Book contents
- Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha
- Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: the idea of Apocrypha
- Chapter 1 Canonising the Apocrypha
- Chapter 2 The Apocrypha in rep
- Chapter 3 Defining ‘Shakespeare’
- Chapter 4 Apocryphising the canon
- Epilogue: An Apocryphal Identity
- Appendix
- Works Cited
- Index
- References
Works Cited
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
Book contents
- Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha
- Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: the idea of Apocrypha
- Chapter 1 Canonising the Apocrypha
- Chapter 2 The Apocrypha in rep
- Chapter 3 Defining ‘Shakespeare’
- Chapter 4 Apocryphising the canon
- Epilogue: An Apocryphal Identity
- Appendix
- Works Cited
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shakespeare and the Idea of ApocryphaNegotiating the Boundaries of the Dramatic Canon, pp. 230 - 252Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
Primary Sources
Comoedia A worke in ryme, containing an enterlude of myndes, witnessing the mans fall from God and Christ. Set forth by HN, and by him newly perused and amended. Translated out of Base-almayne, into English. Cologne, 1574.Google Scholar
The Psalmes of Dauid truly opened and explaned by paraphrasis, according to the right sense of euerie Psalme. With large and ample arguments before euerie Psalme, declaring the true vse thereof. To the which is added a briefe table, shewing wherevnto euery Psalme is particularly to be applied, according to the direction of M. Beza and Tremellius. Set foorth in Latine by that excellent learned man Theodore Beza. And faithfully translated into English, by Anthonie Gilbie, and by him newlie purged from sundrie faultes escaped in the first print, and supplied with the principal pointes of euerie Psalme, summarilie set downe in a table at the end of the booke. London, 1590.Google Scholar
Greenes, groats-vvorth of witte, bought with a million of repentance Describing the follie of youth, the falshoode of makeshifte flatterers, the miserie of the negligent, and mischiefes of deceiuing courtezans. Written before his death, and published at his dyeing request. London, 1592.Google Scholar
The Spanish tragedie containing the lamentable end of Don Horatio, and Bel-imperia: with the pittifull death of olde Hieronimo. London, 1592.Google Scholar
The lamentable tragedie of Locrine, the eldest sonne of King Brutus discoursing the warres of the Britaines, and Hunnes, with their discomfiture: the Britaines victorie with their accidents, and the death of Albanact. No lesse pleasant then profitable. Newly set foorth, ouerseene and corrected, by VV.S. London, 1595.Google Scholar
A rich store-house or treasury for the diseased Wherein, are many approued medicines for diuers and sundry diseases, which haue been long hidden, and not come to light before this time. Now set foorth for the great benefit and comfort of the poorer sort of people that are not of abilitie to go to the physitions. By A.T. London, 1596.Google Scholar
A most pleasant comedie of Mucedorus the kings sonne of Valentia and Amadine the Kings daughter of Arragon with the merie conceites of Mouse. Newly set foorth, as it hath bin sundrie times plaide in the honorable cittie of London. Very delectable and full of mirth. London, 1598.Google Scholar
The true chronicle historie of the whole life and death of Thomas Lord Cromwell As it hath beene sundrie times publikely acted by the right honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Written by W.S. London, 1602.Google Scholar
Antonios reuenge. The second part. As it hath beene sundry times acted, by the children of Paules. Written by I.M. London, 1602.Google Scholar
The London prodigall As it was plaide by the Kings Maiesties seruants. By VVilliam Shakespeare. London, 1605.Google Scholar
Two most vnnaturall and bloodie murthers the one by Maister Cauerley, a Yorkeshire gentleman, practised vpon his wife, and committed vppon his two children, the three and twentie of Aprill 1605. The other, by Mistris Browne, and her seruant Peter, vpon her husband, who were executed in Lent last past at Bury in Suffolke. 1605. London, 1605.Google Scholar
A most pleasant comedie of Mucedorus, the kings sonne of Valentia, and Amadine the kinges daughter of Arragon, with the merry conceits of Mouse. Newly set foorth, as it hath bin sundry times playde in the honorable cittie of London. Very delectable, and full of mirth. London, 1606.Google Scholar
A Yorkshire tragedy Not so new as lamentable and true. Acted by his Maiesties Players at the Globe. VVritten by VV. Shakspeare. London, 1608.Google Scholar
The merry deuill of Edmonton. As it hath beene sundry times acted, by his Maiesties Seruants, at the Globe, on the banke-side. London, 1608.Google Scholar
A nest of ninnies Simply of themselues without compound. Stultorum plena sunt omnia. London, 1608.Google Scholar
A most pleasant comedie of Mucedorus the Kings sonne of Valentia, and Amadine the Kinges daughter of Aragon With the merry conceites of Mouse. Amplified with new additions, as it was acted before the Kings Maiestie at White-hall on Shroue-sunday night. By his Highnes Seruantes vsually playing at the Globe. Very delectable, and full of coneeited [sic] mirth. London, 1610.Google Scholar
The true chronicle historie of the whole life and death of Thomas Lord Cromwell As it hath beene sundry times publikely acted by the Kings Maiesties Seruants. Written by VV.S. London, 1613.Google Scholar
The first part of the true & honorable history, of the life of Sir Iohn Old-castle, the good Lord Cobham As it hath bene lately acted by the Right honorable the Earle of Notingham Lord High Admirall of England, his seruants. Written by William Shakespeare. London, 1619. [Misdated 1600].Google Scholar
VVilliam Shakespeares comedies, histories, & tragedies Published according to the true originall copies. London, 1623.Google Scholar
The life and death of the merry deuill of Edmonton With the pleasant prancks of Smug the smith, Sir Iohn, and mine host of the George, about the stealing of venison. By T.B. London, 1631.Google Scholar
The two noble kinsmen presented at the Blackfriers by the Kings Maiesties servants, with great applause: written by the memorable worthies of their time; Mr. Iohn Fletcher, and Mr. William Shakspeare. Gent. London, 1634.Google Scholar
The witch of Edmonton a known true story composed into a tragi-comedy by divers well-esteemed poets, William Rowley, Thomas Dekker, John Ford, &c. London, 1658.Google Scholar
A true, perfect, and exact catalogue of all the comedies, tragedies, tragi-comedies, pastorals, masques and interludes, that were ever yet printed and published, till this present year 1661 all which you may either buy or sell at the several shops of Nath. Brook at the Angel in Cornhil, Francis Kirkman at the John Fletchers Head, on the back-side of St. Clements, Tho. Johnson at the Golden Key in St. Pauls Churchyard, and Henry Marsh at the Princes Arms in Chancery-lane near Fleetstreet. London, 1661.Google Scholar
