Ward, Fleay, and Schelling are the best general guides for this period. The books already mentioned by Collier, Symonds, Jusserand, Cunliffe, Fischer, and Churchill bear directly on the matter of this chapter. The sources for documents and records are the same as for chapter iii, with the important addition of _Henslowe's Diary_, vol. i, 1904, ed. by W. W. Greg. The sources for lists of plays and bibliography are the same as in chapter ii,--Greg, Fleay, Hazlitt, Schelling, and Bates. There is no satisfactory and comprehensive treatment of Marlowe's work; J. H. Ingram's _Christopher Marlowe and his Associates_ (1904) supplies a full bibliography. Marlowe has been well edited by Dyce and by A. H. Bullen. Dyce's editions of Greene and Peele have long been standard. Bullen has also a good edition of Peele. The recent Clarendon Press editions of Greene, Lyly, Kyd supply careful texts and full introductions. My article, _The Relations of "Hamlet" to Contemporary Revenge Play_s (Publ. Mod. Lang. Assn. 1902), has been drawn upon for the discussion of Kyd; it furnishes references to the various critical discussions of Kyd's work. Texts of the plays by minor writers are to be found in Dodsley; W. C. Hazlitt's _Shakespeare's Library_ (6 vols., 1875), containing old plays and other sources for Shakespeare's plays; Delius, _Pseudo-Shakspere'sche Dramen_ (1874); the Tauchnitz edition of _Doubtful Plays of Shakespeare_; and in the editions of several of the pseudo-Shakespearean plays by K. Warncke and L. Proescholdt, Halle. This last edition of _Arden of Feversham_ contains a valuable introduction. For direction to the bibliography of Shakespeare, see chapter v. On the Henry VI plays, Miss Jane Lee's paper, _New Shaks. Soc. Transactions_, 1875-76, still offers the most exhaustive treatment of the question of authorship. On _Titus Andronicus_, Mr. Harold DeW. Fuller's article, _Mod. Lang. Publ._ (1901), and Mr. J. M. Robertson's _Did Shakespeare write Titus Andronicus?_ (1905) are among the latest discussions. My review of Mr. Robertson's book, _Journal of Eng. and Germ. Philology_ (1907), treats in detail some of the discussion of this chapter. The latest studies of the Elizabethan theatre are C. Brodmeier's _Die Shakespeare-Bühne_ (Weimar, 1904), which reduces the "alternation" theory to an absurdity, and G. F. Reynold's _Some Principles of Elizabethan Staging_ (Chicago, 1905), which disposes of Brodmeier's theories, but goes a little too far in the other direction. See, also, Baker's _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_ for a careful and detailed account of the London theatres. Miss V. C. Gildersleeve's _Governmental Regulation of the Shakespearean Drama_ (Columbia Univ. Studies in English, in press) is an exhaustive treatment of its subject and incidentally throws light on theatrical matters. Volume iv of Courthope's _History of English Poetry_ is on the "Development and Decline of the Poetic Drama," from Marlowe to 1642. Schelling's _The English Chronicle