What do you think?
Rate this book
Sir Thomas More
"Sir Thomas More" is especially valuable for the light it throws on the doctrinal issues that were at the center of the Reformation. This is a detailed, well-researched and thouroughly conventional biography of the life of Thomas More. To put it succintly, this biography is more a discussion of ideas than of events of that time, since More was a rather second-rate political figure.
292 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1592
10 people are currently reading
346 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Munday
67 books8 followersAnthony Munday (or Monday) (baptized 13 October 156 – 10 August 1633) was an English playwright and miscellaneous writer. The chief interest in Munday for the modern reader lies in his work as one of the chief predecessors of Shakespeare in English dramatic composition, as well as his writings on Robin Hood.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
September 18, 2017
I'm not sure how much of this Shakespeare is actually supposed to have written, but it's on my list for the “All of Shakespeare in a Year” challenge, so I read it. And, to be fair, it's not terrible. Beats King Edward III or The Two Gentlemen of Verona, that's for sure. The individual components of the story – the riot and its fall-out, the family scenes, the noble choice of death over moral compromise – are all fine, but they don't seem to hold together in any sort of compelling whole. It's more like “scenes from a life,” but there's no dramatic tension. The anti-immigrant riots seemed particularly topical, but the rioters, once in custody, are so thoroughly repentant and content to be paying the price (hanging) for disturbing the King's Peace as to be... disappointing. While it may have served a didactic purpose to have miscreants so fully recognize the error of their disobedient ways, a little outrage over their “betrayal” by More (who promised them that if they surrendered he would obtain pardons for them) would have seemed more plausible. The family scenes, while establishing More as a Nice Guy, who is neither stuffy nor moralizing, are... pretty dull. It seems to me that a big problem is the choice (however politically prudent or necessary from the perspective of the acting company) to Not describe at all the articles of the king which More refused to endorse (presumably the Oath of Supremacy, declaring Henry VIII head of the C of E, or the Oath of Succession). When a play is about a man choosing to die for his religious convictions, failing to mention those convictions at All leaves kind of a gaping HOLE. We're left with a pleasant guy choosing to die with complete placidity rather than sign some paper which isn't even worth mentioning. That's the kind of storytelling challenge that even some lines by Shakespeare aren’t going to fix.
June 19, 2013
While browsing through one of the Shakespeare bookstores in Stratford-upon-Avon this volume caught my eye. I had never heard that Shakespeare wrote a play on Thomas More. After looking through it at the store it was clear he hadn't written the entire play. He was one of about four other authors and he revised an already prepared text. Loving St. Thomas More as I do, I couldn't resist and bought the book.
The book is part of the Arden Shakespeare series, a scholarly series designed to support both literary research and theatrical presentation. The introduction is 120 pages, covering the history of writing the play, prominent themes in the play, sources used by the playwrights, performance history, and staging advice. It's quite comprehensive if occasionally bogged down in critical literary jargon, for example this passage concerning a scene where Thomas More and his servant Randall swap clothes to see if they can fool Erasmus into thinking Randall is More:
The exchange of costumes for the purpose of metatheatrical role-playing asserts the nature of the play itself as an enactment for the commercial theatre, and places the institution of theatre in relation to the play's subject-matter, the learned scholar. The low social and intellectual status of the actor of More in relation to the role he is playing corresponds with the social and intellectual status of the role of Randall - though the play insists repeatedly that More is himself of humble origin. [p. 78]
Fortunately the historical comments are straightforward and interesting. The four or five authors used various sources on More's life, some favoring More and some despising him. More was still a controversial topic when the play was written (around 1600), with Queen Elizabeth on the throne. More had refused to acknowledge the authority of Henry VIII over the church in England and implicitly his marriage to his second wife (the mother of Elizabeth). The play was reviewed by a censor who made many suggestions and deletions, all of which readers can see in the main text.
The text of the play itself is a critical edition, with extensive footnotes clarifying who wrote what and explaining the meaning of the archaic words and phrases. It requires a little patience to read. I read the play before I read the introduction. I definitely recommend that reading order since the introduction discusses details of events in the play, events I was unfamiliar with from other sources. I would have been somewhat lost in the introduction without reading the play first.
The play is in roughly two halves. The first half deals with More's rise to power in England, eventually becoming Chancellor. The main incident depicted is a near-riot of lower class workers. They want to burn the homes of foreigners in London who have the favor of the king and have been putting natives out of work. More, as a sheriff of London, speaks to the crowd and quells their anger. His service in averting the riot is what brings him political success. [Historically, this incident is almost twenty years before More becomes chancellor and lots of other events and actions contributed to his rise.]
The second half deals with his life in court, his refusal of the Oath of Supremacy (never named or detailed in the play), and his eventual execution. Throughout both halves, his jovial nature, both in personal affairs and as a lawyer/political figure, is demonstrated by many witty little scenes. If A Man for All Seasons is the straight-laced drama of More's life and death, this is much more like a comedy. Not that the play makes fun of More, but it presents his penchant for jests, for being witty in both the smart and the funny senses of the term.
The play is a little uneven in that it moves from episode to episode in More's life without a strong sense of connection between the scenes. Various court room scenes tell us more about More's character but do not point us to his eventual decision and fate. I still found it fascinating reading and would not mind seeing a stage production of this play (which is the proper way to experience a play, after all).
The book also has several appendices with textual analysis of the additions and deletions to the play, a close look at authorship of various parts, and some passages from source materials. I only skimmed through this part since it was very scholarly and not my main interest.