Mr. William Shakespear’s comedies, histories and tragedies published according to the true original copies: and unto this impression is added seven playes never before printed in folio, viz. Pericles Prince of Tyre, The London prodigall, The history of Thomas Ld. Cromwell, Sir John Oldcastle Lord Cobham, The Puritan widow, A York-shire tragedy, The tragedy of Locrine. London, 1664.Google Scholar
‘An Epilogue’. Miscellany poems containing a new translation of Virgills eclogues, Ovid’s love elegies, odes of Horace, and other authors: with several original poems by the most eminent hands. London, 1684. 291–92.Google Scholar
Titus Andronicus, or, The rape of Lavinia, acted at the Theatre Royall: a tragedy, alter’d from Mr. Shakespears works. London, 1687.Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Abrams, William Amos, ed. The Merry Devil of Edmonton. Durham: Duke University Press, 1942.Google Scholar
Bate, Jonathan, and Rasmussen, Eric, eds. King Lear. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bate, Jonathan, and Rasmussen, Eric, eds. William Shakespeare: The Complete Works. New York: Modern Library, 2007.Google Scholar
Bate, Jonathan, and Rasmussen, Eric, with Sewell, Jan and Sharpe, Will, eds. William Shakespeare and Others: Collaborative Plays. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevington, David, and Rasmussen, Eric, eds. Doctor Faustus. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Bevington, David, Butler, Martin, and Donaldson, Ian, eds. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Ben Jonson, 7 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Blayney, Glenn H., ed. The Miseries of Enforced Marriage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Boswell, James, ed. The Plays and Poems of William Shakspeare with the corrections and illustrations of various commentators. 21 vols. London, 1821.Google Scholar
Bowers, Fredson, ed. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon. 9 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966–94.Google Scholar
Bowers, Fredson, ed. The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.Google Scholar
Brooke, C.F. Tucker, ed. The Shakespeare Apocrypha: Being a Collection of Fourteen Plays Which Have Been Ascribed to Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908.Google Scholar
Calvo, Clara, and Tronch, Jesús, eds. The Spanish Tragedy. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2013.Google Scholar
Capell, Edward, ed. Mr William Shakespeare his comedies, histories, and tragedies, set out by himself in quarto, or by the players his fellows in folio, and now faithfully republish’d from those editions in ten volumes octavo; with an introduction. 10 vols. London, 1768.Google Scholar
Capell, Edward, ed. Prolusions; or, Select Pieces of Antient Poetry, – compil’d with great care from their several originals, and offer’d to the publick as specimens of the integrity that should be found in the editions of worthy authors. London, 1760.Google Scholar
Carroll, William C., ed. The Two Gentlemen of Verona. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2004.Google Scholar
Cawley, A.C., and Gaines, Barry, eds. A Yorkshire Tragedy. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Corbin, Peter, and Sedge, Douglas, eds. The Oldcastle Controversy: Sir John Oldcastle, Part 1, and the Famous Victories of Henry V. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Del Vecchio, Doreen, and Hammond, Anthony, eds. Pericles, Prince of Tyre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Dodd, William, ed. The beauties of Shakespear: regularly selected from each play. 2 vols. London, 1752.Google Scholar
Doran, Gregory, ed. Cardenio: Shakespeare’s ‘Lost Play’ Reimagined. London: Nick Hern Books, 2011.Google Scholar
Edelman, Charles, ed. The Stukeley Plays. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Paul Matthew, ed. ‘A Critical Edition of The London Prodigal.’ Diss. University of Birmingham, 2000.Google Scholar
Egan, Michael, ed. The Tragedy of Richard II Part One: A Newly Authenticated Play by William Shakespeare. 3 vols. Lampeter: Mellen, 2006.Google Scholar
Forker, Charles R., ed. The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Fraser, Russell A., and Rabkin, Norman, eds. Drama of the English Renaissance, 1: The Tudor Period. New York: MacMillan, 1976.Google Scholar
Gabrieli, Vittorio, and Melchiori, Giorgio, eds. Sir Thomas More. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Halio, Jay L., ed. The First Quarto of King Lear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Halio, Jay L., ed. The Tragedy of King Lear. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Charles, ed. Cardenio; Or, The Second Maiden’s Tragedy. Lakewood: Glenbridge, 1994.Google Scholar
Hayward, Thomas, ed. The British muse, or, a collection of thoughts moral, natural, and sublime, of our English poets: who flourished in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 3 vols. London, 1738.Google Scholar
Inchbald, Elizabeth, ed. The British theatre: or, A collection of plays, which are acted at the Theatres Royal, Drury Lane, Covent Garden, Haymarket, and Lyceum. 25 vols. London, 1806–09.Google Scholar
Jacob, Edward, ed. The lamentable and true tragedie of M. Arden of Feversham. With a Preface; in which some Reasons are offered, in favour of its being the earliest dramatic Work of Shakespear now remaining; and a genuine Account given of the Murder from authentic Papers of the Time. Feversham, 1770.Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel, ed. The plays of William Shakespeare, in eight volumes, with the corrections and illustrations of various commentators; to which are added notes by Sam. Johnson. 8 vols. London, 1765.Google Scholar
Jupin, Arvin H., ed. A Contextual Study and Modern-Spelling Edition of Mucedorus. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
Kahan, Jeffrey, ed. Shakespearean Imitations, Parodies and Forgeries: 1710–1820. 3 vols. Abingdon: Routledge, 2004.Google Scholar
Knight, Charles, ed. The Pictorial Edition of the Works of Shakspere: Doubtful Plays &c. London: 1841.Google Scholar
Kozlenko, William, ed. Disputed Plays of William Shakespeare. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1974.Google Scholar
Lamb, Charles, ed. Specimens of English Dramatic Poets, Who Lived About the Time of Shakespeare. London, 1808.Google Scholar
Malone, Edmond, ed. The plays and poems of William Shakspeare, in ten volumes; collated verbatim with the most authentick copies, and revised. 10 vols. London, 1790.Google Scholar
Malone, Edmond, ed. Supplement to the edition of Shakspeare’s plays published in 1778 by Samuel Johnson and George Steevens. In two volumes. Containing additional observations … to which are subjoined the genuine poems of the same author, and seven plays that have been ascribed to him; with notes by the editor and others. 2 vols. London, 1780.Google Scholar
McLuskie, Kathleen E., and Bevington, David, eds. Plays on Women. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Muir, Kenneth, and Wilson, F.P., eds. The Life and Death of Jack Straw 1594. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Pope, Alexander, ed. The works of Shakespear. In six volumes. Collated and corrected by the former editions, By Mr. Pope. 6 vols. London, 1725.Google Scholar
Pope, Alexander, and Sewell, George, eds. The works of Mr. William Shakespear. In ten volumes. Publish’d by Mr. Pope and Dr. Sewell. 10 vols. London, 1728.Google Scholar
