Philip Massinger Part 8

Wolsey is meant to be great but is really vulgar, while his utter collapse after disgrace is unnatural. The reply is that Wolsey is a mixed character, and none the worse dramatically for that; very able, very unscrupulous in his use of the courtiers tricks, very fond of power; but not wholly bad. His repentance is true at once to human nature and to history.

The king is unintelligible. The fact is, it was impossible to make a hero of Henry VIII; it does not, therefore, follow that Ma.s.singer helped to write the play! Boyle is correct when he says that it is with Henry as it is with Wolsey: we receive our impressions of the characters from the opinions formed of them by others. In other words, the characterization of the play is faulty. Some critics have supposed that this fact is due to loss of mental power by Shakspere; it is simpler to hold the collaboration with Fletcher as responsible for the jolts and jars which the play gives the reader. If anyone still holds that Shakspere wrote the whole play, he might plausibly take the line that Shakspere was experimenting in the new style and metre of his popular young rival Fletcher. If, however, Shakspere in his retreat at Stratford, in days when posts were infrequent and locomotion slow, forwarded scenes and suggestions for Fletcher to work up at his own sweet will, something like what we have would be the result.

Fletcher was evidently on his mettle on this occasion. I cannot prove that Fletcher did not invite Ma.s.singer to help him in such an enterprise, and I know how fond Ma.s.singer was of studying Shakspere. The latter argument, however, cuts both ways. Again, Ma.s.singer may have had an earlier Shaksperian style, very unlike his mature style; but this is pure hypothesis. The evidence which we have does not justify us in saying more than this, that he knew the play of _Henry VIII_ well.(323)

It would take me too far from my purpose to discuss the authorship of _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_ in detail, interesting as the problem is, but as many critics have a.s.signed the un-Fletcherian parts of the play to Ma.s.singer, I have, as in duty bound, read the play carefully several times. There is very little trace of his style, or method, or metre. The only pa.s.sage which reads to me like Ma.s.singer is a.s.signed by Boyle to Fletcher.(324) Mr. Dugdale Sykes, in an acute article,(325) has produced some parallels between Ma.s.singer and _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_; but though one or two of them are striking, they do not prove his case when they are looked at in connexion with the context.

Take, for example:

3RD QUEEN. He that will all the treasure know o th earth Must know the centre too.(326)

Mr. Sykes compares these lines in _The Parliament of Love_:

CLEREMOND. And I should gild my misery with false comforts, If I compared it with an Indian slaves, That with incessant labour to search out Some unknown mine, dives almost to the centre.(327)

On this pa.s.sage I make two remarks: first, such similarity of thought as is found here may be due to imitation or unconscious reminiscence of _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_. A man who constantly repeats himself is surely the sort of person who would delight to borrow thoughts and phrases from other writers, and to imitate whole scenes and incidents. Are we to suppose that Ma.s.singer confined his studies to Shakspere?

Secondly, let us judge the pa.s.sage as a whole; it runs thus:

He that will all the treasure know o th earth Must know the centre too; he that will fish For my least minnow, let him lead his line To catch one at my heart.

Anything more unlike Ma.s.singer than this fishing for minnows cannot be imagined.

Take again the parallel,(328) which alone should be conclusive of Ma.s.singers authorship:

PIRITHOUS. Though I know His ocean needs not my poor drops, yet they Must yield their tribute there. My precious maid, Those best affections, that the heavens infuse In their best temperd pieces, keep enthroned In your dear heart.(329)

In _Believe as You List_ we have:

Though I know The ocean of your apprehensions needs not The rivulet of my poor cautions, yet, Bold from my long experience, I presume, etc.(330)

Though the similarity of thought and expression in the first three lines is manifest, the archaic simplicity of the first pa.s.sage differs greatly from the mature flow of the second.

What is Mr. Sykes theory? If we admit Ma.s.singers collaboration in this play, at the very outset of his literary career, before his style was definitely formed, and when the influence of the foremost dramatist of the age was strongest upon him, the apparently Shaksperian quality of its verse can readily be explained. On this proposition I make two remarks; first, that as we have none of Ma.s.singers early works, I cannot prove that he never wrote in the style of _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_; I can only a.s.sert with absolute certainty that none of his extant works has the least resemblance to it. Secondly, as to the supposed Shaksperian colour of the play, this is a point on which ones judgment varies each time one reads it. There is a great deal in the un-Fletcherian parts which reminds one of Shakspere; some of it is so like his later style that it is not surprising to find that many great critics have a.s.signed it to him; many other pa.s.sages, however, seem just not to ring true; they are obscure because they have little meaning. For let not the fact be disguised, in spite of one great lyric, several splendid scenes, and some fine speeches, there is much poor stuff in _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_.

The simplest explanation of the double ascription in the quarto of 1634 is to suppose that Shakspere helped Fletcher in some way. He may even have written the un-Fletcherian parts,(331) though, personally, I find traces of Fletcher in them also; he may have left material which Fletcher worked up; he may have merely suggested the construction of the plot, a department in which Fletcher is weak.