The book is part of the Arden Shakespeare series, a scholarly series designed to support both literary research and theatrical presentation. The introduction is 120 pages, covering the history of writing the play, prominent themes in the play, sources used by the playwrights, performance history, and staging advice. It's quite comprehensive if occasionally bogged down in critical literary jargon, for example this passage concerning a scene where Thomas More and his servant Randall swap clothes to see if they can fool Erasmus into thinking Randall is More:
The exchange of costumes for the purpose of metatheatrical role-playing asserts the nature of the play itself as an enactment for the commercial theatre, and places the institution of theatre in relation to the play's subject-matter, the learned scholar. The low social and intellectual status of the actor of More in relation to the role he is playing corresponds with the social and intellectual status of the role of Randall - though the play insists repeatedly that More is himself of humble origin. [p. 78]
Fortunately the historical comments are straightforward and interesting. The four or five authors used various sources on More's life, some favoring More and some despising him. More was still a controversial topic when the play was written (around 1600), with Queen Elizabeth on the throne. More had refused to acknowledge the authority of Henry VIII over the church in England and implicitly his marriage to his second wife (the mother of Elizabeth). The play was reviewed by a censor who made many suggestions and deletions, all of which readers can see in the main text.
The text of the play itself is a critical edition, with extensive footnotes clarifying who wrote what and explaining the meaning of the archaic words and phrases. It requires a little patience to read. I read the play before I read the introduction. I definitely recommend that reading order since the introduction discusses details of events in the play, events I was unfamiliar with from other sources. I would have been somewhat lost in the introduction without reading the play first.
The play is in roughly two halves. The first half deals with More's rise to power in England, eventually becoming Chancellor. The main incident depicted is a near-riot of lower class workers. They want to burn the homes of foreigners in London who have the favor of the king and have been putting natives out of work. More, as a sheriff of London, speaks to the crowd and quells their anger. His service in averting the riot is what brings him political success. [Historically, this incident is almost twenty years before More becomes chancellor and lots of other events and actions contributed to his rise.]
The second half deals with his life in court, his refusal of the Oath of Supremacy (never named or detailed in the play), and his eventual execution. Throughout both halves, his jovial nature, both in personal affairs and as a lawyer/political figure, is demonstrated by many witty little scenes. If A Man for All Seasons is the straight-laced drama of More's life and death, this is much more like a comedy. Not that the play makes fun of More, but it presents his penchant for jests, for being witty in both the smart and the funny senses of the term.
The play is a little uneven in that it moves from episode to episode in More's life without a strong sense of connection between the scenes. Various court room scenes tell us more about More's character but do not point us to his eventual decision and fate. I still found it fascinating reading and would not mind seeing a stage production of this play (which is the proper way to experience a play, after all).
The book also has several appendices with textual analysis of the additions and deletions to the play, a close look at authorship of various parts, and some passages from source materials. I only skimmed through this part since it was very scholarly and not my main interest.
June 19, 2025
Note that this review is about only the play itself - NOT the whole Arden Shakespeare book it's attached to. I'm sure that it's full of fantastic commentary and supporting essays, but I haven't read any of those.
I really didn't like that. It probably deserves more than one star, but almost every bit was frustrating. The play is a hagiography of Thomas More, but tells you almost nothing about him, other than that he was a good man who talked down a riot and was executed for refusing to endorse an order from the king ( although exactly which order is not elaborated upon). Each Act of the play deals with a different episode in More's life (but not the writing of Utopia, which is possibly what he's most known for nowadays); sections are clearly written by many different authors (the Shakespeare section, for example, is all of about three pages in length) and the play as a whole is just pretty bloody rubbish.
I really didn't like that. It probably deserves more than one star, but almost every bit was frustrating. The play is a hagiography of Thomas More, but tells you almost nothing about him, other than that he was a good man who talked down a riot and was executed for refusing to endorse an order from the king ( although exactly which order is not elaborated upon). Each Act of the play deals with a different episode in More's life (but not the writing of Utopia, which is possibly what he's most known for nowadays); sections are clearly written by many different authors (the Shakespeare section, for example, is all of about three pages in length) and the play as a whole is just pretty bloody rubbish.
July 18, 2020
I read this as research for my novel the Shakespeare Twins.
July 23, 2020
After reading this review, my sanity can surely be questioned as to the rating applied to this book. I am a sucker for scholarship and learning, and that's my rationale.
Shakespeare will always be 5 stars for me, even if I don't necessarily love the particular play I am reviewing. There are few writers who have mastered the use of language in the ways that he did, and I am constantly amazed and delighted when I read any of his works for the first, second, and third times.
I enjoy the Pelican Shakespeare editions quite a lot, though I will say I have not read the Oxford, Arden or any other versions, and they may be superior, whatever that means to you. Until I wind my way through all the Pelicans*, I will avoid other versions to maintain a translation consistency. I love that each edition has information about the Theatre, the Texts of Shakespeare, and how the particular play I am reading was seen in a historical context. They also provide footnotes to the text, defining words that may have different meanings than currently, or for words quite foreign to the current linguistic usage.
I know enough about Shakespeare scholarship to understand the different editions all have their proponents and naysayers. I confess to not being overly concerned, though, as true scholars know there aren't any authentic Shakespeare plays, since anything we are reading has been edited so heavily throughout history so even attributing a specific number of lines to a play is impossible. And rather unnecessary I would say.
I have found it is best for me to read the play without reading any of the footnotes first, or referring to them sparingly while reading. I will say that often leads to a slightly confused first look at things depending on the play at hand. But I then follow quickly with a second reading, using the footnotes (sometimes I read all the footnotes on a page first, other times I read them as they
are needed in the text, it just depends). When possible, I will read a third time in succession, by this time I have memorized/remembered all the footnoted words, and this begins my full enjoyment of the play as it is presented.
