Chapter X: Act V: , 3. The trial scene (Act III, 3), though on slighter lines than he

uses as a rule, may be due to him.

19. _The Fair Maid of the Inn._ (Massinger and Fletcher.)

M.: Act I.; Act III., 2; Act V., 3.

A. H. B. attributes to Rowley and Massinger, and thinks Fletcher’s share very small.

Macaulay assigns to “Massinger and another (not Fletcher).”

A. H. C.: Massinger wrote Act I., Act V., 3 as far as Clarissa’s speech. Fletcher wrote Act II., Act III., Act IV., Act V., 1, 2. The mother’s device to save her son is the sort of improbability from which Fletcher does not shrink.

20. _A Very Woman._ (Massinger and Fletcher.)

M.: Act I.; Act II., 1, 2, 3 down to “Enter Pedro”; Act IV., 1, 3.

A. H. B. identifies this play with _The Woman’s Plot_, acted at Court in 1621. In its present state it is a version of a play by Fletcher, revised for a revival by Massinger in 1634.

Macaulay assigns Act III. and Act IV., 1, 2, 3 to Fletcher. For a discussion of this play _cf._ pp. 129-131.

21. _The Second Maiden’s Tragedy._ (Massinger, Tourneur.)

M.: Act I., Act II.

In _Eng. Stud._, ix. 234, Boyle, with some hesitation, regards this play as “an early, anonymous, and unsuccessful attempt of Massinger’s.” Whoever wrote it, the work is immature.

A. H. C. I find no trace of Massinger in this play, but a great deal of Tourneur’s manner. _Cf._ Appendix XIII.

22. _Love’s Cure._ (Massinger and (?) Middleton.)

M.: Act I.; Act IV.; Act V., 1, 2.

A. H. B. agrees that the play is due to Massinger and Middleton.

Fleay thinks that Massinger altered a play by Beaumont and Fletcher.

A. H. C.: It is to be noted that the Prologue expressly attributes the play to Beaumont and Fletcher. I find nothing like Massinger except a few touches in Act I., 1 and 3. The lightheartedness of the play reminds us alike of Fletcher and Middleton; the romantic atmosphere reminds us of the former, the inferiority of the metre of the latter.

23. _The Fatal Dowry._ (Massinger and Field.)

M.: Act I.; Act III. (to “Enter Novall junior”); Act IV., 2, 3, 4; Act V., 1, 2.

For further discussion _cf._ Appendix XI.

24. _The Virgin Martyr._ (Massinger and Dekker.)

M.: Act I.; Act III., 1, 2; Act IV., 3; Act V., 2.

For a discussion of this verdict _cf._ Appendix X.

25. _The Old Law._ (Massinger, Middleton, Rowley.)

Massinger’s share was slight, and can only have consisted in revision for a later performance. _Cf._ supra, pp. 141-2.

OTHER PLAYS ATTRIBUTED IN PART TO MASSINGER.

26. _The Laws of Candy._

A. H. B. thinks a large part was written by Massinger, and that Fletcher cannot be traced.

Boyle (_Eng. Stud._, vii. 75) thinks that though the metrical treatment is like Beaumont’s, the play is evidently later in date, perhaps due to Shirley. Fleay (_Eng. Stud._, ix. 23) assigns it to Massinger and Field.

Macaulay says “probably by Massinger and another author (not Fletcher).”

A. H. C.: I find no trace here of the Massinger that we know.

27. _The Captain._

Macaulay: “By Fletcher and another, perhaps Massinger.”

A. H. C.: This is one of the many plays in the Fletcher corpus which begins admirably and falls away into improbability. I find no trace of Massinger here, though the incident in Act IV., 5 reminds one of the banquet in _The Guardian_, Act III., 6.

28. _The Cure for a Cuckold_, “a pleasant comedy written by John Webster and William Rowley; London, 1661.”

It has been supposed by Fleay that the first act is due to Massinger. It must be pointed out that a large part of the play is written in prose, and that the verse parts are not like Massinger. If one or two phrases remind us of his style the stage is too crowded to make it likely that it is his design. The real reason, no doubt, for the assumption is that the incident of Clare and Lessingham is similar to one in _The Parliament of Love_. Clare sends a letter to Lessingham in which she tells him she will marry him if he will kill his dearest friend.

Prove all thy friends, find out the best and nearest,
Kill for my sake that friend that loves thee dearest.

But even so the incident is worked out with much variety in detail.

Mr. Rupert Brooke in his _Study on Webster_ (Appendix J) arrives at the conclusion that Webster’s play is subsequent to Massinger’s, both of them bearing a general resemblance to Marston’s _Dutch Courtesan_. The stinging and incisive vigour of Marston’s play is a great contrast to the romantic treatment of the subject in _The Parliament of Love_.