If, however, the Shaksperian parts be deemed unworthy of Shakspere, why a.s.sign them to Ma.s.singer, whose work they do not resemble? Could no one else have imitated Shakspere except Ma.s.singer? Why should not Fletcher himself for once have caught the Shaksperian manner? Why should he not have confided the execution of a part to someone else who was soaked in Shaksperes style? Why should not Beaumont have helped him here as elsewhere,(332) or possibly Heywood?

The archaic flavour of the play is to me the outstanding fact about it; we know that plays on this subject were acted in 1566 and 1594. The archaic flavour may be due to the influence of Chaucer on the writers; it is more likely to be due to an earlier play having been taken and altered. It might also be due to the collaboration of someone like Heywood, who, though late in time, is surprisingly simple and early in style. The rustic scenes are an instance of this very early manner.(333) If Shakspere and Fletcher took an old play, and the former contributed a few turns to the revised edition, then everything would be accounted for.(334) It will be said that there are scenes which remind us of Lady Macbeth and Ophelia; why should not an already existing play have suggested to Shakspere something which he worked up in those two characters into a far finer result? We know for a fact that much of his best work is based on older plays. This random hypothesis is quite as probable as the supposition that Ma.s.singer had anything to do with _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_.

Let us next consider Mr. Tucker Brookes position.(335) After a searching and masterly a.n.a.lysis of the merits and defects of the play, he ends with a guarded tendency towards a.s.signing the un-Fletcherian parts to Ma.s.singer on the following grounds: The metrical tests give him an even better t.i.tle than his master [_i.e._, Shakspere] to the doubtful parts of our play. To this I reply that style is a more important test than metre.

There are, secondly, the structural and psychological imperfections of the work; thirdly, the tendency to unnecessary coa.r.s.eness of language; fourthly, the feeble imitation of Shakspere; fifthly, the frequent similarity to Ma.s.singers acknowledged writings. The only serious argument against the a.s.sumption is that there is nothing in Ma.s.singer to compare with the magnificent poetry of the un-Fletcherian part.

Let us briefly look at these arguments. The work is structurally and psychologically imperfect. True, and this point might be quoted to support the theory that the play is based on an old and immature tragedy.

As far as concerns structure, Ma.s.singers plays are always strong; so that part of the argument falls to the ground. No doubt his psychology is his weak point, but its weakness is of a different kind from that which we find in _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_. There are no violent emotions of the sort in which he rejoices in it. There are no characters in Ma.s.singer resembling Palamon and Arcite. Mr. Brooke refers to their spinelessness, and it is true that they are not much differentiated. I suppose, however, that he would allow that they start by being a romantic pair of friends, that their quarrel when they first see Emilia is lifelike, and that their subsequent behaviour is chivalrous. When he refers to the really revolting wishy-washiness and ingrained sensuality of Emilia he uses exaggerated language. The fact is, that Emilia is in a very difficult position, and if her character is ambiguous it is the fault of the story rather than of the author.

The tendency to unnecessary coa.r.s.eness of language. This is based in the main on Hippolytas language,(336) with which Mr. Sykes compares a pa.s.sage in _The Unnatural Combat_.(337) I have discussed the supposed coa.r.s.eness of Ma.s.singers heroines elsewhere. In spite of everything that Boyle can say, with his catalogue of twenty-two pa.s.sages, I wonder who is right about Ma.s.singers women, Boyle or Courthope, who says that his portraits of women show more delicacy of feeling and imagination than those of any English dramatist with the exception of Shakspere.(338) I, at any rate, feel that Courthope is nearer the truth than Boyle and his followers.

Feeble imitation of Shakspere. That there is imitation of Shakspere in Ma.s.singer we all know; but I deny that it is feeble, and we know that others of the same age, like Fletcher, Webster, and Tourneur, have delighted to imitate him.

The frequent similarity to Ma.s.singers writings. In the first place, I do not feel that the similarity is frequent; and secondly, as has already been pointed out, what similarity there is may be due to imitation of _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_ by Ma.s.singer. Are we to suppose that the only author he imitated or borrowed from was Shakspere?

The final reservation raises mixed feelings. I am tired of those writers who grudgingly attribute to Ma.s.singer the leavings of other playwrights, making him the whipping boy of his age, and who proceed to qualify their theories by doubts as to his ability to attain to the excellences which they perforce discover in them. I will be so far generous to Mr. Brooke as to allow that the magnificent poetry of the un-Fletcherian parts is unlike Ma.s.singer, because there is no reason for supposing that he wrote any of these parts. Ma.s.singers fame can stand on its own merits without these churlishly conceded ascriptions of doubtful work.

And now let us pa.s.s to Boyles notable article on this subject.(339) Much as I admire his learning and zeal, I am amazed at the perversity of his judgment and the thinness of his arguments. Let us take them in order.

