sign in sign up
<<
Home , A Very Woman, Beaumont and Fletcher, Ben Jonson, Frederick Gard Fleay, George Wither, John Lowin

- AND HIS ASSOCIATES

Donald S. Lawless

A SAE MOOGA UME E

PHILIP MASSINGER AND HIS ASSOCIATES

Donald S. Lawless Assistant Professor of English Ball State University

A SAE MOOGA UME E bltn n Enlh, . 6 ll Stt Unvrt, Mn, Indn 6 O O SAE

® Donald S. Lawless 1967 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 67-65489 r

To Mother and to the memory of Father and Professor Charles Jasper Sisson ..■M■ Preface

T HIS WORK IS AN ABRIDGMENT of Part I of my doctoral dissertation for the Shakespeare Institute of the University of Birmingham (), wherein I treat of Philip Massinger and his known associates. But in this monograph I have, for an obvious reason, been unable to present the de- tailed studies of various members of the playwright's circle, which comprise Part II of the thesis; I have, however, in the notes often referred the reader to this part of the original work. One of the aims of this work is to present as comprehensive an account of Massinger's life as possible; and here I have been able to add to his biography, discovering, among other things, that on his mother's side he was related to the Crompton family of Stafford. I have also been able to show, to cite another example, that the Arthur Massinger who died in the parish of St. Dunstan's-in-the-West, , in June, 1603, was the poet's father. Besides treating of Massinger's personal life and dramatic activities as fully as possible, I have also tried to see him in relation to his patrons and other members of his circle (whom I have been able to trace), who are considered collectively. While it is dangerous to use the term "circle" in a very specific sense about the dramatist's associates, an attempt is made to group some of them and to determine their relations with him. A consideration of Massinger's associates is rewarding. In the first place, a survey of the friends and acquaintances of a dramatist like Massinger helps us to reconstruct, in a measure, the world in which he lived. It reveals some of his friendships and enables us to understand the kind of man he was. Furthermore, when we become aware of who his associates were and of what they were, numerous questions can be legitimately posed, which have a bearing upon the poet's own life. How, for example, did Massinger become acquainted with John Clavell, an erstwhile highwayman? Was he on friendly terms with Thomas Bellingham when the latter was convicted for duelling in 1617? Might he have discussed matters relating to the New World with George Donne and Sir Henry Moody? Might he have met the Duke of Buckingham through Lord Mohun? Did he discuss Ralegh with Sir Warham St. Leger? Under what circumstances did he meet Sir Thomas Jay, who was, to use the words of Sir James Mann, "a rather shadowy figure in the history of the Royal Armouries"? These examples serve to indicate the kinds of queries which arise from a consideration of his associates and, in turn, such answers as may be found obviously illuminate our knowledge of the poet's activities and of his intellectual interests.

Quoted from a letter (23 December 1958) from Sir James Mann, then Master of the Royal Armouries, to this writer. Acknowledgments

To the Cornell University Press for permission to quote extracts from The Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert, , 1623-1673, ed. Joseph Quincy Adams, Cornell Studies in English, No. 3 (New Haven, 1917). To the Record Keeper of Principal Probate Registry, Somerset House, London, for permission to make use of various wills preserved there. To Dr. Oscar M. Villarejo for permission to make use of his Ph.D. thesis (Columbia University, 1953) "Lope de Vega and the Elizabethan and Jacobean ." To the Governors of , London, for permission to make use of MS. XVIII, no. 8. To the Greater London Record Office for permission to quote from the "Sacramental Token Books" and the "Monthly Account Books" of the Parish of St. Saviour, . To the Corporation of Wardens of the Parish of St. Saviour, Southwark, for permission to quote from the Parish Registers, the "Sacramental Token Books," and the "Monthly Account Books" of the parish. To the Shakespeare Institute for permission to quote from its Play Register. To the Folger Shakespeare Library for permission to quote from the Gosse Copy of various plays by Massinger. To the for permission to quote from The Subscription Register of the (1581-1615) and from Philip Massinger's The City-Madam (London, 1658) (Malone 185(4) ). To the Trustees of the for permission to quote from Lansdowne MSS. 63 and 67 and MS. P. 28875. Roy. 18. A. XX, fols. 1-4; Massinger's The Vnnaturall Combat (London, 1639); Massinger's A New Way to Pay Old Debts (London, 1633); Massinger's The Great Duke of Florence (London, 1636); Massinger, Middleton, and Rowley's The Excel- lent , called : or A New Way to Please You (London, 1656). To Canon J. R. Satterthwaite, Vicar of the Guild Church of St. Dunstan- in-the-West, London, for permission to quote from the Parish Registers. vi To Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., for permission to quote from Thomas A. Dunn's Philip Massinger: The Man and the Playwright (London, 1957).

To the Honourable Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ghana for per- mission to quote from Thomas A. Dunn's Philip Massinger: The Man and the Playwright (London, 1957).

To Percy Dobell & Son for permission to quote from A Little Ark Con- taining Sundry Pieces of Seventeenth-Century Verse, ed. G. Thorn-Drury (London, 1921).

To Dr. Alice Senob for permission to make use of her doctoral dissertation, an edition of Massinger's (The University of Chicago, 1939). To the Most Honourable Robert Arthur James Gascoyne-Cecil, Fifth Marquess of Salisbury, for permission to make use of the Calendar of the Manuscripts . . . Preserved at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire (London, 1883-1940).

To Dr. Bertha Hensman for permission to make use of her Oxford D. Phil. thesis, "The Collaboration of Massinger and Fletcher" (The University of Oxford, 1960). To the Historical Manuscripts Commission for permission to make use of various Reports of the Commission. To Dr. Charles Lacy Lockert, Jr., and to Princeton University for permission to make use of The Fatal Dowry by Philip Massinger and Nathaniel Field, ed. Charles Lacy Lockert, Jr. (Lancaster, Pa., New Era Printing Company, 1918)—originally a Ph.D. thesis for Princeton University. To Houghton Mifflin Company for permission to quote from Felix E. Schelling's Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642 . (Boston and New York, 1908). To the Council of the Bibliographical Society for permission to make use of W. W. Greg's A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration (London, 1939-1959). To Johanne M. Stochholm for permission to quote from her edition of Massinger's The Great Duke of Florence (Baltimore, 1933)—originally a Ph.D. thesis for Bryn Mawr College. To the Oxford Historical Society for permission to make use of the Reg- ister of the University of Oxford, 1571-1622, ed. Andrew Clark (Oxford, 1887-1889).

vii To Basil Blackwell for permission to quote from A. H. Cruickshank's Philip Massinger (Oxford, 1920) and William Heminges' Elegy on Randolph's Finger, ed. G. C. Moore Smith (Oxford, 1923). To Professor for permission to use material from his articles entitled "The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Canon," Studies in Bibliography (1956-1962). To the Malone Society for permission to make use of C. J. Sisson's edition of Believe as You List by Philip Massinger, Malone Society Reprint [Lon- don, 1928) and The Parliament of Love, ed. Kathleen M. Lea and checked by W. W. Greg, Malone Society Reprint [London, 19291 To the for permission to quote from Donald S. Lawless' "Massinger, Smith, Horner, and Selden," Notes and Queries, n. s., IV (February, 1957), 55-56, and Donald S. Lawless and J. H. P. Pafford's "John Clavell, 1603-42. Highwayman, Author and Quack Doctor," Notes and Queries, n. s., IV ( January, 1957), 9. Transcripts of Crown-copyright records in the Public Record Office, London, and references to and quotations from the printed Calendars of the public records appear by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Quotations from Trinity College, Dublin, MS. G. 2. 21 appear by per- mission of the Board of Trinity College, Dublin. Quotations from G. E. Bentley's The Jacobean and Caroline Stage (Oxford, 1941-1956) and from "Brief Lives," Chiefly of Contemporaries, Set down by , between the Years 1669 & 1696, ed. Andrew Clark (Ox- ford, 1898) are by permission of the Clarendon Press, Oxford. And "for help along the way" (when this work was being prepared as a doctoral thesis), I wish to thank Professors John Cutts, Allardyce Nicoll, T. J. B. Spencer, Mark Eccles, Baldwin Maxwell, Norman Sanders, the late R. C. Bald, and the late C. J. Sisson, as well as Dr. Eric Ives, Dr. , and Mr. E. A. J. Honigmann. I also wish to express my appreciation for generous help given to me by countless librarians and officials, especially at the British Museum, the Public Record Office, the Literary Department of Somerset House, the Bodleian Library, the University of Birmingham, the University of Oxford, the University of London, Trinity College, and the Greater London Record Office. I want to thank, too, the many vicars who allowed me to examine their Parish Registers. Furthermore, thanks are due to the Shakespeare Institute of the University of Birmingham for granting me permission to reproduce part of my doctoral dissertation. Contents

v Preface

1 Chapter I A Biography of Philip Massinger

16 Chapter 11 Massinger's Dramatic Career

41 Chapter III Massinger and His Patrons

52 Chapter IV Massinger and His Circle

ix • Chptr I A Biography of Philip Massinger

O N NOVEMBER 24, 1583, Philip Massinger was christened in St. Thomas's Church at Salisbury; the entry in the Parish Register (as recorded by Hoare') reads as follows: November, 1583. Philip Messanger, the son of Arthur, bap- tised the 24th. He was born into a family of some distinction; his father was a confi- dential servant to Henry Herbert, second , and, after his death in 1601, to his son William, the third Earl. As has been frequently observed, the duties that the elder Massinger performed on behalf of the Herberts were anything but menial, even though he was termed a "servant." Not confining his activities exclusively to the house of Pembroke, he was, for some time, an Examiner to the Council of the Welsh Marches. 2 In 1588-89, 1593, and 1601 he was a Member of Parliament. 3 He also had the distinction of being a fellow of Merton College. 4 Massinger's mother was Anne Crompton, daughter of William Cromp- ton, a mercer, of Stafford and London. 5 Since she was, as I suggest else- where, probably a member of a Roman Catholic family, she may well have reared her son Philip in this faith—a matter that I shall return to later in this chapter. What school he attended is not known, but it may well have been the grammar-school at Salisbury, as Dunn suggests.° There is, however, no question about which university he attended. On 14 May 1602, at the age of 18, he matriculated from St. Alban's Hall, Oxford, 7 describing himself as the son of a gentleman (generosi filius) and giving Salisbury as his resi- dence. The same day he signed the Subscription Register of the University° and, by so doing, indicated that he conformed (at least outwardly) to the Anglican Church. (Since there is the possibility that his father may have received a degree from St. Alban's Ha11, 9 this may well be the explanation of his choice of college.) Except for the records of his matriculation and his subscription, nothing else is known definitely about his residence at Oxford. A number of older 1 biographers have discussed the matter, but their reports vary. Wood, for example, who states that Massinger left Oxford without taking a degree, seems to imply that at the University he had enjoyed the of the Earl of Pembroke and that Pembroke withdrew it upon learning of young Massinger's attention to literature and inattention to logic and philosophy: . . . tho' encouraged in his studies by the Earl of Pembroke . . . he applied his mind more to and romances for about four years or more, than to logic and philosophy, which he ought to have done, and for that end was patronized.' o According to Langbaine, Arthur Massinger "bestow'd a liberal Educa- tion" on his son Philip, sending him to the University of Oxford, at Eighteen years of Age viz. 1602, where he closely pursued his Studies in Alban-Hall, for Three or Four years space." Obviously, Langbaine's account differs from Wood's. Firstly, there is disagreement in respect of Massinger's means of support while at the Uni- versity. On this issue I am inclined to agree with Langbaine. From what is known of Arthur Massinger, it would seem reasonable to assume that he was financially able to send Philip to St. Alban's Hall; consequently, there would be no need for the latter to seek the patronage of the Earl of Pem- broke at this time. It appears unlikely that Pembroke aided Massinger- even temporarily—as an undergraduate for yet another reason: in a verse

letter 12 to the Earl (after he had become Lord Chamberlain in 1615) the poet, apparently seeking his patronage at this later date, addressed him in terms that would suggest that the two were unacquainted. Wood and Langbaine fail to agree about another point; they give con- flicting accounts of Massinger's intellectual pursuits while at Oxford. But here the matter must rest, as there is no evidence to indicate one way or another whether he was a "dabbler" in literature at Oxford or whether he was a serious student. There is no solid documentary evidence to support both Wood's and Langbaine's suggestions that Massinger stayed at Oxford for three or four years or possibly more. What does seem to contradict their suggestion is the fact that in such a lengthy residence he did not take a degree. I would tentatively suggest that he left the University upon his father's death in June, 1603.' 3 If he had been dependent upon his father, this would make his move from the University all the more imperative; but, parental support or not, the death of his father would presumably involve him in responsi- bilities outside Oxford. After Massinger's departure from Oxford, there is no certain knowledge of his whereabouts or activities for some years, though much speculation. 2 Meissner, for example, thought that some time between the years 1606 and 1616 Massinger was probably acting in Germany with an English company under the management of John Greene, 14 but there is no evidence as yet to support this theory. Sykes" and Bentley" have proposed that he was a professional . This suggestion could possibly be supported by a passage from Massinger's own verse letter to the third Earl of Pembroke-

• . . lett me rather Liue poorely on those toyes I would not father Not knowne beyond A Player or A Man That does pursue the course that I haue ran Ere soe grow famous . . . . —if the reference to "player" may be interpreted in the literal sense. Although company records of the time fail to mention him, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility that he was on the stage, since the records are anything but complete. Whether to act, to write, or to seek his fortune in some other way, Massinger eventually went to London. According to Wood, he did so after leaving Oxford in order "to improve his fancy and studies by conversation." 17 The first record of Massinger after his departure from Oxford would seem to be the "Tripartite Letter," that is, the famous letter which Field wrote to Henslowe and to which Massinger and Daborne added postscripts: W Hinchlow you vnderstand or vnfortunate extremitie and J doe not thincke you so void of christianitie, but that you would throw so much money into the Thames as wee request now of you; rather then endanger so many innocent lines; you know there is xl. more at least to be receaued of you, for the play, wee desire you to lend vs v1. of that, wrh shall be allowed to you wthout welt wee cannot be bayled, nor J play any more till this be dispatch'd, it will loose you xxl. ere the end of the next weeke, beside the hinderance of the next new play, pray Sr. Consider our Cases wth humanitie, and now giue vs cause to acknowledge you our true freind in time of neede; wee haue en- treated Mr. Dauison to deliver this note, as well to wittnesse yor loue, as Or promises, and allwayes acknowledgment to be euer yor most thanckfull; and louing friends, Nat: Field The mony shall be abated out of the mony remayns for the play of me ffletcher & owrs Rob: Daborne J have ever founde yow a true lovinge freind to mee & in sue small a suite it beeinge honest J hope yow will note faile vs. Philip massinger 1 8 That Henslowe advanced the money requested is verified by a receipt signed by Robert Davison," then Keeper of , 20 where the three playwrights were apparently imprisoned. Why Massinger and his fellow poets were in such straits would not seem to be known, but it may be that 3 they had been committed to prison on charges of debt"- (The "Tripartite Letter," though undated, has been tentatively assigned by Greg to the year 1613, 22 and as yet there is no reason to counteract this.) Aside from bringing to light an unfortunate experience in Massinger's life and underscoring his apparent poverty, the "Tripartite Letter" tells us that at this time he was certainly associating with Field and Daborne and possibly with Fletcher. It would seem that the five pounds which was being requested from Henslowe was due to the playwrights concerned for the composition of a play for which he still owed them at least ten pounds more. That Fletcher had probably had a hand in its composition, too, seems likely in the light of Daborne's postscript to the letter, where, as we know, he refers to "the play of mr filetcher & owrs." The title of the play is un- known, although Fleay conjectured that it was The Honest Man's Fortune. 23 Here it would seem appropriate to note that Daborne may, as Greg sug- gests, 24 have been referring to this play when he wrote to Henslowe (in August, 1613 (?) 25 ):

