the
character of Young Lucius, who is a much more important figure in the
adaptation; he is present throughout Act 1, and retrieves the murder
weapon after the death of Mutius; it is his knife which Titus uses to
kill the fly; he aids in the capture of Chiron and Demetrius; he is
present throughout the final scene. Much as Julie Taymor would do in
her 1999 filmic adaptation, Howell set Young Lucius as the centre of
the production to prompt the question "What are we doing to the
children?" At the end of the play, as Lucius delivers his final
speech, the camera stays on Young Lucius rather than his father, who
is in the far background and out of focus, as he stares in horror at
the coffin of Aaron's child (which has been killed off-screen). Thus
the production became "in part about a boy's reaction to murder and
mutilation. We see him losing his innocence and being drawn into this
adventure of revenge; yet, at the end we perceive that he retains the
capacity for compassion and sympathy."

In 2001, the animated sitcom 'South Park' based an episode on the
play. In "Scott Tenorman Must Die", Eric Cartman is swindled by Scott
Tenorman. Cartman tries various methods to get his money back, but
Scott remains always one step ahead. He then decides to exact revenge
on Scott. After numerous failed attempts, he hatches a plan which
culminates in him having Scott's parents killed, the bodies of whom he
then cooks in chili, which he feeds to Scott. He then gleefully
reveals his deception as Scott finds his mother's finger in the
chilli.

The Netflix TV series 'Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt' features a character
originally named Ronald Wilkerson that changed his name to Titus
Andromedon, possibly derived from this play.


Radio
=======
The play has very rarely been staged for radio. In 1923, extracts were
broadcast on BBC radio, performed by the Cardiff Station Repertory
Company as the second episode of a series of programs showcasing
Shakespeare's plays, entitled 'Shakespeare Night'. In 1953, BBC Third
Programme aired a 130-minute version of the play, adapted for radio by
J. C. Trewin and starring Baliol Holloway as Titus, Sonia Dresdal as
Tamora, George Hayes as Aaron and Janette Tregarthen as Lavinia. In
1973, BBC Radio 3 aired an adaptation directed by Martin Jenkins,
starring Michael Aldridge as Titus, Barbara Jefford as Tamora, Julian
Glover as Aaron and Frances Jeater as Lavinia. In 1986, Austrian radio
channel Österreich 1 staged an adaptation by Kurt Klinger, starring
Romuald Pekny as Titus, Marion Degler as Tamora, Wolfgang Böck as
Aaron and Elisabeth Augustin as Lavinia.


Citations
===========
All references to 'Titus Andronicus', unless otherwise specified, are
taken from the 'Oxford Shakespeare' (Waith), based on the Q1 text of
1594 (except 3.2, which is based on the folio text of 1623). Under its
referencing system, 4.3.15 means act 4, scene 3, line 15.


