MANY PLAYS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED as the work of William Shakespeare, and there are more works which could be included in the Shakespeare Apocrypha than in the recognised Canon.  Although there are online editions of quite a few of these apocryphal works, there doesn't seem to be a single repository on the web which lists them all, so here's my contribution, with links where possible, and notes where I can find anything out.

Where I have come across a reference to a modern (print) edition, I've included it, but I haven't researched to check availability of these editions.

Online editions may be in a variety of formats.  Please let me know if any of the links to online editions are broken; they are live as of 18th April, 2004.

Contributions to this page are welcome; I'm no academic or researcher, so my sources are few.  I've only included dramatic works here - I have no inclination to get involved in the arguments about attribution of purely poetic works.

Titles:
Albumazar  :   Arden of Feversham  :   Arraignment of Paris, The
Birth of Merlin, The
Cardenio  :   Cromwell
Death of Stucley, The  :   Double Falsehood  :   Duke Humphrey
Edmund Ironside  :   Edward II  :   Edward III  :   Edward IV
Fair Em  :   Fifth of November; or the Gunpowder Plot  :   First Part of the Contention between the Two Famouse Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, The
George A Greene
Henry I  :   Henry II  :   Henry II  :   History of King Stephen, The
Iphis and Ianthe
King Leir and His Daughters
Larum for London, A  :   Locrine  :   London Prodigal, The  :   Love's Labour's Won
Merry Devil of Edmonton, The  :   Mucedorus
Puritan, The
Richard II, Part One
Satiro-Mastix  :   Second Maiden's Tragedy, The  :   Siege of Antwerp, The  :   Sir John Oldcastle  :   Sir Thomas More
Thomas Lord Cromwell  :   Thomas of Woodstock  :   Troublesome Reign of King John, The  :   True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, The  :   Two Noble Kinsmen, The
Vortigern
Warning for Fair Women, A  :   Wily Beguiled  :   Woodstock
Yorkshire Tragedy, A

Albumazar An adaptation, by Thomas Tompkis, of the comedy L'Astrologo by della Porta.  Performed at Cambridge University for King James on 9th March 1615.
Attribution to Shakespeare: by Simpson in Transactions, New Shakspere Society, 1875-6.
Modern edition: Hugh G. Dick, Albumazar: A Comedy (University of California Publications in English 13, Berkeley - Los Angeles, 1944).
Public Access Online edition: None
Trivia: Includes a 35-letter word, necropurogeohydrocheirocoscinomancy. This is 9 letters more than Shakespeare's longest word.

Arden of Feversham Entered in the Stationers' Register April 3rd, 1592, and reprinted 1599 and 1633, all anonymously. Marlowe, Kyd, or an imitator of Kyd, have been suggested as the author.  Swinburne supported the attribution to Shakespeare.
Attribution to Shakespeare: by Edward Jacob in 1770, based on similarity of phrases to some canonical works.
Modern edition: Martin White, (New Mermaids, W. W. Norton, 1984), 0393952363
Public Access Online edition: William Harris's site (cut, apparently)
Trivia: The title character, a real person murdered in 1551, was related to Shakespeare's mother, Mary Arden.

Arraignment of Paris, The Published anonymously in 1584.  Now attributed to George Peele - Sir George Buc, Master of the Revels, wrote 'by Ge: Peele, as I reme{m}ber' on the title page of a copy of the 1584 quarto edition.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Kirkman, Winstanley and others, 1656-70. Basis unknown.
Modern edition: The Malone Society edition (1988), 0404630197
Public Access Online edition: Oxford Text Archive

Birth of Merlin, The Published in a quarto edition in 1662, but assigned in date from the early 1620s.  The title page gives the authors as Shakespeare and William Rowley, but the consensus is that Shakespeare had nothing to do with it, and Rowley probably shares authorship with Dekker or Middleton.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By publishers Francis Kirman and Henry Marsh, on title page.
Modern edition: Robson Books, 1843334763 (2001)
Public Access Online edition: Here!

