University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
collapse section 
  
  
  
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 

expand section 

Conclusion

We feel that it is possible to draw some tentative conclusions from these studies. To summarize, we have here a MS written in the first quarter of the seventeenth century, by an author who was almost certainly a professional dramatist, whose handwriting (pace Shapiro) cannot be identified with any of the dramatists whose hands are known, who could write very much in Webster's vein, and who used a great number of expressions and images that Webster employed, who was a well-read man, and a careful, even finicky author. If this author was not John Webster, we would like to know who else meets all these conditions. We mean the question seriously, for if any of Webster's contemporaries were able to do all this, it would be valuable to know it. None of the known dramatists seems at all likely as a candidate, but of course we cannot, on that basis alone, rule anyone out. The number of professional dramatists of whose work nothing survives declines sharply in the Jacobean


24

Page 24
period, and we do not find it plausible to attribute this MS to an unknown. Our conclusion, bearing all the evidence in mind, is that the attribution to Webster is not impossible, and indeed that the evidence for his authorship is a good deal stronger than that for some of the works which have been attributed in part to him in the past. The Cambridge Webster will, for want of convincing contrary evidence, include some of these doubtful collaborative texts; it will also include, as a "possible" work, the Melbourne Manuscript fragment.