# Titus Andronicus (1926) Yale/Appendix G

Layout 2
APPENDIX G
Suggestions for Collateral Reading
A. C. Symons: Introduction to Prætorius Facsimile of 1600 Quarto of Titus Andronicus, 1886.
Henrietta C. Bartlett and Alfred W. Pollard: A Census of Shakespeare's Plays in Quarto, 1594–1709, 1916. (An invaluable source of information with regard to bibliographical details of the play.)
J. W. Cunliffe: The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy, 1893. (An informative discussion of the major influence in Titus and kindred tragedies.)
Tucker Brooke: The Tudor Drama, 1911, pp. 206–222. (An appraisal of Titus in its relation to similar plays of the period.)
F. S. Boas: Shakspere and his Predecessors, 1896. (An examination of the more immediate influences on the play.)
W. W. Greg: Henslowe's Diary, 1904–1908. (A valuable critical commentary on Henslowe's records of the play, with an illuminating discussion of its authorship, II. 159–162.)
F. G. Fleay: Life and Work of Shakespeare, 1886, pp. 280–282. (A rejection of the Shakespearean authorship of Titus based on the internal evidence of the play.)
Albert Cohn: Shakespeare in Germany, 1865. (A discussion, with English and German versions, of the Titus Andronicus performed by English players in Germany in 1620. I. cxii–cxiii, II. 156–235.)
H. de W. Fuller: 'The Sources of "Titus Andronicus."' In Pub. Mod. Lang. Assn. of America, 1901, pp. 1–65. (A very scholarly and ingenious comparison of the Dutch and German versions of the play with ​the English version, the conclusions being not altogether convincing.)
G. P. Baker: '"Tittus and Vespacia" and "Titus and Ondronicus" in Henslowe's Diary.' In Pub. Mod. Lang. Assn. of America, 1901, pp. 66–76. (A sequel to the foregoing article.)
Arnold Schröer: Über Titus Andronicus, 1891. (The most comprehensive of the German treatises in favor of the Shakespearean authorship of Titus.)
A. B. Grosart: 'Was Robert Greene Substantially the Author of "Titus Andronicus"?' In Englische Studien, xxii. 389–436, 1896. (A very interesting and important document in the study of the authorship of the play.)
Charles Crawford: 'The Date and Authenticity of "Titus Andronicus."' In Jahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, xxxvi. 109–121, 1900. (A thesis on Shakespeare's imitation of Peele in Titus.)
W. J. Courthope: A History of English Poetry, Vol. 4, 1903. (The Appendix, 'On the Authenticity of Some of the Early Plays Assigned to Shakespeare,' pp. 455–476, concludes that the internal evidence supports the external evidence in testifying that the play is Shakespeare's.)
J. Churton Collins: Studies in Shakespeare, 1904, pp. 96–120. (Asserts the authenticity of Titus on the ground of its similarity to others of Shakespeare's tragedies. The parallels seem forced in many instances.)
William Sharp: 'Titus Andronicus.' In Harper's Magazine, October, 1909, pp. 747–754. (Fiona MacLeod contends a priori that Shakespeare barely retouched the play, if at all. Drawing of Aaron by E. A. Abbey.)
T. M. Parrott: 'Shakespeare's Revision of "Titus Andronicus."' In Modern Language Review, 1919, pp. 16–37. (An interesting discussion of the authorship ​of the play, presenting Shakespeare as the superficial reviser of an old play, and seeking to determine his share in Titus by metrical tests.)
H. Dugdale Sykes: Sidelights on Shakespeare, 1919. (Interesting and informative studies in the disputed plays of Shakespeare, concluding with the theory that Peele is the author of Titus.)
H. D. Gray: 'Shakespeare's Share in Titus Andronicus.' In Philological Quarterly, April, 1926, pp. 166–172. (The author applies the double-ending test to Titus to determine the share of Shakespeare in the play.)
J. M. Robertson: An Introduction to the Study of the Shakespeare Canon, 1924. (A revision of his earlier study, Did Shakespeare Write 'Titus Andronicus'? 1905. The most recent and most exhaustive study of the authorship of the play, in which the author discusses the conclusions set forth in most of the works listed above. Shakespeare's authorship of Titus is vigorously assailed, and the claims of other Elizabethans, especially those of Peele, to the authorship are set forth. The methods employed are those of the prosecuting attorney.)
Editions: Among the most useful are Knight's Pictorial Shakespeare, 1867, with a valuable 'Notice of the Authenticity of Titus Andronicus' (Doubtful Plays, pp. 46–59); the Henry Irving Shakespeare, 1890, Vol. VII, introduction by A. W. Verity, pp. 258–260; the Bankside Shakespeare, 1890, Vol. VII, introduction by Appleton Morgan; the Cambridge Shakespeare, by W. A. Wright, 1893, with full critical apparatus and exhaustive bibliography; and the Arden Shakespeare, 1904, edited by H. B. Baildon, with elaborate introduction and notes containing valuable illustrative material, not, however, always interpreted soundly.