Titus Andronicus (1926) Yale/Appendix C
APPENDIX C
The Authorship of the Play
The external evidence for the Shakespearean authorship of Titus Andronicus rests on its inclusion in the Folio of 1623 by Heminges and Condell, friends and fellow actors of Shakespeare, and its mention by Francis Meres in a list of Shakespeare's plays in his Palladis Tamia in 1598, four years after the appearance of the First Quarto. It is again listed as Shakespeare's by Gerard Langbaine[1] in 1691. Such evidence is not easily contestable, especially in view of the close connection between Shakespeare and the editors of the Folio, and the fact that Meres seems to have been sufficiently familiar with Shakespeare to have known of his privately circulated sonnets some eleven years before they were first printed. But in spite of these facts, the play, largely because of its repulsive theme, the crudeness of workmanship displayed throughout, the un-Shakespearean quality of many of its lines, and the presence in the text of numerous traces of the work of other authors, has been a storm-centre in Shakespearean criticism for over two centuries, and to-day it finds itself rejected, either partially or wholly, by far the greater number of editors and critics.
The first doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of which we have any record is contained in the preface to Edward Ravenscroft's revision of the play in 1687, wherein he says: 'I have been told by some anciently conversant with the stage that it was not originally his, but brought by a private author to be acted, and he only gave some master-touches to one or two of the principal parts or characters; this I am apt to believe, because 't is the most incorrect and indigested piece in all his works. It seems rather a heap of rubbish than a structure.'
The integrity of Ravenscroft is discredited by Langbaine, who intimates that Ravenscroft was merely trying to belittle Shakespeare in order to exalt himself. He quotes part of the prologue which Ravenscroft originally prefixed to his revision of Titus in 1678, in which he called the play Shakespeare's and produced it as such, saying of his own part in it that he had
'but winnow'd Shakespeare's corn,
So far he was from robbing him of 's treasure,
That he did add his own, to make full measure.'
Ravenscroft's statement is, however, accepted in substance by the majority of critics since his day.
External evidence against Shakespeare’s authorship of Titus has been found in the absence of his name from all three Quartos of the play. The conclusiveness of this evidence is impaired, however, by the fact that the poet's name does not appear on any of the Quartos of Henry V, or on any of the first three Quartos of Romeo and Juliet.
Eighteenth-century critics and editors, with the exception of Capell, denied the Shakespearean authorship of the play. Theobald thought Shakespeare might have added 'a few fine touches' to the play. Johnson, Farmer, and Steevens, reject the Shakespearean theory entirely. Johnson says of it: 'All the editors and critics agree in supposing this play spurious. I see no reason for differing from them; for the colour of the style is wholly different from that of the other plays, and there is an attempt at regular versification, and artificial closes, not always inelegant, yet seldom pleasing. The barbarity of the spectacles and the general massacre, which are here exhibited, can scarcely be conceived tolerable to any audience, yet we are told by Jonson that they were not only borne but praised. That Shakespeare wrote any part of it, though Theobald declares it incontestable, I see no reason for believing. . . . I do not find Shakespeare's touches very discernible.' Malone thought that Shakespeare might have written a few lines in the play, or perhaps have given some assistance to the author in revising it.
In the nineteenth century, critics were more widely divided in their opinions. Seymour, Drake, Singer, the Coleridges, Hallam, Dyce, Fleay, and others denied that Shakespeare had any part in its composition. Furnivall (Introduction to Leopold Shakspere), Ingleby (Shakespeare: The Man and the Book), Dowden (Shakspere: His Mind and Art), Herford (Introduction to Eversley Shakespeare), Hudson, and Rolfe, agreed that very little of the play could have been written by Shakespeare. On the other hand, a group of critics of whom we may name Collier (Annals of the Stage, 1831), Verplanck (Illustrated Shakespeare, 1847), Knight (Pictorial Shakespeare, 1867), Appleton Morgan (Bankside Shakespeare, 1890), and Crawford ('The Date and Authenticity of "Titus Andronicus,"' Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1900), considered the play the work of Shakespeare, his earliest and crudest composition, produced when he was still under the influence of his predecessors. The latter view was concurred in almost unanimously by the German school: Schlegel, Delius, Bodenstedt, Franz Horn, Ulrici, Kurz, Sarrazin, Brandl, Creizenach, and Schröer. Gervinus, as in other matters of Shakespearean criticism, dissented from the opinion of his countrymen, and sided with the British school which denied Shakespeare's authorship of Titus.