Proudfoot, G.R., and Rasmussen, Eric, eds. The Two Noble Kinsmen: 1634. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Rowe, Nicholas, ed. The works of Mr. William Shakespear; in six volumes. Adorn’d with cuts. Revis’d and corrected, with an account of the life and writings of the author. 6 vols. London: Jacob Tonson, 1709.Google Scholar
Sams, Eric, ed. Shakespeare’s Edmund Ironside: The Lost Play. 1985. Aldershot: Wildwood House, 1986.Google Scholar
Sams, Eric, ed. Shakespeare’s Edward III. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Schlegel, A.W., and Tieck, Ludwig, eds. Shakespeares dramatiscehe Werke. 9 vols. Berlin, 1825–33.Google Scholar
Steevens, George, ed. The Plays of William Shakespeare. In ten volumes. With the corrections and illustrations of various commentators; to which are added notes by Samuel Johnson and George Steevens. 2nd ed. 10 vols. London, 1778.Google Scholar
Steevens, George, and Reed, Isaac, eds. The plays of William Shakspeare. In fifteen volumes. With the corrections and illustrations of various commentators. 15 vols. London, 1793.Google Scholar
Stewart, R.J., ed. The Birth of Merlin; or, The Childe Hath Found His Father. Longmead: Element, 1989.Google Scholar
Sturgess, Keith, ed. Three Elizabethan Domestic Tragedies. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969.Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary, and Lavagnino, John, eds. Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Theobald, Lewis, ed. The works of Shakespeare: in seven volumes. Collated with the oldest copies and corrected; with notes, explanatory, and critical. 7 vols. London, 1733.Google Scholar
Thompson, Ann, Kastan, David Scott and Proudfoot, Richard, eds. Complete Works. 3rd ed. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2011.Google Scholar
Thompson, Ann, and Taylor, Neil, eds. Hamlet: The Texts of 1603 and 1623. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2006.Google Scholar
Tieck, Ludwig, ed. Altenglisches Theater. Oder Supplemente zum Shakspear. Übersezt und herausgegeben von L. Tieck. 2 vols. Berlin, 1811.Google Scholar
Tieck, Ludwig, ed. Shakespeare’s Vorschule. Hrsg. und mit Vorreden begleitet von Ludwig Tieck. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1823–29.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, Henry, ed. The Doubtful Plays of William Shakspere; Being all the Dramas attributed to the Muse of the World’s Great Poet. London, 1853[?]. Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/doubtfulplaysofs00tyrruoft. 4 September 2014.Google Scholar
Warburton, William, ed. The works of Shakespear in eight volumes. The genuine text (collated with all the former editions, and then corrected and emended) is here settled. 8 vols. London, 1747.Google Scholar
Warnke, Karl, and Proescholdt, Ludwig, eds. Pseudo-Shakespearian Plays. 5 vols. Halle, 1883–88.Google Scholar
Wells, Stanley, and Taylor, Gary, eds. William Shakespeare: Complete Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Wells, Stanley, and Taylor, Gary, eds. William Shakespeare: Complete Works. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Martin, ed. Four Jacobean Sex Tragedies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Martin, ed. A Woman Killed with Kindness and Other Domestic Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Wilson, F.P., ed. When You See Me, You Know Me 1605. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
Adams, Henry Hitch. English Domestic Or, Homiletic Tragedy, 1575 to 1642. New York: Columbia University Press, 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Apocrypha, n.’. Def. 1a. The Oxford English Dictionary. Online version. Oxford University Press, December 2013.Google Scholar
Austin, Warren B. A Computer-Aided Technique for Stylistic Discrimination: The Authorship of Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education, 1969.Google Scholar
‘Author, v.’ Def. 1. The Oxford English Dictionary. Online version. Oxford University Press, December 2013.Google Scholar
Baillie, William M. ‘The Date and Authorship of Grim the Collier of Croydon’. Modern Philology 72.6 (1978): 179–84.Google Scholar
Bald, R.C. ‘The Booke of Sir Thomas More and Its Problems’. Shakespeare Survey 2 (1949): 44–61.Google Scholar
Barber, John. ‘Refreshing, this witch with murder in mind’. Rev. of Arden of Faversham. Dir. Terry Hands. Daily Telegraph, 31 March 1982.Google Scholar
Barton, Anne. Ben Jonson: Dramatist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bate, Jonathan. ‘The Case for the Folio’. The RSC Shakespeare. 2007. www.rscshakespeare.co.uk/pdfs/Case_for_Folio.pdf. 4 September 2014.Google Scholar
Bate, Jonathan. ‘Introducing the Complete Works Festival’. Cahiers Élisabéthains Special Issue (2007): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Ervin. ‘Terence Improved: The Paradigm of the Prodigal Son in English Renaissance Comedy’. Renaissance Drama 6 (1973): 107–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarz, James P. ‘Canonizing Shakespeare: The Passionate Pilgrim, England’s Helicon and the Question of Authenticity’. Shakespeare Survey 60 (2007): 252–67.Google Scholar
Berek, Peter. ‘Locrine Revised, Selimus, and Early Responses to Tamburlaine’. Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 23 (1980): 33–54.Google Scholar
Berek, Peter. ‘Tamburlaine’s Weak Sons: Imitation as Interpretation Before 1593’. Renaissance Drama 13 (1982): 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Thomas L. ‘Shakespeare Writ Small: Early Single Editions of Shakespeare’s Plays’. Murphy, Concise Companion, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blayney, Glenn H. ‘Wilkins’s Revision in The Miseries of Inforst Mariage’. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 56.1 (1957): 23–41.Google Scholar
Boris, Edna Zwick. Shakespeare’s English Kings, the People and the Law. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Bourus, Terri, and Taylor, Gary, eds. The Creation and Re-creation of Cardenio. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Brian. ‘Kind and Unkindness: Aaron in Titus Andronicus’. Boyd, Words That Count, 51–77.Google Scholar
Bristol, Michael D. ‘Shakespeare Is an Author: An Essentialist View’. Shakespeare Studies 36 (2008): 122–31.Google Scholar
Britten, Nick, and Alleyne, Richard. ‘William Shakespeare’s lost 18th Century Play Double Falsehood “Not a Hoax”’. Daily Telegraph, 16 March 2010.Google Scholar
Brooke, Tucker. ‘Elizabethan “Nocturnal” and “Infernal” Plays’. Modern Language Notes 35.2 (1920): 120–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Douglas A. From Playhouse to Printing House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Brooks, Douglas A., ed. The Shakespeare Apocrypha. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Cardwell, M. John. ‘John Duncombe’. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 2004. Online ed. Oxford University Press. October 2008.Google Scholar
Carnegie, David, and Taylor, Gary, eds. The Quest for Cardenio: Shakespeare, Fletcher, and the Lost Play. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Robert, and Prickett, Stephen, eds. The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Cathcart, Charles. Marston, Rivalry, Rapproachment, and Jonson. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.Google Scholar
