ii SIR THOMAS MORE.
differs among themselves, and also differs from the handwriting of the body of the play. Possibly it is this muddled condition of the MS. which has deterred editors and students from giving that attention to the play which it deserves and, wider more favourable circumstances, would have received. Dyce speaking of the MS. in his preface says —‘' It is written in several hands, a portion of it appearing to have belonged to a playhouse transcript: in some places it is slightly mutilated; and in others it presents so much confusion from the scenes having been re-modelled aud the leaves misplaced, that considerable difficulty has been experienced in preparing a copy for the press.”
In 1871 the late Mr. Richard Simpson contributed an article,—‘‘ Are there any extent MS. in Shakespeare’s handwriting?” to 4 Notes and Queries, VIII. 1, in which the MS. was wore fully described, and an attempt made to differentiate the handwritings, in which he discovered four hands. Mr. Simpson divided the MS. into two sections, viz.,—(1) The original or official copy submitted by the Master of the Revels for his license to act; (2) the insertions and additions written on a different paper, and in three ditierent handwritings—all differing from that of the original copy, and also differing among themselves. Itis to these insertions and additions that Mr. Simpson principally directs his attention. The first addition is a long fragment—71 lines—priuted in Dyce’s edition as a note on p. 81, and in this reprint as a note to iv. 5, 1. 64. Mr. Simpson considers this fragment as very much in the style of the bulk of the play, and thinks it was probably made by the original author, who
