University of Nevada, Reno A New Critical Edition of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus . A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English by Matthew Trey Jansen Dr. Eric Rasmussen/Dissertation Advisor August, 2013 UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the dissertation prepared under our supervision by MATTHEW TREY JANSEN entitled A New Critical Edition of Titus Andronicus be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Eric Rasmussen, Ph.D., Advisor James Marcock, Ph.D., Committee Member Dennis Cronan, Ph.D., Committee Member Kevin Stevens, Ph.D., Committee Member Rob Gander, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School August, 2013 i Abstract In Shakespeare’s first tragedy, Titus Andronicus , the blank spaces are filled by necessary action and constant visual representations of limbless bodies on the stage, which are easily lost on the pages of the text. It is my contention that an edition must offer the best possibility to bridge this gap between the stage and the page, by presenting a text based on the early modern text that is most influenced by the theater. Based on my evaluation of the most recent scholarship, this text is the 1623 First Folio. This choice is a clear break from the editorial tradition of Titus Andronicus , which has been to use the First Quarto as copy text and to insert the stage directions and the “fly scene” from the First Folio. While the First Quarto may represent something closer to what Shakespeare first wrote, the long success of Titus Andronicus on the stage, the addition of the theatrically based directions, and the number of hands involved in the preparation of the text for the Folio offer a more tangible connection to the effects of performance on early modern texts. They offer something much more valuable for a play that depends so critically on the theater. In the following chapters, I establish the importance that performance plays in fully developing the arguments of the play. I am confident that this edition provides readers with a basis in the most theatrically influenced early modern version of the play, because the First Folio benefited from the work of men who set out to put together the best representation of Shakespeare’s theater that they could, instead of merely reprinting one of the earlier quartos. It only seems right that a play so dependent on theatrical performance be prepared using the unique copy that resulted from Titus Andronicus ’s successful history in the early modern theater. ii Acknowledgments There are so many people who have fostered my love of Shakespeare, but first and foremost I must thank my wife Libby, without whom I never would have begun this journey or found Shakespeare. The support of my parents, Danny and Jane Jansen, and my sister, Peggy Jansen, through the interminable years of graduate school has been steadfast, and I only hope they know how much that has meant. I am deeply indebted to my intellectual mentor, guide, and friend, Dr. Eric Rasmussen. Eric, his wife Vicky, and their two sons, Tristan and Arden, graciously opened their home(s), and hearts, to me for which I will be eternally grateful. I must also thank the members of my committee, Dr. Eric Rasmussen, Dr. James Mardock, Dr. Dennis Cronan, Dr. Kevin Stevens, and Dr. Rob Gander. Their patience and generosity with their personal time has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. The many comments and suggestions they provided over the course of the dissertation process helped me to ultimately be successful. To have such a remarkable group guide me through my final steps towards becoming a member of the academy was both challenging and inspiring. On a final note, the friends and colleagues that I have made through my graduate career were invaluable in maintaining my sanity and drive through a lengthy dissertation process. I can’t name you all, but you know who you are. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Case for the Folio 13 Authorship 24 Date of Composition 34 Stage History 42 Critical Reception 54 Designing and (Re)defining Lavinia in Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus 65 Empirical Editing and the Copies Behind the Printed Texts of Titus Andronicus 130 Works Cited 174 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S TITUS ANDRONICUS 185 1 Introduction For the first time in three centuries, Titus Andronicus is enjoying a level of success that is equal to the reception that led to multiple editions of the play in its first thirty years of existence, and helped to establish Shakespeare as a leading dramatist of his time. This success and recent upsurge in popularity is due partly to the Julie Taymour’s highly popular film version Titus (1999), which brought Titus Andronicus to a much larger and more varied audience than anything had before; and partly to the number of different theatrical performances that have been produced by the Royal Shakespeare Company over the last ten years. More and more scholars and audiences have become interested in the play in the twenty-first century. It seems appropriate then that Titus Andronicus deserves a fresh reconsideration as a text. Titus Andronicus received little regard from scholars as a literary text for centuries. Even though critical attention to the over the last sixty years has grown, the literary value of the play as a whole continues to be held in low esteem by many scholars today. The two sides are clear in reviews of a recent production that comment on this reception history. Dr. Peter Buckroyd, in a review of the Royal Shakespeare Company’s latest production of Titus Andronicus at the Swan in Stratford-upon-Avon on May seventeenth, 2013, wrote that “ Titus is not very often produced and for good reason,” like the “technical challenges” and dealing with the level of what he describes as “gruesome bits” (Moss Cottage). Michael Billington’s review by contrast begins with the line, “No one any longer has to make a case for this once-despised play” ( The Guardian , 24 May 2013). At first, it may seem odd that there are such different expectations for Titus . The latter is clearly reacting to the recent successes of the play in performance and the former 2 seems to be relying on its long reception as a poor literary text that does not deserve to be listed as Shakespeare’s. These disparate views present the greatest challenge for a modern editor charged with presenting the text of the play for a reading audience. How does one bring the recent success of Titus Andronicus on the stage to the pages of an edition? It is this challenge that I take up here. The following dissertation argues that Titus Andronicus , far from being a poor example of Shakespeare’s literary abilities, offers readers the first glimpses into Shakespeare’s genius in formation and the beginnings of his talent for portraying humanity at its worst and lowest. I argue that Titus Andronicus is a complex response to the spectacular plays made popular by Marlowe and Kyd during the years before its creation. The language that for so long seemed at odds with the violent action of the play is in fact an integral partner with that action in getting its argument across. Titus Andronicus , with all of its poetry, is about the limitations of language and the true nature of these limitations is nowhere more evident than in its great moments of silence at the times when language is most powerless. The play requires that the audience or reader be involved in establishing its meaning through these moments that rely so little on what is said; this task is obviously more difficult for the reader of the text. The contention of this edition is that Titus Andronicus is a particularly interesting Shakespearean play, but because the play’s greatest arguments exist in between and beyond the lines on the page, the visible images and actions that are evident to a theater audience are not always clear in the language on the page. The often numerous possibilities in the stage action must be conveyed to the reader through stage directions and extended discussion in the commentary. 3 Titus Andronicus requires performance to achieve its full potential and therefore demands a text that bears the most influence from the early modern theater. I establish in the pages that follow that this text is printed in 1623 First Folio, which has not received a modern full critical edition. For these reasons I have chosen the Folio as the copy text for the current edition. But before entering into a further defense of this choice, I will introduce the several aspects of Titus Andronicus that I approach in the following chapters. In the first chapter of this dissertation, my fresh analysis of the authorship of Titus Andronicus reconsiders the history of authorship studies over the past century. Beginning with the scholarship of J. M. Robertson and T. M. Parrot in the first quarter of the twentieth century, the majority of scholars have produced studies that show that George Peele’s hand is evident in at least the first act of the play. Even with this amount of evidence, mainstream scholars through the late twentieth century did not accept that Peele participated in the creation of Titus Andronicus ; the majority of opinions supported the argument that Shakespeare wrote the entire thing. In the twenty-first century, recent scholarship has emerged to propose answers to the question of the play’s authorship. Brian Vickers’s Shakespeare, Co-Author provides the most thorough study of Shakespearean collaboration to date.