The manuscript is a complicated text containing many layers of collaborative writing, revision, and censorship. Scholars of the play think that it was originally written by playwrights
Anthony Munday and
Henry Chettle and some years later heavily revised by another team of playwrights, including
Thomas Heywood,
Thomas Dekker, and
William Shakespeare. The most common identifications for the six hands: • HAND S – Anthony Munday, the original manuscript; • HAND A – Henry Chettle; • HAND B – Thomas Heywood; • HAND C – A professional scribe who copied out a large section of the play; • HAND D – William Shakespeare; • HAND E – Thomas Dekker. Munday, Chettle, Dekker, and Heywood wrote for the Admiral's Men during the years before and after 1600, which may strengthen the idea of a connection between the play and that company. Shakespeare, in this context, seems the odd man out. In his study of the play, Scott McMillin entertains the possibility that Shakespeare's contribution might have been part of the original text from the early 1590s, when Shakespeare may have written for the
Lord Strange's Men.
Evidence for Shakespeare's contribution In 1871,
Richard Simpson proposed that some additions to the play had been written by Shakespeare, and a year later
James Spedding, editor of the works of Sir
Francis Bacon, while rejecting some of Simpson's suggestions, supported the attribution to Shakespeare of the passage credited to Hand D. In 1916, the
paleographer Sir
Edward Maunde Thompson published a minute analysis of the handwriting of the addition and judged it to be Shakespeare's. The case was strengthened with the publication of ''Shakespeare's Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More
(1923) by five noted scholars who analysed the play from multiple perspectives, all of which led to the same affirmative conclusion. A second significant gathering of scholars to consider Sir Thomas More
grew out of a seminar that was held during the meeting of the Shakespeare Association of America at Ashland, Oregon in 1983. It resulted in a second book of essays, eight by eight different authors, that was published as Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More; Essays on the Play and its Shakespearean Interest''. It is a comprehensive study of the manuscript, and states that it appears more likely than ever that Shakespeare did indeed contribute to the revision of this play. This would make it the only surviving manuscript text written by Shakespeare. Although some dissenters remain, the attribution has been generally accepted since the mid-20th century and most
authoritative editions of Shakespeare's works, including
The Oxford Shakespeare, include the play. It was performed with Shakespeare's name included amongst the authors by the
Royal Shakespeare Company in 2005. The issue was supported and disputed over a long period on the evidence of literary style and
Shakespeare's distinctive handwriting. The lines in Hand D "are now generally accepted as the work of Shakespeare." If the Shakespearean identification is correct, these three pages represent the only surviving examples of Shakespeare's handwriting, aside from a few signatures on documents. The manuscript, with its numerous corrections, deletions and insertions, enables us to glimpse Shakespeare in the process of composition. The evidence for identifying Shakespeare as Hand D is of various types: • Handwriting similar to the six existing signatures of Shakespeare; • Spellings characteristic of Shakespeare; • Stylistic elements similar to Shakespeare's acknowledged works. The original perceptions of Simpson and Spedding in 1871–72 were based on literary style and content and political outlook, rather than palaeographic and orthographic considerations. Consider one example of what attracted attention to the style of Hand D. First, from
Sir Thomas More, Addition IIc, 84–87: :::For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought, :::With self same hand, self reasons, and self right, :::Would
shark on you, and men like ravenous
fishes :::
Would feed on one another. Next, from
Coriolanus, I, i, 184–188: :::::What's the matter, :::That in these several places of the city :::You cry against the noble Senate, who :::(Under the gods) keep you in awe, which else :::
Would feed on one another? Thirdly,
Troilus and Cressida, I, iii, 121–124: :::And appetite, an universal wolf :::(So doubly seconded with will and power) :::Must make perforce an universal prey, :::
And last eat up himself. Finally,
Pericles, Prince of Tyre, II, i, 26–32: :::
3rd Fisherman:...Master, I marvel how the fishes live in the sea. :::
1st Fisherman: Why, as men do a-land; the great ones eat up :::the little ones. I can compare our rich misers to nothing so fitly :::as to a
whale: 'a plays and tumbles, driving the poor
fry before him, :::and at last
devour them all at a mouthful. Many features like this in the Hand D addition to
Sir Thomas More first attracted the attention of Shakespeare scholars and readers, and led to more intensive study from a range of specialised perspectives. The British Library designates 147 lines of the playscript as "Shakespeare's only surviving literary manuscript"; curator Zoe Wilcox argued that "all the evidence suggested the writing was by the hand of Shakespeare.". In 2016, professional paleographer Michael Hays presented a rebuttal of the identification of Shakespeare with Hand D. Published in
Shakespeare Quarterly, Hays wrote, "The history of the paleographic argument connecting
Sir Thomas More and Shakespeare is a narrative of ambiguous terms, misconceptions, and mistakes." He went on to write that the arguments presented were without scientific merit because there exists no control sample of Shakespeare's writing. Paul Werstine similarly argues that "the only handwriting that we know for certain are his... is too small a sample size to make any sort of reliable comparison."
Audience perception Audiences "find that the play speaks with more urgency" in the pages attributed to Shakespeare. While Shakespeare's supposed contribution is consistent with the overall theme and develops the plot, there is an impression of a virtuoso piece inserted, but not completely integrated, into the play. Some editors go as far as to question whether Shakespeare had read any of the other contributions at all. ==Performance history==