Titus Andronicus, and the scores of conflicting interpretations and opinions of the play which have arisen during the two centuries and a half since Ravenscroft gave to the world the story of the 'private author'? There are certain general conclusions that do no violence to such facts as we have, and can be brought into reasonable conformity with the evidence available. First, the tragedy as it stands in the Folio of 1623 does not seem at all Shakespearean in substance, or treatment, or spirit. What we know of the mind and the tastes of Shakespeare forbids the ascription of this play to his pen, even as its earliest and crudest production. Secondly, from what is known of the manner, tastes, and workmanship of his contemporaries, the presumption is that George Peele is substantially the author of Titus Andronicus, with assistance, perhaps, from Robert Greene. Thirdly, the fact that the play was listed as Shakespeare's by Meres, and was printed as Shakespeare's in the Folio by Heminges and Condell, warrants the conclusion that Shakespeare retouched it to some extent. And thus we arrive, by a most circuitous process of reasoning, exactly where the controversy started, with Ravenscroft's statement in 1687. The most that Shakespeare could have had to do with Titus Andronicus is, we must believe, no more than what those 'anciently conversant with the stage' gave as their testimony—'he only gave some master-touches to one or two of the principal parts or characters.'