There is a want of development in the dramatic character(340) of _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_. This Boyle ascribes to the fact that, as elsewhere, Ma.s.singers conceptions were blurred by Fletchers co-operation in other parts of the play. As this argument begs the question it has no weight.

Allusions to Shakspere are characteristic both of Ma.s.singer and _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_.(341) Are we to suppose that no one imitated Shakspere except Ma.s.singer? The metrical structure of the play corresponds closely with Ma.s.singers general style.(342) Here, however, Boyle has to allow that the percentages for double endings are not what you would expect. And I look with suspicion on a writer who professes to be so certain of these tests that he can a.s.sign I., 1-40, and V., 1-19, to Fletcher. Ma.s.singer is fond of cla.s.sical allusions, as is the author of _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_.(343) This argument deserves no consideration when we remember that the fact is true of other Elizabethan writers. For example, we find the helmeted Bellona,(344) and Ma.s.singer is fond of the sonorous word.(345) Yes, but Bellona is not unknown in Shakspere. M. Arnold has pointed out that she occurs in a weak pa.s.sage of Macbeth.(346) Medical and surgical similes occur in both.(347) When we come to investigate these we find that the remarks in question are of a commonplace kind. The characters of _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_ resemble those of Ma.s.singer.(348) Theseus, for example, resembles Lorenzo in _The Bashful Lover_. I see no resemblance. Palamon and Arcite may be met with in many of Ma.s.singers plays.(349) I fail to find them anywhere. The three ladies are grossly sensual in their remarks.(350) I have dealt with this point before, and it really amounts to a mischievous obsession in Boyles mind. Let us take the pa.s.sages seriatim; Emilia is talking privately to Hippolyta(351) about a dead girl friend to whom she was devoted when young. In the course of this beautiful pa.s.sage she says:

The flower that I would pluck And put between my b.r.e.a.s.t.s, then but beginning To swell about the blossom, oh! she would long Till she had such another, and commit it To the like innocent cradle, where phnix-like They died in perfume.

I am ashamed to waste words in vindicating this pa.s.sage, which Boyle sets by the language of Iachimo in Cymbeline in describing the mole on Imogens breast(352) to a company of gentlemen.

The next one is decisive of the question of the authorship of our play.

1ST QUEEN. When her arms, Able to lock Jove from a synod, shall By warranting moonlight corslet thee, O when Her twinning cherries shall their sweetness fall(353) Upon thy tasteful lips, what wilt thou think Of rotten kings and blubbered queens? What care For what thou feelst not, what thou feelst being able To make Mars spurn his drum? O, if thou covet But one night with her, every hour int will Take hostage of thee for a hundred, and Thou shalt remember nothing more than what That banquet bids thee to.(354)

Though there are pa.s.sages in Ma.s.singer of which the thought is similar to that presented here, I do not judge it or them as severely as Boyle. The point, however, which I wish to make is this: these lines are typical of what I have called the archaic flavour of the play. Where in Ma.s.singers works will you find warranting moonlight, tasteful lips, twinning cherries, rotten kings and blubbered queens, or Mars drum? The idea that Ma.s.singer wrote this pa.s.sage is quite preposterous; the only thing in it which reminds one of him is the and at the end of line 204.

Lastly, we have Hippolytas words in the same scene:

Yet I think Did I not by the abstaining of my joy, Which breeds a deeper longing, cure their surfeit That craves a present medicine, I should pluck All ladies scandal on me.(355)

Hippolyta agrees in these lines to postpone her wedding in order that the Queens should be avenged on Creon. No doubt the lines are crude, but Boyle goes too far with his cloven hoof, his effluvia of social corruption, his thick miasma.

There is a close parallel between _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_ and _A Very Woman_ in the treatment of madness.(356) I do not see much similarity between the prose of the one play and the poetry of the other, but so far as any exists it is due to the common ideas of the age as to the way in which to treat the mad. The reflections in the dialogue of Palamon and Arcite,(357) on the corruptions of Thebes, the neglect of soldiers, the extravagance of fashion, are allusions such as Ma.s.singer makes to contemporary English life.(358) The allusions are such as any moralist might make, and if the rough and immature style in which they are expressed is not like Ma.s.singers the argument falls to the ground.

There are a good many expressions in common between _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_ and Ma.s.singer.(359) This is the really serious argument; but let me repeat that similarity of thought and expression in isolated phrases does not prove unity of authorship. Let us, however, look at some of these parallels.

Reference is twice made in _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_ to the wheaten garland of brides.(360) Ma.s.singer refers to the garland of a bridegroom in three pa.s.sages.(361) I fail to see the connexion. Notice also that Ma.s.singer does not use the epithet wheaten in these pa.s.sages.

Theseus says, Troubled I am, and turns away.(362) It was quite natural that he should think twice before postponing his wedding. Boyle compares a pa.s.sage where Ladislas is in uncertainty(363):