Sir Thomas More c. 1596

[MS.] B.M. Harleian MS. 7368. [The wrapper is endorsed, ‘The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore’, and is in part composed of a vellum leaf also used for that of Munday’s John a Kent and John a Cumber. The character of the damp stains on the two MSS. shows that they must for some time have lain together. Two passages of the original text have disappeared, and six passages have been inserted, on fresh leaves or slips, to replace these and other cancelled matter. One of these leaves appears to have been misplaced. Greg finds seven distinct hands: (a) the writer of the original text, whom he has now identified (M. L. R. viii. 89) with Munday; (b) five contributors to the insertions, of whom one appears also to have acted as a playhouse corrector, another (writing 30 lines) seems clearly to be Dekker, and a third (writing 148 lines) has been taken (v. infra) for Shakespeare; (c) the Master of the Revels, Edmund Tilney, who has given some directions as censor, of which the most important, at the beginning, runs: ‘Leaue out the insurrection wholy & the Cause ther off & begin with Sr Tho: Moore att the mayors sessions with a reportt afterwardes off his good service don being Shriue off London vppon a mutiny Agaynst the Lumbardes only by A shortt reporte & nott otherwise att your own perrilles E. Tyllney’. Whether Greg is right in calling this a ‘conditional licence’ I am not sure, but he corrects earlier writers by pointing out that the extant insertions do not carry out Tilney’s instructions, and were probably made before the play reached him. Although therefore the appearance of an actor’s name in a s.d. suggests that the play was cast for performance, it is not likely that it was actually performed, at any rate in its present state.]

Editions by A. Dyce (1844, Sh. Soc.), A. F. Hopkinson (1902), C. F. Tucker Brooke (1908, Sh. Apocrypha), J. S. Farmer (1910, photo-facsimile in T. F. S.), and W. W. Greg (1911, M. S. R.).—Dissertations: R. Simpson, Are there any extant MSS. in Sh.’s Handwriting? (1871, 4 N. Q. viii. 1); J. Spedding, Sh.’s Handwriting (1872, 4 N. Q. x. 227), On a Question concerning a Supposed Specimen of Sh.’s Handwriting (1879, Reviews and Discussions); B. Nicholson, The Plays of S. T. M. and Hamlet (1884, 6 N. Q. x. 423); C. R. Baskervill, Some Parallels to Bartholomew Fair (1908, M. P. vi. 109); W. W. Greg, Autograph Plays by A. Munday (1913, M. L. R. viii. 89); L. L. Schücking, Das Datum der pseudo-Sh. S. T. M. (1913, E. S. xlvi. 228); E. M. Thompson, Shakespeare’s Handwriting (1916) and The Autograph MSS. of Anthony Munday (1919, Bibl. Soc. Trans. xiv. 325); P. Simpson, The Play of S. T. M. and Sh.’s Hand in It (1917, 3 Library, viii. 79); J. D. Wilson and others, Sh.’s Hand in the Play of S. T. M. (1919, T. L. S. 24 April onwards); W. J. Lawrence and others, Was S.T.M. ever Acted? (1920, T.L.S. 1 July onwards); M. A. Bayfield and E. M. Thompson, Shakespeare’s Handwriting (1921, T. L. S. 30 June, 4 Aug.).

The play has been dated c. 1586 and c. 1596, in both of which years there were disturbances with some analogy to the ‘Ill May Day’ of the plot, and an early date has been regarded as favoured by mentions (ll. 1006, 1148) of Oagle a wigmaker, since men of the name were serving the Revels Office in this and similar capacities from 1571 to 1585 (Feuillerat, Eliz., passim), and by the appearance as a messenger in a stage-direction (Greg, p. 89) of T. Goodal, an actor traceable with Berkeley’s men in 1581 and with the Admiral’s or Strange’s in the plot of The Seven Deadly Sins, c. 1590–1. But Goodal may have acted much longer, and the Admiral’s men had business relations with a ‘Father Ogell’ in Feb. 1600 (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 300). Greg, after comparing Munday’s script in the play with other and better datable examples of that script, inclines to put it ‘between 1596 and 1602, say 1598–1600’, and Sir E. M. Thompson, on a further review of the same evidence, suggests 1592 or 1593. This, however, involves putting the MS. of John a Kent and John a Cumber (cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Munday) back to 1590, which, although palaeographically possible, is inconsistent with evidence pointing to its production by the Admiral’s in 1594. Certain parallels with Julius Caesar and Hamlet might suggest the latter part of the possible period, although the parallel suggested by Schücking with Fletcher’s The Tamer Tamed is too slight to bear out his date of 1605–8, and the attempt of Fleay (ii. 312; Shakespeare, 292) to identify the play with the Abuses of Paul’s in 1606 is guess-work. Jonson’s apparent debt to S. T. M. in Bartholomew Fair, pointed out by Baskervill, is also in favour of a latish date. Obviously the mention of ‘Mason among the Kings players’ (l. 1151) does not prove a Jacobean date, as Henry VIII had players. No actor of the name in either reign is known, although an Alexander Mason was marshal of the royal minstrels in 1494 (Collier, i. 45). Account must be taken of the support given by Sir E. M. Thompson to the theory of R. Simpson and Spedding that three of the added pages are in the hand of Shakespeare. This is based on a minute comparison with the few undoubted fragments, almost entirely signatures, of Shakespeare’s writing. Both hands use ‘the native English script’ and are ‘of an ordinary type’, without marked individual character ‘to any great extent’, although slight peculiarities, such as ‘the use of the fine upstroke as an ornamental adjunct to certain letters’, are common to them. The demonstration would have been more convincing had the hands been less ‘ordinary’, but Sir E. M. Thompson’s authority is great, and some support is furnished by P. Simpson from the character of the punctuation in the addition, and by J. D. Wilson from some orthographic resemblances to the more reliable Shakespearian quartos. Sir E. M. Thompson’s views are criticized in G. Greenwood, Shakespeare’s Handwriting (1920). If Shakespeare was the author, the analogies between the matter of the addition and the Jack Cade scenes of Henry VI would be in favour of an earlier date, if that were possible, than 1596 or even 1594, although I should not like to be committed to the view that Shakespeare might not have scribbled the fragment at any time in the sixteenth century. On a balance of the mixed literary and palaeographical evidence before us, the safest guess seems to be 1596. As to the rest of the authorship, Dr. Greg’s discoveries point to Munday, with some help from Dekker. Fleay’s argument (Sh. 292) for Lodge and Drayton is flimsy. If Shakespeare had a share, the company was probably the Chamberlain’s. Goodal’s name proves nothing as to this.

Mucedorus > 1598; 1611

1598. 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. For William Jones. [Arrangement of parts for eight actors; Induction.]

1606. For William Jones.

1610.... Amplified with new additions, as it was acted before the Kings Maiestie at Whitehall on Shroue-sunday night. By his Highness Seruants vsually playing at the Globe. Very delectable, and full of conceited Mirth. For William Jones. [Arrangement of parts for ten actors; Prologue. Collier professes to follow a print of 1609 with this altered title, otherwise unknown; cf. Greg in Jahrbuch, xl. 104.]

1611; 1613; 1615.

S. R. 1618, Sept. 17. Transfer by Sarah, widow of William Jones, to John Wright (Arber, iii. 632).