Preface

The manuscript of Sir Thomas More is preserved in the British Museum, where it is classed as MS. Harley 7368. It has therefore been in the possession of the nation since 1753, but unfortunately nothing seems to be known as to its previous history. A thin folio volume, the leaves of which measure about 12½ X 8¼ inches, it was originally covered with a vellum wrapper formed of a double leaf of a Latin manuscript apparently of the thirteenth century, and on this wrapper the title of the play, ‘The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore,’ was written in a large formal hand. When the last edition of the Harleian Catalogue was prepared in 1808 More formed one volume with the Humorous Lovers (MS. 7367). These items have now been separated, and More has been bound by itself. The original wrapper is still preserved and now constitutes fols. 1 and 2. Thus the play itself begins on fol. 3.

The number of leaves of which the manuscript originally consisted cannot now be determined with certainty, for the individual leaves have been detached and mounted, while the closeness of the writing, the absorbent nature of the paper, and in parts the heaviness of the mending, put any collation by watermarks, if such exist, out of the question. All we can say is that thirteen original leaves remain and that there are two lacunae. Thus we have fols. 3–5, gap, 10–11, gap, 14–15, 17–22, the verso of the last leaf being blank. The other leaves are later insertions. The extent of the lacunae is doubtful, but to judge from the subject matter it would seem that after fol. 5 possibly, and after fol. 11 probably, not more than a single leaf is absent. In that case there presumably was once a blank leaf at the end; and if we imagine the original manuscript to have consisted of eight sheets we shall not be far wrong.

But considerable additions have been made at a later date. After fol. 5 has been inserted a leaf, fol. 6, written on one side only, which we shall see belongs, if anywhere, to a much later portion of the play. After fol. 6 appear three leaves, fols. 7–9, the verso of the third being blank, designed to replace the original leaf or leaves cancelled after fol. 5 as well as matter

deleted on fol. 5^b itself. So again after fol. 11 are inserted two leaves, fols. 12 and 13, intended to fill the later lacuna and replace most of fol. 11^b and the whole of fol. 14^a. Besides this two slips of paper, each measuring about 6 X 5 inches, were pasted over cancelled matter on the lower portions of fols. 11^b and 14^a respectively. They contain minor additions intended to stand at the beginning and end of the main insertion of fols. 12 and 13. These slips have recently been soaked off and mounted as separate leaves, fols. 11* and 13*, so that the underlying text can now be read for the first time since the sixteenth century. Lastly, after fol. 15 we find one leaf, fol. 16, of which the recto and part only of the verso are filled, containing an addition to be made to the text on fol. 17^a.

The manuscript, especially the original portion, has unfortunately suffered considerably at the hand of time. The margins of many of the leaves, in particular the top and bottom edges and the outer corners, are discoloured and brittle, and one would almost suppose that they had at some time been exposed to fire, were it not for the comparatively uninjured state of some at least of the additional leaves, and for the fact that the cover, though also worn and damaged, does not exhibit the crinkling which vellum always undergoes when exposed to heat. The injury must therefore be ascribed to the action of air and dust upon a peculiarly and unfortunately constituted paper. Subsequent to the arrival of the manuscript at the British Museum, I suppose at the time it was rebound, and certainly not before 1844, the date of Dyce's edition, it has been thoroughly and even drastically mended. Not only have the edges of the leaves been repaired, and it would seem a good deal of the text obliterated which more careful handling might have preserved, but in the case of the tenderer leaves both sides have been pasted over with thick yellow tracing paper, in a manner to suggest that more importance was attached to the preservation of a particular piece of paper than of the text of which it was the medium. And even so the mischief has not been arrested, for several of the leaves are now again in need of repair, which

it may be presumed they will soon receive in a more careful and reasonable manner.

Seven different hands appear in the manuscript itself, apart from the vellum wrapper. To begin with there is the Scribe of the original play, to whom I shall refer by the letter S. He writes a good regular hand, not typically professional, rarely if ever presenting serious difficulties except where it has been obscured by extraneous causes. It is an English hand, with Italian forms freely, if not consistently, interspersed to distinguish proper names and the like. On the whole little difficulty is experienced in rendering the one by roman and the other by italic type, the writer's intention being usually clear though the two styles, particularly as regards majuscules, are not always kept clearly apart. The fault of S is that the lines are written very close together, often eighty or more to a folio page, and that the descenders are of inordinate length, so that in a particular line the reader is often bothered by the intrusion of parts of letters belonging to two lines above. This would have mattered less had the paper been better, but that used was rather absorbent and showed every line through. The result is that there are many passages, even on pages not covered with tracing paper, where owing to the penetration of the ink the text can only be laboriously spelt out letter by letter. Where we have to contend with decay and repairs as well, the difficulties are, of course, enormously increased and prove in some cases insurmountable. The ink used is of a rich dark brown which retains a good colour even when quite thin. The surface is rather mat, perhaps owing to the absorbent quality of the paper. The scribe's spelling is remarkable for its regularity, and even, if we allow for a few peculiarities such as the doubling of the ‘o’ in words like ‘doth’ and ‘love’ and ‘worthy’, for its modernity. His punctuation too is as a rule adequate, and distinguishes itself chiefly by a curious tendency to place a colon, particularly at the end of the penultimate line of a speech, in cases where a modern writer would hesitate to put any stop at all. This peculiarity is also occasionally met with in printed plays of the

period, and most likely indicates some rhetorical trick in the delivery of Elizabethan actors. It is clear that the scribe was both skilled and conscientious. His errors are few. As a rule all his letters are well formed, but he was aware that there were some exceptions. For instance, he was apt to neglect the head of his ‘h’; and over and over again he has gone back and carefully added the loop, although no real ambiguity could ever arise from the defect.

