Page:Titus Andronicus (1926) Yale.djvu/164

150 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.