J did think I deservd as much mony as mr messenger . . . . J beseech y" way my great occation this once and make vp my mony even wth mr messengers which is to let me have X' more. 2 6 If these statements relate to the play in question, it is reasonable to suggest that Daborne's share in its composition was slight and that Henslowe thought more highly of Massinger's work. The "Tripartite Letter" is not the only piece of extant evidence linking Massinger with Henslowe. On 4 July 1615 he and Daborne were signatories to a bond, agreeing to pay Henslowe three pounds at his house on the Bankside on or before the 1st of August ensuing. 27 Less than four months later—on the 23rd of October—Massinger, together with Daborne and Henslowe, witnessed the signing of three documents relating to transac- tions to which the latter's son-in-law, , was a party. 28 The documentary evidence just cited presumably reveals little about the extent of the actual relations between Henslowe and Massinger. That the two had known each other for some considerable time" is clear from Massinger's postscript to the "Tripartite Letter," in which, as we know, he refers to Henslowe as "a true lovinge freind." Whatever the extent and length of Massinger's association with Henslowe, this certainly cannot be protracted beyond 6 January 1616 on the latter's death." It is tempting to suggest that shortly after this the poet began to asso- ciate with the King's Men, but this topic is to be dealt with in more detail later. Apart from his activities as a dramatist, which are considerable enough, hardly anything biographical is known about Massinger during this early 4 period circa 1616-1625. There is, however, one item of information con- tained in a Chancery Bill of 6 November 1624 3 ' in which he is coupled with one William Bagnall as a co-plaintiff. The defendants in the case were a Thomas Smith of London and one Tristram Horner. Briefly the allegations set forth in the bill of complaint were these. In Hilary Term 1624, Smith brought suit against Horner in the King's Bench, fraudulently claiming that the latter owed him f 10. 15s. 11d. The charge was upheld by the court, which awarded the complainant a judgment against for the (ficti- tious) debt and 40s. costs and damages. Despite the court's decision, Smith took no action to put the judgment into execution. Meanwhile Massinger and Bagnall, who had been Homer's sureties in this suit, had him arrested and committed to the Counter. Thereupon they went to Smith, informed him of what they had done, and entreated him to enforce his judgment against Horner. On this occasion Smith expressly told them that their obligations to him as Homer's sureties were discharged since they had had the latter imprisoned. This assurance notwithstanding, Smith conspired with Homer to try to secure the latter's release from prison. He also began legal proceedings against Massinger and Bagnall in the King's Bench, main- taining that they had failed to discharge their obligations to him as Homer's sureties. Thereupon Massinger and Bagnall petitioned Chancery to compel Smith to desist from his suit against them. They further requested the court to summon Smith and Homer before it to answer regarding the supposed debt which had prompted all these legal proceedings. Their appeal to the equity jurisdiction of Chancery was based on two grounds: (1) a combination or conspiracy, and (2) a lack of documentary proof to exhibit in a court of law. It may be worth noting here that Massinger and Bagnall's Chancery bill of complaint was signed by a —most probably the celebrated jurist of the same name. Perhaps Selden, who was friendly with many eminent men of letters, including Jonson, was a personal friend of Massinger's and proffered his assistance to the dramatist in his present difficulties. Apart from the bill of complaint, I have been unable to find any other record of this dispute; but, if there were any further legal proceedings, the case may not have been settled until 1625. The year 1625 marked a turning point in Massinger's career if, as is often thought, after Fletcher's death in August of that year he became the leading playwright to the King's Men. If this indeed were the case, then the company evidently held him in high esteem by allowing him to succeed Fletcher, who but a few years earlier had succeeded Shakespeare 5 himself, as its chief playwright. By virtue of such a position his prestige in the theatrical world ought to have been enhanced. During the next few years Massinger's biography is mostly an account of the successive appearances of his plays, 32 which will be dealt with in the next chapter. There is, however, one interesting item of information relating to him in the records of the Lord Chamberlain for this period: a petition (20 July 1629) of Nathaniel Field addressed to the Lord Chamber- lain (Philip Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery) in respect of a debt of sixty pounds owed him by Massinger. 33 The indebtedness to Field is of some importance, but much more significant is the possibility suggested by the document that Massinger, in addition to being a play- wright of the King's Men, may have been a formal member of the company. The submission of the petition to the Lord Chamberlain would indicate that Massinger was under the jurisdiction of the royal household, and how would this have been more likely than as one of His Majesty's players? In any case it seems clear that Massinger was being afforded royal protection. The nature of the debt is not made clear in the petition. As Field was a stationer, it might be thought that Massinger owed him for printing one of his plays; yet none of the playwright's works mentions Field as printer or publisher on the titlepage. A more plausible conjecture might be that Massinger had become indebted to Field for books. Even though sixty pounds was a considerable amount to owe for such an item in those days, the debt might have been incurred by the poet over a period of years; he may well indeed have had a fairly large library. Unfortunately, we do not have any information concerning his library, such as, for example, we have of Jonson's; but a study of his sources indicates the width of his reading. With the Bible he was obviously well acquainted: not one of his plays contains fewer than five carefully applied allusions. 34 It is, however, somewhat surprising, in view of his philosophic turn of mind, that we can demonstrate his intimate knowledge of only one other religious work: Sir Thomas Hawkins' (first two volumes, 1626) of La Cour Sainte (Paris, 1624-1635), by the French Jesuit Nicholas Caussin. 3 5 Massinger's plays afford abundant evidence of his dependence upon classical literature. Greek and Roman historians such as , Dio Cassius, Suetonius, and perhaps Tacitus, Eutropius, Justin, Herodotus, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus," provided him with plots for some of his . Furthermore, he was greatly indebted to the poets of the ancient world, as his plays abound in allusions deriving from their works. , , Juvenal, Lucan, and Virgi1 37 are the classical poets he seems to have been most familiar with. (It is possible, of course, that he could have acquired 9 6 some of his knowledge of these poets' works from secondary sources.) In addition, his knowledge of Greek and Roman philosophy—especially Stoicism—was respectable, if not profound. 38 Of his indebtedness to Stoicism, Dunn has this to say: It is this preoccupation in his plays with Stoic ideas, posing Stoic problems and giving Stoic answers, that goes a long way towards giving a Latin col- ouring to his ethic and impressing a classical seal upon his thought.3 9 Before drawing this conclusion, Dunn naturally took into account Massinger's debt to Seneca. Besides the latter, Massinger is thought to have been in- fluenced by other Stoic philosophers such as , Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. 40 Massinger also seems to have had some acquaintance with Spanish lit- erature. In the composition of The Renegaclo he probably made use of "The Story of the Captive" in Don Quixote, as well as a lesser-known work of Cervantes entitled Los Banos de Argel. 41 If Villarejo's conjecture is correct, The Roman Actor owes not a little to Lope de Vega's Lo Fingiclo Verda- dero. 42 Moreover, the sources of some of the plays in which Massinger and Fletcher are generally thought to have collaborated are traceable to Spanish literature. 43 Among the works which they seem to have drawn upon in the construction of their plots are La Gitanilla," Persiles y Sigismunda, 45 and Don Quixoteu—by Cervantes—and Poema Trtigico del Espanol Gerardo by de Cespedes y Meneses. 47 It must, however, be said that for some of these the collaborators appear to have depended upon English versions rather than upon the originals. 48 Naturally, Massinger was greatly influenced by the literature of his own country. Especially was he indebted to Shakespeare, whose works left an indelible mark upon practically everything he wrote. To call attention to the fact that his plays abound in allusions to Shakespeare is to repeat a commonplace of Massinger scholarship." Equally well known, too, are his imitations of situations and incidents in Shakespeare. 5 ° So vast and intimate was his knowledge of Shakespeare's dramas 51 that it seems safe to assume that he had not only seen them enacted on the stage but had also read them in individual quartos or in the . He may also have been acquainted with Jonson's best work in the Folio of 1616. At any rate, there are allusions in Massinger to and Catilin,e, as well as to a number of Jonson's other plays. 52 Allusions to works by other dramatists are Kyd's Spanish , 53 Tourneur's Reveng- er's Tragedy, 54 and possibly Daborne's The Poor Man's Comfort, 55 Lording Barry's ( ?) Ram Alley," Beaumont and Fletcher's A King and No King, 57 Chapman's 's Tears, 58 and Marston's The Dutch Courtesan." But there would seem to be no doubt that he had read Middleton's A Trick 7 to Catch the Old One, since he made extensive use of it in writing A New Way to Pay Old Debts. 6 ° Finally, note must be taken of the fact that The Emperour of the East (1.ii.24) contains an allusion to ; presumably he had read this great epic, which was originally published in his boyhood." To turn now to the last decade of his life (1630—March, 1640) —we know that he continued to write for the King's Company. 62 His dramatic output" in these years would indicate that he devoted much of his time to his profession. Presumably he was a dedicated artist and was idealistic about his work. Even so, there were probably occasions when, like many another Jacobean dramatist, he was driven to write out of sheer economic necessity. (Indeed, even when he was writing regularly for the King's Men, poverty seems to have been his perennial lot.) 64 In the 1630's he also wrote some occasional poems, the most ambitious of which was doubtless Sero, sed Serio, an elegy upon the death of the fourth Earl of Pembroke's son, Charles, Lord Herbert." During this period, too, he may possibly have written the verses subsequently prefixed to James Smith's The Innovation of Penelope and Ulysses." Doubtless his poem commending Shirley's The Grateful Servant also belongs to this period, probably having been written just prior to the publication of the play in 1630. In his commendation, Massinger praised Shirley's comedy very highly, saying:

Here are no forc'd expressions, no rack'd phraze No Babe11 compositions to amaze The tortur'd reader, no beleeu'd defence To strengthen the bold atheists insolence, No obscene sillable, that may compel! A blush from a chast maidc, but all so well Exprest and ordered, as wise men must say It is a gratefull Poem a good play. 67 In making these remarks he was apparently enunciating some of the prin- ciples inspiring his own writing, and thus the praise given to Shirley has a double significance. That he took religion into account in pronouncing judgment upon Shirley's play is not at all surprising. In his own works he was, as is well known, very much preoccupied with religion; in fact, it colored his thinking even when he was dealing with secular issues. From this, many of his critics have inferred that he was himself a deeply religious person, and a number have conjectured about his formal creed. Massinger was, as we know, baptized in the Established Church. But we cannot conclude from this that his parents were necessarily professing Anglicans and subsequently reared him in the Anglican faith. The fact 8 that they had Philip christened in the parish church may have been only an act of outward conformity to the Establishment. It is, indeed, quite possible that his mother was a Roman Catholic. In 1583 one of her brothers, Anthony Crompton, was arrested and later imprisoned for being a Roman Catholic recusant. 68 About this time, too, another brother, Thomas Crompton, had the grace for his doctor's degree refused because he was suspected of what the Chancellor of Oxford called ''back wardness in re- ligion." Presumably he, too, was a Roman Catholic" at this period of his life." In view of the foregoing, we might infer that Mrs. Massinger came from a Roman Catholic family It might be further suggested that if she were a Roman Catholic, she may have reared Philip as one. In the light of Massinger's plays, the suggestion that he may have been a Roman Catholic seems plausible. In The Renegado he portrayed a Jesuit with great sympathy, making him, in fact, the hero of the play. Needless to say, glorifying a priest belonging to this religious order in particular was a very bold act on the part of a London playwright in the year 1624 when the great majority of English Protestants looked upon Jesuits as traitors to the state. Moreover, The Renegado abounds in references to Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, and the language and ideas of the play are, as Gifford puts it, "strictly Catholic." 2 Indeed, Heckmann was of the opinion that Massinger was trying to glorify the Roman Catholic creed in this work: Denn, wie schon beim iiiichtigen Lesen des Dramas deutlich hervortritt, ist dessen Haupttendenz die Verherrlichung der katholischen Glaubenslehre und ihr Sieg im Kampfe gegen sinnliche Leidenschaft und Anfechtung.73 In he departed from his source (a novella by Boc- caccio as retold in Painter's Palace of Pleasure)" in order to allow Camiola to renounce the world and resolve to become a nun. Interestingly enough, even in , a play which has for its setting contemporary London, he introduced, as Dunn points out, "many Roman Catholic features or details." 75 Auricular confession is discussed in The Emperour of the East" and ;" prayers for the dead are mentioned in ; 78 and the intercessory power of the saints is alluded to in The Picture." There are countless such references in Massinger to the ceremonies, devotional practices, and doctrines of Roman Catholicism, with which he seems to have been quite familiar. But unlike many of his con- temporaries, he dealt with these matters sympathetically, and for this reason, in particular, some have thought it not unlikely that he was a Roman Catholic.80 While I am inclined to believe that Massinger was a Roman Catholic, I am fully aware that this is only a hypothesis and that the question of

9 his religion is still debatable. Perhaps the matter will never be settled satisfactorily. Nevertheless, we can say with certainty that as a dramatist he treated religion respectfully, firmly insisting that it is essential to the freedom, well-being, and happiness of mankind. 87 After a dramatic career lasting approximately a quarter of a century, Massinger died in March, 1640. Aubrey gives a short account of the poet's death in which he says:

I am enformed at the place where he dyed, which was by the Bankes side neer the then playhouse . . . . He dyed about the 66th yeare of his age: went to bed well, and dyed suddenly—but not of the plague. 83 Wood gives a similar account, which reads:

As for our author Ph. Massinger, he made his last exit very suddenly, in his house on the Bank-side in Southwark, near to the then playhouse, for he went to bed well and was dead before morning. 8 3 According to the Parish Register of St. Saviour's, Southwark, he was buried on 18 March 1639/40. The entry in the register reads:

Philip Massenger stranger. And in the Monthly Account Books of the church, there is this entry relat- ing to the cost of his burial:

Philip Masenger strang in the Church g - 2 11 .84 The large sum (two pounds) expended on his burial has caused some speculation. Collier, for example, thought that this amount indicated that Massinger was interred with "peculiar ceremony." 85 And Dunn, Massinger's latest biographer, has this to say on the subject:

. . . on the occasion of Fletcher's funeral he [Massingerl might very well have given instructions for the disposal of his own body, and it is possible that the large amount charged tor his burial was in part due to this request. 8 6 Both these conjectures can be safely discounted. Hitherto unnoticed evidence shows that the fact Massinger was interred as a stranger would alone account for the high cost of his burial: in 1613 the churchwardens of St. Saviour's ruled that the rates charged for the burial of a stranger would be double those for a regular parishioner. 87 According to Sir Aston Cokain, Massinger was buried in Fletcher's grave. Cokain made this assertion in "An Epitaph on Mr. John Fletcher, and Mr. Philip Massinger, who lie buried both in one Grave in St. Mary Overie's Church in Southwark," which reads:

In the same Grave Fletcher was buried here Lies the Stage-Poet Philip Massinger: 10 Playes they did write together, were great friends, And now one Grave includes them at their ends: So whom on earth nothing did part, beneath Here (in their Fames) they lie, in spight of death. 88 Aubrey and Wood, however, say that the site of Massinger's grave is else- where. According to Aubrey, Massinger was buried in the Bull-Head churchyard of St. Saviour's. 89 This view was also shared by Wood, who wrote:

• • . his [Massinger's) body, being accompanied by comedians, was buried about the middle of that ch. yard belonging to S. Saviours church . . • on the 18 day of March in sixteen hundred and thirty-nine. 99 If one accepts Aubrey's and Wood's statements about Massinger's place of burial, it is hard to account for Cokain's assertion that Massinger and Fletcher shared a common grave, as the latter poet was buried inside St. Saviour's according to the Parish Register. 91 It would seem logical at this point to inquire into the matter of whether Massinger left any descendants or not. Despite a lack of positive documentary evidence proving that he was married, it seems highly probable that he did marry, but when or where we have no way of telling. In sup- port of this, there is an entry in The London Magazine, under date of 4 August 1762, recording the death of "Miss Henrietta Massinger, a descend- ant of Massinger, the dramatic poet." 92 If the information in this obituary is correct and if the deceased was a lineal (rather than a collateral) descend- ant of the playwright, then he was evidently the father of at least one child. Aubrey also gives support to the theory that the poet was married, saying that . . . Massing,er • • • was a servant to his lordship [Philip Herbert, fourth Earl of Pembroke and Earl of Montgomery), and had a pension of twenty or thirty pounds per annum, which was payed to his wife after his decease. She lived at Cardiffe, in Glamorganshire. 9 3 I would agree with Dunn that "this statement is too precise to be ignored, or even disputed." 94