Five distinct hands appear in the additions, and have been lettered A to E. A appears on fol. 6 and nowhere else. It is an English hand, almost devoid of Italian intermixture, clear and legible with a good deal of individual character. The ink is grey and shows hardly any tinge of brown except where the paper has become stained near the edge. The punctuation is rather scanty. The interest of the hand lies in the fact that the writer was accustomed to the old convention with regard to the use of ‘u’ and ‘v’, but was trying to adopt the new. He instinctively and repeatedly writes ‘u’ for a medial consonant, but in two cases he has gone back and altered it to ‘v’. It is significant that he also uses the tailed ‘j’ with its modern value.

B is an interesting hand, being by far the worst in the volume. It is a current hand of an English type, making little attempt at the regular formation of individual letters, and therefore difficult to reproduce in print. It is in fact the sort of hand in which an author would write his rough draft. The punctuation is negligible. In this hand are written fol. 7^a and the whole of fol. 16. It also appears in various marginal additions to the text as written by S, namely at *502, *609, *638, *647. The same may be true as regards the direction at *735 and the crosses at 418 and II 18, but this is far from certain. The ink varies. On fol. 7^a it is not unlike that of S, but thinner and slightly yellower in colour. So too in the marginal additions. On fol. 16, however, though the colour appears to be the same the ink is much thicker and darker.

C is the most important of the additional hands. In it are written fols. 7^b, 12^a, 12^b, 13^a, and the upper half of 13^b, as well

as 11* and 13*. The scribe to whom it belonged also edits D freely and adds frequent notes and directions both to B and S. His work on the former will be found to run all through II 123–270. His directions occur at 410, *553, †954, †1158, VI 1, 33. It is not quite certain whether II 65 is his. Two corrections in B, at II 17 and 42, may also be reasonably assigned to his pen. His hand is well formed, both as regards English and Italian script, and has more pretence to beauty or at least ornament than any other appearing in the manuscript. For punctuation there is little beyond a point which is usually placed rather high, and even this is not of very frequent appearance. A peculiarity of the hand is a marked tendency to form the ‘p’ as if it were ‘&pab;’. The ink used is very similar to that of S, possibly a trifle richer in colour but hardly distinguishable. Like B's it varies somewhat, though not to the same extent.

D, a purely English hand apparently, occurs on fols. 8^a, 8^b, 9^a only, the two former pages being now badly obscured by tracing paper. It is certainly a different hand from C, with which it has been sometimes confused, but C is found correcting it rather freely. It has, for instance, the distinction of forming its ‘p’ in the usual manner and of also using ‘&pab;’ repeatedly and correctly. There is very little punctuation. The ink is quite unmistakable, being of a peculiar muddy yellow. It is this hand which has been thought to be Shakespeare's.

The last additional hand, E, is found only on the lower half of fol. 13^b. English and Italian styles are used and adequately distinguished, though neither is very carefully formed. The short passage is rather fully punctuated, a characteristic being the partiality for the colon, which regularly appears after the speaker's name (as in certain printed plays) and sometimes at the end of speeches. The ink is distinctly blacker than that used by C, but still brown rather than grey. A comparison with MS. Addit. 30262, fol. 66^b, at the British Museum, and with Henslowe's Diary, fols. 101 and 114, at Dulwich College, suggests that this hand may be Thomas Dekker's. There is at least what I should call a strong resemblance between the two.

Sir George Warner says, a certain resemblance. We probably mean much the same thing, and this may perhaps be best expressed by a negative, namely that there is nothing in the two hands to suggest that they are not the same. Repeated comparison has deepened my own feeling that they are.

Finally we have the hand of Edmund Tilney, Master of the Revels, and in that capacity censor of the drama. He writes in the margin of the first page (fol. 3^a) a very conditional licence. In this his hand appears in a clear Italian script, of no very individual character. The ink used is not unlike that of S, but slightly blacker in colour, in fact very close to E's. He also made a note, ‘Mend y^is’, in the margin of fol. 5^a (320), and another, ‘all altr'’ (?), on fol. 17^b (†1256), and is responsible for some other marks of disapproval on the same pages. Three alterations made by him in the text also occur on fol. 5^a, at 352, 364, 368. Probable marks of his appear on fol. 3^a (see 24 and 45) and may be connected with his initial note. His hand is designated by the letter T.

