Talk:Sir Thomas More (play)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Theatre (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Elizabethan theatre
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642 on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject Shakespeare (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

..."two pages"...[edit]

Isn't it Three Pages? I'm not sure, but that's how it's referred to in "Sir Thomas More and Asylum Seekers" by E.A.J. Honigmann in Shakespeare Survey 57. --AlanH 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's three. The Singing Badger 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Influence[edit]

Roderick Spode is generally taken to be based on Oswold Moseley. Why would Wodehouse have to go to the most obscure of Elizabethans plays to find the model for a dictator when WW2 was so near at hand. I have deleted the reference. --John Price (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


My God, what a crock of shit! What idiot wrote this drivel? The idea that "Hand D" is Shakespeare's is so ridiculous that it hardly deserves refutation. We have NO handwriting samples to compare. The alleged "signatures" of Shakespeare have been conclusively proven to have been written by law clerks; they don't even resemble each other. God help us if Wikipedia allows crap like this. 98.215.210.156 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)daver852

The Royal Shakespeare Company and Oxford University Press seem to believe it, so I highly doubt it is "so ridiculous that it hardly deserves refutation." 64.180.40.100 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if the OP has ever seen the work performed? The passage leaps out at anyone familiar with the canon as the work of Shakespeare: it's absolutely unmistakable. Added to the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Afterthought: the reference comes from The Arden Shakespeare series. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Organization of the article[edit]

Should this article be written with the same format as other play pages? I.e. characters, plot, sources, date, text, etc.? Or since it's a manuscript should it be treated differently? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the manuscript is quite significant here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't think the actual play should be as ignored as it is. What I'm trying to hit is a compromise between the current format and the standard format for play pages. Right now it's (after the lede):
  1. The manuscript
  2. The play
  3. Authorship
  4. Evidence for Shakespeare's contribution
    1. Audience perception
  5. Characters
  6. Plot
  7. Performance history
  8. Notes
  9. References
  10. See also
  11. External links
The standard format is:
  1. Characters
  2. Synopsis
  3. Sources — What works influenced the play or poem?
  4. Date and Text
  5. Analysis and criticism
    1. Critical History
    2. Structure
    3. Language
    4. Themes and motifs
    5. Other interpretations (Feminist, Psychoanalytic, Queer, etc. readings)
  6. Performance history
  7. Influences — Literary and cultural
  8. Adaptations and cultural references
    1. Musical adaptations
    2. Screen versions
  9. References
  10. External links
Some hybrid format between the two needs to be achieved to make the organization of the material easier. I'm not saying it will be the final form, but I have found that using some rough template usually facilitates the project. This is an important work and the page up to now hasn't reflected that. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There is certainly scope to demote Manuscript from its current spot; any "hybrid" would need only to slip it into somewhere appropriate in the standard format. As User:Tom Reedy is doing most of the work here, I for one would be happy to accept his proposals. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this still Apocrypha?[edit]

It seems to have been accepted by Oxford Shakespeare, Arden Shakespeare and the Royal Shakespeare Company. I would think that may lend it an air of legitimacy. 66.183.104.162 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Claremont McKenna College study (2009)[edit]

Should this source be considered reliable enough for citation in the article?:

http://www.academia.edu/1324632/Two_Tough_Nuts_to_Crack_Did_Shakespeare_Write_the_ShakespearePortions_of_Sir_Thomas_More_and_Edward

The stylometric study concluded (page 14) that it is, "...doubtful, though not impossible,that Shakespeare could have written Hand D-plus Verse, and especially doubtful that he could have written it in 1593, as some have supposed." This seems to present a view different from that of Scott McMillin, who is cited in the article. Thanks for opinions. Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)