t

1. Sir Richard Colt Hoare et al., The History of Modern Wiltshire (London, 1822-1844), VI, 620. 2. Cal. S. P. Dom., 1581-1590, pp. 398, 405; Hermit of Holyport, pseud., "The Father of Philip Massinger," N. & Q., First Series, III (25 January 1851), 52; H. M. C., Thirteenth Report, Ap., pt. IV (1892), pp. 249, 251. 11 3. Members of Parliament (1213-1702) (London, 1878-1879), I, 423, 428, 438-hereafter referred to as Membs. of Pail. 4. Joseph Foster, comp., Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714 . . . (Oxford, 1891-1892), Early Series, III, 1004. 5. P. C. C., 31 Tirwhite (1582). For an account of Anne (Crompton) Mas- singer, see Donald S. Lawless, "Massinger and His Associates," Ph.D. thesis (The University of Birmingham, 1965), pp. 269-272-hereafter referred to as Thesis. 6. Thomas A. Dunn, Philip Massinger: The Man and the Playwright (London, 1957), P. 10. 7. The University of Oxford, Register of the University of Oxford, 1571-1622, ed. Andrew Clark (Oxford, 1887-1889), II, pt. 2, 257-hereafter referred to as Clark. 8. The University of Oxford, Subscription Register, 1581-1615, fol. 110'. 9. See Foster, III, 1004. 10. Anthony a Wood, Athenae Oxonienses . . . , ed. Philip Bliss (1813- 1820), II, 655. 11. Gerard Langbaine, An Account of the English Dramatick Poets . . . (Ox- ford, 1691), p. 353. 12. Philip Massinger, The Copie of a Letter written vpon occasion to the Earle of Pembrooke Lo: Chamberlaine, in Trinity College, Dublin, MS. G. 2. 21, fols. 554-557-hereafter referred to as The Copie of a Letter. 13. Regarding the date of the death of the poet's father, see Thesis, pp. 279-280. 14. Johannes Meissner, Die Englischen Comoedianten zur Zeit Shakes peares in Oesterreich (Wien, 1884), pp. 42-43. 15. H. Dugdale Sykes, a Review of A. H. Cruickshank's Philip Massinger, M. L. R., XVI (1921), 343. 16 G. E. Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage (Oxford, 1941-1956), IV, 752. 17. Wood, II, 655. 18. Henslowe Papers, Being Documents Supplementary to Henslowe's Diary, ed. W. W. Greg (1907), pp. 65-67-hereafter referred to as Hens. Papers. 19. Hens. Papers, p. 67. 20. William Rendle, "," The Genealogist, New Series, IV (1887), 151. 21. See Dunn, p. 16. 22. See Hens. Papers, p. 65. 23. Frederick Gard Fleay, A Biographical Chronicle of the , 1559-1642 (London, 1891), I, 195-196. 24. Hens. Papers, pp. 70-71. 25. Hens. Papers, p. 70. 26. Hens. Papers, pp. 70-71. 27. Hens. Papers, p. 85. 28. Dulwich College, MS. XVIII, no. 8, fols. 114-116. 29. On this point, see Bentley, IV, 752-753. 30. Philip Henslowe, Henslowe's Diary, ed. W. W. Greg (London, 1904-1908), pt. II, 20. 31. Public Record Office, C. 2. Charles I. M60/10 (1624), Massinger and Bag- nail v. Smith and Horner. (Although this document belongs to the year 1624, it has, however, been classed in the documents of the reign of Charles I.) This bill 12 was discovered at the Public Record Office by A. K. McIlwraith; see A. K. Mc- Ilwraith, "'W. B.' and Massinger," R. E. S., IV (July, 1928), 326-327. Mr. R. W. Hunt and several members of his staff at the Bodleian Library examined a photo- static copy of this document and concluded that the signature of the signer of the bill—"John Selden"—was almost certainly that of John Selden, the noted jurist. 32. There is a slight amount of biographical information about Massinger in the dedications to his plays published in his lifetime, but this will be dealt with in the chapter on his patrons, wherein his dedications are treated at some length. 33. Public Record Office, Lord Chamberlain's Accounts, L. C. 5/183, fol. 58': A Petition Book (1626-1637). 34. See Thesis, p. 16 (n. 39). 35. See Peter G. Phialas, "The Sources of Massinger's Emperour of the East," PMLA, LXV (June, 1950), 473-482; and J. E. Gray, "The Source of The Emperour of the East," R. E. S., New Series, I (April, 1950), 126-135. 36. See Thesis, p. 17 (footnotes 41-49). 37. See Thesis, pp. 17-18 (footnotes 50-54). 38. See Dunn, pp. 191-197; Philip Massinger, , ed. Benjamin Townley Spencer (Princeton, 1932), pp. 43-65, 223, et passim—hereafter referred to as Spencer; Benjamin Townley Spencer, "Philip Massinger," in Seventeenth Cen- tury Studies, ed. Robert Shafer (Princeton, 1933), pp. 3-119—hereafter referred to as Spencer (S. C. S.). 39. Dunn, p. 194. 40. See Spencer, p. 46. 41. See Emil Koeppel, Quellen-Studien zu den Dramen George Chapmans, Philip Massingers und John Fords (Leipzig, 1897), pp. 97-103; Theodor Heckmann, Massingers "The Renegado" und seine Spanischen Quellen (Halle, 1905). 42. Oscar M. Villarejo, "Lope de Vega and the Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama," Ph.D. thesis (Columbia University, 1953), pp. 340 ff. 43. See Maurice Chelli, Etude sur la Collaboration de Massinger avec Fletcher et son Groupe (Paris, 1926), pp. 294-295—hereafter referred to as La Collabora- tion; Felix E. Schelling, English Drama (London, 1914), pp. 187-188; Felix E. Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642 . . . (Boston and New York, 1908), II, 205-216, 530—hereafter referred to as Schelling; Bentley, III, 325 et passim. 44. See A. W. Ward, A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne, 2d edition (London, 1899), II, 725-727. 45. See and John Fletcher, The Works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, general ed. A. H. Bullen (London, 1904-1912—not completed), Variorum edition, I, 480-481—hereafter referred to as Beaumont and Fletcher (Var.). 46. See R. Warwick Bond, "On Six Plays in Beaumont and Fletcher, 1679," R. E. S., XI (1935), 258-261; La Collaboration, p. 294. 47. See Beaumont and Fletcher (Var.), II, 107-120. 48. See Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher . . . , ed. (London, 1843-1846), VIII, 373-392; Beau- mont and Fletcher (Var.), I, 480-481; II, 107-120. 49. See A. H. Cruickshank, Philip Massinger (Oxford, 1920), pp. 163-168; The Shakspere Allusion-Book: A Collection of Allusions to Shakspere from 1591 to 1700, compiled by C. M. Ingleby et al. (London, 1932), I, 296-304, 340, 359; II, 468-469; Dunn, pp. 202-210. 1 3 50. See Cruickshank, pp. 77-81; Dunn, p. 203. 51. According to Dunn (Dunn, p. 210), Massinger was familiar with at least twenty-three of Shakespeare's plays. 52. See W. D. Briggs, "The Influence of Jonson's Tragedy in the Seventeenth Century," Anglia, XXXV ( 1912 ) , 277-337; Philip Massinger, The Plays of Philip Massinger . . . , ed. (London, 1813), 2d edition, II, 335- hereafter referred to as Gifford; Dunn, p. 208. 53. See Philip Massinger, The Maid of Honour (London, 1632), V.i.10-11. 54. See Dunn, p. 208. 55. Lacy Lockert, "A Scene in The Fatal Dowry," Modern Language. Notes, XXXV (1920), 291-293. 56. See Philip Massinger, The Bond-Man: An Antient Stone (London, 1624), ff. (cf. [Lording Barry (?)) Ram-Alley . . . (London, 1611), IV.ii). 57. See Philip Massinger, , ed. Robert Stockdale Telfer (Princeton, 1932), pp. 1-39-hereafter referred to as Telfer. 58. H. Dugdale Sykes, "A Source of Massinger's Parliament of Love," N. & Q., Eleventh Series, X (1914), 101-102. 59. Philip Massinger, The Parliament of Love, ed. Kathleen M. Lea and checked by W. W. Greg, Malone Society Reprint for 1928 ( [London, 1929)), p. xv. 60. See Bentley, IV, 802. 61. In my discussion of Massinger's reading I did not think it necessary to call attention to all the minor works which he is thought to have used as source (or background) material for a number of his plays. 62. See below, Chapter II. 63. See Bentley, IV, 755. 64. See below, Chapter III. 65. Philip Massinger, Sero, sed Serio . . . , in B. M., MS. P.28875. Roy. 18. A. XX, fols. 1-4-hereafter referred to as Sero. See Gifford, IV, 596-598. 66. James Smith, The Innovation of Penelope and Ulysses, in Restor'd in Severall Select Poems Not Formerly Publish't (London, 1658), P. 142. 67. , The Gratefull Servant, A Comedic (London, 1630), sig. A4r. 68. See Thesis, pp. 173-174. 69. Clark, II, pt. 1, 157. 70. See Wood, II, 249. 71. Later, however, Thomas Crompton was Chancellor of the Diocese of London and also Vicar-General to the then Archbishop of Canterbury. For an account of Sir Thomas Crompton, Kt., see Thesis, pp. 192-197. 72. Gifford, II, 122. 73. Heckmann, p. 12. 74. See Koeppel, pp. 121-124. 75. Dunn, p. 186. 76. Philip Massinger, The Emperour of the East. A Tragae-Conioedie (London, 1932), V.iii.41ff. 77. Philip Massinger, The Bashful Lover. A Tragi-Comedy, in Three New Playes (London, 1655), IV.ii.36 ff. In The Renegado (III.ii.1-11) Vitelli alludes to the "seal" of the confessional. 78. Philip Massinger, The Duke of Millaine. A Tragaedie (London, 1623), V.ii.261-263. 14 79. Philip Massinger, The Picture. A Tragecomedie (London, 1630), I.i.74-81. In his plays Massinger frequently mentions the saints. See, for example, The Duke of Milan, V.ii.57-58; The Renegado. A Tragaecomedie (London, 1630), III.ii.24 and IV.iii.153; The Maid of Honour, V.ii.266; The Bashful Lover, I.i.36. 80. On this subject, see, for example, Dunn, pp. 177 ff.; Gifford, I, xliv; Heck- mann, pp. 1 if; Ward, III, 10-11. But see also Cruickshank, p. 3; Maurice Chelli, Le Drame de Massinger (Lyon, 1923, pp. 42, 328-338—hereafter referred to as Le Drame. 81. For a discussion of the religious and philosophical ideas in Massinger's plays, see Spencer (S. C. S.), pp. 52 if. 82. John Aubrey, Brief Lives . . . , ed. Andrew Clark (Oxford, 1898), II, 55. 83. Wood, II, 655-656. 84. Greater London Record Office, The County Hall, London, P/92/S/398/3: Monthly Account Books of St. Saviour's Church, Southwark (1639-1640). Accord- ing to Canon Thompson, the "g" in the entry stands for grave (Rev. William Thompson, : The History and Antiquities . . . , 3rd ed., en- larged and rev. (London, 1910), pp. 148, 154-155, 284). 85. John Payne Collier, Memoirs of the Principal in the Plays of Shakespeare (London, 1846), p. xiii. 86. Dunn, p. 49. 87. Catalogue of a Collection of Printed Broadsides in the Possession of the Society of Antiquaries of London, ed. Robert Lemon (London, 1866), p. 43. 88. Sir Aston Cokain (Cokayne), Small Poems of Divers Sorts (1658), p. 186. In Cokain's day, Sr. Saviour's Church in Southwark was commonly referred to as "St. Mary Overy's." 89. Aubrey, II, 55. 90. Wood, II, 656. 91. In the Parish Register of St. Saviour's, Southwark, the entry recording the burial of Fletcher on 29 August 1625 reads as follows: John ffletcher a man in the church. 92. Quoted in N. & Q., Second Series, VI (18 September 1858), 229. 93. John Aubrey, The Natural History of Wiltshire . . . , ed. John Britton (London, 1847), pt. II, 91. 94. Dunn, p. 46.

15 Chapter II

Massinger's Dramatic Career

Part 1

A s IS WELL KNOWN, from the beginning of Elizabeth's reign collabora- tion among playwrights was so common as to constitute one of the dis- tinguishing features of this period of British drama. It occurred in plays written both for the limited audiences of the Court and the Inns of Court and for the wider audiences in the public theatres. This practice of collaboration must be held constantly in mind when we consider Massinger's dramatic career. And, in addition, we must ever bear in mind the associated practice of revision by which older works were made to seem new by the introduction of fresh scenes or by wider rewriting. Massinger's professional career was affected by both these practices: as a playwright he was in many respects a typical product of his times. Had it not been for the system of collaboration then in vogue, he might possibly never have begun to write for the stage. The precise date when he began his career as a playwright cannot now be determined, but certainly we know from the "Tripartite Letter" and its postscripts that he was associating with other playwrights if not actually collaborating with them in the composition of at least one play for Henslowe before 1616. The title of the collaborative play is unknown. The Honest Man's Fortune, as already noted, and The Bloody Brother' have both been suggested, but it may well have been a work which has not come down to us. During this early period when Massinger may have been writing ex- clusively for Henslowe, proof is lacking that he had a hand in any play other than the one ambiguously referred to in the Henslowe correspondence, but it seems quite possible that this was not his first dramatic work. There has, of course, been a welter of conjecture about his participation in a number of plays written before 1616, but no profit could arise from dis- cussing the various claims which have been put forward by various scholars 16 since none of these is based on any sure evidence and several of them are contradictory. But it does seem probable, as has been suggested, that about 1616 he began to write for the King's Men and became Fletcher's chief assistant in the preparation of plays for that company. 2 It is true that his name is not coupled with Fletcher's on the titlepage of any play published in his lifetime; neither is his name mentioned in the so-called Beaumont and Fletcher Folios of 1647 and 1679. Nevertheless, we have the testimony of Sir Aston Cokain that his "good friend" 3 had been closely associated with Fletcher:

In the same Grave Fletcher was buried here Lies the Stage-Poet Philip Massinger:

Playes they did write together, were great friends . . . . 4 In Small Poems of Divers Sorts, where the preceding lines appear, Cokain has another set of verses addressed to his cousin , in which he speaks even more specifically, saying that Massinger and Fletcher col- laborated in some of the plays in the 1647 Folio:

And my good friend Old Philip Massinger With Fletcher writ in some that we see there [1647 Folio).6 Likewise, in a poem addressed to Moseley and Robinson, publishers of the 1647 Folio, he again mentions Massinger's name in connection with it: In the large book of Playes you late did print (In Beaumonts and in Fletchers name) why in't Did you not justice? give to each his due? For Beaumont (of those many) writ in few: And Massinger in other few; the Main Being sole Issues of sweet Fletchers brain. But how came I (you ask) so much to know? Fletchers chief bosome-friend inform'd me so. 6 In view of this evidence, it is somewhat strange that no specific refer- ence was made to Massinger in the Folio itself, but the publishers may well have thought that a volume of plays published as by "Beaumont and Fletcher" would sell more readily than one in which their names appeared along with several others of lesser stature or popularity. Cokain was, however, not the only one in the seventeenth century to call attention to Massinger and Fletcher's literary partnership. In 1691, Langbaine wrote that

Fletcher, took him [Massinger] in as a Partner in several Plays . . . , 7 although he was ignorant of the compositions in which the two poets collaborated; in trying to determine the authorship of the plays in the Beaumont and Fletcher canon, he had to confess: 17 I wish I were able to give the Reader a perfect Account what Plays he [Fletcher) writ alone; in what Plays he was assisted by the Judicious Beau- mont, and which were the Plays in which Old Phil. Massinger had a hand: but Mr. Charles Cotton being dead, I know none but Sir Aston Cockaim (If he be yet alive) that can satisfy the World in this particular.8 In the eighteenth century, critics generally either doubted or ignored these assertions about Massinger's collaboration with Fletcher. Davies, for example, writing a biographical sketch of Massinger in Mason's edition of the poet's works, apparently doubted that these two dramatists had ever collaborated: We are told indeed that Massinger joined with Fletcher in the Writing of a few Plays . . . . But for this interesting Fact, we have no other Proof

than the vague Testimony of Sir Aston Cockaine . . . . 9 But modern research has amply confirmed Cokain's assertions about Massinger's collaboration with Fletcher. Beginning with Fleay in the latter part of the nineteenth century, many scholars have, by applying metrical and other tests, found Massinger's hand in a number of plays in the "Beaumont and Fletcher" corpus. 10 Admittedly, trying to solve prob- lems of authorship on the basis of internal evidence alone is often unreliable and inconclusive. But in the case of Massinger and Fletcher, critics have been aided by the peculiarities of style" and habits of thought 12 of the two poets. Fletcher's verse is distinguished for its high proportion of end- stopped lines and redundant (i.e., extra-metrical) syllables; Massinger's for its run-on lines, metrical regularity, and light and weak endings. 13 As a poet, Fletcher is generally more lyrical; Massinger, graver and more rhetor- ical. Fletcher's poetry is, on the whole, more imaginative and colorful than Massinger's. On the other hand, Massinger was a better craftsman in some respects than Fletcher. It might be noted, too, that the latter was not as repetitious as Massinger, who had a peculiar penchant for repeating favorite words and phrasesi 4 (and this feature of Massinger's work has proved in- valuable to the style-analysts). Apart from these artistic differences, there are others worthy of mention. Unlike Fletcher, Massinger was, as is well known, given to explicit moralizing. Furthermore, the two poets differed in their opinions on a variety of subjects, as Makkink's study of the subject so well shows. 15 It is true that there is some disagreement concerning certain plays or portions of plays, 16 but there are at least several "Beaumont and Fletcher" dramas in which the stylistic investigators often agree in finding Massinger's characteristic style. In the light of these findings I would tentatively suggest that Fletcher collaborated with Massinger in the following plays now extant: 17 The Little French Lawyer (May 1619 < > May 1623 ),1 Sir John van Olden Barnavelt (14 < > 27 August 1619), 19 18 The Custom of the Country (c. 1619-1620),"

The False One (c. 1620) , 21 The Double Marriage (c. 1621), 22

The Beggars' Bush (> 1622) , 23

The Prophetess (1622) , 24

The Spanish Curate (1622) , 25 (1625? ).26 Further evidence of Massinger's partnership with Fletcher is a Stationers' Register entry recording these two, along with Field, as authors of The Jeweller of Amsterdam or the Hague. 27 This play (now lost), which is thought to have concerned the murder of a jeweller named John van Wely,28 may have been written shortly after the occurrence of that event in 1616. Doubtless it was the property of the King's Men, since Fletcher, one of its co-authors, was their chief playwright during this period. Massinger and Field may also have assisted Fletcher in two other plays that date from about this period, namely, (c. 1616-

1617) 2 9 and (1616-1618) , ° both of which were the property of the King's Men. (Without Fletcher, however, Massinger and Field are generally thought to have collaborated in writing The Fatal Dowry (1616-1619), 31 which has often been singled out as one of the more effective collaborations of this period. 32 ) In their collaborations, Massinger and Fletcher are thought by some critics to have worked systematically and to have taken cognizance of each other's particular abilities. Thompson 33 has suggested that the two play- wrights had a fairly fixed (though not rigid) method of collaboration based upon structural division, that is, one by acts and scenes. In many (but certainly not all) 34 of the plays generally ascribed to their joint authorship, Massinger's hand is detected, or is conjectured to be present, in the first and last acts and Fletcher's in the major part of the three intervening ones. 35 It may be that Fletcher frequently left the exposition and denoue- ment to Massinger, as the latter was an excellent craftsman. Furthermore, this apportionment of work allowed Massinger to develop the main plot and his co-adjutor to concentrate upon the subplot (or subplots). 36 Mas- singer was adept at formulating a well-defined main plot, whereas Fletcher showed great genius in the invention of multiple intrigues; 37 it would, however, be an exaggeration to say, as Macaulay does, that the latter poet's strength lay "in the management of particular scenes rather than in the conduct of the drama as a whole." 38 The division of work suggested above obviously gave the lion's share to the elder and more experienced dramatist." Moreover, it is thought by some critics that in these collaborations Fletcher was largely responsible for the comic action 19 and delineated the lower types of characters and that Massinger devoted his talents chiefly to the serious action and the portrayal of the graver characters. 4" But generalizations about their precise methods of collabora- tion must be taken with certain reservations. Occasionally the two play- wrights may have assisted each other in various scenes in such a way as to defy systematic analysis. It may well be, too, as Cruickshank once sug- gested, that Massinger and Fletcher had between them a considerable stock-in-trade which they shared in common." 41 If so, it is obvious that in some cases it would be impossible for a critic to distinguish the work of one from that of the other. Massinger's literary association with Fletcher was important because of its undoubted effect upon his own unaided work, which, as Dunn says, "be- longs both in spirit and by subject-matter to the romantic school of