I will leave it to others to critique each play on its merits, or lack of them, as they see fit to do. I enjoy Shakespeare too much to bother quibbling about details, or assuming in any way the play could have been better done and that readers should consider discussing how that could be accomplished.
*This is an Arden Shakespeare, Third Series book review
Sir Thomas More - themes, analysis, questions of authorship, points to ponder
: Shakespeare is involved peripherally at best, but some believe he wrote part of the play - the Insurrection scene - so my hopes were a smidgen low for any hints of his genius. One algorithmic study posited that Shakespeare is the composer of 90% of the play, but no serious scholar agrees with that assertion. In fact, most see Shakespeare as a guide or resource of sorts, at best. The “evidence” he is Hand D in the MS is quite flimsy, based on signature examples assumed to be his. Quite a string of ifs...
: learned what “stylometry” is (Stylometry is the quantitative study of literary style through computational distant reading methods. It is based on the observation that authors tend to write in relatively consistent, recognizable and unique ways.)
: catholic also means “universal”, and papist means “against the monarch” for the English
: plenty of tidbits about More in the play; in places it seems almost like a biography-in-scenes
: Anglican v. Catholic; individual freedom v. authority (monarchy)
: words subject and subjects occur frequently (as in “political subject of monarchy”)
: Elizabethan Settlement -outward “practice” of Anglicanism enough, what one did “in private” was immaterial
: difference between “traitor” and “heretic” - More was executed for treason
: More and political v. epistemological estrangement - refuses the king, AND refuses to explain why
: interesting how the subject of “strangers” (immigrants) was such an issue in Elizabethan England (nationalism; some made incoming Protestants similar to English Anglicans, while others claimed being Protestant but not Anglican wasn’t “English enough”)
: the play leads the audience to think not “should the subject act this way” but “why is the subject acting this way”; reconfigures subjecthood through drama
: learned what a stationer is…
: realized via Arden Third Series’ research notes that this play is significantly less about Shakespeare’s involvement - surely his attachment to the play helps sell it now, but there was much less interest in that aspect at the time it was penned - and more about a seminal moment in English history.
: the authorship questions for STM - who, how much, when, revised, original - open up the fact that many plays of the period were collaborations. It got me wondering how many other plays did Shakespeare simply provide help in the background, leaving off his style but offering his genius to another playwright?
: play writing process - original writing, censorship, revision
: a playhouse diary of Philip Henslowe shows the process of play creation was short, collaborative, and focused more on economics that artistic endeavor (Chiilington, 1975); she casts serious doubt on reliability of Shakespeare’s involvement in Sir Thomas More, and posits a different playwright, John Webster, as Hand D, due to stylistic similarities in his other plays. It is a fascinating article and one anyone serious about authorship questions and/or the process of play creation should read in full.
My interest in this play was entirely due to its attribution to Shakespeare, in part. As is my wont, I spent a lot of pre-play-reading time on research, which cooled my interest in the play significantly. There is little evidentiary scholarship to connect Shakespeare to this play as a writer (Hand D) or revisioner, and much more that links Hand D to another famous playwright of the time, John Webster. Other academics link Shakespeare to the play based on unverified (being unverifiable, in fact) signatures attributed to Shakespeare and how those signatures “match” Hand D in the play’s MS. Not to be too cynical, but I find it entirely plausible that, much like economics being in the forefront of play creation in Shakespeare’s time, modern scholars decided it would advance their careers, and their publishing revenues!, to obliquely link Shakespeare to this play. If one wishes to argue the authorship of what are considered Shakespeare’s accepted works as a reason for accepting this play as “Shakespearean” - “one can never be 100% sure!”, “lots of plays were collaborative!”- then please do so as you wish. I find nothing of Shakespeare’s magic in the pages I read. That’s not to say there aren’t some fine lines, well-crafted scenes, and more-than-capable uses of wordplay, imagery, and symbolism. But there is “attributed to-” and “authored by-”, and, as Hamlet says, “ay, there’s the rub!”. For me, this is an Elizabethan play about Sir Thomas More, no more, no less. Hah! See the joke there?!? Anyway. Not being overly interested in the man himself, I enjoyed the Arden Third Series edition of the play almost exclusively for its academic approach to the play. It interested me enough to read the actual play, and it interested me even more to read about the scholarship surrounding plays and their creation. Much more fascinating than the text of the play for me. There is little denying Sir Thomas More’s place in history - English history specifically - and being a history lover my interest was maintained through the play merely for its historical placement. The play serves well enough as a mini-bio of the man, though more impressive is its creation and survival considering the times. Ultimately, I would call this a qualified feat of legerdemain by modern publishers, connecting Shakespeare to this play. Arden maintains Shakespeare is Hand D, and they surely have more academic muscle than I. But I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves if The Bard is here in anything but spirit.
Shakespeare will always be 5 stars for me, even if I don't necessarily love the particular play I am reviewing. There are few writers who have mastered the use of language in the ways that he did, and I am constantly amazed and delighted when I read any of his works for the first, second, and third times.
I enjoy the Pelican Shakespeare editions quite a lot, though I will say I have not read the Oxford, Arden or any other versions, and they may be superior, whatever that means to you. Until I wind my way through all the Pelicans*, I will avoid other versions to maintain a translation consistency. I love that each edition has information about the Theatre, the Texts of Shakespeare, and how the particular play I am reading was seen in a historical context. They also provide footnotes to the text, defining words that may have different meanings than currently, or for words quite foreign to the current linguistic usage.
I know enough about Shakespeare scholarship to understand the different editions all have their proponents and naysayers. I confess to not being overly concerned, though, as true scholars know there aren't any authentic Shakespeare plays, since anything we are reading has been edited so heavily throughout history so even attributing a specific number of lines to a play is impossible. And rather unnecessary I would say.