Editions of ''Titus Andronicus''
==================================
* Adams, Joseph Quincy (ed.) 'Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus: The
First Quarto, 1594' (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1936)
* Baildon, Henry Bellyse (ed.) 'The Lamentable Tragedy of Titus
Andronicus' (The Arden Shakespeare, 1st Series; London: Arden, 1912)
* Barnet, Sylvan (ed.) 'The Tragedy of Titus Andronicus' (Signet
Classic Shakespeare; New York: Signet, 1963; revised edition, 1989;
2nd revised edition 2005)
* Bate, Jonathan (ed.) 'Titus Andronicus' (The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd
Series; London: Arden, 1995)
* Bate, Jonathan and Rasmussen, Eric (eds.) 'Titus Andronicus and
Timon of Athens: Two Classical Plays' (The RSC Shakespeare; London:
Macmillan, 2008)
* Cross, Gustav (ed.) 'Titus Andronicus' (The Pelican Shakespeare;
London: Penguin, 1966; revised edition 1977)
* Dover Wilson, John (ed.) 'Titus Andronicus' (The New Shakespeare;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948)
* Evans, G. Blakemore (ed.) 'The Riverside Shakespeare' (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1974; 2nd edn., 1997)
* Greenblatt, Stephen; Cohen, Walter; Howard, Jean E. and Maus,
Katharine Eisaman (eds.) 'The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford
Shakespeare' (London: Norton, 1997)
* Harrison, G.B. (ed.) 'The Most Lamentable Tragedy of Titus
Andronicus' (The New Penguin Shakespeare; London: Penguin, 1958;
revised edition, 1995)
* Hughes, Alan (ed.) 'Titus Andronicus' (The New Cambridge
Shakespeare; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; 2nd edition
2006)
* Massai, Sonia (ed.) 'Titus Andronicus' (The New Penguin Shakespeare,
2nd edition; London: Penguin, 2001)
* Maxwell, J.C (ed.) 'Titus Andronicus' (The Arden Shakespeare, 2nd
Series; London: Arden, 1953)
* MacDonald, Russell (ed.) 'Titus Andronicus' (The Pelican
Shakespeare, 2nd edition; London: Penguin, 2000)
* Taylor, Gary; Jowett, John; Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan (eds.)
'The New Oxford Shakespeare' (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2016-17)
* Waith, Eugene M. (ed.) 'Titus Andronicus' (The Oxford Shakespeare;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984)
* Wells, Stanley; Taylor, Gary; Jowett, John and Montgomery, William
(eds.) 'The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works' (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1986; 2nd edn., 2005)
* Werstine, Paul and Mowat, Barbara A. (eds.) 'Titus Andronicus'
(Folger Shakespeare Library; Washington: Simon & Schuster, 2005)