29. _The Island Princess._

This is rather a dull play, though it contains some fine passages and isolated lines. It is well constructed, and contains one or two touches, such as “I love a soldier” (I., 2) and “something shall be thought on” (II., 7), which recall Massinger. And compare “When the streams flow clear and fair, what are the fountains?” (V., 2) with _The Bondman_, I., 3, 282. The King in gaol reminds us of _Believe as You List_; the attempt of the Queen Quisara to convert Armusia to her faith reminds us of _The Renegado_. On the other hand, the metre is singularly like Fletcher’s throughout; the diction in many details is unlike Massinger, and there are no parentheses. Perhaps Fletcher was helped in this play by some young man such as Brome who was acquainted with Massinger’s style.

30. _The Double Falsehood, or The Distressed Lovers._

This play scarcely deserves serious consideration. _Cf._ Appendix XV.

It will at once be seen how precarious and subjective is much of this attribution. For example, to trace four styles in a play is a difficult feat, yet Boyle does this in (2) and (3). Brander Matthews, in discussing the relation of Massinger and Fletcher, has some interesting remarks, illustrated by modern parallels. He points out that collaboration may be either a chemical union or a mechanical mixture of the authors’ qualities, so that it is hard to decide which process has taken place in a particular play. These considerations lead him to doubt the finality of Boyle’s distribution of scenes.

Boyle’s strong points are his argument from metrical details and his intimate knowledge of the texts. I feel, however, that the metrical test is open to the charge of being mechanical when weighed against the impressions which we gain from the evidence of construction, style, and expressions. Massinger constructed his plays well, and modelled his characters carefully, whereas Fletcher, while excelling in isolated scenes, shrank from no improbability which might be necessary to carry the plot through. I am more conservative, therefore, than Professor Gayley, who says that “in _The Spanish Curate_, _The Little French Lawyer_, _The Prophetess_, and _The Beggars’ Bush_ Massinger’s contribution was fully as important as Fletcher’s. The general design appears to be the work of the former. Fletcher fills in the details of comic business”;(535) and that “he has no doubt about Massinger’s part in _The Knight of Malta_, _The Lover’s Progress_, and _The Elder Brother_.”(536)

Next, with regard to style and expression, when we remember the intimacy of the two men, it is quite possible that Massinger imitated Fletcher consciously or unconsciously at some time of his life, and _vice versa_. Or we may put it in this way: there was a certain amount of conventional stock-in-trade common to the two writers, such a phrase, for instance, as, “To the temple” when the inevitable marriage ceremony is to take place. It would be absurd to suppose that Fletcher never used such a phrase as “write nil ultra,” which is no doubt a distinguishing mark of Massinger’s style. Again, Fletcher may have worked over drafts of scenes in the first instance written by Massinger, and there is evidence for supposing that in many cases revision for a revival rather than co-operation is the clue. Massinger’s good judgment would make him an excellent reviser.

It must, however, be allowed that the large amount of agreement between two experts such as Boyle and Bullen is remarkable. We cannot acquit those who produced the Folio of Beaumont and Fletcher in 1647 of negligence in omitting to give their due to Massinger and other collaborators. On the other hand, it might be argued that if Massinger’s share in Fletcher’s plays were as large as Boyle believes it to have been, the Folio would for very shame have acknowledged it; and it must be pointed out that the large mass of commendatory verses prefixed to the Folio entertains no doubt of the traditional authorship.(537)

Believing that the matter of first importance is to estimate Massinger from the plays which he undoubtedly wrote, I have not given above my evidence in full for the impressions which I have formed of the “collaborated” plays. The results of my study of these plays may be summarised as follows: Massinger wrote considerable portions of _The Prophetess_, _The False One_, and _Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt_. His work can be traced in _Thierry and Theodoret_ and _The Bloody Brother_. He wrote the greater part of Acts I. and V. of _The Queen of Corinth_, and of Acts I. and V. of _The Elder Brother_. He wrote much of the same acts in _The Little French Lawyer_, _The Spanish Curate_, _The Fair Maid of the Inn_. He may have assisted in _The Knight of Malta_. He revised for subsequent performance _The Custom of the Country_ and _The Lover’s Progress_. He had nothing to do with _The Honest Man’s Fortune_, _The Sea Voyage_, _The Double Marriage_, _The Beggars’ Bush_, _Love’s Cure_, _The Laws of Candy_, _The Captain_, _The Cure for a Cuckold_, _The Island Princess_. In my opinion, Massinger’s hand can be most clearly discerned in (1) serious plays; (2) the serious parts of plays; (3) the first and last acts of a joint composition.(538)