I have found it is best for me to read the play without reading any of the footnotes first, or referring to them sparingly while reading. I will say that often leads to a slightly confused first look at things depending on the play at hand. But I then follow quickly with a second reading, using the footnotes (sometimes I read all the footnotes on a page first, other times I read them as they
are needed in the text, it just depends). When possible, I will read a third time in succession, by this time I have memorized/remembered all the footnoted words, and this begins my full enjoyment of the play as it is presented.
I will leave it to others to critique each play on its merits, or lack of them, as they see fit to do. I enjoy Shakespeare too much to bother quibbling about details, or assuming in any way the play could have been better done and that readers should consider discussing how that could be accomplished.
*This is an Arden Shakespeare, Third Series book review
Sir Thomas More - themes, analysis, questions of authorship, points to ponder
: Shakespeare is involved peripherally at best, but some believe he wrote part of the play - the Insurrection scene - so my hopes were a smidgen low for any hints of his genius. One algorithmic study posited that Shakespeare is the composer of 90% of the play, but no serious scholar agrees with that assertion. In fact, most see Shakespeare as a guide or resource of sorts, at best. The “evidence” he is Hand D in the MS is quite flimsy, based on signature examples assumed to be his. Quite a string of ifs...
: learned what “stylometry” is (Stylometry is the quantitative study of literary style through computational distant reading methods. It is based on the observation that authors tend to write in relatively consistent, recognizable and unique ways.)
: catholic also means “universal”, and papist means “against the monarch” for the English
: plenty of tidbits about More in the play; in places it seems almost like a biography-in-scenes
: Anglican v. Catholic; individual freedom v. authority (monarchy)
: words subject and subjects occur frequently (as in “political subject of monarchy”)
: Elizabethan Settlement -outward “practice” of Anglicanism enough, what one did “in private” was immaterial
: difference between “traitor” and “heretic” - More was executed for treason
: More and political v. epistemological estrangement - refuses the king, AND refuses to explain why
: interesting how the subject of “strangers” (immigrants) was such an issue in Elizabethan England (nationalism; some made incoming Protestants similar to English Anglicans, while others claimed being Protestant but not Anglican wasn’t “English enough”)
: the play leads the audience to think not “should the subject act this way” but “why is the subject acting this way”; reconfigures subjecthood through drama
: learned what a stationer is…
: realized via Arden Third Series’ research notes that this play is significantly less about Shakespeare’s involvement - surely his attachment to the play helps sell it now, but there was much less interest in that aspect at the time it was penned - and more about a seminal moment in English history.
: the authorship questions for STM - who, how much, when, revised, original - open up the fact that many plays of the period were collaborations. It got me wondering how many other plays did Shakespeare simply provide help in the background, leaving off his style but offering his genius to another playwright?
: play writing process - original writing, censorship, revision
: a playhouse diary of Philip Henslowe shows the process of play creation was short, collaborative, and focused more on economics that artistic endeavor (Chiilington, 1975); she casts serious doubt on reliability of Shakespeare’s involvement in Sir Thomas More, and posits a different playwright, John Webster, as Hand D, due to stylistic similarities in his other plays. It is a fascinating article and one anyone serious about authorship questions and/or the process of play creation should read in full.
My interest in this play was entirely due to its attribution to Shakespeare, in part. As is my wont, I spent a lot of pre-play-reading time on research, which cooled my interest in the play significantly. There is little evidentiary scholarship to connect Shakespeare to this play as a writer (Hand D) or revisioner, and much more that links Hand D to another famous playwright of the time, John Webster. Other academics link Shakespeare to the play based on unverified (being unverifiable, in fact) signatures attributed to Shakespeare and how those signatures “match” Hand D in the play’s MS. Not to be too cynical, but I find it entirely plausible that, much like economics being in the forefront of play creation in Shakespeare’s time, modern scholars decided it would advance their careers, and their publishing revenues!, to obliquely link Shakespeare to this play. If one wishes to argue the authorship of what are considered Shakespeare’s accepted works as a reason for accepting this play as “Shakespearean” - “one can never be 100% sure!”, “lots of plays were collaborative!”- then please do so as you wish. I find nothing of Shakespeare’s magic in the pages I read. That’s not to say there aren’t some fine lines, well-crafted scenes, and more-than-capable uses of wordplay, imagery, and symbolism. But there is “attributed to-” and “authored by-”, and, as Hamlet says, “ay, there’s the rub!”. For me, this is an Elizabethan play about Sir Thomas More, no more, no less. Hah! See the joke there?!? Anyway. Not being overly interested in the man himself, I enjoyed the Arden Third Series edition of the play almost exclusively for its academic approach to the play. It interested me enough to read the actual play, and it interested me even more to read about the scholarship surrounding plays and their creation. Much more fascinating than the text of the play for me. There is little denying Sir Thomas More’s place in history - English history specifically - and being a history lover my interest was maintained through the play merely for its historical placement. The play serves well enough as a mini-bio of the man, though more impressive is its creation and survival considering the times. Ultimately, I would call this a qualified feat of legerdemain by modern publishers, connecting Shakespeare to this play. Arden maintains Shakespeare is Hand D, and they surely have more academic muscle than I. But I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves if The Bard is here in anything but spirit.
February 11, 2025
A pretty good play. I think the narrative would have made absolutely no sense had I not known about Henry VIII’s shenanigans since they aren’t explained and so More’s fall would have been both underwhelming and seemingly random without my A Level history. Perhaps people at the time were more familiar with the story? Or perhaps is was just more important to audiences that there be a fall (as appropriate for the tragic form) than that the fall be narratively justified? The two halves of the plays aren’t really coherently tied together except perhaps as an indication that the king’s mercy is running out, or that an intercesor like More is required and thus there is no mercy for More himself. It’s not that I didn’t know what the point of the play was: it’s very overt about its moralising. It’s that the (again, blatant) messaging of the first half and the second are entirely different! With the five-ish authors this play had, maybe it’s a case of too many cooks?