Cardenio More properly a lost play than an apocryphal one, Cardenio was entered in the Stationers' Register in 1653, as being by Shakespeare and Fletcher.  Contemporary documents indicate that there was such a play, and it existed around the time when Shakespeare was writing, and indeed collaborating with Fletcher.
In the 18th century, Theobald claimed to have revised and adapted the play as Double Falsehood; this was initially regarded quite sceptically, but is now being looked on more favourably following recent analysis and research, beginning with Stefan Kukowski in 1991.  Certainty is not possible, but it looks likely that Theobald had at least something in which both Shakespeare and Fletcher had had a hand when he began work on 'adapting' it into Double Falsehood.
Charles Hamilton claimed in 1994 that another play, The Second Maiden's Tragedy, was the lost Cardenio.  This is thought by most to be by Thomas Middleton, and the fact that it is entered separately in Stationers' Register at the same time as Cardenio argues against the identification.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Entry in Stationers' Register and contemporary accounts.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None
Trivia: Cardenio is a character in Don Quixote; the author of which, Cervantes, died on the same date as Shakespeare.

Cromwell See Thomas, Lord Cromwell, below.

Death of Stucley, The In the Preface to C. F. Tucker Brooke's The Shakespeare Apocrypha, this play is mentioned as being included in a projected, but never realised, book of Apocrypha to be published by the New Shakspere Society.  I assume that the Stucley of the title is Thomas Stucley.  It could be identical with The Battle of Alcazar, now thought to be by Peele, which has the subtitle with the Death of Captain Stukely, and from around 1592, or The Famous History of the Life and Death of Captain Thomas Stukeley which was acted in 1596 according to Henslowe.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Unknown
Modern edition: None currently (one of The Battle of Alcazar due in 2007!)
Public Access Online edition: None

Double Falsehood See Cardenio, above, for information on this play, by Lewis Theobald.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Never attributed directly to Shakespeare, but claimed by Theobald to be adapted from a Shakespearean manuscript.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: At John W. Kennedy's site

Duke Humphrey Entered in the Stationers' Register on June 29th, 1660, by Humphrey Moseley.  No other information survives, but Tucker Brooke considers it to have possibly been Henry VI, Part 2, in which Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester is a leading character.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By the publisher Moseley.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

Edmund Ironside An anonymous manuscript from the British Library collection, recently assigned to Shakespeare by Eric Sams on the basis of stylistic and other similarities to early plays in the Shakespeare canon.  Has not met with much critical acceptance.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Ephraim Everitt, 1954, and Eric Sams, 1986
Modern edition: Wildwood House, 0704505479 (1986)
Public Access Online edition:

Edward II Attributed to Shakespeare in an 'early' (no date given) bookseller's catalogue, according to the Introduction to Tucker Brooke's The Shakespeare Apocrypha.  This is the play now universally accepted as being by Marlowe.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Booksellers' catalogue, details and basis unknown.
Modern edition: New Mermaids, 0713666692 (2003)
Public Access Online edition: Peter Farey's Marlowe Page

Edward III Attribution to Shakespeare: Initially attributed to Shakespeare in a bookseller's catalogue of 1595, the first published editions didn't make the same attribution.  It was attributed to him again in 1654, but alongside Edward II and Edward IV, which didn't encourage confidence in the attribution.  It then fell into neglect for over a century, since when there has been a growing debate over its position in or out of the canon.  Eric Sams made a case for it in his 1996 book, and it was published as part of the New Cambridge Shakespeare series in 1998, but no other major Shakespeare edition includes it as of yet.  Although some consider it the work of a single hand, the consensus among its supporters is that Shakespeare wrote some passages,
Attribution to Shakespeare: Booksellers' catalogue of 1595, some modern critics.
Modern edition: New Cambridge Shakespeare, 0521596734 (1998)
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Edward IV Published in 1600, and attributed to Shakespeare in an 'early' (no date given) bookseller's catalogue, according to the Introduction to Tucker Brooke's The Shakespeare Apocrypha.  Heywood is recorded as having written a play (in fact, two parts) with this title in 1600 - I assume it's the same one.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Booksellers' catalogue, details and basis unknown.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

