" {228a}
Yet {228b} Titus and Henry VI appear as "revised, improved, and
dressed" by the mysterious "some one whom they called Shakespeare."
If Mr. Greenwood's conclusion {228c} be correct, "Shakespeare" had no
right to place Henry VI, Part I, and Titus in his Folio. If his
"conviction" {228d} be correct, Shakespeare had as good a right to
them as to any of the plays which he revised, and improved, and
dressed. They MUST be "Shakespearean" if Mr. Greenwood is right
{228e} in his suggestion that "Shakespeare" either revised his works
for publication between 1616 and 1623, or set his man, Ben Jonson,
upon that business. Yet neither one nor the other knew what to make
of Troilus and Cressida. "The Folio Editor had, evidently, no little
doubt about that play." {228f}
So neither "Shakespeare" nor Ben, instructed by him, can have been
"the Folio Editor." Consequently Mr. Greenwood must abandon his
suggestion that either man was the Editor, and may return to his
rejection of Titus and Henry VI, Part I. But he clings to it. He
finds in Henslowe's Diary "references to, and records of the writing
of, such plays" as, among others, Titus Andronicus, and Henry VI.
{229a}
Mr. Greenwood, after rejecting a theory of some one, says, "Far more
likely does it appear that there was a great man of the time whose
genius was capable of 'transforming dross into gold,' who took these
plays, and, in great part, rewrote and revised them, leaving
sometimes more, and sometimes less of the original work; and that so
rewritten, revised, and transformed they appeared as the plays of
'Shake-speare.
Pages:
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207