The twentieth century brought with it the discovery of the First Quarto of Titus, and consequent fresh and lengthy discussions as to its authorship. There was a revival in certain quarters of the tendency to consider the play a work of Shakespeare's earlier days, and among the adherents of this opinion were Collins, Boas, Saintsbury, McCallum, and Raleigh. Courthope, in the appendix, 'On the Authenticity of Some of the Early Plays Assigned to Shakespeare, and their Relationship to the Development of his Dramatic Genius,' to his History of English Poetry, vol. iv, 1903, espouses the theory of the Shakespearean authorship of Titus. His formal conclusion is 'That there are no sufficient internal reasons to warrant us in resisting the testimony of the folio of 1623 that Titus Andronicus and King Henry VI. are the work of Shakespeare.' Greg, in his edition of Henslowe's Diary (II. 161), gives his opinion of the circumstances of Shakespeare's connection with Titus: 'I fail to discover any clear internal evidence of Shakespeare having touched the play at all, though there are a few lines whose Shakespearian authorship I do not think impossible. . . . The Chamberlain's men, following their practice in the case of the other Pembroke's plays, Hamlet and the Taming of a Shrew, caused Titus to be worked over by a young member of their company named William Shakespeare. Thus revised the piece achieved sufficient success to call for notice by Francis Meres in 1598, and thenceforth passed as one of the "works" of the favourite playwright-actor. This MS. perished in the fire at the Globe in 1613. Wishing to replace their prompt copy the King's men procured a copy of the printed edition (1611), a device to which they certainly resorted in other cases too. In this they made certain alterations in the stage directions, and in doing so noticed the absence of one scene at least (III. ii.) which they were in the habit of acting and which had proved popular. This the actors were able to reconstruct from memory, and a manuscript insertion of some 85 lines was made in the quarto. Ten years later this doctored prompt copy was sent to press for the text of the collected folio.'
So far as there may be said to be a prevailing theory among American students, it is that Shakespeare is the reviser, to some extent, of an older play. But as to the author or authors of the original work, and as to the nature and extent of the revision, there is considerable latitude of opinion. Among American students of the play there are to be mentioned Schelling, Fuller, Baker, Wendell, Stoll, H. D. Gray, and Parrott. J. Q. Adams, in his Life of Shakespeare, 1923 (p. 134), pictures Shakespeare shortly after the death of Marlowe 'exercising his skill in touching up several of the old stock pieces belonging to the company, plays, no doubt, in which he himself had been called upon to act. Perhaps one of these was Titus Andronicus, mainly, if not entirely, by George Peele. . . . Shakespeare could hardly have had a genuine artistic interest in the bloody Titus, but his business shrewdness showed him the opportunity of turning it into a great money-maker for his company.'
The two lengthiest recent discussions of the authorship of the play are by H. B. Baildon (Arden Shakespeare, 1904), who believes the play to be substantially and essentially the work of Shakespeare, and J. M. Robertson, whose elaborate study, Did Shakespeare Write 'Titus Andronicus'?, 1905, revised in 1924 as An Introduction to the Study of the Shakespeare Canon, Proceeding on the Problem of 'Titus Andronicus,' rejects in toto the theory that the play is the work of Shakespeare.