Fair Em A volume from Charles II's library, which bore the legend 'Shakespeare Vol. I' contained this play along with Mucedorus and The Merry Devil of Edmonton.  Although Bartleby dates it to 1587, the first quarto version of this claims it to have been acted by Lord Strange's Men, which dates it to 1589-1593.  In 1675, Edward Phillips assigned the play to Greene, but the latter makes a slighting reference to Fair Em in Farewell to Folly, so that seems improbable.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Based on the cover notes as discovered by Francis Kirkman.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Fifth of November; or the Gunpowder Plot Mentioned in the introduction to Tucker Brooke's The Shakespeare Apocrypha as a 'transparent and confessed forgery' by George Ambrose Rhodes, from 1830.  Other than that, I have found out nothing about it.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By George Ambrose Rhodes, the actual author.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

First Part of the Contention between the Two Famouse Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, The Published in Quarto form in 1594, this stands in close relation to Henry VI, Part 2, as published in the First Folio, and a third longer than the Q, but there is disagreement as to the exact nature of the relationship.  The theories are as follows: a) It is a play by another author (Marlowe, some claim), used as a source by Shakespeare; b) it is a memorial reconstruction of a performance of 2H6; c) it is an early version by Shakespeare, which he later amended. Attribution to Shakespeare: By publishers of the quarto editions of 1594, 1600 and 1619.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: University of Victoria

George A Greene Attributed to Shakespeare by Tieck in 1831, but now accepted as being by Robert Greene.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

Henry I Entered on the Stationers' Register in 1653 as 'by Wm. Shakespeare and Robert Davenport'.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Stationers' Register entry.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

Henry II Entered on the Stationers' Register in 1653 as 'by Wm. Shakespeare and Robert Davenport'.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Stationers' Register entry.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

Henry II A forgery by W. H. Ireland; see Vortigern for more information.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By W. H.Ireland, the actual author.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

History of King Stephen, The Entered on the Stationers' Register in 1660 under Shakespeare's name.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Stationers' Register entry.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

Iphis and Ianthe A retelling of a story from Ovid's Metamorphoses, a favourite source of Shakespeare's.  Entered on the Stationers' Register in 1660 under Shakespeare's name.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Stationers' Register entry.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

King Leir and His Daughters Performed in 1594, and published in 1605, this is probably a source for Shakespeare when writing his own King Lear, claimed by some as an earlier version by Shakespeare himself.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Tieck
Modern edition: Nick Hern Books, 1854596357 (2002)
Public Access Online edition: Sh:in:e - Shakespeare in Europe

Locrine Entered on the Stationers' Register in 1594, and published in Quarto form by Thomas Creede in 1595, with the title page attribution 'Newly set foorth, overseene and corrected By W.S.'.  It was then included in the Third Folio (1662), and Fourth Folio (1685).  Malone and Knight considered this 'W.S' to be a playwright William Smith, although Malone thought this specific play to be by Marlowe, while Tieck and Schlegel considered it an early play of Shakespeare's, comparable to Titus Andronicus, but most critics find it more likely to be by one of the 'university wits'.  George Peele and Robert Greene have been suggested as author or co-author; Tucker Brooke dates the play to 1585, with an epilogue added around 10 years later, and considers that the W.S. of the title page may have been Shakespeare, but his contribution would be, at most, the addition of this epilogue.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By publishers of the quarto edition of 1595, and subsequent critics.
Modern edition: IndyPublish, 1404369511 (2003)
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