Secondary sources
===================
* Bloom, Harold. 'Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human' (New York:
New York Publishing Company, 1998)
* Boyd, Brian. "Common Words in 'Titus Andronicus': The Presence of
Peele", 'Notes and Queries', 42:3 (September 1995), 300-307
* Brockbank, Philip. "Shakespeare: His Histories, English and Roman"
in Christopher Ricks (editor), 'The New History of Literature (Volume
3): English Drama to 1710' (New York: Peter Bedrick, 1971), 148-181
* Brucher, Richard. ""Tragedy Laugh On": Comic Violence in 'Titus
Andronicus'", 'Renaissance Drama', 10 (1979), 71-92
* Bryant Jr., Joseph Allen. "Aaron and the Pattern of Shakespeare's
Villains" in Dale B. J. Randall and Joseph A. Porter (editors),
'Renaissance Papers 1984: Southeastern Renaissance Conference'
(Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1985), 29-36
* Bullough, Geoffrey. 'Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare
(Volume 6): Other 'Classical' Plays' (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1966)
* Carroll, James D., "'Gorboduc' and 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Notes and
Queries', 51:3 (Fall, 2004), 267-269
* Chernaik, Warren. "'Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of
Five Collaborative Plays' (book review)", 'Modern Language Review',
99:4 (2004), 1030-1031
* Christensen, Ann. ""Playing the Cook": Nurturing Men in 'Titus
Andronicus'", in Holger Klein and Rowland Wymer (editors),
'Shakespeare and History'. (Shakespeare Yearbook), (Lewiston: The
Edwin Mellen Press, 1996), 327-54
* Cohen, Derek. 'Shakespeare's Culture of Violence' (London: St.
Martin's Press, 1993)
* Daniel, P. A. 'A Time Analysis of the Plots of Shakespeare’s Plays'
(London: New Shakspere Society, 1879)
* Dessen, Alan C. 'Shakespeare in Performance: Titus Andronicus'
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989)
* Dobson, Michael S. 'The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare,
Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-1769' (Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 1995)
* Duthie, G. I. 'Shakespeare' (London: Hutchinson, 1951)
* Fawcett, Mary Laughlin. "Arms/Words/Tears: Language and the Body in
'Titus Andronicus'", 'ELH', 50:2 (Summer, 1983), 261-277
* Foakes, R. A. and Rickert R. T. (eds.) 'Henslowe's Diary'
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961; 2nd edn. edited by
Foakes alone, 2002)
* Freebury-Jones, Darren. 'Shakespeare's Borrowed Feathers: How Early
Modern Playwrights Shaped the World's Greatest Writer' (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 2024)
* Goodwin, John. 'Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company, 1960-1963'
(London: Max Reinhardt, 1964)
* Greene, Darragh. "'Have we done aught amiss?': Transgression,
Indirection and Audience Reception in 'Titus Andronicus'," in
[https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137349347/ 'Staged Transgression
in Shakespeare's England'] Ed. Rory Loughnane and Edel Semple. (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp. 63-75.
* Haaker, Ann. "'Non sine causa': The Use of Emblematic Method and
Iconology in the Thematic Structure of 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Research
Opportunities in Renaissance Drama', 13 (1970), 143-168
* Halliday, F. E. 'A Shakespeare Companion, 1564-1964' (Baltimore:
Penguin, 1964)
* Hamilton, A. C. "'Titus Andronicus': The Form of Shakespearean
Tragedy", 'Shakespeare Quarterly', 14:2 (Summer, 1963), 203-207
* Hiles, Jane. "A Margin for Error: Rhetorical Context in 'Titus
Andronicus'", 'Style', 21:2 (Summer, 1987), 62-75
* Hill, R. F. "The Composition of 'Titus Andronicus'" 'Shakespeare
Survey', 10 (1957), 60-70
* Huffman, Clifford. "'Titus Andronicus': Metamorphosis and Renewal,"
'Modern Language Review', 67:4 (1972), 730-741
* Hulse, S. Clark. "Wresting the Alphabet: Oratory and Action in
'Titus Andronicus'", 'Criticism', 21:2 (Spring, 1979), 106-118
* Hunter, G. K. "Sources and Meanings in 'Titus Andronicus'", in J. C.
Gray (editor) 'The Mirror up to Shakespeare Essays in Honour of G. R.
Hibbard' (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1983a), 171-188
* . "The Sources of 'Titus Andronicus' - once again", 'Notes and
Queries', 30:2 (Summer, 1983b), 114-116
* Jackson, Macdonald P. "Stage Directions and Speech Headings in Act 1
of 'Titus Andronicus' Q (1594): Shakespeare or Peele?", 'Studies in
Bibliography', 49 (1996), 134-148
* . "Shakespeare's Brothers and Peele's Brethren 'Titus Andronicus'
again", 'Notes and Queries", 44:4 (November 1997), 494-495
* James, Heather. "Cultural Disintegration in 'Titus Andronicus':
Mutilating Titus, Virgil, and Rome", in James Redmond (editor),
'Themes in Drama' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991),
123-140
* Jones, Emrys. 'The Origins of Shakespeare' (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1977)
* Kahn, Coppélia. 'Roman Shakespeare: Warriors, Wounds, and Women'
(New York: Routledge, 1997)
* Kendall, Gillian Murray. ""Lend me thy hand": Metaphor and Mayhem in
'Titus Andronicus'", 'Shakespeare Quarterly', 40:3 (Autumn, 1989),
299-316
* Kochin, Michael S. and Katherine Philippakis.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20240108112133/https://voegelinview.com/rape-and-civilization-in-shakespeare/
"Rape and Civilization in Shakespeare."] 'VoegelinView', 28 September
2023.
* Kolin, Philip C. (ed.) 'Titus Andronicus: Critical Essays' (New
York: Garland, 1995)
* Kott, Jan. 'Shakespeare Our Contemporary' (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday Publishing, 1964)
* Kramer, Joseph E. "'Titus Andronicus': The Fly-Killing Incident",
'Shakespeare Studies', 5 (1969), 9-19
* Law, Robert A. "The Roman Background of 'Titus Andronicus'",
'Studies in Philology', 40:2 (April 1943), 145-153
* Marti, Marcus.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110515034137/http://pages.unibas.ch/shine/revengemarti.htm