The arguments concerning the Shakespearean authorship of Titus turn largely on the consideration of questions of the metrical construction, versification, vocabulary, characters, theme, and general style of the play. Few hard and fast conclusions can be drawn from all the evidence produced, however, as there is little agreement among critics as to its proper interpretation. Studies of the metre of the play, with special attention to the number of double and triple endings, riming lines, and the quality of the blank verse employed in it, have been made in endeavors to throw light on the question of authorship, but nothing definitely conclusive has come of it, so varied are the constructions placed upon the data obtained. Again, the elaborate investigations of the style of the play and the innumerable similarities of idea and expression between Titus and other Elizabethan plays have resulted in the discovery of much valuable information as to the wholesale borrowings of the writers of the time, but the findings are construed in widely different ways. What seems to one critic or school convincing evidence of Shakespearean workmanship, is often quite as convincing to another that Shakespeare had nothing to do with the play. Flügel, for instance, thought Aaron as un-Shakespearean as could be, whereas Saintsbury, Collins, Parrott, and others have found him genuinely Shakespearean. Schröer and Parrott, again, consider the classical allusions quite in Shakespeare's manner; but, says Robertson, who finds the classical allusions thoroughly pre-Shakespearean, 'what is obviously non-Shakespearean is the classicism of the play.' Not only are the critics in disagreement with one another, but they are not consistent with themselves. Schröer, whose study, Über Titus Andronicus, 1891, is the most comprehensive of the German arguments advocating Shakespeare's authorship of the play, contends, as Robertson notes, that 'verbal coincidence between two poems speaks rather against than for identity of authorship—' (p. 73), and yet some fifty-two pages later he argues that Aaron's praise of blackness (IV. ii. 72, 100) is a favorite idea with Shakespeare, because we have it again in Love's Labour's Lost (V. ii. 20, 41).
The attempts at choosing what in the play is genuinely Shakespearean, as distinguished from what may be considered the work of his supposed collaborators, have not met with any greater success. Almost every editor who accepts in part the Shakespearean hypothesis has his favorite list of selections which he believes authentic. Such passages consist in most cases of the more lyrical sections, and include, of course, all the better lines of the tragedy. But there is a remarkable disagreement among them, and such selections, if put together properly, would constitute almost the whole of the play. Coleridge, from a poet's point of view, considered as worthy of Shakespeare only some forty lines from the 'Revenge' scene (V. ii. 20–60), whereas Swinburne, from another poet's point of view, disregarded all but the 'Clown' scene (IV. iii.). The one scene on which there has been more general agreement, perhaps, than on any other, is the second scene of Act III, which appeared for the first time in the Folio, and therefore attracts attention to itself as having perhaps come from Shakespeare's own copy or his MSS. The whole process of picking and choosing must be considered futile, however, and especially since half of the passages tagged as certainly Shakespearean have been shown to be similar to, or identical with, passages in Peele, Greene, Marlowe, and others.
Nor do we find any grounds for more definite conclusions when we examine the passages in Titus which are most strikingly suggestive of lines and scenes in Shakespeare's authenticated works. The theme of Lucrece is similar to that of the plot in which Lavinia figures, but we cannot therefore conclude that Shakespeare is necessarily the author of Titus because he is the author of Lucrece. The poem may, indeed, have been suggested by the play, or the play by the poem, but identity of authorship is no more requisite in such a supposition than it is if we suppose the plot of Shylock to have been suggested by Marlowe's Jew of Malta. It must be admitted that Aaron's lines (IV. ii. 102, 103),
'For all the water in the ocean
Can never turn the swan's black legs to white,'
suggest those of Richard II (III. ii. 54, 55),
'Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king,'
and still further the cry of Lady Macbeth (Macbeth, II. ii. 60, 61),
'Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand?'
But we are not justified in concluding that the author of the two later passages is necessarily the author of the first. Shakespeare was as imitative as he was repetitive, even if we assume that he had Aaron's lines in mind when he was composing the two later passages.
There is a clear verbal parallel between lines in Tamora's speech (II. iii. 17–19),
'And, whilst the babbling echo mocks the hounds,
Replying shrilly to the well-tun'd horns,
As if a double hunt were heard at once, . . .'
and two lines (695–696) of Venus and Adonis,
'Thus do they [the hounds] spend their mouths: Echo replies
As if another chase were in the skies.'
As Parrott points out,[2] these parallels, and others which he gives, are unmistakable, and he accordingly assigns the paralleled lines and Tamora's speech to Shakespeare; but, as Robertson observes, it does not follow necessarily that Shakespeare must himself have written Tamora's speech. Any of his contemporaries would have copied such a fine passage without scruple if he had wished to do so.
