Philip Massinger

by Alfred Hamilton Cruickshank

Appendix III. The Collaborated Plays

The plays in which Massinger is supposed to have collaborated with other authors are here set down, with the analyses made by Boyle (D. N. B., xxxvii., pp. 10-16) and the views of Mr. A. H. Bullen in his article on Fletcher (D. N. B., xix., pp. 303-311).[534]

1. The Honest Man's Fortune. (Field, Daborne, Massinger, Fletcher.)

M.: Act III. or part of it.

A. H. B. agrees.

A. H. C.: I doubt whether Massinger had any share in this play. There are passages of ten-syllable lines in Act III., 1 which are quite unlike him, while 2 and 3 are interspersed with prose passages, a feature which Massinger as a rule avoids.

2. Thierry and Theodoret. (Massinger, Field, Fletcher, and possibly a fourth writer.)

M: Act I., 2; Act II., 1, 3; Act IV., 2.

A. H. B. attributes largely to Massinger, assigning Act III. to an unknown author.

A. H. C. assigns to Massinger Act II., 1 and 3, and with some hesitation Act I., 2; Act IV., 2.

3. The Bloody Brother. (Massinger, Field, Fletcher, and possibly a fourth writer.)

M.: Act I., Act V., 1.

A. H. B. thinks that Fletcher and Jonson wrote the play, and that Massinger revised it for a performance at Hampton Court in January, 1636-37.

A. H. C.: There are clearly three hands at work here, one of whom writes obscurely and uses a good deal of rhyme. Act I., 1 reminds us of Massinger in several touches, especially lines 269-70. The broken lines in this scene are complete, as is Massinger's unfailing practice, but the ten-syllable line is more common than is usually the case with him. While Act V., 1 has some sentences cast in the parenthetic form, the expressions used are less lucid than we expect from Massinger.

4. The Knight of Malta. (Massinger and Fletcher.)

M.: Act III., 2, 3; Act IV., 1; possibly part of Act V., 2.

A. H. B. agrees, assigning Act II. and Act III., 1 to Fletcher.

“Some third person wrote Act I. and part of Act V.”

A. H. C.: I trace Massinger only in Act III., 2.

5. The Queen of Corinth. (Massinger, Fletcher (?), Field.)

M.: Act I., Act V.

A. H. B. assigns Act II. to Fletcher, the rest to Middleton and Rowley.

A. H. C.: Massinger wrote Act I., 1, 2, 3 from “Enter Agenor,” V., 2. Fletcher wrote Act I., 3; Act II., 1, 2, 3, 4; Act III., 1, 2; Act V., 3. As usual, he is responsible for the comic parts. Act V., 4 is a vigorous trial scene, not due, I think, to Massinger. The impression that I get from Act III. is that Massinger drafted it, and Fletcher worked over it.

6. Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt. (Massinger, Fletcher.)

M.: Act I., 1, 2; Act II., 1; Act III., 2, 3, 5; Act IV., 4, 5; Act V., 1 to “Enter Provost.”

A. H. B. agrees on the whole.

A. H. C.: Act III., 5, and Act IV., 5 seem to me unworthy of Massinger. Perhaps a third hand wrote Act I., 3; Act II., 2-7; Act III., 1, as far as “will ripen the [pg 153] imposture”; Act III., 3; Act V., 1, as far as “Exeunt wife and daughter.”

7. Henry the Eighth. (Massinger and Fletcher.)

A. H. B. agrees, attributing a few passages to Shakspere, notably the trial scene of Catherine.

Sir A. Ward thinks that Massinger and Fletcher wrote most of the play, Shakspere only a little (H. E. D., ii., 246).

Macaulay ascribes it to Shakspere and Fletcher, “perhaps revised by Massinger.”

For a fuller discussion of this problem, cf. pp. [84-91].

8. The Two Noble Kinsmen. (Massinger and Fletcher.)

M.: Act I.; Act II., 1; Act III., 1, 2; Act IV., 3; Act V., 1 from line 19, 3, 4.

A. H. B. thinks that Shakspere wrote additions for the revival of an old play, Palamon and Arsett, which came into the hands of Fletcher and Massinger after the death of Shakspere. Massinger has interpolated his own work in some of the Shakspere passages.

For a fuller discussion of this problem, cf. pp. [92-104].

9. The Custom of the Country. (Massinger and Fletcher.)

M.: Act II., 1, 2, 3, 4; Act III., 4, 5; Act IV., 1, 2; Act V., 1, 2, 3, 4.

A. H. B. agrees.

Macaulay adds part of Act V., 5 to Massinger.

A. H. C.: This play owes very little to Massinger. Boyle, in attributing Act II. to him, must have been guided solely by metrical considerations. There is not a trace of his style in the Act. No doubt it is true that Hippolyta is a type familiar in Massinger's plays; and her sudden change of mind in the last act reminds us of him. Again, the mental treatment to which Duarte owes his cure (Act IV., 1), and the praises of the medical profession (Act V., 4), recall A Very Woman (II., 2, 26).

But we have to set a good deal against these facts. The plot is more elaborate, bustling, and improbable than we expect from Massinger. It is improbable that the young men (Act II., 2) should leap into the sea and [pg 154] leave Zenocia in the lurch. It is improbable that they should swim a league to shore with their swords erect in the air, though swords no doubt they must have if they are to behave as Fletcher's gentlemen behave. It is improbable that Rutilio in his flight (Act II., 4) should take refuge in a palace and find himself in the bedroom of the lady of the house. Difficulties of this kind are familiar enough in Fletcher. It need scarcely be said that Sulpicia and her establishment are due to Fletcher alone.