Tilney does not seem to have been responsible for the note on fol. 11^b (*735), which Dyce printed as ‘This must be newe written’, but which is now almost illegible. If it is by any of the hands mentioned, B would seem the most likely, but it is of course quite possible that the above list is incomplete. For instance, it is not quite certain whether the marginal note at V 1 is in the same hand as the text, while a few of the alterations ascribed to C are, it will be noticed, doubtful. There are also indications that a much later hand has been at work on the manuscript here and there. A word has been scribbled in the margin of fol. 3^b (see III and p. XX below) in what looks like modern ink, though it is impossible to make certain through the covering of tracing paper. Alterations almost certainly in modern ink occur at II 22, 52, 264, VI 26, 47, 52, 53, 61; less certain are those at II 193, †1203, and 62, this last line being obscured by tracing paper. At †1117 and †1119 there appear to be modern blots. Further there are a number of small pencil crosses (which will be found mentioned in the notes) which

must have been made in quite modern times, though before the manuscript was repaired.

Something must be said as to the manner in which the additions have been made. Addition I is altogether rather a puzzle. It evidently has some connexion with the proposed omissions on fol. 19^a. The reason for these is hardly clear. The fear of possible offence in †1491–3 is no adequate reason for the deletion of †1471–1501, and can have nothing whatever to do with that of †1506–16. Moreover these deletions leave †1502–5 in impossibly awkward isolation; nor is it easy to combine these lines with the proposed addition. Clearly in this case the process of revision is incomplete. Addition VI, on the other hand, is perfectly straightforward, being an additional scene inserted at the juncture of two original ones on fol. 17^a. The new scene was written by B, and fitted into its place by C. There remain the two substantial insertions corresponding to the two lacunae in the original text. Both present interesting features. I take the second first.

Between fols. 11 and 14 two leaves are inserted (Addition IV). These contain a long continuous scene in which first More and Faukner, then More and Erasmus, and then again More and Faukner, are the chief characters. The four pages contain 242 lines. Portions of the unrevised version of this scene fill most of fol. 11^b (*735–96) with More and Erasmus, and the whole of fol. 14^a (†797–877) with More and Faukner dialogue. This makes 143 lines, so that, supposing only a single leaf lost, the original text must have been distinctly longer than the revised. It is of course not certain whether the original text was continuous, or whether there were two distinct scenes, but the appearance of Surrey in both parts suggests the former alternative as the more likely. In that case the chief alteration made in revision was to cut the Faukner portion into two and to insert the Erasmus part in the middle. This seems on the whole to have been an improvement dramatically, though the advantage was perhaps gained at some sacrifice of clearness in the action. But the reviser's efforts did not end here. A speech

by More (Addition III) was written on a loose slip and pasted on to fol. 11^b. It was clearly an afterthought and has no very close connexion with what follows, though from its position it is fairly evident that it was meant to be somehow inserted at the beginning of the main addition. On another slip (Addition V), pasted on to fol. 14^a, was written another speech by More, and this was definitely connected with what follows, the first words on fol. 14^b being repeated at the foot of the slip. And yet such a crude insertion is manifestly impossible, for the action is not continuous. The only means of utilizing this speech and a yet later addition made in the margin, is by constituting them a separate scene, though this does not appear to have been the intention of the writer.

Equally complicated, though in a different way, is the revision that supplements the first lacuna (Addition II). On fol. 5^b we find an entire scene, that of the riots, cancelled, as is also all that remains of a scene between certain prentices. After the break the text resumes on fol. 10^a in the middle of the scene in which More quells the insurrection. The inserted matter contains a revision of the riot scene, a scene apparently at the Guildhall of which no trace survives in the original text, and a new beginning to the insurrection scene, made to fit on to the old part immediately after More's speech to the rebels. The prentice scene vanishes. Its place would seem to have been taken by the Guildhall scene. This I conjecture to be entirely new. It reports in the opening speeches the wounding of Sir John Munday by certain prentices, an incident which was presumably represented in the cancelled scene. Moreover if my surmise is correct the matter altogether lost from the original manuscript (the end of scene v and beginning of scene vi) can reasonably be supposed to have filled one leaf, while if we have to allow for an earlier draft of the Guildhall scene (scene v^a) as well, it is difficult to see how the lost matter could either have been contained in one leaf or have filled two. The revision of scene iv is in hand B, scene v^a and the initial stage direction to scene vi (all on fol. 7^b) are written by C, and then comes the astonishing

addition by D. Round this much controversy has centred. The writer has no respect for, perhaps no knowledge of, the play on which he is working. His characters are unrecognizable. He is indifferent to the personae. He writes ‘other’ and leaves it to C to assign the speech to whom he pleases. In II 233 and following he begins by writing a sentence which in the absence of punctuation it is almost impossible not to misread, then alters and interlines till it becomes impossible to follow his intention, and leaves it to C to clear up the confusion. This C does by boldly excising some three lines and inserting one makeshift half-line of his own. Yet these hasty pages of D's have individual qualities which mark them off sharply from the rest of the play. There is wit in the humours of the crowd, there is something like passion in More's oratory. So striking indeed are these qualities that more than one critic has persuaded himself that the lines in question can have come from no pen but Shakespeare's. The possibility acquires additional interest from the fact that the passage is undoubtedly autograph. Here possibly are three pages, one of them still legible, in the hand that so many have desired to see. The question is one of stylistic evidence, and each reader will have to judge for himself. I do not feel called upon to pronounce: but I will say this much, that it seems to me an eminently reasonable view that would assign this passage to the writer who, as I believe, foisted certain of the Jack Cade scenes into the second part of Henry VI. In spite of the undoubted literary merit of D's additions, I cannot myself regard them with the admiration they have aroused in some critics.