November 11, 2022
i can't tell if i liked it or not
August 24, 2019
Why do I not read more modern novels? Certainly they have to be more entertaining than most of the books I end up reading. But what do I learn from them?! Usually very little. Whereas with older classics or out-of-print unknowns, even if I’m not entertained by the story, I am constantly learning, whether I learn from the themes within the story or learn about the culture/history of the time when it was written or about the author in relation to their society and contemporary issues … boy, it just seems so silly to waste time on the newest political thriller or latest soon-to-be-debunked memoir when I am guaranteed to come away from my next reading as a more informed person (does that make me sound as smug as I make most memoir authors sound? … I never claimed I wasn’t a hypocrite!).
But enough about me (is it though?), let’s talk about Anthony Munday’s play about Sir Thomas More. While reading something else (how most of these ventures start), I was reminded about the excellent movie A Man For All Seasons, which I knew to be based on a play. Well, turns out the play is not yet in public domain, but I stumbled across this one, which is said to have been written by WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (then in the small print, it mentions Anthony Munday as the main playwright, with a few others, including the Bard himself, helping with revisions). That, however, only makes me more interested. Who is this guy that Shakespeare is pitching in to help in writing a play that would never get put on because of the nature of its content in a protestant Elizabethan time?
So, I read Munday’s (and company’s) Sir Thomas More. It’s definitely not modern, and mostly not entertaining, but I learned some stuff--success!
First, I learned a bit more about Sir Thomas More’s background. I saw more and more of him as an advocate for the poor and underrepresented. I saw his legal background and rise to the Lord Chancellorship. All this led to what I knew about him: his fall through refusing to compromise his principles.
I learned other things as well. I learned that if you get a few scriptwriters on the same play, it may end up being kind of choppy and tonally inconsistent. On one part we have Thomas More the jokester and trickster (definitely not a side of him I knew about before, perhaps because it may be the authors--or at least one of the authors-- contrivance to lighten the mood), on the other we have profound themes and tragic endings. While it is possible to have both in a single play, the transition between these feels rough, as if someone just inserted their written parts without troubling to smooth the transition between different authors.
Also, it feels as if the various authors could never come up with a combined purpose. They tell the story and it is appropriately tragic, but the purpose behind the telling is either vague because it could not be obvious for political reasons or vague because the authors were on different pages (literally/figuratively) on what they were hoping to accomplish or vague because they just ended the play figuring to make bigger edits once it got on stage and it never did.
I was never bored, and I definitely learned. I just feel that there was so much more potential that was left untapped. However, I’m intrigued enough that I have looked up and downloaded one of Munday’s solo ventures. We’ll see how this kitchen is with a few less cooks! … but I’m willing to bet that either way I’ll learn something, a conclusion I could not draw if I read something more modern.
But enough about me (is it though?), let’s talk about Anthony Munday’s play about Sir Thomas More. While reading something else (how most of these ventures start), I was reminded about the excellent movie A Man For All Seasons, which I knew to be based on a play. Well, turns out the play is not yet in public domain, but I stumbled across this one, which is said to have been written by WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (then in the small print, it mentions Anthony Munday as the main playwright, with a few others, including the Bard himself, helping with revisions). That, however, only makes me more interested. Who is this guy that Shakespeare is pitching in to help in writing a play that would never get put on because of the nature of its content in a protestant Elizabethan time?
So, I read Munday’s (and company’s) Sir Thomas More. It’s definitely not modern, and mostly not entertaining, but I learned some stuff--success!
First, I learned a bit more about Sir Thomas More’s background. I saw more and more of him as an advocate for the poor and underrepresented. I saw his legal background and rise to the Lord Chancellorship. All this led to what I knew about him: his fall through refusing to compromise his principles.
I learned other things as well. I learned that if you get a few scriptwriters on the same play, it may end up being kind of choppy and tonally inconsistent. On one part we have Thomas More the jokester and trickster (definitely not a side of him I knew about before, perhaps because it may be the authors--or at least one of the authors-- contrivance to lighten the mood), on the other we have profound themes and tragic endings. While it is possible to have both in a single play, the transition between these feels rough, as if someone just inserted their written parts without troubling to smooth the transition between different authors.
Also, it feels as if the various authors could never come up with a combined purpose. They tell the story and it is appropriately tragic, but the purpose behind the telling is either vague because it could not be obvious for political reasons or vague because the authors were on different pages (literally/figuratively) on what they were hoping to accomplish or vague because they just ended the play figuring to make bigger edits once it got on stage and it never did.
I was never bored, and I definitely learned. I just feel that there was so much more potential that was left untapped. However, I’m intrigued enough that I have looked up and downloaded one of Munday’s solo ventures. We’ll see how this kitchen is with a few less cooks! … but I’m willing to bet that either way I’ll learn something, a conclusion I could not draw if I read something more modern.
December 6, 2013
A very good, thorough edition of this collaborative play from the 1600s, to which William Shakespeare contributed. The introduction does a good job of exploring both the play as a work, and also the complex situation that led to its creation. The main text has a battle on its hands, since it's a very rare example of a play found in manuscript form, so words are missing, scenes are divided between authors or occasionally between original and censored texts, and so on. Very thoroughly done. And the thick appendices explore the nature of the text, which is very useful in this odd instance. Very glad the Arden Third Series has incorporated this into the body of Shakespeare scholarship, and looking forward to the rest of their high-quality run over the next few years.
September 13, 2018
two-thirds of the way through the play I was still searching for a plot.