Shakespeare and Fletcher . . . . "42 Schelling, for example, sees Fletcher as the decisive influence upon Massinger's dramatic art, commenting as follows: Grant to Massinger a modicum of independence in these matters [habits of speech and versification), a certain moral earnestness, and a variety in theme; grant him, moreover, in his two famous , The City Madam . . . . and A New Way to Pay Old Debts (1625), an enlightened fol- lowing of both Middleton's realistic play of contemporary life and of the more consummate constructiveness of Jonson's , and yet this famous collaborator of Fletcher none the less swung powerfully within the latter's orbit and prolonged the practices and triumphs of Fletcherian art in many a fine drama of his sole writing. 43 Even if it be thought that Schelling here overemphasizes Fletcher's influence upon Massinger, whose art was not lacking in individuality," we may well agree that the latter was indebted to his senior and more experienced partner. In his conception of tragedy, for example, he seemed content to follow in the manner of Fletcher. 45 Unlike Shakespeare, who tended to see tragedy, for the most part, in terms of character, both Fletcher and Massinger tended to concentrate more on its outward forms; conse- quently, they paid less attention to the inner struggles that produce tragic action. Their emphasis was conspicuously upon horror and other outward manifestations (with their consequent appeal to the eye and the emotions of the spectator) rather than upon some tragic flaw grounded in character. Moreover, in drawing certain types, Massinger appears to have been in- fluenced by Fletcher. 46 He seems to have followed Fletcher, too, in writing the kind of drama in which "variety of incident," 47 intrigue, 48 surprise,4 " and "romantic interest of situation" 50 were of some importance. (But he did not, as a rule, utilize intrigue and melodramatic situations at the ex- pense of moral purpose 51 and unity of composition. 52 ) Furthermore, in his scenes of low comedy he may well have imitated Fletcher." 20 Apart from whatever Massinger may have learned from Fletcher, his very association with the latter was a signal honor, which must have added to his prestige in the theatrical world. With his contemporaries, it should be pointed out, Fletcher was very popular. Some evidence of the high esteem in which he was then held can be gathered from the encomiums heaped upon him in commendations to the 1647 Folio. In eulogizing him, Cartwright, for example, says:

Shakespeare to thee was dull, whose best jest lyes l'th Ladies questions, and the Pooles replyes , .5 4 Through him, Massinger may have been brought to the attention of managers, actors, and others of note in the theatrical world. Furthermore, it may well be that, if he had not collaborated with Fletcher, he might never have succeeded him as chief playwright to the King's Company. Three other playwrights with whom Massinger may have worked dur- ing this period of active collaboration were Middleton, Rowley, and Dekker. Although of lesser stature than Fletcher, they were, nevertheless, highly respectable artists. Massinger, Rowley, and Middleton are credited with the authorship of

The Old Law on the titlepage of the first edition (1656). Older critics, 55 however, generally assigning a date of 1599 to the play because of a remark in Act III, Scene i ("And now tis 99"), naturally ruled out Massinger as an original collaborator because of his age (16) at that time. But recent critics, on the basis of more reliable evidence, 56 have repudiated this early date for one about 1616 or 1618. During this later period he could have assisted the other two authors concerned. If he actually did, his part in the collaboration may have been rather minor; at any rate, style analysts who have studied the play have failed to find many traces of his hand in it. Perhaps, as some have suggested, he may merely have revised it." Very likely Massinger assisted Dekker in the composition of , which was licensed by Buc on 6 October 1620. Buc's licence, as quoted by Gifford presumably from Sir Henry Herbert's Office Book, reads as follows:

Oct. 6, 1620. For new reforming the Virgin - Martyr for the Red Bull, 40s. 59 Evidently because of the phrase "new reforming," some critics have thought that Buc was giving his allowance to an old play with revisions; they have also assumed that Massinger revised Dekker. 6 ° Both assumptions, however, would seem to be wrong. First of all, it is not likely that Buc would have charged 40s. for examining the revisions of an old play. 61 (In the 1620's Buc's successor, Sir Henry Herbert, who presumably would not have lowered his predecessor's rates, would appear to have charged only 10s. for 21 licensing an old play containing additions. 62 In at least two instances during this same period, Herbert is known to have charged 40s. for licensing a new play presenting some special difficulty, such as censorship, for example. 63 ) It seems fairly certain, on the basis of Buc's fee, that he was licensing a new play which presented some kind of problem. Furthermore, since Buc used the phrase "new reforming" in the licence, it may well be, as Bentley suggests, that the Master of the Revels censored the original play but later gave his allowance to another version, the necessary revisions having been made." Consequently, according to this interpretation, Buc charged the unusual sum" of 40s. because he had to re-read the play. 6 ° Furthermore, the assumption that Massinger revised Dekker appears rather groundless, for, if the play were written about 1620, there is no reason to doubt that the two poets could have collaborated in the customary way at this time, as both Chambers 67 and Bentley 68 have thought. Then, too, both their names appear on the titlepage of the original edition in 1622. Since this edition (as well as another in 1631) 69 was published during the lifetime of the two authors concerned, it would have been unusual to couple their names on the titlepage if they had not actually collaborated." (Interestingly, The Virgin Martyr is the earliest published play bearing Massinger's name.) Later, in 1624, a scene was added to the play, but whether or not Massinger had a hand in it is unknown." In concluding this section we would note that whatever the extent of Massinger's collaborations during this early period there can surely be no doubt that he was amply preparing himself for writing plays entirely on his own and at the same time increasing his prestige in the theatrical world.

t 1. Le Drame, p. 47. 2. See Bentley, IV, 754. 3. Cokain, pp. 91-92. 4. Cokain, p. 186. 5. Cokain, p. 92. 6. Cokain, P. 217 (misnumbered 117). 7. Langbaine, P. 353. 8. Langbaine, p. 217. 9. Philip Massinger, The Dramatick Works of Philip Massinger . . , ed. John Monck Mason (London, 1779), I, lxvii. 10. See Frederick Gard Fleay, "On Metrical Tests as Applied to Dramatic Poetry," The New Shakspere Society's Transactions, Series I, No. 1 (1874), 51-66— hereafter referred to as Fleay (Met. Tests); E. H. C. Oliphant, The Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher . . . (New Haven, 1927), Passim; Baldwin Maxwell, Studies in 22 Beaumont, Fletcher, and Massinger (Chapel Hill, 1939), passim; Charles Mills Gayley, Beaumont, the Dramatist . . . (New York, 1914), passim; Cruickshank, pp. 151 ff.; Robert Boyle, "Beaumont, Fletcher and Massinger," Englische Studien, V (1882), 74-96; VII (1884), 66-87; VIII (1885), 39-61; IX (1886), 209-239; X (1887), 383-412--hereafter referred to as Boyle (together with the appropriate year and volume); Frederick Gard Fleay, "On the Chronology of the Plays of Fletcher and Massinger," Englische Studien, IX (1886), 12-35; Cyrus Hoy, "The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon," Studies in Bibliography, VIII (1956), 129-146; IX (1957), 143-162; XI (1958), 85-106; XII (1959), 91-116; XIII (1960), 77-108; XIV (1961), 45-67; XV (1962), 71-90—hereafter referred to as Hoy (together with the appropriate year and volume); La Collaboration, passim. 11. See Oliphant, pp. 29-47, 58-68; La Collaboration, pp. 32-52; Dunn, pp. 202-266; Frederic L. Jones, "An Experiment with Massinger's Verse," PM/4 XLVII (September, 1932), 727-740. 12. See Henri Jacob Makkink, Philip Massinger and John Fletcher: A Com- parison (Rotterdam, 1927), pp. 7 ff. 13. Concerning the characteristics of the verse of Fletcher and Massinger re- spectively, see Dunn, pp. 263-264; La Collaboration, pp. 33-49; C. H. E. L., VI, 116- 121; Fleay (Met. Tests), pp. 51-66. 14. See Dunn, pp. 211-213; La Collaboration, pp. 236-252; Boyle, IX (1886), 211-233; Cyrus Hoy, "Verbal Formulae in the Plays of Philip Massinger," Studies in Philology, LVI (October, 1959), 600-618. 15. Makkink, pp. 1 ff. 16. See, for example, Cruickshank, p. 162; Hoy, XV (1962), 85-88; Oliphant, passim; Bertha Hensman, "The Collaboration of Massinger and Fletcher," D. Phil. thesis (The University of Oxford, 1960), I. i et passim. 17. The dates assigned to the following plays are taken from Bentley and are those of first production. 18. For comments on the authorship of this play see Bentley, III, 357-358; Beaumont and Fletcher (Var.), IV, 91 ff.; Oliphant, 237 -239; La Collaboration, PP. 65-66, 115-117; Hoy, IX (1957), 150-151. 19. For comments on the authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 417; La Collab- oration, 62-63, 99-103; Oliphant, pp. 220-224; Hoy, IX (1957), 145; The Tragedy of Sir John van Olden Barnavelt, ed. Wilhelmina P. Frijlinck (Amsterdam, 1922), pp. lix-xcvi. 20. For comments on the authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 327; Oliphant, pp. 224-226; Beaumont and Fletcher (Var.), I, 478-480; La Collaboration, pp. 63-64, 109-112; Hoy, IX (1957), 146. 21. For opinions on the authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 342; Beaumont and Fletcher (Var.), IV, 1 ff.; Oliphant, pp. 234-237; La Collaboration, pp. 67, 103- 106; Hoy, IX (1957), 148. 22. For comments on the authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 331; Oliphant, pp. 226-230, 234-236; La Collaboration, pp. 88-90, 151-155; Hoy, IX (1957), 147. 23. For comments on the authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 316-317; Beaumont and Fletcher (Var.), II, 339 ff.; Oliphant, pp. 256-265; La Collaboration, pp. 67-68, 113-114; Hoy, XI (1958), 87-89. 24. For comments on the authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 396; Oliphant, PP. 245 -246; La Collaboration, pp. 68, 106-109; Hoy, IX (1957), 152. 2 25. For comments on the authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 420; Oliphant, pp. 250, 535-536; Beaumont and Fletcher (Var.), II, 101 ff.; La Collaboration, pp. 69, 117-121; Hoy, IX (1957), 153-154. 26. For comments on the authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 334-335; Beaumont and Fletcher (Var.), II, 1 ff.; Oliphant, pp. 114-115, 230-234; La Col- laboration, pp. 87-88, 155-157; Hoy, IX (1957), 148. 27. W. W. Greg, A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restora- tion (London, 1939-1959), I, 62. 28. See Bentley, III, 350-351. 29. On the date and authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 398-400 (from which work the date given above has been taken); La Collaboration, pp. 61-62, 125-128; Oliphant, pp. 372-376, 392-393, 398-401; Hoy, XII (1959), 98-99; Roberta Florence Brinkley, , the Actor-Playwright (New Haven, 1928), pp. 110-120. 30. On the date and authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 352-353 (from which work the date given above has been taken); Brinkley, pp. 121-130; Oliphant, pp. 392-398; La Collaboration, pp. 61, 121-125; Hoy, XII (1959), 97. 31. See Bentley, IV, 783-785 (from which work the date given above has been taken); La Collaboration, pp. 64-65, 135-139; Cruickshank, pp. 200-201; Philip Massinger and Nathan Field, The Fatal Dowry, ed. Charles Lacy Lockert, Jr. (Lan- caster, Pa., 1918), pp. 1 if.—hereafter referred to as Lockett; La Collaboration, pp. 64-65, 135-139. 32. See, for example, Lockert, pp. 8-9. 33. E. N. S. Thompson, "Elizabethan Dramatic Collaboration," Englische Studien, XL (1909), 30-46. But Hatcher in "Fletcher's Habits of Dramatic Collabora- tion," Anglia, XXXII' (1910), 219-231, seems to think that in Fletcher's Collabo- rations with Massinger (or Beaumont) the work was divided on the basis of subject-matter. 34. See La Collaboration, pp. 131-135 et passim. 35. See Bentley, III, 335; Cruickshank, p. 162. 36. See L. Wann, "The Collaboration of Beaumont, Fletcher and Massinger," in Shakespeare Studies by members of the Department of English of the University of Wisconsin (Madison, 1916), pp. 147-173. 37. See La Collaboration, p. 132, at passim; C. H. E. L., VI, 122; Dunn, pp. 55-75. 38. C. H. E. L., VI, 121. 39. See La Collaboration, p. 134. 40. See Wann, pp. 147 ff.; Cruickshank, p. 162; La Collaboration, p. 120. 41. A. H. Cruickshank, Afassinger and "" (Oxford, 1922), p. 25. 42. Dunn, pp. 202-203. Dunn (/c. cit.) rightfully acknowledges, however, that, by virtue of its high seriousness, Massinger's work also owes something to the school of Jonson. 43. Schelling, II, 423. 44. For a detailed comparison of Massinger with Fletcher, see Le Drame, pp. 83 ff. 45. For further comments on Massinger and Fletcher's conception of tragedy, see Philip Massinger, The Duke of Milan, ed. Thomas Whitfield Baldwin (Lan- caster, Pa., 1918), pp. 48-49—hereafter referred to as Baldwin. 24 46. On this point, see Dunn, pp. 108, 128-129; Le Drame, pp. 100-103; Una Ellis-Fermor, The Jacobean Drama . . . , 3rd edition, rev. (1953), pp. 224-225. 47. C. H. E. L., VI, 110. See also Dunn, p. 107. 48. See, for example, Le Drame, pp. 34, 93-95, 125 ff. 49. On this point, see Dunn, pp. 70-72, 107-108, 136-138; Le Drame, p. 182. 50. C. H. E. L., VI, 110. 51. On this point, see Le Drame, p. 95; Dunn, pp. 142ff. 52. On this point, see Le Drame, pp. 182-183; Dunn, pp. 55 ff. 53. On this point, see Spencer, p. 69. 54. Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, Comedies and . . . (Lon- don, 1647), sig. d2y-hereafter referred to as 1647 Folio. 55. See Fleay, H, 100-101; , The Works of Thomas Middle- ton, ed. A. H. Bullen (London, 1885-1886), I, xiv-xv; Edgar Coit Morris, "On the Date and Composition of The Old Law," PMLA, XVII (1902), 2, 67-68; E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford, 1923), III, 438. 56. See Bentley, IV, 890-891; Maxwell, pp. 138-146; R. C. Bald, "The Chro- nology of Middleton's Plays," M. L. R., XXXII ( January, 1937), 41-43. 57. See, for example, Morris, pp. 66-70; Maxwell, p. 146. 58. See Bentley, IV, 891; George Price, "The Authorship and the Manuscript of The Old Law," The Huntington Library Quarterly, XVI (February, 1953), 117- 139; Morris, pp. 67-70; Cruickshank, pp. 141-142, 158. 59. Gifford, I, lvii. 60. See Fleay, I, 135, 212-213; Mary Leland Hunt, Thomas Decker . . . (New York, 1911), pp. 154-157; Dunn, pp. 27-28. Fleay (/c. cit.) to the con- trary notwithstanding, there is no reason to connect The Virgin Martyr with , an anonymous play acted at on 16 November 1594. 61. See Bentley, III, 265. 62. See Bentley, III, 265. 63. See Bentley, III, 265. 64, See Bentley, III, 265-266. 65. On this point, see Bentley, III, 265. 66. See Bentley, III, 265-266. 67. Chambers, III, 298. 68. Bentley, III, 266. 69. See Greg, II, 527-528; A. K. McIlwraith, Some Bibliographical Notes on Massinger," The Library, Fourth Series, XI ( June, 1930), 79-81. 70. For opinions on the respective shares of Massinger and Dekker in the play, see, for example, Cruickshank, pp. 198-200; , The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker, ed. Fredson Bowers (Cambridge, 1953-1961), III, 369-372. 71. Sir Henry Herbert, The Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert . . ed. Joseph Quincy Adams (New Haven, 1917), Cornell Studies in English, No. 3, p. 29.

25 Chapter II

Part 2

P RECISELY WHEN MASSINGER began to write plays on his own remains unknown, but it is likely to have been before 1620, since in that year 's The Praise of Hemp-seed lists his name among a group of promi- nent authors:

And many there are liuing at this day Which do in paper their true worth display: As Damis, Drayton, and the learned Dun, lonson, and Chapman, Marston, Middleton, With Rowlye, Fletcher, Withers, Messenger, Heywood, and all the rest where e're they are, Must say their lines, but for the paper sheete Had scarcely ground, whereon to set their feete.