The studies of the characters of the play in relation to those of others of Shakespeare's plays have been no more conclusive in their results. Aaron, for example, is quite generally considered, by all who uphold Shakespeare's intimate connection with the play, as a first draft and prototype of Shylock, Iago, Richard III, Edmund, and most of Shakespeare's villains. It is by external and superficial implications, however, rather than by inherent likenesses that he is connected with them. He is a Moor, and the tragedy of Othello the Moor is at once suggested, wherein, as it happens, there is Iago, a villain in the popular sense, and certain similarities in the characters of Iago and Aaron begin to appear. But fundamentally and essentially Aaron and Iago are not of the same stripe. Aaron is pre-Shakespearean rather than Shakespearean, and belongs to the tribe of Tamburlaine, Barabas, Ithamore, Eleazar, and Peele's Moor, Muly Muhamet, rather than to that of Iago. His melodramatic rant and braggadocio, and his comic-opera frenzy for evil-doing, form a striking contrast to the tragically sinister and motiveless malignity of Iago. As for his relation to Shylock, is not the apparent connection between them based subconsciously on the circumstance of their being members respectively of races alike alien and despised from the Elizabethan point of view? Similarities and parallels between Tamora, and the Margaret of the Henry VI trilogy (who is fundamentally non-Shakespearean), on the one hand, and Lady Macbeth on the other, seem equally superficial. The three have little in common but their imperiousness. The treatment of the character of Titus certainly does not suggest Shakespeare's handling of the characters of Lear, Othello, and Macbeth. Nor does young Lucius seem to have more than his tender years in common with Prince Arthur and the young princes of Richard III. There is, however, one character, the Clown, in Titus, who is quite in the manner and tradition of Shakespeare, but even he is not distinctively and exclusively Shakespearean. Elizabethan and Tudor drama have clowns and to spare, and the clown of Titus is not more like the clowns of Shakespeare than he is like those of his contemporaries. But he is the one typically Shakespearean thing in the entire play, and he may very well be conceded to Shakespeare as being of a piece with Launce, Launcelot Gobbo, and Elbow, and as constituting one of the 'master-touches' which Ravenscroft represents Shakespeare as imparting to the play.
Previous study of characters, metre, phrasing, and general stylistic qualities cannot, therefore, be said to have produced any conclusive or convincing reasons for considering Titus Shakespeare's. The work of critics, ranging from the early observations of Steevens and Malone down to the exhaustive researches of Robertson, have proved that the play is a collection of materials drawn from a common stock used by all Elizabethan dramatists, and that, in particular, it is a tissue of words, phrases, and sentiments taken largely from Peele, Greene, Kyd, Marlowe, and Lodge. The author, or authors, of Titus Andronicus, whoever they were, simply followed the common habit of turning to other authors and similar works: what they thought they might require, they went and took to furnish out a lamentable Roman tragedy.
Close examination of the text of Titus, therefore, reveals no more reason for including it in the canon of Shakespeare's plays than could be found for including many of those pre-Shakespearean plays with which it is organically and spiritually connected—the Spanish Tragedy, Lust's Dominion, Selimus, the Battle of Alcazar, the Troublesome Reign, the Chronicle History of King Leir, and others.
But it is not merely or chiefly the negative argument—that Titus is lacking in distinctive and convincing Shakespearean characteristics—that justifies the rejection of the play as Shakespeare's, but the more fundamental and positive fact that it contains much that is certainly not Shakespeare's and that is as certainly the work of other Elizabethans. That the version of the play which was printed in the 1594 Quarto could not have been completed earlier than the middle of the year 1593 is proved by the fact that it copies directly or indirectly many phrases and passages of Peele's Honour of the Garter, which was written to celebrate an event that occurred on June 26, 1593; and yet the language, the metre, and the style of Titus is noticeably different from that of the works which Shakespeare had already written and was writing during this particular period—the Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Richard III, and A Midsummer Night's Dream, and the poems, Venus and Adonis and Lucrece. As late as 1593 he would hardly have written such bad lines or constructed so poor a play. If he had written it as early as 1589 or 1590, he could hardly have written in a style so wholly unlike that of the Comedy of Errors and Love's Labour's Lost, which he was presumably engaged in composing at that time.