Sir Thomas More is a story about a public servant who is a really nice and fair bloke especially to the poor and common people.
**spoiler alert**
Then he gets executed.
"Who prates not much seems wise; his wit few scan;
While the tongue blabs tales of the imperfect man."
Sir Thomas More is a story about a public servant who is a really nice and fair bloke especially to the poor and common people.
**spoiler alert**
Then he gets executed.
"Who prates not much seems wise; his wit few scan;
While the tongue blabs tales of the imperfect man."
September 17, 2017
I gave it two stars with the Goodreads meaning of 'It was Ok.' More is depicted as a highly respected, deeply loved public figure. There were a few elevated speeches and a few funny scenes in between prosaic parts. I admired the serenity that More carried when his fortunes turned downward. Great mean are still musicians, else the world lies; They learn low strains after the notes that rise.
This tickled me: More plays the authoritative figure questioning a man who charged with crime.
MORE. Sirrah, sirrah, you are a busy dangerous ruffian.
FAULKNER. Ruffian!
MORE. How long have you worn this hair?
FAULKNER. I have worn this hair ever since I was born.
MORE. You know that's not my question, but how long
Hath this shag fleece hung dangling on they head?
FAULKNER. How long, my lord? why, sometimes thus long,
sometimes lower, as the Fates and humors please.
MORE. So quick, sir, with me, ha? I see, good fellow,
Thou lovest plain dealing. Sirrah, tell me now,
When were you last at barbers? how long time
Have you upon your head worn this shag hair?
FAULKNER. My lord, Jack Faulkner tells no Aesops fables: troth, I was not at barbers this three years; I have not been cut nor will not be cut, upon a foolish vow, which, as the Destinies shall direct, I am sworn to keep.
This tickled me: More plays the authoritative figure questioning a man who charged with crime.
MORE. Sirrah, sirrah, you are a busy dangerous ruffian.
FAULKNER. Ruffian!
MORE. How long have you worn this hair?
FAULKNER. I have worn this hair ever since I was born.
MORE. You know that's not my question, but how long
Hath this shag fleece hung dangling on they head?
FAULKNER. How long, my lord? why, sometimes thus long,
sometimes lower, as the Fates and humors please.
MORE. So quick, sir, with me, ha? I see, good fellow,
Thou lovest plain dealing. Sirrah, tell me now,
When were you last at barbers? how long time
Have you upon your head worn this shag hair?
FAULKNER. My lord, Jack Faulkner tells no Aesops fables: troth, I was not at barbers this three years; I have not been cut nor will not be cut, upon a foolish vow, which, as the Destinies shall direct, I am sworn to keep.
October 8, 2022
Imagine writing a play about somebody and leaving out the bits that actually matter, absolute bomb of a group project
March 7, 2024
Flop characters. Flop plot. Flop play. If Shakespeare hadn't written bits of this, trust it would not have escaped obscurity.
November 18, 2019
Albeit confusing sometimes, it was really interesting to read this edition of “Sir Thomas More” as it clearly shows the different parts and components of the manuscript and hints at how early modern plays emerged from the collaborative work of multiple writers (and partly also the censor).
As to the play, it was an interesting read, though I felt like it was only scraping at the superficial layer of Thomas More’s life, without real insights into what truly happened. It seemed to be merely a brief summary with the quick sequence of events, his rise and his fall (+ a banquet scene that seemed to be the retarding moment). I personally would have preferred to see him come face to face with the King and to have a bigger focus on what was going on with Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, but then again, it would probably have been impossible to write a play explicitly dealing with this part of history during this time. Which also brings me to the point that I was quite surprised how positively More was described and characterised. After all, this play was primarily written during a time that Elizabeth I was still the monarch of England (at least if my Arden edition is right, which claims it to have been written 1600 with revisions in 1603-1604 if I remember it correctly) and, after all, More condemned the marriage between her mother and father.
Either way, it was quite interesting to read and marks the completion of yet another play in whose making Shakespeare was (at least partly) involved.
As to the play, it was an interesting read, though I felt like it was only scraping at the superficial layer of Thomas More’s life, without real insights into what truly happened. It seemed to be merely a brief summary with the quick sequence of events, his rise and his fall (+ a banquet scene that seemed to be the retarding moment). I personally would have preferred to see him come face to face with the King and to have a bigger focus on what was going on with Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, but then again, it would probably have been impossible to write a play explicitly dealing with this part of history during this time. Which also brings me to the point that I was quite surprised how positively More was described and characterised. After all, this play was primarily written during a time that Elizabeth I was still the monarch of England (at least if my Arden edition is right, which claims it to have been written 1600 with revisions in 1603-1604 if I remember it correctly) and, after all, More condemned the marriage between her mother and father.
Either way, it was quite interesting to read and marks the completion of yet another play in whose making Shakespeare was (at least partly) involved.
November 27, 2021
This play was co written and revised and edited over some time by, among others, Shakespeare. As it’s various contributors were probably on various sides of the Reformation faith divides, it avoids taking sides here but homes in on individual consciences. A play about More can’t duck the issue completely though when it’s Queen Elizabeth’s Mum that’s the issue, though it’s unclear when this was first performed .
Overlooked until the 1970s when Ian McKellen starred in a performance later remounted for BBC radio, this play achieved some prominence during the Brexit campaign as it also discusses immigration. More calms down an anti Immigrant mob by pleading with them to understand and empathise.
It’s thought that this scene might be Shakespeare’s main contribution though the dream of More’s wife is a common Shakespearean trope too. Some of his final speeches feel like it too. Renaissance men we may be, but we still live or die at the decree of others.
More is here firmly located in the Christian humanist intellectual world of his day; we meet Erasmus. There is a slightly tedious play within a play ,albeit one that asks about wisdom and vanity, but otherwise an engrossing drama.