Cawley, A.C. English Domestic Drama: A Yorkshire Tragedy. Leeds: Leeds University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Cawley, A.C. ‘A Yorkshire Tragedy and Two Most Vnnaturall and Bloodie Murthers’. The Morality of Art. Ed. Jefferson, D.W.. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969. 102–18.Google Scholar
Chalmers, George. A supplemental apology for the believers in the Shakspeare-Papers. London, 1799.Google Scholar
Chambers, E.K. ‘The Disintegration of Shakespeare.’ 1924. Aspects of Shakespeare: Being British Academy Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. 23–48.Google Scholar
Chambers, E.K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930.Google Scholar
Chambers, R.W. ‘The Expression of Ideas – Particularly Political Ideas – in the Three Pages and in Shakespeare.’ Pollard, Shakespeare’s Hand, 142–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, Patrick. ‘Introduction: Forum: The Return of the Author’. Shakespeare Studies 36 (2008): 19–25.Google Scholar
Cheney, Patrick. Shakespeare’s Literary Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Chillington, Carol A. ‘Playwrights at Work: Henslowe’s, Not Shakespeare’s Book of Sir Thomas More’. English Literary Renaissance 10 (1980): 439–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Raysor, Thomas Middleton, 2nd ed., 2 vols. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1960.Google Scholar
Comensoli, Vivana. ‘Household Business’: Domestic Plays of Early Modern England. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.Google Scholar
‘Complete Works Project.’ 2013. http://www.completeworksproject.org/, 4 September 2014.Google Scholar
Craig, Hugh. ‘The 1602 Additions to The Spanish Tragedy’. Craig and Kinney, Shakespeare, Computers, 162–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Hugh. ‘The Three Parts of Henry VI’. Craig and Kinney, Shakespeare, Computers, 40–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Hugh, and Kinney, Arthur F., eds. Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, Anthony B. ‘What do Editors Do and Why Does it Matter?’ How to Do Things with Shakespeare. Ed. Maguire, Laurie. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. 160–80.Google Scholar
De Grazia, Margreta. ‘Shakespeare in Quotation Marks’. Marsden, Appropriation of Shakespeare, 57–71.Google Scholar
De Grazia, Margreta, and Stallybrass, Peter. ‘The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text’. Shakespeare Quarterly 44.3 (1993): 255–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
DiPietro, Cary. ‘The Shakespeare Edition in Industrial Capitalism’. Shakespeare Survey 59 (2006): 147–56.Google Scholar
Doran, Gregory. ‘The First Folio’. The RSC Shakespeare. Macmillan, 2008. http://www.rscshakespeare.co.uk/first_movies.html. 4 September 2014.Google Scholar
Downs, Gerald. ‘A Question (not) to Be Askt: Is Hand D a Copy?’ Brooks, Apocrypha, 241–66.Google Scholar
Drábek, Pavel. ‘Shakespeare’s Influence on Mucedorus’. Shakespeare and His Collaborators over the Centuries. Eds. Pavel Drábek, Klára Kolinská, and Nicholls, Matthew. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008. 45–53.Google Scholar
Duncan-Jones, Katherine. ‘Complete Works, Essential Year? (All of) Shakespeare Performed’. Shakespeare Quarterly 58.3 (2007): 353–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, Richard, and Howard, Jean E., eds. A Companion to Shakespeare’s Works. Vol. IV: The Poems, Problem Comedies, Late Plays. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, Paul. ‘“Beyond the Fringe”? Receiving, Adapting, and Performing The London Prodigal’. Brooks, Apocrypha, 195–221.Google Scholar
Eliot, T.S. What Is a Classic?: An Address Delivered Before the Virgil Society on the 16th October 1944. London: Faber and Faber, 1945.Google Scholar
Elliott, Ward E.Y. ‘Language: Key to Authorship’. Cambridge World Shakespeare Encyclopedia. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Elliot, Ward E.Y., and Valenza, Robert J.. ‘And Then There Were None: Winnowing the Shakespeare Claimants’. Computers and the Humanities 30.3 (1996): 191–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Ward E.Y., and Valenza, Robert J.. ‘Glass Slippers and Seven-League Boots: C-Prompted Doubts about Ascribing A Funeral Elegy and A Lover’s Complaint to Shakespeare’. Shakespeare Quarterly 48.2 (1997): 177–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Ward E.Y., and Valenza, Robert J.. ‘The Professor Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks: Problems with the Foster “Response”’. Computers and the Humanities 32.6 (1998): 425–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Ward E.Y., and Valenza, Robert J.. ‘So Many Hardballs, So Few Over the Plate: Conclusions from our “Debate” with Donald Foster’. Computers and the Humanities 36.4 (2002): 455–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Ward E.Y., and Valenza, Robert J.. ‘Shakespeare Golden Ear Text: Do You Have a Golden Ear?’ Claremont McKenna College. N.d. https://goldenear.cmc.edu/. 25 July 2011.Google Scholar
Elliott, Ward E.Y., and Valenza, Robert J.. ‘Two Tough Nuts To Crack: Did Shakespeare Write the ‘Shakespeare’ Portions of Sir Thomas More and Edward III?’ Rev. version. Literary and Linguistic Computing 25.1 (2010): 67–83; 25.2 (2010): 165–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, Lars, and Rasmussen, Eric. ‘The Oxford Middleton’. Shakespeare Quarterly 61.2 (2010): 246–61.Google Scholar
Erne, Lukas. ‘The Popularity of Shakespeare in Print’. Shakespeare Survey 62 (2009): 12–29.Google Scholar
Erne, Lukas. ‘Reconsidering Shakespearean Authorship’. Shakespeare Studies 36 (2008): 26–36.Google Scholar
Erne, Lukas. Shakespeare and the Book Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erne, Lukas. Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felperin, Howard. ‘Bardolatry Then and Now.’ Marsden, Appropriation of Shakespeare, 129–44.Google Scholar
Fiehler, Rudolph. ‘“I Serve the Good Duke of Norfolk”’. Modern Language Quarterly. 10.3 (1949): 364–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleay, Frederick Gard. A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama 1559–1642. Vol. II. London: Reeves and Turner, 1891.Google Scholar
Foakes, R.A., ed. Coleridge on Shakespeare: The text of the lectures of 1811–12. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.Google Scholar
Ford, H.L. Shakespeare 1700–1740: A Collation of the Editions and Separate Plays with Some Account of T. Johnson and R. Walker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935.Google Scholar
Forni, Kathleen. The Chaucerian Apocrypha: A Counterfeit Canon. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001.Google Scholar