Moreover, the language of Titus is shot through with words and expressions which Shakespeare did not use in any of his unquestioned works. A list of these words peculiar to Titus, first begun by Fleay, and corrected and added to by Grosart, Verity, and latterly by Robertson, contains upwards of a hundred terms which are the common property of Peele, Greene, and Kyd, respectively, but are never used by Shakespeare. If to these be added the host of classical allusions and tags found in Titus and in no other Shakespearean work, the linguistic medium of the play becomes a thing apart in the language of the Shakespearean canon.
But more fundamental than all these considerations of style, metre, vocabulary, and characterization, is the fact that the theme and the author's handling of it, and the general atmosphere and spirit of Titus Andronicus, are wholly unlike and utterly alien to anything we have of Shakespeare, or could expect from him. A theme of such unmitigated horror never appealed to Shakespeare in his later career as a dramatist, and least of all could it have appealed to the young Shakespeare of Love's Labour's Lost and the Midsummer Night's Dream. He came closest to such themes in Romeo and Juliet in the year following the first publication of Titus, and in Hamlet, a few years later, and his method of handling them in those plays is the best evidence of what he could do and would do with the type of tragedy bequeathed to him by Seneca and Kyd. In none of his tragedies does he deal with blood for blood's sake, but in Titus there is no relief from blood-letting, either by the inevitable Shakespearean interspersion of comic scenes, or by the interjection of another and more romantic plot. Horrors are heaped on horrors in a way that would have sickened the sentimental author of Shakespeare's early plays, and would have disgusted the author of Othello and King Lear. And all to no purpose. In Romeo and Juliet, the tragedy and the bloodshed result in the burying of the parents' strife; in Othello, it is the cause which leads a man great of heart to slay Desdemona, not without recognizing the pity of it; in King Lear, the evil consumes itself, and a clear morning follows the storm of passion and tragedy. But in Titus Andronicus it is all
'Irrecoverably dark, total eclipse
Without all hope of day.'
The tragic energy all goes for nothing; Titus's madness is without any redeeming element. Shakespeare might have been capable of producing the bad lines of the play, its crude construction, its feeble characterization, and its poor workmanship in general, but that he could have written at any time a play so wholly unlike any of his other work seems incredible. If Titus Andronicus be Shakespeare's, we shall have to posit a complete change in his mental, spiritual, and artistic processes and attitudes between the time of its composition and the date when he began to produce his other dramatic work.
If Shakespeare, then, did not write Titus, who was the author of the piece? Any one of a half-dozen of his contemporaries is a more likely candidate for the questionable honor. Its Senecanism and melodrama it has in common with a score of other tragedies of the time. Its mannerisms of style, versification, and vocabulary are those of Kyd, Marlowe, Greene. Peele, and Lodge. Accordingly, four at least of these have been suggested as its possible author, and none of them has wanted defenders among the critics to make good his claim.
In the process of looking for specific traces of different hands in the play, however, many difficulties present themselves. Some idea of the general state of criticism with regard to this particular matter may be gained from a glance at the various interpretations placed on a single passage from Aaron's speech (II. i. 1–9):
'Now climbeth Tamora Olympus' top,
Safe out of Fortune's shot; and sits aloft,
Secure of thunder's crack or lightning flash,
Advanc'd above pale envy's threat'ning reach.
As when the golden sun salutes the morn,
And, having gilt the ocean with his beams,
Gallops the zodiac in his glistering coach,
And overlooks the highest-peering hills;
So Tamora.'
Bullen, in his edition of Marlowe's plays, was of the opinion that this passage was written by Marlowe, in view of Marlowe's having written, in the third chorus of Act III of Faustus, the line,
'Did mount himself to scale Olympus' top.'