It seems always to have been assumed that the play was submitted to Tilney in its original form and that the alterations and substitutions now found in the manuscript are the result of an attempt to comply with the censor's demands. This appears to me an error. His directions are specific and urgent. ‘Leave out the insurrection wholly and the cause thereof,’ says Tilney, ‘and begin with Sir Thomas More at the Mayor's sessions, with a report afterwards of his good service done, being Shrieve of

London, upon a mutiny against the Lombards, only by a short report and not otherwise, at your perils.’ And we are to suppose that in the face of this the actors allowed the first scene, containing the cause of the riots, to stand unaltered, went to the trouble and expense of making an elaborate revision of the insurrection scenes, which whatever its literary merit can hardly have been supposed to meet the political objection, and then ventured to put the play on the stage. That is to say they behaved as though there were no Master of the Revels, no Privy Council, and no Star Chamber. Only collective insanity could account for such a proceeding. But I do not think any such supposition necessary, for every indication in the manuscript points to its having been submitted for licence in its present form. The indications, it is true, are not many but they are significant. Besides Tilney's general directions as to the insurrection, he left specific notes on two passages that incurred his censure. Against a speech of Shrewsbury's at the top of fol. 5^a (316–23) he has written ‘Mend this’, and has apparently signified his disapproval of another passage on the same page (372, &c.). The ground of the objection is obviously certain injudicious comments on the dangerous topic of popular discontent. So again, in the scene at the Privy Council in which More refuses to sign the articles sent by the king, the censor has struck out an important passage (fol. 17^b, †1247–75) and written in the margin a not very legible note, by which however he clearly meant that the whole of this portion was to be altered. Yet in neither case has any notice whatever been taken of the censor's orders. I cannot quote any certain instance of an alteration made by Tilney himself in the portions of the play that have undergone revision, but I would call attention to the heavy scoring by which the first two speeches on fol. 7^b (II 68–75) are marked for omission. It is not impossible that this may be in Tilney's own hand, though from the colour of the ink it may perfectly well be in the same hand as the text (C). But the reason for the omission was most certainly neither literary nor dramatic, but political. The lines describe how

Sir John Munday was wounded in the riots, and if not actually struck out by the censor were certainly condemned in deference to his views. But it is evident throughout that the manuscript has not been finally revised for presentation. Everywhere passages are marked for omission, but whether the objection was aesthetic or official, the marks are merely vague indications of what was objectionable, and no attempt is made to sew the loose ends into decent continuity. The censor or a scribe under his influence strike out the opening speeches of two scenes (iii and v^a, 316 and II 68), and they are left truncated: the censor draws his pen through the description of More's contumacy (†1247, &c.), and no attempt is made to find a substitute for it, though its loss would make the catastrophe unintelligible. The bulk of the additional matter, the Erasmus-Faukner scene with its adjuncts (III, IV, V; fols. 11*, 12, 13, 13*) and the last player-scene (VI; fol. 16), as also the ‘More in melancholy’ passage (I; fol. 6), can have nothing whatever to do with the censor, being obviously due solely to dramatic considerations. Add to this that the rest of the alterations (II; fols. 7, 8, 9), which do affect the portions condemned by the censor, are as natural from the point of view of literary revision as they are inexplicable as an attempt to meet the official objections, and I do not see how it is possible to avoid the conclusion that they were already in the manuscript when this was submitted for licence. When it returned bearing Tilney's remarks, it became clear, as I should have thought it would have been clear to critics from the outset, that it was quite impossible to comply with the demands of the censor without eviscerating the play in a manner fatal to its success on the stage. The manuscript was consequently laid aside and the play never came on the boards. This, I think, is the obvious conclusion, and if it has not been drawn before, it is presumably because the occurrence in the manuscript of the name of an actor as filling one of the minor parts (V 2, fol. 13*) has been supposed to indicate that the play was actually performed. But clearly the only deduction that the evidence warrants is that the play was cast, which, as

many managers are painfully aware, is by no means the same thing.

Another common assumption has been that the diversity of hands represents diversity of authorship, and in this case the inference is on the face of it not unreasonable. It needs, however, careful testing. Whether the original draft is in the autograph of the original author is uncertain. It is, of course, a fair copy, but there is no reason why a fair copy should not be made by the author himself. Indeed there is definite evidence from the first quarter of the seventeenth century that this was at least not unusual. The hand (S) is by no means typical of the professional scribe of the time. The duplicate endings (†1956–86) show that the draft was either written by the author himself or under his immediate supervision, but the latter is perhaps as likely as the former. The point is I think settled by one small item of evidence. This is the queer word ‘fashis’ in †1847. It should be ‘fashion’, and there seems no reasonable doubt that the writer has misread an ‘&obar;’ as a final ‘s’. This is quite an easy mistake, for the two resemble one another closely in some hands, but it is a mistake of which it is almost impossible to suppose that an author would be guilty in copying his own work. I shall therefore assume, what has indeed I think been the general view, that the original text of the play is not autograph.