Forni, Kathleen. The Chaucerian Apocrypha: A Selection. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortier, Paul A. ‘Introduction.’ Computers and the Humanities 27.5/6 (1993/4): 305–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, Donald W. ‘The Claremont Shakespeare Authorship Clinic: How Severe Are The Problems?’ Computers and the Humanities 32.6 (1998): 491–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, Donald W. ‘Response to Elliot and Valenza, “And Then There Were None”’. Computers and the Humanities 30.3 (1996): 247–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, Paul. The Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. ‘What Is An Author?’ 1969. Trans. Harari, Josué V.. The Foucault Reader. Ed. Rabinow, Paul. London: Penguin, 1984. 101–20.Google Scholar
Freebury-Jones, Darren. ‘William Shakespeare & Others: Book Review’, Cardiff Shakespeare, 4 December 2013. http://cardiffshakespeare.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/william-shakespeare-others-book-review. 4 September 2014.Google Scholar
Friedlaender, Marc. ‘Some Problems of A Yorkshire Tragedy.’ Studies in Philology 35.2 (1938): 238–53.Google Scholar
Frost, David L. ‘“Mouldy Tales”: The Context of Shakespeare’s Cymbeline’. Essays and Studies 39 (1986): 19–38.Google Scholar
Furnivall, F.J. “Opening Meeting at University College’. The New Shakspere Society’s Transactions 1874. London: Trübner & Co., 1874. v–xi.Google Scholar
Garber, Marjorie. Shakespeare’s Ghost Writers, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrick, David. An ode upon dedicating a building, and erecting a statue, to Shakespeare, at Stratford upon Avon. London, 1769.Google Scholar
Gorak, Jan. The Making of the Modern Canon. London & Atlantic Highlands: Athlone, 1991.Google Scholar
Gossett, Suzanne. ‘Editing Collaborative Drama’. Shakespeare Survey 59 (2006): 213–24.Google Scholar
Grady, Hugh. ‘Disintegration and its Reverberations’. Marsden, Appropriation of Shakespeare, 111–27.Google Scholar
Greg, Walter W. ‘On Certain False Dates in Shakespearian Quartos’. The Library 9 (1908): 113–31, 381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greg, W.W. ‘Three Manuscript Notes by Sir George Buc’. The Library, 4th series, 12 (1931–32): 307–21.Google Scholar
Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespeare Company 1594–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Gurr, Andrew. Shakespeare’s Opposites: The Admiral’s Company 1594–1625. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Gurr, Andrew. ‘The Work of Elizabethan Plotters, and 2 The Seven Deadly Sins’. Early Theatre 10.1 (2007): 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haney, John Louis. ‘Review: Shakespeare’. Modern Language Notes 24.6 (1909): 184–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayne, Victoria. ‘Performing Social Practice: The Example of Measure for Measure’. Shakespeare Quarterly 44.1 (1993): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, Michael L. ‘Shakespeare’s Hand in Sir Thomas More: Some Aspects of the Palaeographic Argument.’ Shakespeare Studies 8 (1975): 241–54.Google Scholar
Hazlitt, William. Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays. 1817. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1906.Google Scholar
Hazlitt, William. Lectures on the Dramatic Literature of the Age of Elizabeth. 1817. 2nd ed. London, 1821.Google Scholar
Hill, Leslie. The Cambridge Introduction to Jacques Derrida. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, David I. ‘Authorship Attribution’. Computers and the Humanities 28.2 (1994): 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope, Jonathan. The Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays: A Socio-Linguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, Joseph. ‘Peter Fabell and Dr. Faustus’. Notes and Queries 183.2 (1942): 35–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Hill, T.H., ed. Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Hubbell, Lindley Williams. A Note on the Shakespeare Apocrypha. 4th edition. Kobe: Ikuta, 1977.Google Scholar
Hunter, G.K. ‘Italian Tragicomedy on the English Stage.’ Renaissance Drama 6 (1973): 123–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ireland, William Henry. Vortigern, an historical tragedy, in five acts; represented at the theatre Royal, Drury Lane. and Henry the second, an historical drama. Supposed to be written by the author of Vortigern. London, 1799.Google Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. Defining Shakespeare: ‘Pericles’ as Text Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. Determining the Shakespeare Canon: Arden of Faversham and A Lover’s Complaint. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. ‘Early Modern Authorship: Canons and Chronologies’. Taylor and Lavagnino, Early Modern Textual Culture 80–97.Google Scholar
Jackson, MacD. P. ‘Edward Archer’s Ascription of Mucedorus to Shakespeare’. Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association 22 (1964): 233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacD. P. ‘New Research on the Dramatic Canon of Thomas Kyd’. Research Opportunities in Medieval and Renaissance Drama 47 (2008): 107–27.Google Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. ‘Shakespeare and the Quarrel Scene in Arden of Faversham’. Shakespeare Quarterly 57.3 (2006): 249–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. Studies in Attribution: Shakespeare and Middleton. Salzburg: Institute für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universität Salzburg, 1979.Google Scholar
James, Heather. ‘Shakespeare, the Classics, and the Forms of Authorship’. Shakespeare Studies 36 (2008): 80–89.Google Scholar
Jansohn, Christa. ‘Ludwig Tieck as the Champion of Shakespeare’s Apocrypha in Germany’. Cahiers Élisabéthains 48 (1995): 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansohn, Christa. ‘The Shakespeare Apocrypha: A Reconsideration’. English Studies 84 (2003): 318–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, Simon. Scholars and Gentlemen: Shakespearian Textual Criticism and Representations of Scholarly Labour, 1725–1765. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Samuel. Johnson on Shakespeare. Ed. Sherbo, Arthur. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Jowett, John. ‘Addressing Adaptation: Measure for Measure and Sir Thomas More’. Textual Performances. Eds. Erne, Lukas and Kidnie, Margaret Jane. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 63–76.Google Scholar
Jowett, John. ‘Editing Shakespeare in the Twentieth Century’. Shakespeare Survey 50 (2006): 1–19.Google Scholar
Jowett, John. ‘Editions and Textual Studies: The RSC Complete Works’. Shakespeare Survey 61 (2008): 394–403.Google Scholar
Jowett, John. ‘Johannes Factotum: Henry Chettle and Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit’. Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 87 (1993): 453–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jowett, John. ‘The Pattern of Collaboration in Timon of Athens’. Boyd, Words That Count, 181–205.Google Scholar
Kastan, David Scott. ‘The Mechanics of Culture: Editing Shakespeare Today’. Shakespeare Studies 24 (1996): 30–37.Google Scholar