By this date, or even earlier, 1 Massinger must have been well known and have gained the recognition of the theatre-going public as a dramatist (per- haps in his own right). If the date of his first play is uncertain, so is its title. Many critics, however, have considered The Unnatural Combat and The Duke of Milan to be his two earliest compositions. 2 Of the former work, Malone wrote in his copy of the 1639 quarto, now in the Bodleian Library:

This play ought to have been placed as Massinger's first play, now extant; for it was acted before the year 1622.3 Presumably, since Malone found no record of any licence for The Unnatural Combat in Sir Henry Herbert's Office Book' (which apparently contained no entries before 7 May 1622), he decided that the play had been written prior to the date of Herbert's earliest entry. This does not, however, con- stitute prima facie evidence that the play may not have been licensed by Herbert in or after 1622, since even in Malone's day Herbert's Office Book was not in perfect condition. 5 Indeed, the play's most recent editor, Dr. Telfer, is inclined to assign a date of 1626 6 to it on stylistic and other grounds, including a possible allusion (IV.ii.74-5) to the statutes against drunkenness and swearing of 1624. 7 In his review of Dr. Telfer's edition, McIlwraith notes that the bill against profanity had passed its third reading 26 in 1621 and that consequently the subject could have been alluded to from that time onward, 8 and Bentley, apparently being influenced by both Telfer's and McIlwraith's arguments, would tentatively date the play "somewhere between 1621 and 1625, with a slight suggestion of 1624." 9 Any of these suggested dates would fit Massinger's own allusion to the work in 1639 as being an "old Tragedie."° As already noted, The Duke of Milan has also been thought by some critics to be one of Massinger's earliest works. A terminus ad quem for the play is set by its entry in the Stationers' Register on 20 January 1623. 11 And a terminus a quo may possibly be provided by what Baldwin and a number of other critics have taken to be a likely allusion (III.ii.17-24) to 's difficulties in connection with Wither's Motto and his subsequent imprisonment in 1621. Chiefly on the basis of this allusion and style, Baldwin is "practically certain" that the play was written and pro- duced in the latter part of 1621 or in early 1622. 12 It is true that the allusion could just as appropriately refer to Wither's imprisonment in 1613/14 for Abuses Stript and whipt, but from what is known of Mas- singer's dramatic career, it is most improbable that he would have been writing independently between the years 1613-1616. Thus the textual reference, if it does indeed point to 'Wither, seems to indicate a composition date in the early twenties." If the ascription of The Woman's Plot to Massinger is correct, 14 then this was another of his early plays of independent authorship. This play was acted at Court on 5 November 1621, 15 and, like the two previously mentioned, by the King's Men." In the years prior to Fletcher's death, Massinger sometimes wrote for other troupes. The Virgin Martyr, for example, was produced by a com- pany at the Red Bull, which in 1620 was His Majesty's Revels. 17 There is uncertainty as to the ownership of The Old Law, 18 in which Massinger, as already noted, may have collaborated: it, too, may have belonged to a company other than the King's Men. But it is certain that during this period he wrote the following plays for the Lady Elizabeth's (Queen of Bohemia's) Company at : The Bondman (lic. 3 December 1623)," The Renegado (lic. 17 April 1624), 2 ° and The Parliament of Love (lic. 3 November 1624). 21 In the period 1621-1625 it is possible that he wrote three other plays for companies managed by at the Phoenix (or Cockpit) in Drury Lane: the pieces in question are The Maid of Honour, A New Way to Pay Old Debts, and The Great Duke of Florence, each of which will now be discussed in turn. The titlepage of the original edition of The Maid of Honour notes performance at the Phoenix by the Queen's Servants; doubtless it was 27 written by Massinger for one of the series of Beeston's companies at that theatre. 22 Because of its absence from the extracts from Herbert's Office Book, Fleay thought that it had probably been written prior to 1622. 23 As with The Unnatural Combat, the fact that Malone found no entry for it in the then "mouldering" 24 manuscript of Herbert's diary does not necessarily imply that it must date before 1622. At the same time it should be ob- served that Bentley has decided (although with some reluctance) that the piece may, in fact, have been originally produced before the commencement of the entries in Herbert's Office Book; 2 ' he has tentatively assigned it a date of "about 1621" since this "would raise fewer difficulties than any other date proposed." 2 " Another critic whose views should be considered is Miss Bryne, the play's latest editor. Although noncommittal about as- signing a precise date to the piece, she does say, however, that it has affinities with three other works written before Fletcher's death in 1625, namely, The Knight of Malta, , and The Bondman, and that it may perhaps belong to the same period. 27 In addition, she notes political allusions which, if valid, would point to a date of composition before the April of 1624. 28 Uncertain as the matter is, this last date may provide a terminus ad quem for the date of composition." Indeed, it would be suitable, since about this time, as we know, Massinger was writing for the Lady Elizabeth's. Probably belonging to this same period also is Massinger's most famous work, A New Way to Pay Old Debts, the titlepage of the first edition (1633) 3" of which records performance at the Phoenix by the Queen's Servants (c. 1625—c. 1636) (the successors to the Lady Elizabeth's Com- pany (c. 1622—c. 1625) at that theatre) •31 The best evidence for dating the piece is an allusion (Lii.25-28) to the siege of the town of Breda and its surrender to Spinola on 1 July 1625. 32 As a topical allusion, this would have been particularly apt, as Miss Byrne suggests in her recent edition of the play, 33 between July and December of that year. Massinger could have contracted to write the play for Beeston shortly before July of that year,34 finishing it not long after Fletcher's death in August." This view would not contradict the widespread belief that Massinger became the reg- ular playwright to the King's Company after Fletcher's death. 36 In view of what has just been said about Massinger's position with the King's Company after the death of Fletcher, it is puzzling that on 5 July 1627 a play generally thought to be his was licensed for the Queen's Servants. 37 The Great Duke, licensed by Herbert on that date, has gen- erally been assumed to be Massinger's The Great Duke of Florence, 38 the titlepage of the first edition (1636) of which records performance at the Phoenix by the Queen's Servants (Queen Henrietta's Men). Was The 28 Great Duke, to which Herbert apparently assigned no author in his licence, an abbreviated title for Massinger's The Great Duke of Florence? Probably so. For the Queen's Company, as Bentley remarks, presumably would not have confused their audiences with two plays of such marked similarity of title." Assuming that Herbert's licence does refer to The Great Duke of Florence, a number of critics" have thought, however, that the piece was written by Massinger before Fletcher's death. For example, Miss Stoch- holm, the play's most recent editor, believes that it may be "safely" dated sometime between October, 1623, and March, 1625. 41 Her dating is based chiefly on what she takes to be political allusions and references to public figures during the period in question. 42 Although some of her "evidence" may be dismissed as being negligible or farfetched, she may well be correct in saying that Prince Charles's return from Spain in October, 1623, is being alluded to in Act II, Scene i (11. 93 ff.).43 This allusion would have been apt from that time until, presumably, Charles's accession to the throne in 1625. It may be, then, that the play was written for the Lady Elizabeth's during the period suggested by Miss Stochholm, when Massinger is known to have been writing for this company. But, if this were so, why was the licence delayed for so long? Dunn explains the matter thus:

The hold-up in the production of the play can easily be accounted for if we remember the upset following the King's death and the reorganisation of the theatrical companies at this time, the ravages of the plague in 1625, and the return of Massinger . . . to the King's Men. 44 But Bentley, while recognizing that "the period of mourning for James I, the long plague-closing of 1625, and the confused status of Lady Elizabeth's men" 45 caused delay in licensing at the time, felt that two years was too long. He did, nevertheless, pose this interesting question: "Is it possible that Herbert's licence, which does not mention the fee, was a licence for revision and not a first allowance?" 49 He felt that the interval between the licensing of this play and of The Ju,dge47 (for the King's Men)—which amounted to only a month—might suggest that. 48 In dating the piece, he has accepted the date of Herbert's licence, "but with serious misgivings." 49 To sum up, there is obviously confusion about the date of the play. An early dating would satisfy those who believe that upon Fletcher's death or shortly thereafter Massinger succeeded him as chief poet to the King's Company. It is conceivable, however, that he did write The Great Duke of Florence for the Queen's Company in 1627. In the light of the foregoing, it is evident that Massinger's connections with companies under Beeston's management at the Phoenix are somewhat confusing. It seems possible that Beeston might have first secured Massinger's services for the Lady Elizabeth's (Queen of Bohemia's) immediately 29 after their initial appearance in London about 1622. 50 At any rate, as we know, he wrote at least three plays for them in 1623 and 1624 and, as previously suggested, may also have written a couple of others for them. Here it would not seem out of order to point out that during this time Beeston engaged the services of some of the most important dramatists of the day, including Middleton, Rowley, Dekker, Heywood, Ford, and Shirley," and it appears possible that he may have induced the poet to cease writ- ing for the King's Company temporarily and, more particularly, to cease collaboration with Fletcher. Although some of the plays thought to be of Massinger and Fletcher's joint authorship fall within this period (1622 or '23-1625), it may be that they have not been properly dated; if so, this would suggest that Massinger severed his connections with the King's Men during these years and wrote exclusively for Beeston. 52 With Queen Henrietta's Men, successors to the Lady Elizabeth's at the Phoenix about 1625, Massinger's relations, if any, are confusing. Before Fletcher's death, Massinger may, as previously suggested, have contracted with Beeston to write A New Way to Pay Old Debts, which was prob- ably first produced by Queen Henrietta's Company. The licensing of The Great Duke [of Florence?} to this company in 1627 has been dis- cussed. About this time, too, it is just conceivable that Massinger may have composed one or two other works that I have been disposed to date earlier. His connections with the King's Company, the great rivals of the Queen's Men, are happily more certain. Mention has been made that he may well have begun to write for the King's about 1616, becoming Fletcher's chief assistant in the preparation of plays for the company. Sug- gested collaborations with the latter, as well as a number of his own independent works for the company, have already been referred to. My previous conjecture that in 1622 or 1623 he may have left them to work exclusively for I3eeston would seem worth repeating here. After this temporary absence, he returned to the company after the death of Fletcher, many critics believe, to become their chief poet.'" With few possible ex- ceptions, all his extant works written after 1625 were for the King's Men, approximately half of his lost plays composed after that date are known to have belonged to this company, and of the others none is known to have been the property of any other company. 54 It now remains to deal more particularly with these works written for the King's Company after 1625. On 11 October 1626, 55 The Roman Actor was licensed, and this play he admired to the point of acknowledging pub- licly: "I euer held it the most perfit birth of my Minerua . . ." 56 During the next six years, the following plays with which Massinger's name 30 can be connected were licensed to the same company, with the possible exception of The Honour of Women: The Judge (lic. 6 June 1627) ,5 t The Honour of Women (lic. 6 May 1628)," The Picture (lic. 8 June 1629), 59 Minerva's Sacrifice (lic. 3 November 1629), 60 The Emperour of the East (lic. 11 March 1630, 61 Believe as You List (lic. 6 or 7 May 1631),62 The Unfortunate Piety (lic. 13 June 1630, 63 The City Madam (lic. 25 May 1632). 64 , which appears to have been Massinger's next work for the King's Company, was not licensed until 31 October 1633. 65 As can be seen, there is quite an interval between the licensing of this work and the previous one, The City Madam. Interestingly enough, the poet himself would seem to explain the matter in the to The Guardian, where he writes:

AFter twice putting forth to Sea, his Fame Shipwrack'd in either, and his once known Name In two years silence buried, perhaps lost I' the general opinion; at our cost (A zealous sacrifice to Neptune made For good success in his uncertain trade) Our Author weighs up anchors, and once more Forsaking the security of the shore, Resolves to prove his fortune . . . . In these lines Massinger is apparently saying that his last two plays had failed and that he had ceased writing for two years. Presumably he was speaking approximately and not with mathematical exactitude in the Pro- logue, for the interval between the licensing of The City Madam and The Guardian was only seventeen months, not two full calendar years. Chiefly as a consequence of a literal interpretation of the poet's statement, a num- ber of critics have thought that The City Madam was composed some years before Herbert's licence," but there would seem to be no valid reason for not supposing that the two plays alluded to in the Prologue were The Un- fortunate Piety and The City Madam." After The Guardian, the following plays that can be associated with Massinger were also licensed to the King's Company, again with a possible exception, namely, The King and the Subject:

The Tragedy of Cleander (lic. 7 May I634), 68 (almost certainly a revision of an earlier play) (lic. 6 June 1634), 69

31 The Orator (lic. 10 January 1635)," The Bashful Lover (lic. 9 May 1636), 7 ' The King and the Subject (The Tyrant after reformation? ) 72 (lic. 5 June 1638)," Alexius, or The Chaste Lover (lic. 25 September 1639), 74 The Fair Anchoress of Pausilippo (lic. 26 January 1640). 75 Of the works just listed, A Very Woman may have been a revision by Massinger of one of his former collaborations with Fletcher," or perhaps his revision of a Fletcher original. 77 The uncertain state of the evidence, however, would preclude our trying to identify the title of the original piece. Another play listed above, Cleander, is thought by Fleay 78 and Bent- The Wandering Lovers, which ley79 to be Massinger's revision of Fletcher's these two critics further identify with The Lovers' Progress, although Greg is sceptical concerning this hypothesis. 8 ° It is possible that other plays received revision at his hands. Various stylistic studies suggest that among 82 , these were Voyage, 81 Love's Cure, or The Martial Maid, Duke of Normandy, or The Bloody Brother. 83 The Massinger canon is further complicated by two sets of entries made in the Stationers' Register by Moseley. On 9 September 1653, he entered a long list of plays, including the following "by Phill: Massinger": The Noble Choice, or the Orator, The Wandring Louers, or ye Painter. The Italian Night peece, or The Vnfortunate, [sic) Piety, Alexius the Chast Gallant, or [sic) The Bashfull Lover, A Very Woman, or ye Womans Plot, The Judge, or Beleiue, [sic) as you list, The Prisoner, or ye Faire Anchoress, The Citie honest man, or ye Guardian. , or the Honor: of Women, Minerva's Sacrifice, or ye Forc'd Lady. 84 Several of the above entries are definitely known to be fraudulent couplings of two plays as title and subtitle. For example, The Bashful Lover and Alexius, or The Chaste Lover [Gallant) were licensed separately by Herbert; furthermore, they were listed as different plays when they were protected for the King's Men by the Lord Chamberlain in 1641. 85 Another case in point is Moseley's entry of "Minerva's Sacrifice, or ye Forc'd Lady": In 1641 "The forc'd Lady" and "Mineruae's sacrifice" appeared as two distinct works in the list of King's Men's plays protected by the Lord Chamber-

lain 86 It would seem unnecessary, however, to dwell at length upon all the other inconsistencies in Moseley's long S. R. entry of 1653, since the 32 questionable character of so many of the double titles attributed to Mas- singer is well recognized. But it would seem in order to note here the conjecture of Bentley and others that Moseley's ten attributions to Mas- singer (each of which has a double title) may actually represent twenty plays. 8 7 On 29 June 1660, Moseley again entered another list of plays in the Stationers' Register, including the following "by Phillip Massinger": An- tonio & Vallia, The Bashful Lovers, Believe as you list, The Prisoners, Fast & Welcome, The forced Lady, The Gardian, The Honour of Women, Philenzo & Hypollita, The Tyrant, and The Womans Plott. 88 As can be seen, a number of the main titles or subtitles in Moseley's long S. R. entry of 1653 also appear in the list just given, and this would seem to confirm, in part, what has been said about the questionable nature of many, or perhaps all, of the alternate titles in his earlier entry. It ought to be pointed out, too, that a number of the plays listed above, such as Fast and Welcome and Philenzo and Hypollita, are known only by Moseley's S. R. entries and Warburton's list,89 the questionable character of which is well known. These late entries in the Stationers' Register, to say nothing of the problems of Massinger's collaborations and revisions, make it impossible to determine the exact number of plays that the dramatist had something to do with. But, judging on the basis of his known works in the course of a dramatic career which extended roughly from about the time of the retire- ment of Shakespeare from the stage until a couple of years before the closing of the theatres in 1642, I would estimate (conservatively) that he was connected in some way with at least fifty plays. 9" Naturally, most of his works were for the King's Company, for which he wrote, on an average, one or (more often) two compositions a year from 1626 onward." During such a long theatrical career, he had, as is to be expected at this time, some difficulties with censorship. In 1619, Sir John van Olden Barnavelt, one of his suggested collaborations with Fletcher, was censored by the Master of the Revels, Sir George Buc, 92 and later the Bishop of London ordered the first ( ?) performance stopped," although within a very short time the actors were allowed to perform it. 94 Later, in early 1631, he also had trouble with the Master of the Revels, when a licence was denied to one of his plays. In his Office Book, Herbert referred to the matter as follows: This day being the 11 of Janu. 1630 [1631], I did refuse to allow of a play of Messinger's because itt did contain dangerous matter, as the de- posing of Sebastian King of Portugal, by Philip the [Second,] and ther being a peace sworen twixte the kings of England and Spayne. I had my fee notwithstandinge, which belongs to me for reading itt over, and ought to be brought always with the booke. 95

33 It is almost a certainty that the play in question was Believe as You List, 96 licensed, as noted, in May of the same year. Once more, in 1638, he had difficulties over The King and the Subject. In this instance he had to change the very title of the play and to make other alterations to it before Herbert licensed it." Indeed, King Charles himself (to whom Herbert presumably submitted it) objected to a certain passage, saying: This is too insolent, and to bee changed." 98 The objectionable lines, which Herbert recorded, read as follows:

Monys? Wee'le rayse supplies what ways we please, And force you to subscribe to blanks, in which We'le mulct you as wee shall thinke fits. The Caesars In Rome were wise, acknowledginge no lawes But what their swords did ratifye, the wives And daughters of the senators bowinge to Their Wills, as deities, &c. 99 According to the Master of the Revels, these lines were spoken by Don Pedro, King of Spain, to his subjects. Evidently Charles objected to the political overtones of this passage. The title of this play after reformation is unknown, but some have suggested The Tyrant, which was ascribed to Massinger by Moseley and Warburton.'" Besides censorship, Massinger also had to contend with criticism. It would appear certain that he was having difficulty with critics early in the 1630's. 101 In this connection it is necessary to recall the Prologue to The Guardian (lic. 31 October 1633), where he spoke of his "two years silence" and seemingly alluded to the failure of his last two plays. Here he directly refers to adverse criticism directed at his work:

. . . He submits To the grave censure of those abler His weakness: nor dares he profess that when The Critiques laugh, he'l laugh at them agen. (Strange self-love in a writer!) He would know His errors as you find 'em, and bestow His future studies to reform from this What in another might be judg'd amiss. In the two to The Emperour of the East, he definitely com- plained of adverse criticism. In the Court Prologue he stated that the play had "sujjer'd by the rage, / And enuie of some Catos of the Stage" who had seen it "With sore eyes, and [had) condemn'd [it) out of their spleen"; and in the Blackfriars Prologue he referred pointedly to criticism of his work in general:

BUT that imperious custome warrants it, Our Author with much willingnes would omit This Preface to his new worke. Hee bath found 34 (And suffer'd for't) many are apt to wound His credit in this kind: and whether bee, Expresso himselfe fearefull, or peremptorie, Hen cannot scape their censures who delight To misapplie what euer hee shall write. Tis his hard fate.