But if this is so there is nothing to prevent one of the additional hands from being that of the original author. Let us therefore examine these rather more carefully. A is unquestionably an independent writer and not a copyist. The alterations in his draft of More's speech on fol. 6 put that beyond question. But the occasion of his addition, which has never like the rest been fitted into its place, and even the exact lines which it is intended to replace, are uncertain. He seems to be an author working independently of the rest, and possibly somewhat later. Although I cannot honestly say that I detect any marked difference of style between the original scene and the addition, it seems to me unlikely that we have in A a writer who was concerned in more

than the single passage preserved in his own hand. The case is still clearer with D. While his three pages are unquestionably autograph, the individuality of his style makes it quite evident that it was for these alone that he was responsible. E is more doubtful. If it is Dekker's hand the passage is likely to be a bit of original composition. The alteration in IV 236 has the appearance of an author's correction. But the passage is rather roughly though legibly written, apparently as an afterthought and with the deliberate intention of filling up the odd half-page. There is no indication that the writer was responsible for more than these few lines.

The two remaining hands clearly belong to a different category, for their work pervades the whole manuscript instead of being confined to a particular passage as is the case with A, D, E. B is undoubtedly an original author, for he writes roughly and often barely legibly. He scribbles his text first and inserts the names of the speakers afterwards (see fol. 16^a, VI 21–35) or forgets them altogether (fol. 11^a, *649–58). When revising a scene of the original text he writes a string of names so badly that either he or some one else has to put a reference mark to the cancelled passage in order that the reader may be able to make out what is intended (fol. 5^b, 418–21; fol. 7^a, II 18–20). It is probable that he is the author of a good deal of the additional matter which is not actually in his hand. For on fol. 16^b he writes in a blank space the rough and altered draft of some lines (VI 68–73) which we find copied by C into their proper context on fol. 13* (V 2–7). His marginal additions to the original text already noticed go to show that he exercised a general supervision and was probably from a literary point of view responsible for the alteration which the play was undergoing. It would be interesting if it could be shown that he actually was, as I have surmised, responsible for the marginal note on fol. 11^b (*735–6) ordering the revision of the Erasmus-Faukner scene, but unfortunately this is not certain.

C, as we have just seen, is found transcribing B. In this case at least, therefore, he is not an original author but a copyist,

and there is no reason to suppose that he is anything more elsewhere. None of the alterations in his portion of the text are conclusive for authorship. But he is nevertheless a very important person. He revises the stage directions throughout, both in the original text and in the additions, and seems responsible (as is most clearly shown in the case of VI) for fitting the latter into their places. As B seems to have had the literary, so C appears to have had the dramatic, side of the revision under his charge. He can patch up a line or two when needed, and edits D, a careless writer, freely, but I do not think that there is anything to suggest that he was an independent author. My own impression is that A, D, and E were each responsible for the portions found in their own hands and no more, and that B wrote those passages where either his own hand or that of C appears.

The question whether B had anything to do with the original text of the play is a much more difficult one. It is conceivable that he may have been the original author. At any rate I can detect no difference in style between the portions written by S and those written by B and C. B is the only one of the additional scribes who makes marginal additions to the original text, and his additions show him to have entered fully into the spirit of that original. They are less like grafts than natural offshoots of the dialogue. Moreover we may well question whether any one but the author himself would have troubled to make the revision of scene iv for the sake of the trifling alterations introduced (fol. 5^b, 412–52; fol. 7^a, II 1–64). On the other hand, I am unable to point to any evidence that C was liable to the peculiar graphic ambiguity which seems to underly S's misreading ‘fashis’ (see above), and I am aware that I have perhaps carried the discussion beyond the bounds of profitable conjecture. All I will add is this, that supposing the original text to be the work of a single author, and supposing that author's hand to occur anywhere in the extant manuscript, then the evidence points to that hand being B. There is this to be said in favour of his claim, that he is the only one of the writers

in question who was manifestly incapable of making his own fair copy.

One minor point of considerable interest is the play performed at More's banquet, to which the title of The Marriage of Wit and Wisdom is given. This fragment has nothing to do with the piece now known by that name, but is in fact a somewhat altered version of a scene from Lusty Juventus, to which is prefixed a prologue of which the first eight lines are taken from that to the Disobedient Child.

The date of the play has been a good deal disputed. Tilney's note does not necessarily imply a date before 1607, and I do not myself see that his objection to the insurrection scene need have been connected with any particular events. The mention of ‘Mason among the Kings players’ (†1151) might be thought to point to 1603 or later, but of Mason himself nothing is known, and anachronism, though always possible, is not de rigeur in our early drama. Anachronistic certainly are the references (†1006, †1148) to Oagle the wigmaker, for a John Ogle or Owgle appears in this capacity in the Revels' accounts for 1572–3 and 1584–5 (Cunningham, 21, 38, 193). These references would seem to favour a somewhat earlier date, and such is put practically beyond question by the palaeographical evidence, which Sir George Warner is confident points to the sixteenth century. If the conjecture that would connect one of the additions with Henry VI be correct, it would throw back the date of the former, and a fortiori of the original text, to quite early in the nineties. Some such year as 1592 or 1593 would also be supported by the mention, at V 2, of T. Goodal; a name which likewise serves to connect the play with Lord Strange's men, Shakespeare's company. For Goodal or Goodale took the rôle of a Councillor in the second part of the Seven Deadly Sins, a piece acted by Strange's players, of which a plot and cast probably belonging to 1592 is extant. The only other mention of him is as early as 1581, when on 11 July he is named in a document of the City of London as one of Lord Berkeley's players who were engaged in an affray with