London Prodigal, The Published in quarto form in 1605, with a title page attribution 'By William Shakespeare, London.'
Attribution to Shakespeare: By publishers of the quarto edition of 1605
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Love's Labour's Won Love's Labour's Won was listed in Meres' Palladis Tamia among Shakespeare's comedies, indicating it was written before 1598.  If we assume it really existed, it is either a lost play, or an alternative play for one of the surviving plays.  The former case is attractive as it may have been a sequel to Love's Labour's Lost, which has an ending which seems to ambiguously hint at a sequel.  In the latter case virtually every one of Shakespeare's comedies has been offered as a candidate at one time or another; however, Meres lists it alongside Two Gentlemen of Verona, Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, Midsummer Night's Dream and Merchant of Venice, and in 1953 a 1603 catalogue of bookseller Christopher Hunt lists it with Taming of the Shrew (as well as others from Meres' list), so these would all appear to be eliminated (although people still argue for their favourite candidates regardless).
Attribution to Shakespeare: By Francis Meres in his contemporary list of Shakespeare's plays, 1598
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

Merry Devil of Edmonton, The Entered on the Stationers' Register in 1607, and published six times in quarto between 1608 and 1656, the first reference to Shakespeare is a re-entry on the Register in 1653, and it then appears in the volume in Charles II's library (see Fair Em, above).  Tucker Brooke argues that Heminges was paid for a performance of this play before the King in 1618, two years after Shakespeare's death, and that his subsequent omission of it from the First Folio militates against it being authentic, but also calls it 'one of the most delightful pseudo-Shakespearian plays to read'.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Stationer's Register entry and cover notes as discovered by Francis Kirkman.
Modern edition: Nick Hern Books, 1854596047 (2000)
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Mucedorus First published in 1598 by William Jones, entered in the Stationers' Register 1618. A very popular play, judging by the large number of editions it went through during the 17th Century. There was no direct connection with Shakespeare (although the post-1610 editions cited it as part of the repertoire of the Globe Company) until it appeared in the volume in Charles II's library (see Fair Em, above).
Attribution to Shakespeare: Based on the cover notes as discovered by Francis Kirkman.
Modern edition: IndyPublish, 1404369511 (2003)
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Puritan, The Published in quarto form in 1607, with a title page attribution 'Written by W. S.'. It was claimed as Shakespeare's in a bookseller's catalogue of 1656, and then was added to the Third and Fourth Folios, but is not taken seriously now. Tucker Brooke notes some allusions to George Peele in the central character and some of his tricks.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Bookseller's catalogue of 1656.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Richard II, Part One More commonly called Woodstock, or Thomas of Woodstock, the primary title on the manuscript is The First Part of the Reign of Richard II; Thomas of Woodstock is then given as a secondary title.  Known through an incomplete and anonymous manuscript in the British Museum. Has a close relationship with Shakespeare's Richard II, describing events immediately prior to that play, and providing explanations for the behaviour of many of the characters in it.  For this reason, the two plays have been described by some modern critics as Richard II, Parts I and II, but others consider it a later play, possibly written by Rowley.  Michael Egan has argued forcefully for the Shakespeare authorship, and against Rowley; a shortened version of his four-volume work (which includes a original ending in the Elizabethan style) on the subject can be found here.  Others, including Ward Elliott, who has done stylometric work on the text, discount this.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Critically, based on relationship to Richard II
Modern edition: Manchester University Press, 0719015634 (2002)
Public Access Online edition: Hampshire Shakespeare Company

Satiro-Mastix Published anonymously in 1601, now firmly atrributed to Dekker.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By W. Bernhardi, 1856.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

Second Maiden's Tragedy, The See Cardenio, above.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By Warburton in the 18th century, and by Charles Hamilton in 1994.
Modern edition: Glenbridge, 0944435246 (1994)
Public Access Online edition: Chris Cleary's Homepage

Siege of Antwerp, The Also known as A Larum for London, or Alarum for London.  Published in 1602.  Collier ascribed it to Marlowe.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By R. Simpson, in 1872.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: None