That he had his detractors would seem to be borne out by a number of the commendations to his works published during this time. In verses prefixed to the first edition (1632) of The Emperour of the East, for example, Singleton hints that the play had been condemned by some. To this same perioc1 102 also may belong Henry Parker's poem "To his honod: frend Mr. Phillip Massinger, having not had that just applause for one of his playes weh was due to him " 1 °3 Even after the early thirties Massinger's work may have been subject to further criticism. This is suggested in the Prologue to The Bashful Lover (lic. 9 May 1636):

. . . 'Tis no crime He hopes, as we do in this curious time, To be a little diffident, when we are To please so many with one Bill of Fare. Let others, building on their merit, say Y'are in the wrong, if you move not that way Which they prescribe you, as you were bound to learn Their maximes, but uncapable to discern 'Twixt truth and falshood. Ours had rather be Censur'd by some, for too much obsequy, Then tax'd of self-opinion . . .

It may be that in the composition of The Bashful Lover Massinger was trying to please his critics: in the Epilogue to the play (where he is re- ferred to as "A strange old Fellow") it is stated that his "sullen mood/Would quickly leave him" if his audience would only be pleased. Harbage has suggested that this work is unlike Massinger's older plays, being in the tradition of the courtly drama.'" Harbage thought, furthermore, judging from the titles of the poet's later compositions (no longer extant) "that the Cavalier mode may have diverted his concluding work into a new phase." 105 This conjecture, while interesting, is obviously incapable of proof. But it should not be supposed that most of Massinger's plays were ill received. In the Dedicatory Epistle to The Picture the poet himself states that the play met with "generall approbation." It would appear likely from the Dedication to The Bondman that it, too, was a success upon the stage. Furthermore, the fact that some of Massinger's plays were protected by the Lord Chamberlain would suggest that they had been staged successfully. In 1639 the Lord Chamberlain issued an edict protecting, among others, the 35 following plays by Massinger for the King and Queen's Young Company at the Phoenix (Cockpit): The Bondman, The Great Duke of Florence, The Maid of Honour, A New Way to Pay Old Debts, and The Renegado. 1 " Later, in 1641, a number of the poet's other works (The Bashful Lover, The Guardian, et al.) received similar protection by the Lord Chamberlain for the King's Company. 1 ° 7 The fact that certain of Massinger's plays were enacted at Court is, perhaps, some evidence of their popularity. According to Herbert, The Bondman was presented at on 27 December 1623 by the Queen of Bohemia's (Lady Elizabeth's) Company ("the prince only being there") b08 Herbert also records that The Guardian was acted at Court by the King's Company on 12 January 1633/34 and was "well likte."°° In connection with this subject, it probably ought to be pointed out that at least one of Massinger's plays was seen elsewhere than at Court by a mem- ber of the royal family. In his Office Book, under date of 13 May 1634, Herbert stated that "the Queene was at Blackfriars to see Messengers According to Malone (who failed to divulge the source of his information), the drama Her Majesty saw was Cleander. 111 Moreover, there were Court productions of works, such as The Spanish Curate," 2 The Beggars' Bush," 3 and The Elder Brother," 4 in which Massinger is often thought to have collaborated with Fletcher. It would seem fitting to end this chapter by observing that, despite whatever weaknesses we may note in his work and despite whatever adverse criticism may have been directed at him in his own time, Massinger was the chief poet during the greater part of Charles I's reign, belonging to a school of playwrights that helped direct the course of English drama.n 5 Neither his position nor his virtues can be ignored.

t

1. Obviously, Taylor could have written this poem some months before it was published. 2. See Le Drame, p. 347; Dunn, p. 28; D. N. B., XIII, 12 (Boyle's dating); A. K. McIlwraith, a Review of Telfer's edition of The Unnatural Combat, R. E. S., IX (October, 1933), 482-486—hereafter referred to as McIlwraith (Review); Baldwin, pp. 4-7. 3. Philip Massinger, The Unnatural Combat, ed. Robert Stockdale Telfer (Princeton, 1932), p. 40—hereafter referred to as Telfer. 4. Malone, it is worth noting, had access to Herbert's Office Book and made extracts from it. As is well known, this work is now lost. 5. See Bentley, IV, 823. 36 6. The suggested date of production (the summer of 1626) of the play. 7. Teller, pp. 40-45. 8. Mcllwraith (Review), pp. 484-485. 9. Bentley, IV, 824 10 Philip Massinger, The Vnnaturall Combat, A Tragedie (London, 1639), sig. A2°. 11. Greg, I, 33. 12. Baldwin, pp. 4-7. 13. See Register of Plays, The Shakespeare Institute, under The Duke of Milan. The play is dated "1622 or earlier" in the Shakespeare Institute Register. 14. On 9 September 1653, Moseley entered "A Very Woman, or y° Womans Plot . . . by Phi11: Massinger" in the Stationers' Register. (Greg, I, 60-61.) But in 1655 he printed A Very Woman, or The Prince of Tarent in Three New Playes, and in 1660 re-entered "The Womans Plott" as a comedy. (Greg, I, 68-69.) It seems almost a certainty that A Very Woman and The Woman's Plot are two dif- ferent plays which Moseley fraudulently entered as one. See W. W. Greg, "The Bakings of Betsy," The Library, Third Series, II ( July, 1911), 225-259-hereafter referred to as Greg (Bakings). "The Womans Plott [by) Phill. Massinger" is in Warburton's list, but there is no real evidence that he had a manuscript copy of the play or that he had ever seen one. See Greg (Bakings) regarding Warburton's list of manuscript plays. 15. See J. T. Murray, English Dramatic Companies, 1558-1642 (New York and Boston, 1910), II, 193. 16. See Bentley, I, 65-66; IV, 829. 17. See Bentley, III, 266. 18. See Bentley, IV, 891. 19. Herbert, p. 26. 20. Herbert, p. 28. 21. Herbert, p. 30. 22. See Bentley, I, 250-259; II, 363-365; IV, 797. 23. Fleay, I, 213-214. 24. See , The Plays and Poems of William Shakspeare, with the Corrections and Illustrations of Various Commentators . . , ed. James Boswell (London, 1821), III, 59-hereafter referred to as Variorum. 25. In this instance we have Malone's explicit statement (Variorum, III, 230) that he did not find any record of a license for The Maid of Honour in Herbert's manuscript when he saw it. Bentley was influenced by Malone's statement, which he considered "the most reliable piece of evidence" for dating the play (Bentley, IV, 798). 26. Bentley, IV, 798. 27. Philip Massinger, The Maid of Honour, ed. Eva A. W. Bryne (London, 1927), p. xxxv-hereafter referred to as Bryne. 28. Bryne, pp. xxiii-xxxv. 29. The play is dated 1622 (?) in the Register of Plays at the Shakespeare Institute. 30. A New Way to Pay Old Debts was entered in the Stationers' Register on 10 November 1632 (Greg, I, 41). 31. See Bentley, I, 250-259; II, 363-365. 32. McIlwraith, "On the Date of 'A New Way to Pay Old Debts,'" M. L. R., 37 XXVIII (October, 1933), 431-438-hereafter referred to as McIlwraith (N. W. P. 0. D.), once suggested that allusions to contemporary affairs (such as the Mompesson case) point to a date of 1621. He felt, too, that the "literary qualities" of the play "suggest an early date." But later he argued (though not in print) against this early date. See the Play Register of the Shakespeare Institute, under A New Way to Pay Old Debts. 33. Philip Massinger, A New Way to Pay Old Debts, ed. Muriel St. Clare Byrne (London, 1949), p. 7-hereafter referred to as Byrne. 34. Miss Byrne notes that A New Way to Pay Old Debts "cannot have been played by the Queen's Men at the Phoenix before 1625, as they did not occupy the theatre before that date . . . ." (Byrne, p. 7.) 35. On the date of this play, see also Philip Massinger, A New Way to Pay Old Debts, ed. A. H. Cruickshank (Oxford, 1926), p. x; Bentley, IV, 802; Le Drame, p. 346; Dunn, p. 28; Fleay, I, 214; D. N. B., XIIL 13 (Boyle's dating). 36. See Bentley, IV, 755. 37. Herbert, p. 31. 38. In reference to Herbert's licence, Malone wrote; "This [The Great Duke) was, I apprehend, The Great Duke of Florence, which was acted by that company the Queen's Men)." (Variorum, III, 230.) 39. Bentley, IV, 787. 40. See, for example, Fleay, I, 221; Dunn, pp. 13-14, 28. 41. Philip Massinger, The Great Duke of Florence, ed. Johanne M. Stochholm (Baltimore, 1933), p. lxxix-hereafter referred to as Stochholm. 42. See Stochholm, pp. lxxii-lxxvi. 43. Stochholm, p. lxxiv. 44. Dunn, p. 14. 45. Bentley, IV, 787. 46. Bentley, IV, 788. 47. Herbert, p. 31. 48. Bentley, IV, 788. 49. Bentley, IV, 788. 50. See Bentley, I, 184-185. 51. See Bentley, I, 184-185. I am not implying that all the playwrights named here wrote exclusively for Beeston during this time. See Herbert, p. 27. 52. See Bentley, IV, 754-755. For opinions on Massinger's connections with the Lady Elizabeth's (Queen of Bohemia's) Company, see also Cruickshank, p. 3; Dunn, pp. 28-29; Oliphant, p. 124; D. N. B., XIII, 11 (Boyle's view). 53. On this point, see Mcllwraith (N. W. P. 0. D.), p. 432. 54. See Bentley, IV, 755. 55. Herbert, p. 31. 56. Philip Massinger, The Roman Actor (London, 1629), sig. A2°. 57. Herbert, p. 31. It seems likely that some of Massinger's lost plays that are undatable were written for the King's Company during this period. 58. Herbert, p. 31. See Variorum, III, 230. 59. Herbert, p. 32. 60. Herbert, p. 33. 61. Herbert, p. 33. 62. Herbert's Office Book is quoted as giving the date of the licence as 7 May 1631 (Herbert, p. 33); however, his licence on the manuscript of the play is dated 3 8 May 6th (Philip Massinger, Believe as You List, ed. Charles J. Sisson, Malone Society Reprint for 1927 (iLondon, 1928)), p. 96-hereafter referred to as Sisson). On 11 January of that year Herbert refused to license what was almost certainly an earlier version of the play. See Herbert, p. 19. 63. Herbert, p. 33. 64. Herbert, p. 34. 65. Herbert, p. 35. 66. See Fleay, I, 225-227; Schelling, II, 252; Philip Massinger, The City Madam, ed. Rudolph Kirk (Princeton, 1934), pp. 1-6. 67. For other suggestions, see Cruickshank, p. 4; Dunn, pp. 33-35. It is possible that the Prologue to The Guardian (published in 1655) has been attached to the play by mistake. See Maxwell, pp. 224-227. 68. Herbert, p. 35. It seems likely that some of Massinger's lost plays that are undatable were written for the King's Company during this period. 69. Herbert, p. 36. 70. Herbert, p. 36. 71. Herbert, p. 37. 72. See below, this chapter, for other references to this play. 73. Herbert, pp. 22-23. The title of this play was subsequently changed (/c. cit.). 74. Herbert, p. 38. 75. Herbert, p. 38. 76. See Bentley, IV, 824-828; Oliphant, pp. 250-256; Maxwell, pp. 177-193. 77. See Hoy, IX (1957), 144, 154-155; La Collaboration, pp. 144-148. 78. Fleay I, 219-220. 79. Bentley, III, 359-363. It is possible, Bentley also suggests, that The Lovers' Progress may be further identified with a play referred to as "Lasander & Callista" in the diary of Sir Humphrey Mildmay under date of 21 May 1634. (Bentley, III, 360, 362-363.) 80. Greg, II, 982-983. 81. See Bentley, III, 414; La Collaboration, pp. 140-144. 82. See Bentley, III, 365; La Collaboration, pp. 76-77, 163-165; Oliphant, pp. 414-432. 83. See Bentley, III, 404-406; Oliphant, pp. 457-463. In his edition of Rollo, J. D. Jump attributes the play to Fletcher, Chapman, Jonson, and Massinger. See Rolla Duke of Normandy or the Bloody Brother . . . , ed. J. D. Jump (London, 1948), Liverpool English Texts and Studies, pp. xxv-xxxi. 84. Greg, I, 60-61. 85. Bentley, I, 65-66. 86. Bentley, I, 65-66. 87. On this point, see Greg, II, 979-980; Bentley, IV, 804. 88. Greg, I, 68-69. 89. Warburton's list contains twelve attributions to Massinger: Minerva's Sac- rifice, The Forced Lady, Antonio and Vallia, The Woman's Plot, The Tyrant, Philenzo and Hipolito, The Judge, Fast and Welcome, Believe as You List, The Honour of Women, Alexius or Ye Chaste Gallant, and The Noble Choice. See Greg (Bakings), pp. 230-232. Many of the titles in this list were, as Greg has proposed, very probably derived from Moseley's entries in the Stationers' Register. See Greg (Bakings), pp. 225 ff. It would seem, therefore, that the presence of these titles at- tributed to Massinger in Warburton's list of manuscript plays is no real proof that he had once owned them or that he had ever seen them in manuscript. 90. Dunn's estimate (Dunn, p. 25) is fifty-three. 91. See Bentley, IV, 755. 92. See W. W. Greg, Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses . . (Oxford, 1931), pp. 268-274. 93. See Cal. S. P., Dom., 1619-1623, p. 71; Bentley, III, 417. 94. See Cal. S. P., Dom., 1619-1623, p. 73. 95. Herbert, p. 19. 96. On this point, see Sisson, pp. v-vi, xvii-xxi. 97. Herbert, pp. 22-23. 98. Herbert, p. 23. 99. Herbert, p. 23. 100. But Greg (Greg, II, 1003) has suggested that Herbert might likewise have objected to this title. 101. On this point, see Dunn, pp. 31-40. 102. A number of other commendations appearing during this period may pos- sibly contain hints of Massinger's troubles with critics. See, for example, Jay's verses prefixed to the first edition (1630) of The Picture and Shirley's poem prefacing the 1630 quarto of The Renegado. 103. G. Thorn-Drury, ed. A Little Ark Containing Sundry Pieces of Seventeenth- Century Verse (London, 1921), pp. 2-3. 104. , Cavalier Drama . . . (New York and London, 1936), pp. 161-162. 105. Harbage, p. 162. 106. Bentley, I, 330-331. 107. Bentley, I, 65-66. 108. Herbert, p. 51. 109. Herbert, p. 54. Having a Court Prologue, The Emperour of the East was apparently another Massinger play enacted at Court. The Woman's Plot, ascribed to Massinger by Moseley, was, as stated previously, produced at Court on 5 Novem- ber 1621. 110. Herbert, p. 65. 111. Herbert, p. 65; Variorum, III, 167. 112. Herbert, pp. 76-77. 113. See Herbert, pp. 49, 76-77; Bentley, I, 51. 114. Herbert, pp. 57, 76. 115. See , "The Caroline Audience," M. L. R., XXXVI ( July, 1941), 304-319.

40 Chptr III

Massinger and His Patrons

AllIONAGE OF POETS, as well as of other artists, has been one of the hallmarks of civilization and has had, obviously, a long history. Interest- ingly, in his Verse Letter to the Earl of Pembroke, Massinger himself speaks of this tradition, citing some illustrious patrons of literature:

. . . I know That Iohnson much of what he has does owe To you and to your familie, and is neuer Slow to professe it, nor had Fletcher euer Such Reputation, and credit wonne But by his honord Patron, Huntington Vnimitable Spencer ne're had been Soe famous for his matchlesse Fairie Queene Had he not found a Sydney to preferr His plaine way in his Shepheards Calender Nay VirgilIs selfe (or Martiall does lye) Could hardly frame a poore Gnatts Elegie Before Mecaenas cherisht him, and then He streight conceiu'd Aeneas and the men That found out Italic. These are Presidents I cite wth reuerence . . . • 1

It was thus inevitable that Philip Massinger should also have to seek for his patrons among the nobles of his day. Indeed, by means of this verse letter, he was, as has been suggested earlier, undoubtedly seeking the patronage of William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke, for in the con- cluding lines of the poem he says:

. . . some worke I might frame That should nor wrong my duty nor your Name. Were but you Lo: PP pleas'd to cast an eye Of fauour on my trodd downe pouertie How euer I confesse myselfe to be Euer most bound for your best charitie To others that feed on ;t, and will pay My prayers wt" theirs that as yu doe yu may 41 Liue long, belou'd and honor'd doubtles then Soe cleere a life will find a worthier Penn. For me I rest assur'd besides the glory T'wold make a Poet but to write your story.2

Probably this poem failed of its purpose; at any rate, there is, so far as we know, no documentary evidence of William Herbert's ever having patronized Massinger as a dramatist. Moreover, if Pembroke had done so,

the poet would, in all likelihood, have dedicated at least one work to him. 3 William Herbert's brother Philip, Earl of Montgomery and later fourth Earl of Pembroke, however, is known to have been one of Massinger's patrons. But he apparently did not offer Massinger any patronage prior to the publication of The Bondman in 1624, for, in dedicating the first quarto of the play to him, the poet has this to say:

HOWeuer I could neuer arriue at the happinesse to be made knowne to your Lordship, yet a desire borne with me, to make tender of all duties, and seruice, to the Noble Family of the Herberts, descended to me as an inheritance from my dead Father, Arthur Massinger. Elsewhere in this Dedication, Massinger says:

When it was first Acted, your Lordships liberall suffrage taught others to allow it for currant, in hauing receaued the vndoubted stampe of your Lordships allowance . . . .