Appleton Morgan (Bankside Shakespeare) thinks the passage Shakespeare's without question, and considers it a remarkably good imitation of Marlowe's style. Crawford, however, sees in lines 3–5 of the passage an echo of Peele's Honour of the Garter (line 410),
'Out of Oblivion's reach or Envy's shot,'
while Robertson finds in line 7 a direct echo of a line from Peele's Anglorum Feriæ,
'Gallops the zodiac in his fiery wain,'
and notes other lines from Peele's David and Bethsabe strikingly parallel in structure and abounding in verbal coincidences. Such resemblances are, indeed, very striking, but do they definitely prove more than that there was a singular community of thought and similarity of expression, and no little amount of imitation, among Elizabethan poets? And what, to give only one instance, shall be said of the lines in the Merchant of Venice (IV. i. 9, 10),
'no lawful means can carry me
Out of his envy's reach'?
That they are Shakespeare's has never been questioned, but if they had occurred in Titus, would they not certainly be catalogued as Peele's or Marlowe's by just such reasoning? If mere similarity or identity of thought or expression is to be accepted as a criterion of authorship, then almost any Elizabethan dramatist may be proved to have written parts of almost any play of the time.
The play is so patently of the same species as the Spanish Tragedy, that Kyd was early suggested by Farmer as author of Titus. Hartley Coleridge concurred in this, and Fleay, Sir Sidney Lee, Parrott, and Robertson have since thought Kyd a probable first draftsman of the play. Boswell preferred to consider Marlowe, and Fleay also inclined to this opinion. The character of Aaron is by almost all critics conceded to be modeled on Marlowe's Barabas and Ithamore. Much of the verse also, if not Marlowe's, is close imitation of that poet's lines. The share of Robert Greene in Titus has received more attention than that of any other of the possible authors except Peele. In along and scholarly article[3] Grosart set forth his many claims to the authorship, and he has received the serious consideration of every critic since. The play unquestionably contains much that was written by Greene, but whether his passages got into it by his own pen, or whether his imitators put them there is a problem that cannot be solved. Parrott and Robertson agree substantially in conceding to Greene's authorship the first scene of Act II, and traces of his manner are not wanting throughout the play. Grant White thought Titus was written by Greene, Marlowe, and Shakespeare, and later revised by Shakespeare.
But of all those for whom the authorship of Titus is claimed, George Peele is the foremost. His influence and his mannerisms are evident throughout the play, which is as Peelean in spirit as it is non-Shakespearean. Indeed, if the play were not specially credited to Shakespeare, there can be little doubt that it would be readily assigned to Peele by the majority of students of Elizabethan drama. 'Almost every page', says Dugdale Sykes, 'exhibits traces of Peele's vocabulary and phrasing.' [4] At least one third of the entire play has been shown to be directly or indirectly copied from his works. The most important developments in the study and criticism of Titus during the present century have centered in the question of Peele's connection with the play, and to the earlier proofs of Fleay, Verity, and Crawford of his great share in its text, abundant evidence has been added by the exhaustive researches of Sykes and Robertson. J. Q. Adams adheres to the theory of Peele's authorship of the play in his Life, and it is not unreasonable to expect that future critics may consider the evidence sufficient to establish his claim to the play. When all allowances are made for the Elizabethan tendency toward imitation of other works, the play still remains characteristically Peelean, exhibiting all his sentimentality, his weakness for rodomontade, his fondness for the historical background in tragedy, his peculiar interest in Oriental themes, his love of martial exp;oits and exploiters, and his glorification of the fatherland, identical here with Rome, as it is in David and Bethsabe with Judæa. Surely there was no one se likely as Peele to have chosen such a subject for a tragedy, and, given the theme here found, there can be little doubt that he would have written substantially what we have in Titus Andronicus.
What conclusions, then, are to be drawn from all the mass of critical discussion on the authorship of 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.'
- ↑ In the work referred to in Appendix B.
- ↑ 'Shakespeare's Revision of "Titus Andronicus,"' Mod. Lang. Rev., xiv. 27, 28.
- ↑ 'Was Robert Greene Substantially the Author of "Titus Andronicus"?' Englische Studien, xxii. 389–436.
- ↑ Sidelights on Shakespeare, 1919, p. 125.