certain gentlemen of Gray's Inn (Harrison's Description of England, New Shakspere Soc., part iv, suppl., § 2, p. 320, where the document is printed without reference). A Baptiste Goodale is included in a forged list of ‘her Majesty's poore Playeres... sharers in the blacke Fryers playehouse’ in Nov. 1589 printed by Collier (Shakespeare, i. cviii), but it is not known whether this rests on any genuine information. Anyhow Collier proceeds to identify his Baptiste with the T. Goodal of the manuscript, which is manifestly unreasonable. He further states (i. cix) that Laneham also acted in Sir Thomas More. But the only possible trace of Laneham to be found in the manuscript is the somewhat illegible scribble in the margin of fol. 3^b (III), and since this is very probably in modern ink it cannot be accepted as altogether satisfactory evidence.

Sir Thomas More was first edited by Dyce, his edition being issued by the Shakespeare Society in 1844. It is certainly open to the criticism which has been passed upon it, that it represents neither the original nor the revised text, but a confused compromise between the two. Other faults are that it seldom takes any notice of marks of omission, and that as regards minor deletions it generally either retains or omits them arbitrarily and without warning (cf. *509). Contractions are expanded; capitals, italics, and punctuation are the editor's. Since, however, the text was prepared at a time when the damage to the manuscript appears to have been considerably less than at present, and in particular before the rather disastrous attempts at reparation had been made, it is in many cases our sole authority for whole lines, and its readings everywhere deserve the respectful consideration of the modern editor. For, of whatever errors of judgement Dyce may have been guilty in constructing his text, the fundamental work of transcription was for the most part executed with exemplary care, in spite of what, even in a less ruinous state of the original, must still have been very considerable difficulties. So far as I can ascertain the number of verbal readings in which the present text differs from Dyce's exceeds two hundred by six. It is conceivable that in spite of my

best endeavour I may in some of these instances be wrong; it is certain that some are matter of opinion, though I have made it a rule to bow to Dyce's authority in doubtful cases unless I felt pretty certain that he was wrong. But these cases are not many. Of the remainder, the great majority are minutiae of a trivial kind. The number of substantial misreadings is not much more than a dozen all told; the worst being ‘wrought’ for ‘prouokte’ (289), ‘hayday’ for ‘hazard’ (III 21), ‘leve cavell’ for ‘live Civell’ (IV 188), and the silent omission of two rather obscure words in †1506. This is I think a remarkable achievement in a manuscript of the length and difficulty of More. To say so may seem an indirect boast on my part, but I am in reality keenly alive to the fact that if, as I hope and believe, my text is not only formally but verbally a good deal more faithful than Dyce's, this is in great measure due to my having had his work at hand as a constant check upon my own.

The only other edition that requires mention is that in Mr. Tucker Brooke's volume entitled The Shakespearian Apocrypha, Oxford, 1908. Although the editor has adopted the revised text rather more frankly than his predecessor, his edition yet remains open to the same rather serious objections as Dyce's. Verbally his text can claim no original authority. It is an almost unaltered reprint of Dyce's, and of the two hundred and six errors I have imputed to that editor, Mr. Tucker Brooke corrects exactly six (252 ‘Aside.’, 435, †1197, †1847 ‘sits’, II 111, IV 218) while he introduces two new errors of his own (261 ‘Aside.’, IV 173 ‘laudant’). Dyce, apart from an occasional slip (which I have recorded) follows the manuscript exactly in his use of ‘u’ and ‘v’: he is, however, not to be trusted in the matter of ‘i’ and ‘j’, his system being at fault (I have neglected his variants in this respect). I have failed to find any principle underlying Mr. Tucker Brooke's procedure: he is not consistent in following the manuscript, neither does he conform either to the ancient or to the modern convention: similar confusion reigns as regards capitals and contractions. His perfunctory and inaccurate introduction does not call for discussion in this place.

Besides the two editions mentioned there exists a photographic facsimile of the manuscript prepared by Mr. R. B. Fleming and issued in a series of Tudor Facsimile Texts. It is the full size of the original and leaves nothing to be desired in the way of technical execution, but of course the covering of tracing paper and the staining of the margins render many passages hopeless for the photographer. What purpose of general utility it was thought that a facsimile of which a large part is absolutely illegible could serve, I do not know, but to me it has proved invaluable, indeed without its help I should have hardly found the present work possible. It is also incidentally of value in preserving intact one or two passages which have since been damaged in the manuscript.

It remains to say something as to the present edition. The rules which govern the editing of the Malone Society's texts of course forbade any attempt to patch up a compromise between the original and revised versions of the play. On the other hand there were obvious drawbacks to printing the manuscript exactly as it stood. After some hesitation therefore I determined to print first the whole of the original text so far as it has been preserved, and then to gather together at the end all the various attempts at revision in so far as they were made on separate leaves and did not merely consist of trifling additions or directions written in the margins of the original sheets. These insertions I have printed in the order in which they at present stand in the manuscript, and have numbered them I–VI. The hand in which any particular passage is written I have indicated in the headline and more minutely in the notes. Any addition or alteration (of a whole word or more) made in a hand different from that of the text of that passage, is distinguished by the substitution of small capitals for lowercase type; specific information concerning the hand being added in the notes.

