Part of the material in F but not in the MS -- "very likely never part of Fletcher's papers" (3) -- includes Junius' two songs, fitting for a stage adaptation. However, both the songs and other parts of the missing material make a substantive contribution to the play's content, beyond stage entertainment. Are there additional literary arguments in support of the shorter MS vs. the folio? Does the fact that the added material includes songs matter to a textual editor in ways different from the addition of mere words?

I don't understand your statement that since "F rather obviously represents a non-authorial adaptation, and not an authorial revision, if one is to capture final authorial intention in an edition, one would necessarily choose the MS as copy for its accidentals, but one would also have to turn to F repeatedly for substantive readings" (4). The additions in F are by "not very competent hands" (1), and "the adapter's intervention is ruinous to Fletcher's play as a dramatic work of art while, at the same time, essential to successful performance" ("The Continuing Importance," 43). Whose "authorial intention" would you be representing in this new hybrid manuscript, which would be a collaboration between Fletcher, the adapter, and the editor?