Talk:Shakespeare Apocrypha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Shakespeare Apocrypha is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Biased 2 Spam? 3 Plays attributed to Shakespeare after the 17th century 4 Third and Fourth Folios?

[edit] Biased

This article is extremely biased, without any good footnotes or citations. A play that is bad is passed off as some unknown horrible playwright. Shakspeares' are beautiful masterpieces which contain no flaws, therefore, it IS the bard!!! Please cite where the "scholars" came to these conclusions. This is just a ridiculous article that needs to be cleaned up. Somebody help it! For the love of Jehovah! 64.136.27.229 06:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

I removed the following which looks like spam. If it isn't, it should be rewritten to fit properly with the rest of the article.

In 2006 Michael Egan published The Tragedy of Richard II, Part One: A Newly Authenticated Play by William Shakespeare. Edited, Introduced and with Variorum Notes (Edwin Mellen Press).

The Singing Badger 21:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plays attributed to Shakespeare after the 17th century

I know that Edward III's inclusion under this category is wrong, because it was attributed to Shakespeare as early as 1656 in a bookseller's catalogue. In fact, so were Peele's Edward I and Marlowe's Edward II! I have an edition published by Walter Greg that includes the texts of the four booksellers' catalogues put out during the 1650s and '60s by Archer, Kirkman, etc., and when I have more leisure time later I'll look into it and see what changes/additions can be made here. But some of those attributions --- and IIRC the booksellers made a lot of them --- were pretty eccentric, and it may be a question of how thorough you want to go in listing everything that's been assigned to Shakespeare at some point. I mean, should Edward II really have a place here? The "Shakespeare Apocrypha", properly, is only about 14 or 15 plays.Eupolis 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A followup. I've made some changes to the section on Edward III, in line with what I said earlier. These catalogues, though they often contribute information later scholars have judged correct, are problematic sometimes, and I do not know whether it is a good idea to add items like Peele's Arraignment of Paris, Marlowe's Edward II, Heywood's Edward IV, Chettle's Hoffman, or Hieronimo, both parts, all of which get assigned to Shakespeare in one or more of them. I didn't. Eupolis 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third and Fourth Folios?

I recall reading in a book on the Shakespeare Apocrypha that many of the plays were published in the Third Folio and the Fourth Folio, but this is never mentioned, nor are there articles about either Folio in Wikipedia. ---- Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)