As usual I have endeavoured in my edition to follow the arrangement of the original as closely as possible. All deletions are indicated by square brackets, except in certain cases where

the ink in which they are made seems certainly to be modern. Of such no notice has been taken in the text itself. Interlineations are printed in the text at the point at which they appear to belong, without other distinction than an explanatory note. Where an interlineation replaces a deleted word it is printed immediately after it, and the deletion and interlineation may be taken as due to the same hand. Mere deletions and similar marks it is usually impossible to assign to any particular hand: where they are not stated to be in a different ink from that used by the scribe of the passage in which they occur, they may generally be taken as being probably by him, though the inference is by no means always safe. Passages marked for omission or cancelled are not treated as deleted but are distinguished by a line down the left side, the habitual mark used in the original. All mutilations of the manuscript, and all passages which are for whatever reason indecipherable, are indicated by pointed brackets ^note. Words occurring within these brackets are those which Dyce purported to have read there, but which are no longer legible. The occurrence of pointed brackets does not however necessarily mean that anything is lost from the text. They may merely indicate that the leaf is mutilated or obscured, so that if there was any writing at that point it is now lost. Where a mutilation occurs in or at the end of a line and extends to the right margin, only the initial bracket is inserted, the end of the line-space being taken to close the bracket. Since, however, it is usual to read from left to right, this rule has not been applied to the beginnings of lines. Where these are mutilated the initial bracket is placed in the margin (if the mutilation extends to the edge) and the closing bracket at the point at which the text becomes legible.

For the convenience of analysis and reference I have divided the original draft, so far as it is extant, into scenes, which I have indicated in the notes and headlines. The scenes of the revision I have numbered in connexion with these. The lines of the original text I have also numbered consecutively, including those which I have supposed lost at the top and bottom margins.

Since, however, the text is not really continuous throughout I have distinguished the lines after the first lacuna by an asterisk, and those after the second by an obelus. The lines of each of the six additions have been numbered separately. In three instances (I 65–71, II 63–5, V 1–8) I have brought lines actually written up the margin into their regular place in the text; twice (1–19, *502) I have been forced, by typographical considerations, to place a marginal addition, and once (†1932) a deleted reading, in the footnotes.

I ought finally to explain the manner in which my text has been prepared, for I am afraid that it cannot claim to be quite such an original and independent work as those published by the Malone Society aim at being. This was inevitable, for the case is a peculiar one. For the pages of the original which are not covered with tracing paper I made my transcript from the photographic facsimile above mentioned, merely referring to Dyce's edition when any special difficulty arose, and for the occasional lines which have become illegible since his time. For the covered pages I based my transcript primarily on Dyce, referring constantly to the facsimile as a guide to the general arrangement. At first I intended to put forward my text, so far as these pages were concerned, as frankly representing that of Dyce checked where possible by reference to the now illegible original. On examining this more minutely, however, it seemed to me that the case was not quite as desperate as I had imagined. When the obscured leaves are held up to a sufficiently strong transmitted light there is very little of the text that cannot be made out if sufficient trouble is taken. The process is not an easy one, for when so examined the writing on either side of the leaf shows about equally clearly, but it is at least possible. Favoured therefore by the exceptional summer of 1911, I resolved to adopt it and to make the manuscript in all cases my authority, indicating by brackets everything that I was unable myself to read. Of course it frequently happened that in the case of particular words and letters it was difficult to say honestly whether they were actually legible in

the manuscript or not, and I am not prepared to assert that I could always have deciphered them without the help of Dyce's text, but I think I may say that in the case of every letter not printed within pointed brackets ^note I have been able to distinguish it sufficiently clearly to act as an effective check upon Dyce's reading. It will be seen that I have occasionally differed from Dyce even in comparatively obscure passages, but I have been alive to the temerity of such proceeding and have not ventured to displace any reading of his without what seemed to me fairly conclusive evidence.

The manuscript appears to have suffered rather seriously since Dyce's day. In the original portions there is hardly a page on which his text does not supply at least a few words now irrecoverably lost. All words or letters which he purports to have read but which have now vanished I have printed in my text within pointed brackets ^note. I have given them in the form in which he gives them, without contractions, but in order to avoid anything misleading I have printed them without punctuation and with only such capitals and italics as can with reasonable certainty be inferred from the practice of the scribe, Dyce having pleased his own fancy in these matters. When quoting Dyce's readings in the notes, I have also omitted punctuation but have retained his capitals. Words which Dyce supplied in his text within square brackets, as having either disappeared from the original through mutilation, or been omitted by the scribe through accident—he unfortunately did not distinguish the two cases—I have rejected from the text altogether, but have recorded them (with Dyce's capitals and punctuation) in the notes. Thus the student will be at once aware when anything appears in the text which I do not pretend to have read with my own eyes, while by consulting the notes he will be able to supply whatever Dyce thought necessary to the comprehension of the text. The authority attaching to the readings preserved by Dyce but no longer decipherable depends upon his general accuracy, which is high. They may as a rule I think be accepted as tolerably certain, for it is clear that

his edition was prepared with both skill and caution. Nevertheless it is impossible to accord them implicit confidence, for at least one passage (II 218) suggests that on occasions Dyce resorted to conjecture in a manner that can only be deplored.

