SCURO, Daniel Ervlnn, 1933
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produoad from a microfilm copy of the original documant. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing paga(i) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the pege in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific peges you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some peges may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xorox Urdvorefty Microfilms 300 Nortti Z M b Road Arm Arbor, UeMgwi 4S106 75-11,423 SCURO, Daniel Ervlnn, 1933- MVICTORIOUS IN THY MOURNING HEEDS1*: A STUDY OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S THE MOST LAMENTABLE ROMAN TRAGEDY OF TITUS ANDROWTOfST The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974 Theater Xerox University Microfilmst Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 © Copyright by Daniel Ervinn Scuro 1974 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. "VICTORIOUS IN THY MOURNING WEEDS": A STUDY OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S THE MOST LAMENTABLE ROMAN TRAGEDY OF TITUS ANPRONICUS DISSERTATION Presented iu Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for .. the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Daniel Ervinn Scuro, A.B., M. Ed. The Ohio State University 1974 Reading Committee: Approved by Donald R. Glancy, Adviser George Crepeau John A. Walker Department of Theatre DEDICATION To my father and mother. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study originated in 1969 in the International Seminar of the Department of Theatre at The Ohio State University. Most of the early research for the study was completed in London and at Stratford-on-Avon under the sponsorship of The Ohio State University. I am especially grateful to Professor John Morrow who introduced me to the dissertation possibilities of Titus Andronicus and to Professor John Walker who encouraged and permitted me to produce the play in the Student Laboratory Theatre at The Ohio State University. Many of the ideas expressed in this dissertation were tested in that production. I would be remiss if I did not thank both Professors John Walker and George Crepeau for their services on the Reading Committee and their suggestions to improve the study. To other friends and colleagues I owe a special thanks for assistance in obtaining materials and facilitating the com pletion of this dissertation; to Sarah Doyle, who assisted me in the logistics of writing a dissertation in absentia: to Albert and Joan Harris, who gave much time and advice in the early drafts; and to William Zumbar, who lent important historical insights and editorial assistance. To David and Judy Voyles 1 owe more than I can express for their support iii and help during the past six years. They were actually the first to become involved in my pursuit of a doctorate* and it is fitting that they assisted in preparing the final version for presentation to the Graduate School. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the invaluable help of my adviser, Professor Donald Glancy. His faith in the study has been inspirational and his dedication to the completion of the work has exceeded professional obligation. He bestowed scholarly refinement and editorial discipline at every turn. Professor Glancy is one of those very special persons who can be called "teacher." iv VITA March 8, 1933 ...............Born - Alliance, Ohio 1955 ......................... A.B., St. Mary's College, St. Mary, Kentucky 1955-1958 ................... Theological Studies, Athenaeum of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio 1960 ......................... M.Ed., Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio 1960-1968 ................... English Instructor, Greenhills Senior High School, Cincinnati, Ohio 1968-1972 ........ ..... Graduate Assistant, Department of Theatre and Institute for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1972-1974 ................... Assistant Professor, Department of Drama, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana 1974 ......................... Assistant Professor, Department of Theatre Arts, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Theatre Studies in Dramatic Theory: Professor Donald R. Glancy Studies in Dramatic Literature: Professor John C. Morrow Studies in Theatre History: Professor John McDowell Studies in Theatre Production: Professor Arthur L. Housman v TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ............................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................... ill VITA ......................................................... v INTRODUCTION ............................................ vii Chapter I. HOTCHPOTCH............................................. 1 II. TO THEIR BROTHERS' SPIRITS .......................... 4S III. WILDERNESS OF TIGERS .................................114 IV. TEARS IN T H I N G S ..................................... 167 V. THE HARROWING OF H E L L ...............................200 VI. MASQUERADES AND METAMORPHOSES ...................... 235 CONCLUSION................................................. 263 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................. 270 vi INTRODUCTION No play of William Shakespeare's has generated more unfavorable criticism than The Host Lamentable Roman Tragedy of Titus Andronicus. Its scenes of violence and bloodshed have been called shocking, disgusting, or ludicrous; its purple patches of poetry have been dismissed as having been written by some inferior poet and then doctored by Shakespeare. The characterization has been labeled melodramatic; and the structure, disorganized and chaotic. Edward Ravenscroft called the play "a heap of rubbish."1 Coleridge said that it was "obviously intended to excite vulgar audiences by its scenes of blood and terror--to our ears shocking and disgusting,"2 and Dover Wilson called it a "broken-down cart, laden with bleeding corpses from an Elizabethan scaffold*"3 In many cases aesthetic snobbery rather than judicious criticism has molded the generally negative response to Titus* In fact, most scholarship has avoided a thorough investigation of the play divorced from questions concerning its authorship, date of composition, or place in the Shakespearean canon. The body of ^Edward Ravenscroft, Titus Andronicus or the Rape of Lavinia (1687), sig. A2. 2T. M. Raysor, ed., Coleridge1s Shakespearean Criticism (Cambridge; Harvard University Press, 1^0), il, p. 31. 3Dover Wilson, ed., Titus Andronicus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), p. xil. vii criticism that has seriously investigated the play as a legitimate theatrical document is limited in both size and scope. PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP John W. Cunliffe (The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy, 1893) saw the play as a kind of Senecan potboiler in form and content. M. W. MacCallum dismissed the play with one sentence in Shakespeare's Roman Plays (1925); G. Wilson Knight did not even mention the title in The Imperial Theme (1931). Interest in the play increased in 1936 with the publication of the facsimile of the 1594 quarto that had been discovered in Sweden in 1904. Howard Baker (Induction to Tragedy. 1939) proposed the thesis that Titus might be more than just a revenge tragedy, but his study did little more than minimize the argument for Senecan influence on the play. F. T. Bowers opened the door to innovative criticism by concluding in Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy (1940) that Titus must be an experimental play. Nevertheless, he did not remove the play from the catalogue of revenge tragedies. Probably no recent event prompted more interest in and discussion about Titus than the 1955 Peter Brook production at Stratford; however, the resulting furor produced fewer than a dozen significant periodical articles. Both Mr. Brook's promptscript and the aformentioned articles have contributed important information to this study, but none of them did more than verify the theatrical worth of the play as a revenge Vlll* • a tragedy. Indeed, Brook edited the text in such a manner that the revenge motivation is exaggerated far beyond that expressed in the original poetry. The great success of Brook's production and the fascinating