Sir John Oldcastle Two quarto editions were published dated 1600, one of which has the words 'Written by William Shakespeare' on the title page, the other doesn't.  The Third and Fourth Folios included this play, and it was supported by Tieck and Schlegel, but in Henslowe's diary he records payments to Monday, Drayton, Wilson and Hathway for the play. This is actually titled 'The First Part of Sir John Oldcastle'; Henslowe records payments for a Second Part, but it is now lost.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Based on the 1600 quarto title page.
Modern edition: Malone Society/OUP, 0197290035 (1990)
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Sir Thomas More Exists as a manuscript belonging to the British Museum, with marginal notes by the Master of the Revels, Sir Edmund Tilney.  Chiefly notable for the claims that one of the four hands in which it is written may be Shakespeare's own.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By handwriting analysts.
Modern edition: Manchester University Press, 0719016320 (2002)
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Thomas Lord Cromwell Entered on the Stationers' Register in 1602, the same year that the first quarto edition appeared, with on the title page the words 'Written by W.S.'. On the basis of this attribution it was included in the Third and Fourth Folios. Most critics have been scathing in their opinions of this attribution: Swinburne described it as 'shapeless, spiritless, bodiless, soulless, senseless, helpless, worthless rubbish'.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Based on the 1602 quarto title page.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Thomas of Woodstock See Richard II, Part One, above.

Troublesome Reign of King John, The Either a memorial reconstruction of, or a source play for, Shakespeare's own King John.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Title page ('By W. Sh.' in 1611, named in full in third edition of 1622).
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: Oxford Text Archive

True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, The Published in 1595.  Either a memorial reconstruction of, or a source play for, Henry VI, Part 3.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Title page.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: Oxford Text Archive

Two Noble Kinsmen, The Registered and printed only in 1634, the first quarto described it as by John Fletcher and William Shakespeare.  This at least marks it out from the bald attributions to Shakespeare alone of some of the other apocryphal works.
This has bounced in and out of the canon over the years, but currently is generally accepted as being in part by Shakespeare, although this is still disputed by some, and even those who accept a partial attribution are not in agreement over which parts were his work and which those of Fletcher, if they can be separated at all.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By publishers on title page.
Modern edition: Arden Shakespeare, 1904271189 (1996)
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

Vortigern A forgery by W. H. Ireland, an aficionado both of Shakespeare's pays and of the pseudoworks of Ossian and Chatterton. This play, also known as Vortigern and Rowena, was the culmination of a series of Shakespearean forgeries, including signatures, business notes and manuscripts for real plays including Hamlet and King Lear. He had overreached himself with this attempt at writing a 'new' play, and the first, and only performance, ended in disaster.  Tour de Force theatre revived it in 1997.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By W. H.Ireland, the actual author.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: The Camelot Project, University of Rochester

Warning for Fair Women, A Published in 1599.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By W. Bernhardi, 1856.
Modern edition: Walter de Gruyter, 9027931348 (1975)
Public Access Online edition: None

Wily Beguiled Published in 1606.
Attribution to Shakespeare: By W. Bernhardi, 1856.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: English Folk Play Research

Woodstock See Richard II, Part One, above.

Yorkshire Tragedy, A Entered on the Stationers' Register in 1608 as 'by Wylliam Shakespeare', and immediately followed by a quarto edition with the same claim on the title page.  Like Arden of Feversham, this play was based on a true murder case, which attracted much attention by balladmakers and writers.  Again like Arden, this has more than the usual number of supporters, but there are as many, if not more, ranged against it. It is exceptionally short, only 700 lines, and was originally intended, according to the title page, to be part of a four-play bill.
Attribution to Shakespeare: Stationer's Register entry and quarto title page.
Modern edition: None
Public Access Online edition: Project Gutenberg

 
Thanks to John W. Kennedy, Jonathan Hope, Markus Marti and Robin Hamilton for contributions.
Markus has an Apocrypha site at http://www.unibas.ch/shine/works7apo.html with lots of useful links and academic stuff, some of which I'm porting over here.


Home