each character has, indeed, a life of its own, and is an
individuum
of itself, but yet an organ of the whole, as the heart in the human body. Shakspeare was a great comparative anatomist.
Hence Massinger and all, indeed, but Shakspeare, take a dislike to their own characters, and spite themselves upon them by making them talk like fools or monsters; as Fulgentio in his visit to Camiola, (Act ii. sc. 2.) Hence too, in Massinger, the continued flings at kings, courtiers, and all the favourites of fortune, like one who had enough of intellect to see injustice in his own inferiority in the share of the good things of life, but not genius enough to rise above it, and forget himself. Beaumont and Fletcher have the same vice in the opposite pole, a servility of sentiment and a spirit of partizanship with the monarchical faction.
6.
From the want of a guiding point in Massinger's characters, you never know what they are about. In fact they have no character.
7.
Note the faultiness of his soliloquies, with connectives and arrangements, that have no other motive but the fear lest the audience should not understand him.
8.
A play of Massinger's produces no one single effect, whether arising from the spirit of the whole, as in the