Evidently, Montgomery not only enjoyed this play when it was first pro- duced (probably in December, 1623),4 but also recommended it to others. (Perhaps he liked it for political reasons. For one thing, it is thought to contain some uncomplimentary references to Buckingham, 5 to whose pol- icies Montgomery and his brother, the third Earl of Pembroke, were often opposed.° Furthermore, some have thought that the play is a political allegory in which Massinger criticized the Government's policy toward Spain and the Palatinate, and that this criticism would have pleased Mont- gomery. 7 Critics who interpret the play thus generally maintain that Massinger was urging England to resist Spanish domination on the Conti- nent and, more specifically, to aid Frederick, Elector Palatine and titular King of Bohemia, who had been driven into exile. 8 The Playwright's advo- cacy of such a policy, it has been argued, would have pleased both William and Philip Herbert, who were both militantly anti-Spanish. 9 Montgomery's patronage of Massinger, as has been noted, could not have antedated the publication of The Bondman. But it does probably date from the time that he was made its dedicatee. However this may be, he had become Massinger's patron by 1636, when he was addressed as such ("my most singular good Lord and Patron") 10 by the poet in Sero, sed Serb, which is, as we know, an elegy upon the death of his son Charles, 42 Lord Herbert." (By this time he had succeeded to the title of Pembroke and had also become Lord Chamberlain.) 12 In this poem, Massinger lamented the fact that he had not composed verses at the time of young Herbert's marriage (which had taken place only a year before his untimely death)." Having blamed this omission on "fate" rather than lack of duty on his part, Massinger went on to state:

. . . I cursed my absence then That hindred itt, and bitt my Star-crost pen Too busie in Stage-blanks, and trifeling Rime When such a Cause calld, and soe apt a time To pay a generall debt, mine being more Then they could owe, who since or heretofore Haue labourd will exalted Lines to raise Brave Piles, or rather Pyramids of praise To Pembrooke, and his ffamilie . The "generall debt" which the poet speaks of in this elegy may well refer to Pembroke's financial assistance to him—possibly the yearly pension of twenty or thirty pounds, which Aubrey stated was subsequently paid to his widow. Aubrey's statement seems credible since Philip Herbert, like his brother William and his famous mother, was a noted patron of letters. 15 In connection with this subject it may be worth adding that in the lines quoted above, Massinger seems to be saying that he owed more to Pembroke than did any other writer.

To the fourth Earl of Pembroke's son-in-law" (and former ward), 17 Robert Dormer, Earl of Carnarvon, Massinger dedicated the first quarto of A New Way to Pay Old Debts in 1633. Mindful of Dormer's connections with the Herberts, the poet addressed him as follows:

. . . I was borne a deuoted seruant, to the thrice noble Family of your incomparable Lady, and am most ambitious, but with a becomming distance, to be knowne to your Lordship, which if you please to admit, I shall em- brace it as a bounty, that while I hue shall oblige me to acknowledge you for my noble Patron . . . . In the light of this statement and another remark in the Dedication ("hauing neuer yet deseru'd in my seruice"), it is clear that the dramatist was seek- ing Dormer's patronage and that the two were unacquainted. But whether or not the Earl of Carnarvon ever aided him is unknown to me. It may be conjectured, however, that he did not. For elsewhere in the Epistle the playwright states:

. . . nor am I wholy lost in my hopes, but that your Honor (who haue euer exprest your selfe a fauourer, and friend to the Muses) may vouch- safe, in your gratious acceptance of this trifle, to giue me encouragement, to present you with some labour'd worke, and of a higher straine here- after. . . . 43 Here the poet would seem to be implying that later he would dedicate another work to Carnarvon if the Earl would patronize him. The fact, therefore, that he never did so would suggest that he failed to secure Dormer's patronage. Lady Katherine Stanhope is another of Massinger's dedicatees who can be connected with the Herberts; indeed, it would seem worth mentioning that she was a first cousin, once removed, to Mary, Countess of Pembroke. 18 To her was dedicated The Duke of Milan, Massinger's first published work of independent authorship. Having first reminded her of the tradition of patronage in both Italy and England in his Dedicatory Epistle, Massinger proceeded to say:

Let the example of others more knowing, and more experienced in this kind (if my boldnesse offend) pleade my pardon, and the rather since there is no other meanes left mee (my misfortunes hauing cast me on this course) to publish to the world (if it hold the least good opinion of mee) that I am euer your Ladyships creature. In view of this statement it would appear likely that the poet was in finan- cial straits and was appealing to her for assistance of some kind. Even before that date (1623) he may have wanted her patronage. He addressed a poem to her, a copy of which is now in manuscript in Trinity College, Dublin, under the title of "A Newyeares Guift presented to my Lady and M:" the then Lady Katherine Stanhop now Countesse of Chesterfeild." 19 In all probability this poem was composed before the publication of The Duke of Milan, because in it he says:

But there may be a tyme when I shall dare To tell the world and boldly what y" are. And elsewhere in this poem he states that he has "heretofore been silent." Doubtless he would not have written thus after he had dedicated to her. We have been unable to find any substantive evidence of Lady Katherine's patronage of the playwright, but this does not deny the possibility. 2 " To George Harding, Lord Berkeley, who was related by marriage to Lady Katherine Stanhope, 21 Massinger dedicated the 1630 quarto of The Renegado. In his Epistle the poet, after alluding to Berkeley's patronage of literature, proceeded to ask his dedicatee to accept this work. He then went on to say: . . . if I were not confident there are some peeces worthy the perusall, it should haue beene taught an humbler flight, and the writer (Your Countrey-man) neuer yet made happy in your notice, and fauour, had not made this an aduocate to plead for his admission among such as are wholy, and sincerely deuoted to your seruice. I may hue to tender my humble thankefulnesse in some higher strayne, and till then comfort my selfe with hope, that you descend from your height to receiue. 44 It is reasonably clear from his remarks that at this time Massinger was not personally acquainted with Lord Berkeley and that he was seeking his patronage. Furthermore, it would seem that the poet was promising his dedicatee that, if he were to secure his patronage, he would dedicate another work to him. The fact, therefore, that the poet never did so may indicate that Berkeley failed to assist him.

Related by marriage to Lord Berkeley, 22 as well as to Lady Katherine Stanhope, 23 was John, Lord Mohun, to whom Massinger dedicated the first edition of The Emperour of the East in 1632. In the Dedicatory Epistle of this work, the poet explained why he had chosen Mohun to be the dedicatee:

My worthy friend Mr Aston Cokaine your Nephew, to my extraordinarie content, deliuer'd to mee, that your Lordship at your vacant hours some- times vouchsaf'd to peruse such trifles of mine, as haue passed the Presse, & not alone warranted them in your gentle suffrage, but disdain'd not to bestow a remembrance of your loue, and intended fauour to mee. I professe to the world, I was exalted with the bountie, and with good assurance, it being so rare in this age to meete with one Noble Name, that in feare to bee censur'd of leuitie, and weakenesse, dares expresse it selfe, a friend, or Patron to contemn'd Poetrie. Hauing therefore no meanes els left mee to witnesse the obligation, in which I stand most willingly bound to your Lordship, I offer this Tragae-Comoedie to your gratious acceptance . . . . From these remarks it is fairly certain that Mohun had rewarded the poet in some way. If so, this is one instance when Massinger did not, initially, have to solicit patronage: out of appreciation for his published works, someone rewarded him. It may be, though, that in dedicating this play to Lord Mohun, he had Mohun's future patronage in mind. During 1632, too, Massinger dedicated to Sir Francis Foljambe and Sir Thomas Bland The Maid of Honour. After addressing Bland and Fo'jambe as his "most honour'd friends" in the Dedicatory Epistle to this play, Massinger then went on to say:

THat you have beene, and continued so for many yeeres (since you vouch- safed to owne me) Patrons to me and my despised studies, I cannot but with all humble thankefulnesse acknowledge: And living, as you have done, inseparable in your friendship . . . I held it as impertinent, as absurd, in the presentment of my service in this kinde, to divide you. A free confession of a debt in a meaner man, is the amplest satisfaction to his superiours, and I heartily wish, that the world may take notice, and from my selfe, that I had not to this time subsisted, but that I was supported by your frequent courtesies, and favours . . . .

Obviously, for some time before 1632 Massinger had received the patronage of both Bland and Foljambe, having actually depended on them for sub- sistence. About this time (1632), as has been suggested earlier, it would 45 seem that Massinger was not writing for the stage because of the failure of two of his plays, and he was presumably in great want. Although he called both these patrons his "most honour'd friends," he may have been on more intimate terms with Foljambe, because he addressed verses to his "Honorable ffreinde Sr ffrancis ffoliambe Knight and Baronet," which were prefixed to a presentation copy of the first edition of The Duke of Milan 24 (which contains corrections thought to be in the poet's own hand25 ). Another patron who had been generous to Massinger for many years was Sir Robert Wiseman, Kt., who is addressed as follows in the Dedication to The Great Duke of Florence:

As I dare not be ungratefull for the many benefits you have heretofore con- ferr'd upon me, so I have just reason for feare that my attempting this way to make satisfaction (in some measure) for so due a debt, will further ingage me. However examples encourage me. The most able in my poore Quality have made use of Dedications in this Nature, to make the world take notice (as farre as in them lay) who, and what they were that gave supportment, and protection to their Studies, being more willing to publish the Dooer, then receive a benefit in a corner. For my selfe, I wil freely, and with a zealous thankfulnesse acknowledge, that for many yeares I had but faintly subsisted, if I had not often tasted of your Bounty. But it is above my strength, and faculties, to celebrate to the desert, your noble in- clination, (and that made actuall) to raise up, or to speak more properly, to rebuild the ruines of demolish'd Poesie. From these remarks we can see, once again, how much Massinger depended upon patronage. Indeed, it is especially significant that in 1636 (just four years before his death) he was acknowledging that he would hardly have subsisted for many years if it had not been for Wiseman's assistance. 2 ° Among the poet's other patrons were the dedicatees of the 1629 quarto of The Roman Actor, namely, Sir Philip Knyvett, 27 Sir Thomas Jay, and Thomas Bellingham. After addressing them as his "much Honoured, and most true Friends," the poet went on to say that he was indebted to them for "many, & extraordinary fauors." Then he made this acknowledgment: In the composition of this Tragaedie you were my only Supporters, and it being now by your principall encouragement to be turn'd into the world, it cannot valke safer, then vnder your protection. This statement is especially significant, showing as it does the interest of three of Massinger's patrons in a work of his while in the stages of com- position. It is tempting to suggest, therefore, that he may have discussed the technicalities of the play with them and may even have invited their criti- cism while the work was still in embryo. One of them, Sir Thomas Jay, was a poet of sorts," and he, in particular, could presumably have criticized the playwright's work constructively. If this were the case, it would be an 46 example of that ideal kind of patronage which Sir tried to encourage. There would seem to be little doubt that Massinger's three dedicatees urged him to have it published ("turn'd into the world"). And upon doing so, he praised both them and the play itself, saying:

I euer held it the most perfit birth of my Minerue; and therefore, in justice offer it to those that haue best deseru'd of me . . . . From this remark it is evident how high these particular patrons stood in Massinger's estimation. Another patron very much admired by Massinger was Anthony St. Leger (later Sir Anthony). In the Dedicatory Epistle to the first edition (1639) of The Unnatural Combat, the poet addressed him as his "much Honoured Friend" and thanked him for his "many favours." Among other things, he said:

. . . many of eminence, and the best of such, who disdained not to take notice of mee, have not thought themselves disparaged, I dare not say hon- oured, to be celebrated the Patrons of my humble studies. In the first file of which, I am confident, you shall have no cause to blush, to finde your Name written. This passage is of interest not only for the praise Massinger showers upon St. Leger as a patron but for his acknowledgment that many others of note had not been averse to patronize his work. In concluding the Dedication, he stated:

Accept it I beseech you, as it is, and continue your) favour to the Author. This statement clearly suggests that he wanted St. Leger to continue his patronage. And this Epistle, it would seem worth repeating, was published in 1639, the year preceding his death. Doubtless he depended upon patron- age to the end. That Massinger had also been patronized by St. Leger's late father, Sir Warham, seems likely, for elsewhere in the same Dedication, he stated:

Your noble Father, Sir Warham Sentliger (whose remarkeable vertues must be ever remembred) being, while bee lived, a master, for his pleasure, in Poetry, feared not to hold converse with divers, whose necessitous for- tunes made it their profession, among which, by the clemency of his judge- ment, I was not in the last place admitted. You (the Heire of his honour and estate) inherited his good inclinations to men of my poore quality . . . . Apparently Sir Warham" not only wrote poetry for his own pleasure but also associated with professional poets, including Massinger, who, it would appear from the poet's own remarks, benefited from his association with him. Interestingly enough, King Charles himself may have been one of Massinger's patrons. Earlier it was pointed out that Massinger was appar- ently enjoying royal protection at the time of Field's petition to the Lord 47 Chamberlain in July, 1629, about a debt owed to him by the playwright, and it was suggested that this protection may have been due to his having gained an official position among the King's Men. Therefore, if he was a formal member of the King's Company, he must have enjoyed His Majesty's patronage. A number of Massinger's patrons, however, are unknown. He dedicated the 1630 quarto of The Picture to his "Honored, and selected friends of the Noble society of the Inner Temple" but failed to reveal their names. In the Dedicatory Epistle he explained that it was neither want of self- confidence on his part about "their affection" for him nor their unwilling- ness to be acknowledged patrons of his work that caused him to do this. Indeed, these gentlemen, he went on to say, liked the play and would have granted him permission to publish their names. But he declined to do so for certain reasons, the chief of which he divulged: I had rather inioy (as I haue donne) the reall proofes of their friendship, then montebancke like boast their numbers in a Catalogue. He then proceeded to thank them for their "frequent bounties." But patronage obviously should involve more than the mere bestowal of a monetary reward or the granting of some favor. For a good patron must, as Buxton says, have good taste and critical insights, as well as a vital interest in the work of the one whom he is assisting. 3 ° In the light of this observation, we should now try to determine whether or not any of Massinger's patrons were of this calibre. At least one of his patrons must have directly influenced his actual work as a dramatist, for the Prologue to A Very Woman states: TO such (and some there are, no question here,) Who happy in their memories do bear This Subject long since acted, and can say Truly, we have seen something like this Play. Our Author with becoming Modesty (For in this kinde he ne'er was bold) by me, In his defence, thus answers, By command He undertook this task, nor could it stand With his love Fortune to refuse to do; What by his Patron he was call'd :unto. For whose delight and yours, we hope, with care He bath review'd it . . . . It is clear from the Prologue that the play is a revision. (The original play, as I suggested previously, may have been one of his former collabora- tions with Fletcher or perhaps a Fletcher original.) Apparently the revision was made at the "command" of a patron, whose identity the poet does not reveal. Whoever he was, he presumably had a knowledge of, and perhaps an interest in, Massinger's work; moreover, he undoubtedly had a certain 48 amount of familiarity with the theatre to single out a particular play as worthy of revision. Three of Massinger's other patrons (Knyvett, Jay, and Bellingham) were, it should be recalled here, his "Supporters" in the composition of The Roman Actor, and seemingly encouraged him to publish it. Of the three, Jay in particular, who wrote poetry himself, may have been an excel- lent patron. Indeed, his commendation to A New Way to Pay Old Debts would seem to indicate that he had discussed Massinger's work with him:

YOu may remember how you chid me when I ranckt you equall with those glorious men; Beaumont, and Fletcher: if you low not praise You must forbeare the publishing of playes. Elsewhere in this commendation (in his praise of Massinger's play), Jay shows that he is somewhat of a critic:

The craftie Mazes of the cunning plot; The polish'd phrase; the sweet expressions; got Neither by theft, nor violence; the conceipt Fresh, and vnsullied; All is of weight . . . . Similarly, Sir Robert Wiseman, one of Massinger's most generous patrons, would appear to have had the qualities essential to an ideal patron: a part of his epitaph in St. Christopher's church, Willingale Doe, Essex, states (according to Stochholm's translation from the original Latin) that he was a "lover of the muses, critic, and excellent patron of literature."' It is at least indicative to have a partial list of Massinger's active or potential patrons though there is by no means certainty as to the extent of his relations with them. In the main they were important personages at this time: many held public offices and/or made other contributions to the social and intellectual life of the nation. In respect of their social positions, five of the playwright's known dedicatees belonged to the nobility, 32 and of the others, five had been knighted 33 and two were commoners. 34 Almost without exception, each of them had attended one of the universities and/or an Inn of Court. 35 A number of them were, as we have seen, related by blood or by marriage to the Herberts or the Stanhopes. One certainly, and possibly two others," can be connected with the Cromptons.

