The Shakespeare apocrypha refers to a group of plays and poems that have sometimes been attributed to William Shakespeare, either individually or collaboratively, but whose authorship is disputed for various reasons. The issue is distinct from the Shakespearean authorship question, which concerns the authorship of the works traditionally attributed to Shakespeare.
Background
During his lifetime, Shakespeare saw only about half of his plays in print. Some individual plays were published in quarto, a small, inexpensive format. In 1623, seven years after Shakespeare's death, his fellow actors John Heminges and Henry Condell compiled a folio collection of his complete plays, now known as the First Folio. Heminges and Condell were able to compile the collection because they, like Shakespeare, worked for the King's Men, the London playing company that produced Shakespeare's plays.
In addition to plays, poems were published under Shakespeare's name. The collection published as The Passionate Pilgrim contains poems by Shakespeare, poems known to have been written by other authors, and others of unknown authorship. Some scholars have also attributed anonymous poems to Shakespeare.
The apocrypha can be categorized under the following headings:
Plays attributed to Shakespeare during the 17th century, but not included in the First Folio
Several plays published in quarto during the seventeenth century bear Shakespeare's name on the title page or in other documents, but do not appear in the First Folio. Some of these plays (such as Pericles) are believed by most scholars of Shakespeare to have been written by him (at least in part). Others, such as Thomas Lord Cromwell, differ substantially in style from Shakespeare's accepted works.
Scholars have suggested various reasons for the existence of these plays. In some cases, printers may have falsely attributed plays to Shakespeare to capitalize on his reputation. In other cases, Shakespeare may have had an editorial role in the plays' creation, rather than actually writing them, or they may simply be based on a plot outline by Shakespeare. Some may be collaborations between Shakespeare and other dramatists (although the First Folio includes plays such as Henry VIII, Henry VI, Part 1 and Timon of Athens that are believed to be collaborative, according to modern stylistic analysis). Another possibility is that some of the plays were not written for the King's Men or dated from early in Shakespeare's career and were therefore unavailable to Heminges and Condell when they compiled the First Folio.
C. F. Tucker Brooke lists forty-two plays conceivably attributable to Shakespeare, many in his own lifetime, but dismisses the majority,Tucker Brooke (1908), pp. ix–xi. leaving only most of those listed below, with some additions. The Birth of Merlin was published in 1662 as the work of Shakespeare and William Rowley. This attribution is considered erroneous because evidence dates the play to 1622, six years after Shakespeare's death. It is unlikely that Shakespeare and Rowley would have written together, as they were both chief dramatists for rival playing companies. The play has been called "funny, colourful, and fast-paced",Dominik (1991), p. 7. but critical consensus follows Henry Tyrrell's conclusion that the play "does not contain in it one single trace of the genius of the bard of Avon",Tyrrell (1800), p. 411. supplemented by C. F. Tucker Brooke's suggestion that Rowley was consciously imitating Shakespeare's style.Tucker Brooke (1908), p. xlvi. Sir John Oldcastle was originally published anonymously in 1600 (STC 18796). In 1619, a second edition was attributed to Shakespeare as part of William Jaggard's False Folio. In fact, the diary of Philip Henslowe records that it was written by Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton, Richard Hathwaye, and Robert Wilson. A Yorkshire Tragedy was published in 1608 as the work of Shakespeare. Although a minority of readers support this claim, the weight of stylistic evidence supports Thomas Middleton. Pericles, Prince of Tyre was published under Shakespeare's name. Its uneven writing suggests that the first two acts are by another playwright. In 1868, Nicolaus Delius proposed George Wilkins as this unknown collaborator; a century later, F. D. Hoeneger proposed John Day. In general, critics have accepted that the last three-fifths are mostly Shakespeare's, following Gary Taylor's claim that by the middle of the Jacobean decade, "Shakespeare's poetic style had become so remarkably idiosyncratic that it stands out—even in a corrupt text—from that of his contemporaries."Warren (2003), p. 59. The Two Noble Kinsmen was published in quarto in 1634 as a collaboration between Shakespeare and John Fletcher, the young playwright who took over Shakespeare's job as chief playwright of the King's Men. Mainstream scholarship generally accepts this attribution, and the play is widely included in the Shakespeare canon despite its collaborative origins. It is included in its entirety in the Oxford Shakespeare (1986), and in the Riverside Shakespeare (1996). Edward III was published anonymously in 1596. It was first attributed to Shakespeare in a bookseller's catalogue published in 1656.Greg (1902), Appendix II, p. lxiv. Various scholars have suggested Shakespeare's possible authorship, since a number of passages appear to bear his stamp, among other sections that are remarkably uninspired. In 1996, Yale University Press became the first major publisher to produce an edition of the play under Shakespeare's name, and shortly afterward, the Royal Shakespeare Company performed the play (to mixed reviews). In 2001, the American professional premiere was staged by Pacific Repertory Theatre, which received positive reviews for the endeavour. A consensus is emerging that the play was written by a