Kathman, David. ‘Reconsidering The Seven Deadly Sins’. Early Theatre 7.1 (2004): 13–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathman, David. ‘The Seven Deadly Sins and Theatrical Apprenticeship’. Early Theatre 14.1 (2011): 121–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Edmund G.C. ‘Cardenio and the Eighteenth-Century Shakespeare Canon’. Carnegie and Taylor, Quest for Cardenio, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Edmund G.C. ‘Fragmenting Authorship in the Eighteenth-Century Shakespeare Edition’. Shakespeare 6.1 (2010): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinney, Arthur F. ‘Authoring Arden of Faversham’. Craig and Kinney, Shakespeare, Computers, 78–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinney, Arthur F. ‘Transforming King Lear’. Craig and Kinney, Shakespeare, Computers, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschbaum, Leo. ‘The Texts of Mucedorus.’ Modern Language Review 50 (1955): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirwan, Peter. ‘Canonising the Shakespeare Apocrypha: Shakespeare, Middleton and Co-Existent Canons’. Literature Compass 9/8 (2012): 538–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirwan, Peter. ‘The First Collected “Shakespeare Apocrypha”’. Shakespeare Quarterly 62.4 (2011): 266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirwan, Peter. ‘Mucedorus’. The Elizabethan Top Ten. Eds. Kesson, Andy and Smith, Emma. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2013: 223–34.Google Scholar
Kirwan, Peter. ‘The Shakespeare Apocrypha and Canonical Expansion in the Marketplace’, Philological Quarterly 91.2 (2012): 247–75.Google Scholar
Kirwan, Peter. ‘“We ring this round with our invoking spells”: Magic as Embedded Authorship in The Merry Devil of Edmonton’. Magical Transformations on the Early Modern English Stage. Eds. Ostovich, Helen and Hopkins, Lisa. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2014. 166–77.Google Scholar
Knutson, Roslyn L. ‘Evidence for the Assignment of Plays to the Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company’. Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 4 (1989): 63–89.Google Scholar
Knutson, Roslyn L. ‘Histrio-Mastix: Not by John Marston.’ Studies in Philology 98.3 (2001): 359–77.Google Scholar
Knutson, Roslyn L. ‘Oldcastle, Sir John (Chamberlain’s).’ Lost Plays Database (2012). http://www.lostplays.org/index.php/Oldcastle,_Sir_John_%28Chamberlain%27s%29. 4 September 2014.Google Scholar
Knutson, Roslyn L. The Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company, 1594–1613. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Lesser, Zachary.‘Shakespeare’s Flop: John Waterson and The Two Noble Kinsmen’. Shakespeare’s Stationers. Ed. Straznicky, Marta. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. 177–96.Google Scholar
Lockwood, Tom. ‘Introduction’. Arden of Faversham. Ed. White, Martin. Rev. ed. London: A & C Black, 2007.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, Joseph. Ben Jonson and Possessive Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Lopez, Jeremy. Constructing the Canon of Early Modern Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, Laurie E. ‘Composition/Decomposition: Singular Shakespeare and the Death of the Author’. The Renaissance Text: Theory, Editing, Textuality. Ed. Murphy, Andrew. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000. 135–53.Google Scholar
Maguire, Laurie E. ‘Introduction’. Maguire and Berger, Textual Formations and Reformations, 11–18.Google Scholar
Maguire, Laurie. Shakespearean Suspect Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, Laurie E., and Berger, Thomas L., eds., Textual Formations and Reformations. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Maley, Willy. ‘Malfolio: Foul Papers on the Shakespeare Authorship Question’. Leahy, Shakespeare and His Authors, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Edmond. An inquiry into the authenticity of certain miscellaneous papers and legal instruments. London, 1796.Google Scholar
Marino, James J. Owning William Shakespeare. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marino, James J. ‘William Shakespeare’s Sir John Oldcastle’. Renaissance Drama 30 (2001): 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Jean I., ed. The Appropriation of Shakespeare. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991.Google Scholar
Massai, Sonia. Shakespeare and the Rise of the Editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey. ‘Playwrighting: Authorship and Collaboration’. A New History of Early English Drama. Eds. Cox, John D. and Kastan, David Scott. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. 357–82.Google Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey. ‘More or Less: Editing the Collaborative’. Shakespeare Studies 29 (2001): 109–31.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Dennis. ‘Shakespeare and Arden of Faversham’. Notes and Queries Advance Access (July 2013): 1–7. http://intl-nq.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/17/notesj.gjt133.full.pdf+html 4 September 2014.Google Scholar
McMillin, Scott. ‘The Book of Sir Thomas More: Dates and Acting Companies’. Howard-Hill, Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More, 57–76.Google Scholar
McMillin, Scott. ‘Building Stories: Greg, Fleay, and the Plot of 2 Seven Deadly Sins’. Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 4 (1989): 53–62.Google Scholar
McMillin, Scott. The Elizabethan Theatre and the Book of Sir Thomas More. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, McMillin, and MacLean, Sally-Beth. The Queen’s Men and Their Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
McMullan, Gordon. ‘“Our Whole Life is Like a Play”: Collaboration and the Problem of Editing’. Textus 9 (1996): 437–59.Google Scholar
McMullan, Gordon. The Politics of Unease in the Plays of John Fletcher. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994.Google Scholar
McMullan, Gordon. Shakespeare and the Idea of Late Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, Thomas. ‘Linguistic Computing in the Shadow of Postmodernism’. Literary and Linguistic Computing 17.2 (2002): 181–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, Thomas. ‘Marlowe versus Kyd as Author of Edward III I.i, III and V’. Notes and Queries 56.4 (2009): 549–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Bruce M., ed. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Moore, Jonathan. ‘Author! Author!’ The Revenger’s Tragedy. Theatre Programme. Manchester, 2008.Google Scholar
Mowat, Barbara A. ‘“What’s in a Name?” Tragicomedy, Romance, or Late Comedy’. Dutton, and Howard, , Companion to Shakespeare’s Works, 129–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Lucy. Children of the Queen’s Revels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Andrew, ed. A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nightingale, Benedict. ‘A classic of uncertain provenance’. Rev. of Edward III, dir. Clark, Anthony. The Times, 26 April 2002.Google Scholar
Orgel, Stephen. ‘The Desire and Pursuit of the Whole’. Shakespeare Quarterly 58.3 (2007): 290–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orgel, Stephen. ‘What is a Text?’ Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 24 (1981): 3–6.Google Scholar
Parsons, Elinor. ‘“This Wide and Universal Theatre”: Shakespeare in Different Voices’. Cahiers Élisabéthains Special Issue (2007): 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Annabel. ‘All is True: Negotiating the Past in Henry VIII’. Elizabethan Theater. Eds. Parker, R.B. and Zitner, S.P.. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1996. 147–66.Google Scholar