"Language of Extremities/Extremities of Language: Body Language and
Culture in 'Titus Andronicus'"]; '7th World Shakespeare Congress',
Valencia, April 2001
* Metz, G. Harold. "'The History of Titus Andronicus' and
Shakespeare's Play", 'Notes and Queries', 22:4 (Winter, 1975), 163-166
* . "Stage History of 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Shakespeare Quarterly',
28:2 (Summer, 1977), 154-169
* . "A Stylometric Comparison of Shakespeare's 'Titus Andronicus',
'Pericles' and 'Julius Caesar'", 'Shakespeare Newsletter', 29:1
(Spring, 1979), 42
* . 'Shakespeare's Earliest Tragedy: Studies in Titus Andronicus'
(Madison: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996)
* Mincoff, Marco. "The Source of 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Notes and
Queries', 216:2 (Summer, 1971), 131-134
* McCandless, David. "A Tale of Two Tituses: Julie Taymor's Vision on
Stage and Screen", 'Shakespeare Quarterly', 53:4 (Winter, 2002),
487-511
* Miola, Robert S. "'Titus Andronicus' and the Mythos of Shakespeare’s
Rome", 'Shakespeare Studies', 14 (1981), 85-98
* Muir, Kenneth. 'The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays' (London:
Routledge, 1977; rpt 2005)
* Nevo, Ruth. "Tragic Form in 'Titus Andronicus'", in A.A. Mendilow
(editor) 'Further Studies in English Language and Literature'
(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), 1-18
* Onions, C. T. 'A Shakespeare Glossary' (London: Oxford University
Press, 1953; 2nd edn. edited by Robert D. Eagleson, 1986)
* Palmer, D. J. "The Unspeakable in Pursuit of the Uneatable: Language
and Action in 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Critical Quarterly', 14:4 (Winter,
1972), 320-339
* Parrott, T. M. "Shakespeare's Revision of 'Titus Andronicus'",
'Modern Language Review', 14 (1919), 16-37
* Price, Hereward. "The Language of 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Papers of
the Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters', 21 (1935),
501-507
* . "The Authorship of 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Journal of English and
Germanic Philology', 42:1 (Spring 1943), 55-81
* Pruitt, Anna. "Refining the LION Collocation Test: A Comparative
Study of Authorship Test Results for 'Titus Andronicus' Scene 6 (=
4.1)", in Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (eds) 'The New Oxford
Shakespeare Authorship Companion' (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2017): 92-106
* Reese, Jack E. "The Formalization of Horror in 'Titus Andronicus'",
'Shakespeare Quarterly', 21:1 (Spring, 1970), 77-84
* Robertson, J.M. 'Did Shakespeare Write Titus Andronicus?: A Study in
Elizabethan Literature' (London: Watts, 1905)
* Rossiter, A. P. 'Angel with Horns: Fifteen Lectures on Shakespeare'
(London: Longmans, 1961; edited by Graham Storey)
* Speaight, Robert. 'Shakespeare on the Stage: An Illustrated History
of Shakespearean Performance' (London: Collins, 1973)
* Sacks, Peter. "Where Words Prevail Not: Grief, Revenge, and Language
in Kyd and Shakespeare", 'ELH', 49:3 (Autumn, 1982), 576-601
* Sampley, Arthur M. "Plot Structure in Peele's Plays as a Test of
Authorship", 'PMLA', 51:4 (Winter, 1936), 689-701
* Sargent, Ralph M. "The Sources of 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Studies in
Philology', 46:2 (April 1949), 167-183
* Schlueter, June. "Rereading the Peacham Drawing", 'Shakespeare
Quarterly', 50:2 (Summer, 1999), 171-184
* Sommers, Alan. ""Wilderness of Tigers": Structure and Symbolism in
'Titus Andronicus'", 'Essays in Criticism', 10 (1960), 275-289
* Spencer, T. J. B. "Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Romans",
'Shakespeare Survey', 10 (1957), 27-38
* Starks, Lisa S. "Cinema of Cruelty: Powers of Horror in Julie
Taymor's 'Titus'", in Lisa S. Starks and Courtney Lehmann (editors)
'The Reel Shakespeare: Alternative Cinema and Theory' (London:
Associated University Press, 2002), 121-142
* Taylor, Anthony Brian.
[http://www.connotations.uni-tuebingen.de/ataylor00602.htm "Lucius,
the Severely Flawed Redeemer of 'Titus Andronicus'"], 'Connotations',
6:2 (Summer, 1997), 138-157
* Taylor, Gary and Doug Douhaime "Who Wrote the Fly Scene (3.2) in
'Titus Andronicus'?: Automated Searches and Deep Reading" in Gary
Taylor and Gabriel Egan (eds) 'The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship
Companion' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017): 67-91
* Tricomi, Albert H. "The Aesthetics of Mutilation in 'Titus
Andronicus'", 'Shakespeare Survey', 27 (1974), 11-19
* . "The Mutilated Garden in 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Shakespeare
Studies', 9 (1976), 89-105
* Ungerer, Gustav. "An Unrecorded Elizabethan Performance of 'Titus
Andronicus'", 'Shakespeare Survey', 14 (1961), 102-109
* Vickers, Brian. 'Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five
Collaborative Plays' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)
* Waith, Eugene M. "The Metamorphosis of Violence in 'Titus
Andronicus'", 'Shakespeare Survey', 10 (1957), 26-35
* West, Grace Starry. "Going by the Book: Classical Allusions in
Shakespeare's 'Titus Andronicus'", 'Studies in Philology', 79:1
(Spring 1982), 62-77
* Wells, Stanley; Taylor, Gary; with Jowett, John & Montgomery,
William. 'William Shakespeare: a Textual Companion' (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1987)
* Willis, Deborah. ""The gnawing vulture": Revenge, Trauma Theory, and
'Titus Andronicus'", 'Shakespeare Quarterly', 53:1 (Spring, 2002),
21-52
* Wilson, F. P. 'Shakespearean and Other Studies' (London: Oxford
University Press, 1969; edited by Helen Gardner)
* Wynne-Davies, Marion. ""The swallowing womb": Consumed and Consuming
Women in 'Titus Andronicus'", in Valerie Wayne (editor), 'The Matter
of Difference: Materialist Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare' (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1991), 129-151