team of dramatists including Shakespeare early in his career—but exactly who wrote what is still open to debate. William Montgomery edited the play for the Second Edition of the Complete Oxford Shakespeare (2005), where it is attributed to "William Shakespeare and Others". The London Prodigal was printed in 1605 under Shakespeare's name. As it is a King's Men play, Shakespeare may have had a minor role in its creation, but according to Tucker Brooke, "Shakespeare's catholicity and psychological insight are conspicuously absent".Tucker Brooke (1908), p. xxx. Fleay hypothesized that Shakespeare wrote a rough outline or plot and left another playwright to the actual writing. The Second Maiden's Tragedy survives only in manuscript. Three crossed-out attributions in seventeenth-century hands attribute it to Thomas Goffe, Shakespeare, and George Chapman. Professional handwriting expert Charles Hamilton attempted to argue that the play was Shakespeare's manuscript of the lost Cardenio. However, stylistic analysis strongly indicates Thomas Middleton as the true author of The Second Maiden's Tragedy. The "Charles II Library" plays: in Charles II's library, an unknown seventeenth-century person had bound together three quartos of anonymous plays and labelled them "Shakespeare, vol. 1". The three plays are: Fair Em, the Miller's Daughter of Manchester, written c. 1590. Another candidate for its authorship is Robert Wilson. Mucedorus was first printed in 1598 and went through several editions despite the text's corrupt state. As it is a King's Men play, Shakespeare may have had a minor role in its creation or revision, but its authorship remains uncertain; Robert Greene is sometimes suggested. The Merry Devil of Edmonton, first published in 1608. As it is a King's Men play, Shakespeare may have had a minor role in its creation, but the play's style bears no resemblance to Shakespeare.
Plays attributed to "W. S." during the 17th century, and not included in the First Folio
Some plays were attributed to "W. S." in the seventeenth century. These initials could refer to Shakespeare, but could also refer to Wentworth Smith, an obscure dramatist.Chambers (1930), p. 536. Locrine was published in 1595 as "Newly set forth, overseen and corrected by W. S." Thomas Lord Cromwell was published in 1602 and attributed to "W. S." Except for a few scholars, such as Ludwig Tieck and August Wilhelm Schlegel, "hardly anyone has thought that Shakespeare was even in the slightest way involved in the production of these plays." The Puritan was published in 1607 and attributed to "W. S." This play is now generally believed to be by Middleton or Smith.
Plays attributed to Shakespeare after the 17th century A number of anonymous plays have been attributed to Shakespeare by more recent readers and scholars. Many of these claims are supported only by debatable ideas about what constitutes "Shakespeare's style". Nonetheless, some of them have been cautiously accepted by mainstream scholarship. Arden of Faversham is an anonymous play printed in 1592 that has occasionally been claimed for Shakespeare. Its writing style and subject matter, however, are very different from those of Shakespeare's other plays. Full attribution is not supported by mainstream scholarship, though stylistic analysis has revealed that Shakespeare likely had a hand in at least scene VIII (the play is not divided into acts). Thomas Kyd is often considered to be the author of much of Faversham, but other writers have been proposed. Edmund Ironside is an anonymous manuscript play. Eric Sams attributed the play to Shakespeare and argued that it was his earliest extant work, but this view has convinced few, if any, Shakespeare scholars. Sir Thomas More survives only in manuscript. It is a play that was written in the 1590s and then revised, possibly as many as ten years later. The play is included in the Second Edition of the Complete Oxford Shakespeare (2005), which attributes the original play to Anthony Munday and Henry Chettle, with later revisions and additions by Thomas Dekker, Shakespeare, and Thomas Heywood. A few pages are written by an author ("Hand D") whom many believe to be Shakespeare, as the handwriting and spellings, as well as the style, seem a good match. The attribution is not accepted by everyone, however, especially since six signatures on legal documents are the only verified authentic examples of Shakespeare's handwriting. Thomas of Woodstock, sometimes also called Richard II, Part I, is an anonymous late-sixteenth or early-seventeenth century play depicting events leading up to the murder of Thomas of Woodstock immediately preceding those depicted in Shakespeare's Richard II. Thomas of Woodstock survives only as an anonymous and untitled manuscript lacking its final page (or pages), part of the Egerton Collection deposited in the British Library. Because the play describes the events immediately prior to those set forth in Richard II, some scholars have attributed the play to Shakespeare or suggested that it influenced Shakespeare's own play. Few of its editors, however, have supported the attribution to Shakespeare. Stylistic analysis led MacDonald P. Jackson to propose Samuel Rowley as a possible author in 2001. Later scholars, most notably Michael Egan, have tried to revive the attribution to Shakespeare.Egan (2006) The Spanish Tragedy, by Thomas Kyd, is a play with elements reminiscent of Hamlet. Recent handwriting analysis suggests that portions may have been revised by Shakespeare. In 2013 the Royal Shakespeare Company published an edition attributing the play, in part, to William Shakespeare. A Knack to Know a Knave. Hanspeter Born has argued that Shakespeare rewrote some scenes in the romantic subplot of A Knack to Know a Knave, tentatively attributed by some scholars to Robert Greene.
Lost plays