Petersen, Lene B. Shakespeare’s Errant Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Pollard, A.W., ed. Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923.Google Scholar
Pope, Alexander. The Poems of Alexander Pope Volume III: The Dunciad (1728) & The Dunciad Variorum (1729). Ed. Rumbold, Valerie. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2007.Google Scholar
Pope, Elizabeth Marie. ‘The Renaissance Background of Measure for Measure’. Shakespeare Survey 2 (1949): 66–82.Google Scholar
Proudfoot, Richard. ‘Is There, and Should There Be, a Shakespeare Apocrypha?’ In The Footsteps of William Shakespeare. Ed. Jansohn, Christa. Münster: Lit, 2005. 49–71.Google Scholar
Proudfoot, Richard. ‘The Reign of King Edward the Third (1596) and Shakespeare’. Proceedings of the British Academy 71 (1985): 159–85.Google Scholar
Proudfoot, Richard. ‘Shakespeare’s Most Neglected Play.’ Maguire and Berger, Textual Formations and Reformations, 149–57.Google Scholar
Proudfoot, Richard. Shakespeare: Text, Stage and Canon. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2001.Google Scholar
Rabkin, Norman. ‘Problems in the Study of Collaboration’. Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 19 (1976): 7–13.Google Scholar
Reynolds, George F. ‘Mucedorus, Most Popular Elizabethan Play?’ Studies in the English Renaissance Drama. Eds. Bennett, Josephine W., Cargill, Oscar and Hall, Vernon London: Peter Owen and Vision P, 1961. 248–68.Google Scholar
Ribner, Irving. The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare. 1957. Rev. ed. London: Methuen & Co., 1965.Google Scholar
Robinson, Ian. ‘The Case for Shakespeare as Author.’ The Tragedy of Richard II Part One. Ed. Egan, Michael. Lampeter: Mellen, 2006. 1. 262–78.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Ron. ‘The Double Falsehood of Double Falsehood. ’ Slate. The Spectator. 13 May 2010. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2010/05/the_double_falsehood_of_double_falsehood.html. 4 September 2014.Google Scholar
Ross, Trevor. The Making of the English Literary Canon from the Middle Ages to the Late Eighteenth Century. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Company, Royal Shakespeare. Arden of Faversham. Theatre programme. Stratford-upon-Avon, 1982.Google Scholar
The RSC Shakespeare. Macmillan, 2008. http://www.rscshakespeare.co.uk/. 4 September 2014.Google Scholar
Rudman, Joseph. ‘The State of Authorship Attribution Studies: Some Problems and Solutions’. Computers and the Humanities 31.4 (1997/98): 351–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, Tom. ‘Introduction: The Repertory-Based Approach’. Early Theatre 13.2 (2010): 121–32.Google Scholar
Sauer, Thomas G. A.W. Schlegel’s Shakespearean Criticism in England, 1811–1846. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann, 1981.Google Scholar
Scherer, Abigail. ‘Mucedorus’s Wild Man: Disorderly Acts on the Early Modern Stage’. Renaissance Papers 1999. Eds. Howard-Hill, T.H. and Rollinson, Philip. Rochester: Camden House, 1999. 55–65.Google Scholar
Schoenbaum, S. Internal Evidence and Elizabethan Dramatic Authorship. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Sharpe, Will. ‘Authorship and Attribution’. William Shakespeare and Others: Collaborative Plays. Eds. Bate, Jonathan and Rasmussen, Eric, with Sewell, Jan and Sharpe, Will. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013. 643–747.Google Scholar
Shaw, Deborah. ‘The Complete Works Festival’. Royal Shakespeare Company Open Day. Stratford-upon-Avon. 29 April 2007. Panel Discussion.Google Scholar
Sherman, William H. ‘From the Editor: All the Workes’. Shakespeare Quarterly 58.3 (2007): 285–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirley, William. Edward the Black Prince; or, The battle of poictiers: An historical tragedy. London, 1750.Google Scholar
Simpson, Richard. ‘Are There Any Extant MSS in Shakespeare’s Handwriting?’ Notes and Queries 183 (1871): 1–3.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. ‘On Some Plays Attributed to Shakespeare’. The New Shakspere Society’s Transactions, 1875–6. London: Trubner & Co., 1876. 155–80.Google Scholar
Slater, Eliot. The Problem of the Reign of King Edward III: A Statistical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Smith, Helen, and Wilson, Louise, eds. Renaissance Paratexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M.W.A. ‘The Authorship of The Raigne of King Edward the Third’. Literary and Linguistic Computing 6 (1991): 166–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Peter J., and Valls-Russell, Janice, with Bradley, Kath, eds. The Royal Shakespeare Company Complete Works Festival 2006–07, Stratford-upon-Avon. Cahiers Élisabéthains Special Issue (2007).Google Scholar
Smout, Clare. ‘Actor, Poet, Playwright, Sharer … Rival? Shakespeare and Heywood, 1603–4’. Early Theatre 13.2 (2010): 175–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starner, Janet Wright, and Traister, Barbara Howard. ‘Introduction’ in Anonymity in Early Modern England. Eds. Starner, Janet Wright and Traister, Barbara Howard (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 1–10.Google Scholar
Stern, Tiffany. ‘“The Forgery of some Modern Author”?: Theobald’s Shakespeare and Cardenio’s Double Falsehood’. Shakespeare Quarterly 62.4 (2011): 555–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Tiffany. Rehearsal from Shakespeare to Sheridan. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Warren. Shakespeare’s Additions to Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy: A Fresh Look at the Evidence Regarding the 1602 Additions. Lewiston, Queenston, and Lampeter: Mellen, 2008.Google Scholar
Stodder, Joseph H. ‘Review: Apocryphal Plays in Los Angeles: Continued’. Shakespeare Quarterly 39.2 (1988): 232–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stodder, Joseph H. ‘Review: Three Apocryphal Plays in Los Angeles’. Shakespeare Quarterly 38.2 (1987): 243–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straznicky, Marta. ‘Introduction: What is a Stationer?’ Shakespeare’s Stationers. Ed. Straznicky, Marta. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, H. Dugdale. Sidelights on Shakespeare. Stratford-upon-Avon: Shakespeare Head Press, 1919.Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary. ‘The Date and Auspices of the Additions to Sir Thomas More’. Howard-Hill, Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More, 101–29.Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary. ‘The History of Cardenio’. Bourus, and Taylor, , Creation and Re-creation of Cardenio, 241–316.Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary. ‘Middleton: Our Other Shakespeare.’ Cottesloe Theatre, London. 3 June 2008. Lecture.Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary. ‘Sleight of Mind: Cognitive Illusions and Shakespearian Desire’. Bourus and Taylor, Creation and Re-creation of Cardenio, 125–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Gary. ‘Thomas Middleton, The Spanish Gypsy, and Collaborative Authorship’. Boyd, Words That Count, 241–73.Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary. ‘“William Shakespeare & Others,” edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen’. Washington Post, 30 December 2013.Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary, and Lavagnino, John, eds. Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture: A Companion to the Collected Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teetgen, Alexander. Shakespeare’s ‘King Edward the Third’, Absurdly Called, and Scandalously Treated as, a ‘Doubtful Play:’ An Indignation Pamphlet. London, 1875.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. Maunde. ‘The Handwriting of the Three Pages Attributed to Shakespeare Compared with his Signatures’. Pollard, Shakespeare’s Hand, 57–112.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sir Maunde, Edward. Shakespeare’s Handwriting. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916.Google Scholar
