Perigot. 'Tis a disease few doctors cure themselves of.
At the same time, let us not forget the passages where he shows a knowledge of the law;[292] nor the fact that books have been written to prove that Shakspere must have had a training in this or that profession.[293] The really interesting point about the doctors in Massinger is that they are so often praised as the healers of the mind; the dramatist who delights in drawing gloomy, passionate characters seems to have a high opinion for the profession which [pg 084] undertook to cure “melancholy.”[294] In A Very Woman he takes care to praise and reward the doctor more highly than the surgeons. On the other hand, like most of his contemporaries, he naturally makes the physician a part of the machinery rather than an individual character. Even the doctor in A Fair Quarrel, who takes an unusually large part in the plot, can hardly be said to be more than a carefully drawn lay figure. The same remark applies to the friars of Shakspere.
The chief question about Massinger which interests the student of English is the authorship of Henry VIII. Did he take part in writing that play with Fletcher? There is a great mass of literature on this subject. As one who has read the undoubted plays of Massinger many times, I am bound to say that while there is much in the play which reminds one of Shakspere and Fletcher, I find little trace of Massinger's style. I do not deny that there are one or two slight reminiscences; thus the word “file”[295] is a favourite one with Massinger. We find blushing in the play once or twice,[296] but then we find it elsewhere in Shakspere. Anne's remark to the old lady, “Come, you are pleasant,”[297] is in Massinger's manner, but he may have taken the turn from Shakspere. The strict metre of such a line as this is like Massinger;[298] the same remark applies again:
Surrey. Has the King this?
Suffolk. Believe it.
Surrey. Will this work?
The fourth scene of the second act is a great law-court Scene, and Massinger has several such, in which he may be copying Shakspere. The combination of courtiers in dialogue which we get in various parts of Henry VIII is like Massinger;[299] but, to my mind, the scenes are more clumsy than their parallels in Massinger. Sudden changes of mind are found in Henry VIII;[300] and this is probably the strongest bit of evidence in favour of Massinger's authorship. The characters are not harmoniously rounded off: Buckingham's prayers for the King[301] do not please us; the King's scruples of conscience are not convincing;[302] Wolsey's meekness[303] and piety[304] do not ring true, though they anticipate the picture of his last year which we get in Cavendish's Life—but all these blemishes may be due to hasty work or dual authorship. Failure in representing vacillation and complexity of character is, as we have seen above, a note of Massinger, but the failures of this kind in Henry VIII are marked by a sentimentality which reminds us of Fletcher.
Let us see now what there is in the play unlike Massinger. To begin with, there are many passages in Shakspere's difficult later style,[305] and there is a complete absence of Massinger's sinuous sentences and frequent parentheses, as also of his peculiar vocabulary; there are many flights of high and tender poetry which are beyond his compass; there are brilliant γνῶμαι, such as—
Griffith. Noble madam,
Men's evil manners live in brass, their virtues