I have described how my transcript was made. When it was finished I first read with the original manuscript all those passages in which I had been obliged to rely upon Dyce's text, and then sent the whole to press. The proofs were of course read throughout with the original, particularly the pages covered with tracing paper being minutely collated with all the care of which I was capable. The whole proofs were also read professionally both with Dyce's edition and Tucker Brooke's, and all discrepancies so revealed I checked by reference to the manuscript. That absolute accuracy has been attained I do not for a moment suppose, but I have some hope that if in the future any one should undertake the labour of a fresh collation he will be able to report that I have done my task in a conscientious and fairly competent manner. In such a case as the present I do not think that any editor can reasonably expect better success than that.

The following is an analysis of the text as it stands in the present edition. When a scene begins elsewhere than at the top of the page the line number is added.

Fol. 3^a. Sc. i. Discontent in the City. 3^b. Sc. ii. The Mayor's Sessions. Begins at 104. 4^a, 4^b. 5^a. Sc. iii. News of the riots reaches the Court. 5^b. Sc. iv. Riot scene (cancelled). Begins at 410. Sc. v. Prentice scene (imperfect and cancelled). Begins at 453. First lacuna. 10^a. Sc. vi. Insurrection scene (beginning wanting, part cancelled). 10^b. Sc. vii. Reprieve scene. Begins at *566.

11^a. 11^b. Sc. viii a. Erasmus scene (imperfect and cancelled). Begins at *735. Second lacuna. 14^a. Sc. viii b. Faukner scene (beginning wanting, cancelled). 14^b. Sc. ix. Banquet scene. 15^a, 15^b. 17^a. Sc. x. Privy Council scene. Begins at †1158. 17^b. 18^a. Sc. xi. More's retirement. Begins at †1282. 18^b. Sc. xii. Rochester in the Tower. Begins at †1380. Sc. xiii. More's arrest (part cancelled?). Begins at †1411. 19^a, 19^b. 20^a. Sc. xiv. More arrives at the Tower. Begins at †1603. 20^b. Sc. xv. More's servants. Sc. xvi. More in the Tower. Begins at †1728. 21^a. 21^b. Sc. xvii. Execution scene. Begins at †1861.

Addition I. 6^a (6^b blank). Hand A. Revision of part of sc. xiii. Lines 1–71.

Addition II. 7^a. Hand B. Revision of sc. iv. Lines 1–65. 7^b. Hand C. Sc. iv^a. Lines 66–120 (121–2=S.D. to sc. vi). 8^a. Hand D. Revision of first part of sc. vi. Lines 123–68. 8^b. Lines 169–218. 9^a. Lines 219–70. (9^b blank).

Addition III. 11*^b (11*^a blank). Hand C. Insertion at beginning of sc. viii as revised. Lines 1–22.

Addition IV. 12^a. Hand C. Revision of sc. viii. Lines 1–60. 12^b. Lines 61–121. 13^a. Lines 122–81.

13^b. Lines 182–211. Hand E. Revision continued. Lines 212–42.

Addition V. 13*^a (13*^b blank). Hand C. Sc. viii^a. Lines 1–26.

Addition VI. 16^a. Hand B. Sc. ix^a. Lines 1–62. 16^b. Lines 63–7. (Lines 68–73 = rough draft of V 1–7.)

The above analysis takes no account of the small additions on fols. 10^a (*502), 10^b (*610), and 11^a (*638, *647), and notices only those cancels in the original text which affect the additions. With the same limitations the following references give a continuous revised text, so far as such can be constructed, the additional passages being enclosed in parentheses:

Fols. 3^a, 3^b, 4^a, 4^b, 5^a, 5^b to 409, (7^a, 7^b, 8^a, 8^b, 9^a,) 10^a from *476, 10^b, 11^a, 11^b to *734, (11*^b, 12^a, 12^b, 13^a, 13^b, 13*^a,) 14^b, 15^a, 15^b, 17^a to †1157, (16^a, 16^b, to VI 67,) 17^a from †1158, 17^b, 18^a, 18^b, 19^a to †1470, (6^a,) 19^b, 20^a, 20^b, 21^a, 21^b, 22^a.

Facsimiles illustrating the seven different hands appearing in the manuscript accompany the present edition. They are slightly reduced.

In closing this lengthy preface, gratitude no less than candour suggests that I should acknowledge the obligation I am under to the unvarying kindness of Sir George Warner, late Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Museum. He most obligingly acceded to my suggestion that the additional slips now forming fols. 11* and 13* should be detached from the leaves upon which they were pasted, or, I believe, glued. He allowed me to consult him upon the date of the manuscript, and upon the identity of hand E, and helped me in various small difficulties of reading. He caused Tilney's note on fol. 3^a to be relieved of its covering of tracing paper in order that a photograph might be obtained. Finally when a dispute arose as to the reading at the end of line 56, he had another small piece of the covering removed. Unfortunately this failed to settle the point: for

whereas Dyce printed ‘homes’, Sir George maintains that the word should be ‘house’, while I feel confident that it is ‘bounds’. I regret this small difference of opinion, but with all deference to authority I feel bound to back my own conviction. My personal debt it is a pleasure to recall and to record, and I have no doubt but that all members of the Malone Society will appreciate the obligation under which they too indirectly lie to the late Keeper's courtesy and learning.

Next section