Overlooked until the 1970s when Ian McKellen starred in a performance later remounted for BBC radio, this play achieved some prominence during the Brexit campaign as it also discusses immigration. More calms down an anti Immigrant mob by pleading with them to understand and empathise.
It’s thought that this scene might be Shakespeare’s main contribution though the dream of More’s wife is a common Shakespearean trope too. Some of his final speeches feel like it too. Renaissance men we may be, but we still live or die at the decree of others.
More is here firmly located in the Christian humanist intellectual world of his day; we meet Erasmus. There is a slightly tedious play within a play ,albeit one that asks about wisdom and vanity, but otherwise an engrossing drama.
November 10, 2023
Sir Thomas More has the faults that one might expect from a biographical play and one authored and revised by numerous hands. The tone shifts markedly from passage to passage, particularly when one gets to the portion known as Hand D, which is the section that has been identified as being in William Shakespeare's own handwriting, and it's rather episodic and comes across like a compendium of the "greatest hits from the life of Sir Thomas More", similar to the contemporary play from the same genre, Thomas Lord Cromwell. Nevertheless, the individual scenes—and not just Shakespeare's either—have a great deal of dramatic strength and I think they'd play well in a live stage performance. The interest is driven by the character of More himself, who is portrayed as both worldly-wise and intelligent but also with a great deal of humor that put me in mind of Thomas Dekker's portrayal of Simon Eyre in The Shoemaker's Holiday. So while it's not the greatest play of the early modern era, it's very, very far from being the worst, and I quite enjoyed it.
March 7, 2021
Read for an adapting job. People aren't missing loads with this one, it's kind of just stuff happening, but there are some fun characters/sequences and More himself's fairly three dimensional. Plus the immigration stuff is timely.
March 23, 2025
Sir Thomas More is a biographical play and is authored and revised by numerous hands. The tone shifts markedly from passage to passage. It is demonstrating the censorship and revision process of theater in Shakespeare's day. In every Shakespeare play we get a more finalized version than this, maybe a bad copy of it, but still, more completed. Sir Thomas More is a play in the process of being written, it is a manuscript. It has notes written on it from several different people. Shakespeare only took part in the revision of this play. It was originally written by Munday. We don’t know if this play was actually finished at some point and played.
The play is a biography of Sir Thomas More which was executed by the King, Henry VIII, because he did not sign the articles that were going to enable Henry VIII to divorce his wife, the Queen. In the play, we never see the king’s name as it was not possible to criticize or directly name the king himself during the period it was written (the queen was the daughter of Henry VIII at the time). One of the reasons that it got revised so much is censorship. Sir Thomas More is a religious figure, a humanist, scholarly hero, rather than being an action hero like in most of the other plays of Shakespeare. He cares about the poor. He also has a good sense of humour. Shakespeare adds complexity to the character of Sir Thomas More.
“Since justice keeps not them in greater awe,
We’ll be ourselves rough ministers at law.”
The play is a biography of Sir Thomas More which was executed by the King, Henry VIII, because he did not sign the articles that were going to enable Henry VIII to divorce his wife, the Queen. In the play, we never see the king’s name as it was not possible to criticize or directly name the king himself during the period it was written (the queen was the daughter of Henry VIII at the time). One of the reasons that it got revised so much is censorship. Sir Thomas More is a religious figure, a humanist, scholarly hero, rather than being an action hero like in most of the other plays of Shakespeare. He cares about the poor. He also has a good sense of humour. Shakespeare adds complexity to the character of Sir Thomas More.
“Since justice keeps not them in greater awe,
We’ll be ourselves rough ministers at law.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 26, 2025
This is more of a rating for the literary archaeology, review, and analysis that went into this book, rather than for the 400-year old, obscure play it resurrects. I’m thankful for how much effort went into piecing together an obliterated manuscript edited and revised by at least 5 people, then framing such a construction and providing background analysis for the modern, uninitiated reader. It all made me genuinely excited to finally get to the play at around page 200.
The play itself was, of course, just OK (too many cooks, to be sure). 20+ years of history of one man was always going to be too much for one play, and the playwrights had to cut some bewildering corners (like More being knighted and promoted from sheriff to Lord Chancellor in the same exact night he quells an insurrection 🤨), but I admit the play made me a real fan of More as a hero, and affected emotionally by the ending. I can only imagine how a 16th century crowd that actually knows the figure and his story really well would have felt.
The play is fine, and the story of its origin and the glimpses it provides us into Shakespeare’s day-to-day (his handwriting, the censorship routines he would go through, the collaborative nature of his profession) are very cool. I’m glad this work is becoming accepted into the Shakespeare canon, despite his minority role in its development. Definitely worth examining by any Shakespeare enthusiast.
The play itself was, of course, just OK (too many cooks, to be sure). 20+ years of history of one man was always going to be too much for one play, and the playwrights had to cut some bewildering corners (like More being knighted and promoted from sheriff to Lord Chancellor in the same exact night he quells an insurrection 🤨), but I admit the play made me a real fan of More as a hero, and affected emotionally by the ending. I can only imagine how a 16th century crowd that actually knows the figure and his story really well would have felt.
The play is fine, and the story of its origin and the glimpses it provides us into Shakespeare’s day-to-day (his handwriting, the censorship routines he would go through, the collaborative nature of his profession) are very cool. I’m glad this work is becoming accepted into the Shakespeare canon, despite his minority role in its development. Definitely worth examining by any Shakespeare enthusiast.