Thornberry, Richard T. ‘A Seventeenth-Century Revival of Mucedorus in London before 1610’. Shakespeare Quarterly 28.3 (1977): 362–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theatre, Tough. A Yorkshire Tragedy: Not so New as Lamentable and True. Theatre Programme. London, 2010.Google Scholar
Van Lennep, William, ed. The London Stage 1660–1800: A Calendar of Plays, Entertainments & Afterpieces. Part 1, 1660–1700. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965).Google Scholar
Vickers, Brian. ‘The Canon of Thomas Kyd’. London Forum for Authorship Studies. School of Advanced Study, University of London. 18 July 2010. http://www.ies.sas.ac.uk/networks/london-forum-authorship-studies#CanonThomasKyd. 16 January 2014.Google Scholar
Vickers, Brian. ‘Disintegrated: Did Thomas Middleton Really Adapt Macbeth?’ Times Literary Supplement, 28 May 2010.Google Scholar
Vickers, Brian. ‘Disintegrating Shakespeare’. Times Literary Supplement, 25 June 2010.Google Scholar
Vickers, Brian. ‘Incomplete Shakespeare: Or, Denying Coauthorship in 1 Henry VI’. Shakespeare Quarterly 58.3 (2007): 311–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickers, Brian. Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Vickers, Brian. ‘Shakespeare and Authorship Studies in the Twenty-First Century.’ Shakespeare Quarterly 62.1 (2011): 106–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickers, Brian. ‘The Troublesome Reign, George Peele, and the Date of King John.’ Boyd, Words That Count, 78–116.Google Scholar
Walker, Alice. ‘Edward Capell and his Edition of Shakespeare.’ Studies in Shakespeare: British Academy Lectures. Ed. Alexander, Peter. London: Oxford University Press, 1964. 132–48.Google Scholar
Watt, Timothy Irish. ‘The Authorship of The Raigne of Edward the third ’. Craig and Kinney, Shakespeare, Computers, 116–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimann, Robert. Author’s Pen and Actor’s Voice: Playing and Writing in Shakespeare’s Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Stanley, and Taylor, Gary. ‘The Oxford Shakespeare Re-viewed by the General Editors.’ Analytical & Enumerative Bibliography new series 4 (1990): 6–20.Google Scholar
Wells, Stanley, and Taylor, Gary, with Jowett, John and Montgomery, William. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werstine, Paul. ‘A Century of “Bad” Quartos’. Shakespeare Quarterly 50.3 (1999): 310–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werstine, Paul. ‘Editing after the End of Editing’. Shakespeare Studies 24 (1996): 47–54.Google Scholar
Werstine, Paul. ‘Narratives About Printed Shakespeare Texts: “Foul Papers” and “Bad” Quartos’. Shakespeare Quarterly 41.1 (1990): 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werstine, Paul. ‘Shakespeare, More or Less: A. W. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing’. Florilegium 16 (1999): 125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, Anthony James. ‘The Life of the First Folio in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’. Murphy, Concise Companion, 71–90.Google Scholar
Westley, Richard. ‘Computing Error: Reassessing Austin’s Study of Groatsworth of Wit’. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21.3 (2006): 363–78.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Martin. Shakespeare and the Drama of his Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Dover. ‘Bibliographical Links Between the Three Pages and the Good Quartos’. Pollard, Shakespeare’s Hand, 113–41.Google Scholar
Worthen, William B. Shakespeare and the Authority of Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arden of Faversham. Dir. Hands, Terry. Theatr Clwyd Cymru. Emlyn Williams Theatre, Clwyd. 20 February 2010.Google Scholar
Arden of Faversham. Dir. Darney, Peter. Em-Lou Productions. Rose Theatre Bankside, London. 22 June 2010.Google Scholar
Cardenio. Dir. Doran, Gregory. Royal Shakespeare Company. Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. 23 April 2011.Google Scholar
Cardenio. Dir. Busby, Jonathan. Aporia Theatre. The Dell, Stratford-upon-Avon. 31 July 2011.Google Scholar
Cymbeline. Dir. Rice, Emma. Kneehigh. Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. 20 September 2006.Google Scholar
Double Falsehood. Dir. Gilpin, Sophie. University of Warwick Shakespeare Society. Warwick Arts Centre, Coventry. 27 June 2010.Google Scholar
Double Falsehood. Dir. Addenbrooke, Barrie. KDC Theatre. Union Theatre, London. 17 August 2010.Google Scholar
Double Falsehood. Dir. Fentiman, Michael. Nottingham Playhouse, Nottingham. 11 October 2010.Google Scholar
Henry V. Dir. Delbono, Pippo. Compagnia Pippo Delbono. Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. 3 February 2007.Google Scholar
Macbeth (Work-In-Progress). Dir. Bral, Grzegorz. Teatr Piesn Kozla. Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. 21 February 2007.Google Scholar
Nothing Like the Sun: The Sonnet Project. Curated by Bryars, Gavin. Royal Shakespeare Company/ Opera North. Courtyard Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. 24 February 2007.Google Scholar
Othello. Dir. Perceval, Luk. Münchner Kammerspiele. Royal Shaksespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. 29 April 2006.Google Scholar
The Phoenix and the Turtle. Dir. Shaw, Deborah. Royal Shakespeare Company. Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon. 5 November 2006.Google Scholar
The Revenger’s Tragedy. Dir. Still, Melly. National Theatre. Olivier, London. 3 June 2008.Google Scholar
The Revenger’s Tragedy. Dir. Moore, Jonathan. Royal Exchange, Manchester. 11 June 2008.Google Scholar
Soliman and Perseda. Dir. Hickman, Sophie. Trifle Productions. Rose Theatre Bankside, London. 28 April 2010.Google Scholar
The Spanish Tragedy. Dir. Brown, Adrian. Planet Theatre Productions. Rose Theatre Bankside, London. 10 September 2010.Google Scholar
Thomas More. Dir. Delamere, Robert. Royal Shakespeare Company. Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. 5 October 2005.Google Scholar
The Two Noble Kinsmen and A Knight’s Tale. Dir. Oldroyd, William and Doran, Gregory. Royal Shakespeare Company. Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. 21 May 2006.Google Scholar
Women Beware Women. Dir. Elliott, Marianne. National Theatre. Olivier, London. 8 June 2010.Google Scholar
A Yorkshire Tragedy: Not so New as Lamentable and True. Dir. Brunskill, Andy. Tough Theatre. White Bear Theatre Pub, London. 10 January 2010.Google Scholar