                           External links
======================================================================
*
*
*
[https://web.archive.org/web/20140912072906/https://shine.unibas.ch/chapbookwf.htm
'The History of Titus Andronicus, The Renowned Roman General'] - text
of the prose history from .
* [http://www.exclassics.com/percy/perc33.htm 'Titus Andronicus'
Complaint'] - text of the ballad from 1620.
*
* [http://www.connotations.uni-tuebingen.de/ataylor00602.htm "Lucius,
the Severely Flawed Redeemer of 'Titus Andronicus'", by Anthony Brian
Taylor]; '[http://www.connotations.de/ Connotations]', 6:2 (Summer,
1997), 138-157.
* [http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/10-1/hancroma.htm "Roman or Revenger?:
The Definition and Distortion of Masculine Identity in 'Titus
Andronicus', by Brecken Rose Hancock; 'Early Modern Literary Studies',
10:1 (May 2004), 1-25].
*
[https://web.archive.org/web/20240507183557/https://voegelinview.com/rape-and-civilization-in-shakespeare/
"Rape and Civilization in Shakespeare"], by Michael S. Kochin and
Katherine Philippakis; 'VoegelinView', September 28, 2023.
*  ('BBC Television Shakespeare' Version).
*  (Julie Taymor Version).


License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Andronicus

You are viewing proxied material from gopherpedia.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.