March 3, 2022
This play starts off in a really interesting way with the xenophobic riot against the Lombards. Doll Williamson is an amazing character. Even though she has such a small appearance in the play, her character had a very strong personality and a lot of memorable lines. Things are kind of boring from then on though. More convinces the rioters to accept getting arrested, which seems terribly unrealistic to me. The rest is about how he is promoted to chancellor and then resigns from his position and gets executed. It's a pretty short play, and I guess kinda interesting if you're into the historical context behind this one but I don't think you're missing much in terms of literary themes. Also, Shakespeare contributed a bit to the manuscript which is why this is famous. This is the most obscure Shakespeare work you can find.
October 29, 2024
This is another play from the Shakespeare Apocrypha; according to Wikipedia (and other Internet sites I suspect are derived from Wikipedia) this was "originally written by Anthony Munday and Henry Chettle; later heavily revised by Thomas Heywood, Thomas Dekker and William Shakespeare". I'm not sure what the evidence is for the authorship or the date, and the connection to Shakespeare is controversial.
The play itself is good; it consists of episodes from the life of More, including his quelling of the 1517 "Ill May Day" riots, his period as Lord Chancellor, and his martyrdom at the hands of Henry VIII. The first episode is especially interesting for its speech in defense of immigrants against nativist rioters. The episode dealing with his opposition to Henry VIII and death may have been censored, which would account for the "revision".
The play itself is good; it consists of episodes from the life of More, including his quelling of the 1517 "Ill May Day" riots, his period as Lord Chancellor, and his martyrdom at the hands of Henry VIII. The first episode is especially interesting for its speech in defense of immigrants against nativist rioters. The episode dealing with his opposition to Henry VIII and death may have been censored, which would account for the "revision".
November 17, 2023
I had been given to believe that Sir Thomas More was a curio, and the only bit worth reading was the scene by Shakespeare, but it's actually a surprisingly good early modern play, with an offstage King destroying the life of a good man, and his increasing desperation to keep joking in the face of tyranny and death.
Considering its textual history (given in detail in the Arden edition) and the fact that it was written by two collaborators, and then rewritten by probably at least four others, it is surprisingly consistent in tone, with the narrative of what it's like to be a stranger, estranged or strange, in a world that no longer makes sense.
If you have seen fictional versions of Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons or Wolf Hall, this is a fascinating corrective.
Considering its textual history (given in detail in the Arden edition) and the fact that it was written by two collaborators, and then rewritten by probably at least four others, it is surprisingly consistent in tone, with the narrative of what it's like to be a stranger, estranged or strange, in a world that no longer makes sense.
If you have seen fictional versions of Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons or Wolf Hall, this is a fascinating corrective.
August 8, 2022
A fascinating artifact of its time. Since it only survived in manuscript form, and was likely never theatrically produced in its own era, Sir Thomas More provides unique insight into how the editing process worked in the late 16th century. Additionally, the way it sidesteps its central conflict is a thing to behold. While later generations would laud Thomas More for being a Catholic martyr, no such view was permitted during the reign of Elizabeth I (at least not by the official censors of the time). But this team of writers tried their best—largely by sublimating the drama at the story’s heart. It’s a weird one. I’d love to try my hand at staging it.
March 20, 2021
I read this in the Oxford Shakespeare edition and was surprised by the quality, given that I often am not enthused about Shakespeare collaborations or other Elizabethan dramatists. It does a very effective job of dramatizing More's character as a prankster. This is something that is pretty well known to Latinists, students of Erasmus, etc., but not part of his broader cultural reputation as a saint and martyr. Thinking about the genesis of this work, it is unsurprising that it was not performed, but it is pretty remarkable that it was written in the first place and then preserved.
March 25, 2023
A text that will only get more attention over the years because of some involvement of Shakespeare with it, Sir Thomas More is a divided work, trying to both martyr someone of "popish" sensibilities while reaffirming new protestant sensibilities.
The portrait of More that emerges is, as the play-within-the-play implies, a marriage of wit and wisdom. While not necessarily shown as pious, he is constantly praised as good, and his death certainly seems to be sympathetically drawn.
There are no act divisions in the play. We are just given 17 scenes.
The portrait of More that emerges is, as the play-within-the-play implies, a marriage of wit and wisdom. While not necessarily shown as pious, he is constantly praised as good, and his death certainly seems to be sympathetically drawn.
There are no act divisions in the play. We are just given 17 scenes.
July 1, 2022
2.5 stars
Like so many others, I read this play because Shakespeare played a hand in writing some of it, not because it's a great story. I don't know much about Thomas More, so perhaps I am slightly more informed on that part of history.
One positive note: Mundy (or whomever the primary author was) did a great job of humorizing More and making him a very sympathetic character.
One more Shakespeare play to go!
Like so many others, I read this play because Shakespeare played a hand in writing some of it, not because it's a great story. I don't know much about Thomas More, so perhaps I am slightly more informed on that part of history.
One positive note: Mundy (or whomever the primary author was) did a great job of humorizing More and making him a very sympathetic character.
One more Shakespeare play to go!
March 10, 2019
A surprisingly good play, in part thanks to the skilled editing of the old manuscript. Deserves more attention, and not just because of the part that Shakespeare might have written (though that was, indeed, a highlight).
June 14, 2021
una breve biografia de este tremendo personaje que era Tomas Moro. Yo no tenía idea de su historia, pero hoy sorprende tanta enteresa en defender sus creencia, Tomas Moro, literalmente dio la vida por ellas.
Es un libro muy corto de muy facil lectura.
Es un libro muy corto de muy facil lectura.
May 3, 2018
3 stars for the play itself, 1 star extra for the refugee speech which Sir Ian McKellen keeps reciting in my head. <3
December 13, 2018
That was... extremely dull.
The Shakespeare Project: 35
Apocrypha
The Shakespeare Project: 35
Apocrypha
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews