Talk:Shakespeare apocrypha

Biased[edit]

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)[reply]

Spam?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Third and Fourth Folios?[edit]

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)[reply]

Abelard and Elois, a Tragedie[edit]

Is there any substance to this story of his uncompleted, then lost, play: http://www.abelard-and-heloise.com/history.html ? 141.243.9.139 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "counter-orthodox" section[edit]

An IP editor recently added a section titled "A counter-orthodox Shakespeare canon and chronology" to this article. My initial instinct was to remove it outright per the policy on due and undue weight, but on further reflection there may be some kind of argument to be made for keeping parts of it since it does address Shakespeare apocrypha to some extent. The whole table of an alternate chronology for all the plays is too much, and the text is far too focussed on Eric Sams, but perhaps some pruning and copy-editing could reveal a kernel of information relevant to this article? I'd be interested to hear other editors' thoughts on this. --Xover (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the A really need to be upper-case?[edit]

I'm inclined to just rename the article to the lowercase variant, but since moves are a pest to undo I figure I'd better give other editors a chance to pipe in first. --Xover (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shakespeare apocrypha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706053730/http://shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/jimenez.woodstock.htm to http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/jimenez.woodstock.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dil[edit]

Dil Na jane Kyo Paresan hai, Tu Na jane kyo Is Dil Ki Jaan Hai, Kuchh To Bat Hai Teri In Aankho Me, Yeh Nachiz Isiliye Tera Gulam Hai. VIKRANT0312 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate says that this is Hindi for "Don't know why the heart is upset, you don't know why this heart is alive, there is something in your eyes, that's why it is your slave." I do not have any comment. AndyJones (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]