To sum up, if Massinger had any share in this play, he may have given hints or added touches in connexion with Hippolyta and Duarte. The simplest supposition is that he edited the play for a revival. The Prologue and Epilogue “at a revival” contain expressions which remind us of him. The Prologue ends thus (lines 18-20):

You may allow

(Your candour safe) what's taught in the old schools,

“All such as lived before you were not fools.”

The parenthesis is in Massinger's manner.

Again, in the second Epilogue, line 7, we find “qualification,” with which compare “fortification” in A New Way, I., 2, 25.

10. The Elder Brother. (Fletcher (?), Beaumont; probably revised generally by Massinger.)

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

A. H. B. thinks that Massinger revised and completed it after Fletcher's death, but says nothing about Beaumont.

A. H. C.: There are traces of Massinger in Act I., 1 and Act V., 1, in which scenes we find careful metre and a good many parentheses. While Act I., 2 resembles Massinger, it seems to me to have a lighter touch than his. In Act V., 1 we find a speech or two very much in his manner, and characteristic also is the skill with which an ambiguity is prolonged for some time in this scene, and then dissipated. I doubt if he wrote Act V., 2.

11. The Sea Voyage. (Massinger, Fletcher.)

M.: Act II., 1, 2; Act III., 1, from “Enter Rosellia”; Act V., 1, 2, 3, 4.

A. H. B. says nothing about Massinger here. Macaulay doubts if he had any share in the play.

A. H. C.: The metre is throughout too rough for Massinger. The plot does not recall his work in any way.

12. The Double Marriage. (Massinger, Fletcher.)

M.: Act I., 1; Act III., 1; Act IV., 1, 2; Act V., 2, to “Enter Pandulfo.”

A. H. B. agrees.

Macaulay assigns all Act I. to Massinger.

A. H. C: I find no trace of Massinger in this improbable play.

13. The Beggars' Bush. (Massinger, Fletcher.)

M.: Act I., 1, 2, 3; Act V., 1, latter part; V., 2, lines 1-110.

A. H. B. does not think Massinger's part is clearly marked.

Macaulay assigns to Massinger Acts I., II., III., and V.

A. H. C.: I find no trace of Massinger. Neither the plot is lucid nor the expression. The commercial scenes and the beggars' slang are both unlike anything in Massinger, and alien to his courtly mind.

14. The False One. (Massinger, Fletcher.)

M.: Act I.; Act V.

A. H. B. agrees.

A. H. C.: Massinger wrote Act I., a good deal of Act IV., and Act V. There is hardly a scene except the Masque in Act III., 4 which reads like Fletcher's unaided work. The dignified rhetoric throughout the play has the stamp of Massinger; more than that, the character-drawing is like his. The outspoken Sceva reminds us of the old courtier Eubulus in The Picture. The rudeness of Eros to Septimius in Act III., 2, reminds us of Donusa in The Renegado. The continual changes of mind on the part of Septimius are an effect which Massinger loves. (Cf. also Arsinoe and Photinus in Act V., 4.)

15. The Prophetess. (Massinger and Fletcher.)

M.: Acts II., IV., V., 1, 2.

A. H. B. thinks Massinger's share “very considerable.”

A. H. C.: Fletcher wrote Act I., 1, 2, and the Geta scenes (Act I., 3; Act III., 2; Act IV., 3, 5; Act V., 3). Perhaps some hack wrote the choruses (Act IV., 1; Act V., 1) or are they inherited from an old play? The main part of the play is due to Massinger. He certainly had a hand in Act III., 1. Maximinian is a skilfully drawn character on his lines.

16. The Little French Lawyer. (Massinger and Fletcher.)

M.: Act I.; Act III., 1; Act V., 1, from “Enter Cleremont,” with traces of his hand in other scenes.

A. H. B. agrees.

A. H. C.: Massinger can be traced at the beginning of Act I., 1 and in Act III., 1 and Act IV., 5. The resemblances are rather slight, and it is possible that they are due to the fact that Fletcher occasionally imitated Massinger.

17. The Lover's Progress. (Massinger and Fletcher.)

M.: Act I., 1, 2 (to “Enter Malefort”); Act II., 2; Act III., 4, 6 (last two speeches); Act IV.; Act V.

A. H. B. thinks it is “by Fletcher, with large alterations by Massinger.” He refers to the explicit statement in the Prologue where the reviser declares himself to be—

ambitious that it should be known

What's good was Fletcher's, and what ill his own,

a statement in harmony with Massinger's well-known modesty.

A. H. C.: Massinger wrote Act I., 1, Act II., 2. There are traces of his work in Act III., 4, 6; Act IV., 2, 4; Act V., 1, 3. The improbabilities of the plot—e.g., the action of Clarangé—are due to Fletcher. It is clear from the Prologue that the original play was too long. Massinger probably cut it down, by leaving out, among other things, scenes in which Lisander killed his two foes. The play is probably to be identified with The [pg 157] Wandering Lovers or The Picture, entered as by Massinger in the Stationers' Register, September 9th, 1653.

18. The Spanish Curate. (Massinger and Fletcher.)

M.: Act I.; Act III., 3; Act IV., 1, 4; Act V., 1, 3.

A. H. B. agrees.

Macaulay adds Act IV., 2 to Massinger.

A. H. C.: Massinger can be clearly traced in Act I., 1, Act V., 1; not in 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 [pg 160] 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 [pg 161] “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 [pg 162] 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]

---