t 1. The Copie of a Letter, fol. 556. 2. The Copie of a Letter, fols. 556-557. 3. Massinger's Verse Letter "to the Earle of Pembroke Lo: Chamberlaine" is undated, but it obviously was written, or at least titled, after William Herbert be- 49 came Lord Chamberlain on 23 December 1615. G. E. C[okayne), The Complete Peerage . . . , rev, edition, ed. Vicary Gibbs et al. (London, 1910-1959), X, 413-hereafter referred to as G. E. C. 4. The Bondman was, as we know, licensed on 3 December 1623 (Herbert, p. 26). 5. See, for example, I.i.49-56; See also Spencer, pp. 34-35; Samuel Rawson Gardiner, "The Political Element in Massinger," The New Shakespere Society's Transactions, First Series, No. 4 (1875-6), 316-319-hereafter referred to as Gardiner. 6. On this point, see Gardiner, pp. 316-319; John Nichols, The Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent Festivities of King James the First . . . (London, 1828), III, 230; Thomas Birch, comp., The Court and Times of James the First . . . , ed. {Robert Folkestone Williams] (London, 1848), II, 287. 7. See Gardiner, pp. 316-319; Spencer, pp. 28-43, 163. 8. Regarding the conflict over the Palatinate, see, for example, Samuel Rawson Gardiner, History of England . . . 1603-1642 (London, 1883-1884), III, 328 ff. et passim; IV, 175 ff. et passim. 9. On this point, see Gardiner, pp. 316 ff.; D N. B., under "William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke," IX, 677-681. 10. Sero, fol. 1. See also Gifford, IV, 596-598. 11. Charles, Lord Herbert, having left England in 1635 to travel on the Con- tinent, died of smallpox at Florence in January, 1635/6. See G. E. C., X, 419-420; Cal. S. P., Dom., 1635, p. 89; Cal. S. P., V en., 1632-1636 (London, 1922), pp. 403, 527. 12. See G. E. C., X, 415-419. 13. See G. E. C., X, 419-420; Cal. S. P., Ven., 1632-1636, p. 323. 14. Sero, fol. lr. 15. See Franklin B. Williams, Jr., comp., Index of Dedications and Commenda- tory Verses in English Books before 1641 (London, 1962), p. 94. 16. Robert Dormer married Anna Sophia, the eldest daughter of Philip Herbert, on 27 February 1625 (G. E. C., III, 44). 17. See Cal. S. P., Dom., 1611-1618, pp. 410, 412. 18. See R. J. Beevor, Hastings of Hastings (Colchester, 1931), pp. 36-37; D. N. B., under "Mary Herbert," IX, 655-658. 19. Philip Massinger, A Newyeares Guift presented to my Lady and M:rs the then Lady Katherine Stanhop now Countesse of Chesterfeild, in Trinity College, Dublin, MS. G.2.21, fols. 557-559-hereafter referred to as A Newyeares Guilt. 20. It is possible that Lady Katherine's husband, Philip Stanhope, Baron of Shelford (1616) and Earl of Chesterfield (1628) (G. E. C., III, 180) was re- lated to the Cromptons, of which family Massinger's mother was, as we know, a member. Be the facts as they may, in 1617 Thomas Crompton of Penkhull made his kinsman, "Lorde Stannoppe," an overseer of his will (P. C. C., 108 Parker), but I have been unable to determine the relationship, if any, of the testator to the dramatist's mother or to identify the Stanhope mentioned in the will. It may be that Lady Katherine was related to Massinger by marriage; if so, that may have prompted him to seek her patronage. 21. See Berkeley Manuscripts . . . , ed. Thomas Dudley Fosbroke (London, 1821), pp. 217-218; G. E. C., II, 138-139; P. C. C., 45 Wood (1611).

50 22. See D. N. B., under "John Mohun," XIII, 555-556, and under "Philip Stanhope," XVIII, 909-910; G. E. C., II, 138-139; IX, 25-26. 23. Lady Katherine's husband, Philip Stanhope, first Earl of Chesterfield, was a half-brother of Lord Mohun's wife. See D. N. B., under "Philip Stanhope," XVIII, 909-910; G. E. C., IX, 25-26. 24. This copy of The Duke of Milan is now in the Dyce Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum (Dyce Collection, D.6323). The verses addressed to Foljambe were first published by Gifford in his second edition of Massinger's works (Gifford, IV, 593). 25. See W. W. Greg, "Massinger's Autograph Corrections in 'The Duke of Milan,' 1623," The Library, Fourth Series, IV (December, 1923) 207-218. See also Gifford, I, i-iii. 26. Interestingly enough, Wiseman can be connected with the Crompton fam- ily. One of Sir Robert's relatives, Sir Richard Wiseman, married Susanna, the daughter of one Richard Crompton of St. Andrew's Holborn. See P. C. C., 16 Ridley (1629). But whether Susanna was a member of that branch of the Crompton family of which Massinger's mother was a member is unknown to me. If she was, she was obviously related to the poet. 27. It is possible that Sir Philip Knyvett was related to the Cromptons: one of his relatives, Thomas Knyvett of Ashwellthorpe, referred to his "cousin Crompton" at least twice in his correspondence. According to Schofield, Knyvett's cousin was Robert Crompton, who was knighted in 1642. See Thomas Knyvett, The Knyvett Letters, 1620-1644, ed. Bertram Schofield (London, 1949), pp. 93, 95, 130 (n. 5). I have been unable to find out, however, whether this Robert Crompton was related to Philip Massinger's mother. 28. For an account of Sir Thomas Jay (Jeay), see Thesis, pp. 253-257. 29. For an account of Sir Warham St. Leger, see Thesis, pp. 311-316. 30. See John Buxton, Sir Philip Sidney and the English (London, 1954),p. 3 et passim. 31. Stochholm, p. 85. 32. Katherine Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield; George, Lord Berkeley; John, Lord Mohun; Robert Dormer, first Earl of Carnarvon; and Philip Herbert, fourth Earl of Pembroke and Earl of Montgomery. 33. Jay, Wiseman, Bland, Foljambe, and Knyvett The two last named were also baronets. Although he was not one of Massinger's dedicatees, Sir Warham St. Leger, may, as I previously suggested, have patronized the poet. 34. Thomas Bellingham and Anthony St. Leger (later—after Massinger's death—Sir Anthony). 35. See Thesis, passim. 36. See above, notes 20, 26, and 27.

51 Chptr I

Massinger and His Circle

T IS IMPOSSIBLE to speak of Massinger and his circle in the same sense that the term is used, say, of the Countess of Pembroke's circle at Wilton. It is, however, a convenient term to include various individuals who are known, or can reasonably be conjectured, to have been connected with Massinger and who can be grouped appropriately. These include, for example, relatives (who form a natural group) and persons in the theatrical world. These groupings of the playwright's associates are for convenience of tabulation and do not necessarily imply that every member knew every other member of the group to which he has been assigned. But, obvi- ously, this does not preclude the possibility that individual members of a group may have been acquainted with others under discussion both inside and outside their exact classification. Of the groups to be considered, it is naturally fitting to discuss, firstly, Massinger's relatives and to begin with his own immediate family. The records of his baptism and the churching of his mother after his birth, 1 as well as the record of his matriculation at Oxford, connect him with his family in a formal way. Moreover, in the Dedicatory Epistle to The Bond- man he mentions his late father, recalling the many happy years Arthur Massinger spent in the service of the Herberts. But, obviously, these docu- ments tell us nothing about his actual relations with any of the members of his family. He had at least four sisters, 2 and it is possible, of course, that he had brothers whom I have been unable to trace. About his associations, if any, with his father's relatives, I have found nothing. It is certain that he had an uncle, Richard Massinger, who was present when his brother Arthur was making his nuncupative will in London on 2 June 1603, 3 but I know nothing of his relations, if any, with his nephew Philip. The poet can be connected more closely with one William Singleton who, in commending the 1632 quarto of The Emperour of the East, addressed him as his "true friend, and Kinsman." It is possible that Singleton was related to the dramatist through the Massingers. 52 Similarly, I know nothing definite about Massinger's relations with his mother's family—the Cromptons. Anne (Crompton) Massinger was a member of a fairly large family. One of her brothers, Walter Crompton, 4 was doubtless the one of this name who was present when his brother-in- law, Arthur Massinger, was making his nuncupative will 5—an indication, perhaps, that he was on good terms with his sister Anne. Under these cir- cumstances it would seem safe to assume that Philip Massinger was, at the very least, acquainted with him. With Walter's eldest brother, Sir Thomas Crompton, Kt., there is even greater uncertainty. Sir Thomas was a fairly prominent man, having been, among other things, an M.P., a judge in the High Court of the Admiralty, an Advocate-General for Foreign Causes, as well as a Vicar-General to the then Archbishop of Canterbury and a Chancellor of the Diocese of London. 6 As Massinger was twenty-five at the time of Sir Thomas's death, he certainly would have had ample time for a deep friendship with his uncle if there had been amicable relations between their respective families. Two of Massinger's great-uncles who belonged to the Crompton family may also have known Philip. One of them, Thomas Crompton, who was a prothonotary in the Court of Common Pleas, made a number of bequests to the poet's mother in his will (1612, codicil 1614). 7 Apparently the testator regarded her with some affection. Of Rowland Crompton, another of the playwright's great-uncles, I know nothing except what can be learned from his brother Thomas's will and the sentence appended to its Needless to say, these documents give no explicit information about his relations with the Massingers. In view of Massinger's profession it is natural to discuss next play- wrights who are known or who can reasonably be conjectured to have been his associates. To begin with Fletcher seems appropriate since he was Massinger's principal collaborator. Previously I dealt with the question of their collaborations and commented upon the importance of Massinger's association with his senior partner. Particular attention must now be paid to some statements of Cokain in his epitaph on the two poets, already quoted. Here, it will be recalled, he says that they were "great friends" and, what is of greater interest still, that nothing on earth could part them. Very probably Cokain's remarks on the subject are reliable since he was a good friend of Massinger's and presumably would have known about such a relationship. Another playwright who may well have been a good friend of Massinger's was Nathan Field. After Fletcher, he appears to have been Massinger's most important collaborator. This would seem to be a legitimate conclu- sion to be drawn from what has already been said on the subject of their 53 collaborations. Early in his career Massinger was, as we know from the "Tripartite Letter," associated with Field. Furthermore, it is clear from evidence already presented that Massinger and Field collaborated after the latter had joined the King's Men in 1616 or thereabouts.° It may even be that they were collaborating only a short while before Field's death in 1619 or 1620. 10 Another dramatist whose name can be linked with Massinger's at an early date is . From the "Tripartite Letter" we learned that the two of them, together with Field and probably Fletcher, would seem to have been collaborating in a play for Henslowe. Perhaps Henslowe was responsible for introducing Massinger to Daborne. It may also be that for a time these two poets were "regular" members of Henslowe's team of playwrights. In the case of Daborne this would appear to be so, judg- ing from his correspondence with Henslowe. Massinger himself may pos- sibly have begun his dramatic career in Henslowe's service and may have remained with him until his death in 1616. Indeed, on 4 July 1615 Massinger and Daborne, as has already been pointed out, gave Henslowe a joint bond for three pounds to be paid on or before the 1st of August ensuing. It would seem worth repeating, too, that less than four months later—on 23 October 1615—these two dramatists, together with Henslowe, witnessed the signing of three documents to which the latter's son-in-law, Edward Alleyn, was a party. Interestingly enough, this last event took place approximately ten weeks before Henslowe's death in 1616. It is possible, therefore, that both poets were writing for him about the time of his death. However this may be, Daborne presumably had ceased writing for the stage by the time of his ordination, which is likely to have been before 1617." Then, too, after he had taken orders and had embarked upon a career in Ireland, it is highly probable that his association with Massinger ceased. It would seem very likely that Dekker, too, can be numbered among Massinger's associates. Previously the suggestion was made that he and Massinger probably collaborated in The Virgin Martyr. If they did col- laborate, it may be that their relations were strictly professional. Indeed, Dekker, who was a prolific writer, had many collaborators, 12 and it is un- likely that he was intimately acquainted with all of them. Likewise, Middleton and Rowley may possibly be included among his collaborators, as we are certainly aware from the previous discussion of the authorship of The Old Law. Even if they were not, he may still have known them through the King's Company, with which both of them can be con- nected. 13 (It may well be, as I had occasion to remark earlier, that Massinger had other collaborators of whom I am ignorant.) Besides his collaborators there were other dramatists who can be con- 54 nected with Massinger. Shirley has already been mentioned in this con- nection, for I have drawn attention to the warm praise which Massinger heaped upon The Grateful Servant in his verses prefixed to the 1630 quarto, where he addressed his commendee as his "Judicious and learned friend." Similarly, Shirley commended The Renegado during the same year, ad- dressing Massinger as his "Honoured Friend." From these commendations, then, we can take it for granted that they were friends. Indeed, the very fact that these two playwrights, who were then prominent members of rival companies, commended each other may possibly indicate that they were warm friends. is another dramatist who may possibly be numbered among Massinger's associates. It has been thought by some that the John Ford who commended The Roman Actor and The Great Duke of Florence was the playwright; yet it must be remembered how common this name was at the time. However this may be, Massinger may well have had ample opportunity to meet Ford, for it is possible, as Bentley suggests, that Ford was writing for the King's Company during the first four or five years of Charles I's reign. 14 Another friend of Massinger's among the playwrights was , who was, incidentally, a member of Jonson's circle. 15 (And May is known to have been acquainted, too, with Massinger's friends Shirley16 and Cokain. 17 ) He commended the original quarto of The Roman Actor in 1629; he addressed Massinger as "his deseruing Friend" and in the course of the commendation stated that the poet had presented Paris' history well. (Paris was, of course, the hero of the play.) It need hardly be said that May, one of the most eminent classical scholars of his day, was in a position to judge Massinger's treatment of Roman history in the play. Probably Thomas Goffe can also be listed among the playwrights who were on terms of friendship with Massinger. The commendatory verses signed "THO: G." that are prefixed to the original edition of The Roman Actor are generally thought to have been written by Thomas Goffe; indeed, some of Massinger's editors have assigned them to him without com- ment." This identification seems likely. Goffe was a dramatist, although he does not seem to have written for the commercial theatre; his plays appear to have been "academic" compositions.'" But he may well have frequented the professional theatres in London and have become acquainted with Massinger in this way. Moreover, the verses in question were in Latin and could have been composed by a classical scholar like Goffe, who was both an M.A. and a B.D. 2 ° (If Goffe did compose these verses, they may possibly have been his last literary effort, for he died in July,

55 1629,21 in which year, as we know, The Roman Actor was originally published.) Sir Aston Cokain, another member of the poet's circle, was also a dramatist. As we know, he mentions Massinger in a number of his poems and says, among other things, that the latter was a close friend and a collaborator of Fletcher's. Similarly, Massinger, it will be recalled, men- tions Sir Aston in the Dedication to The Emperour of the East: it would appear from it that his uncle John, Lord Mohun, had initially commissioned him to express his gratitude to Massinger. Indeed, Cokain commended this play, as well as The Maid of Honour, published in the same year (1632). In commending the former play, he wrote in part:

Thou more then Poet, our Mercurie (that art Apollo's Messenger, and do'st impart His best expressions to our eares) hue long To purifie the slighted English tongue . . . . Interestingly enough, one of these lines appears in almost identical form in an anonymous addressed to Massinger in Witts Recreations (pub. 1640): To Mr. Philip Massinger. Apollo's Messenger, who cloth impart To us the edicts of his learned art, We cannot but respect thee, for we know, Princes are honour'd in their Legats so. Perhaps Cokain was also the author of this epigram. However this may be, there would seem to be no question of the friendship between the two in the light of Cokain's commendations and his apparent knowledge of Massinger's collaborations. We know, too, from a passage already quoted that he did call Massinger his "good friend." Furthermore, Massinger him- self corroborates this, for in the Epistle to The Emperour of the East, it will be recalled, he refers to Cokain as his "worthy friend." Moreover, they may have had many friends in common in literary circles, where Cokain seems to have been very much at home. 22 At any rate, we learn from one of Sir Aston's poems that he was acquainted with at least one of Massinger's friends in the literary world, namely, Thomas May. 23 Moreover, he was related to at least three of Massinger's dedicatees: John, Lord Mohun, who has already been mentioned in this connection, Lady Katherine Stanhope (his aunt by marriage ), 24 and George, Lord Berkeley. 26 John Clavell (the notorious highwayman), another of Massinger's asso- ciates, probably ought to be included among the playwrights, too, as it seems very likely that he was the author of The Soddered Citizen, which was acted by the King's Company. 26 He contributed commendatory verses 56 to the 1632 edition of The Emperour of the East, addressing Massinger as his "deare friend." Elsewhere in the commendation he says:

. . . Your muse hath bane Most bountifull, and I haue often seene The willing seates receaue such as haue fedd, And risen thankefull; yet were some mis-led By Nicetie, when this faire Banquet came (So I allude) their stomacks were to blame, Because that excellent sharpe, and poinant sauce Was wanting, they arose without due grace. From these lines I would conclude, among other things, that Clavell had seen productions of a number of Massinger's plays, including a production of The Emperour of the East. Of some interest, perhaps, is the possibility that Clavell may have written these verses in Ireland, having left England to go there about August, 1631. 27 By 1638, however, he had returned to England, 28 but what his relations, if any, with Massinger were at this time is unknown to me. Obviously, in the course of his long dramatic career, Massinger must have known other dramatists than those already mentioned, and a number of others could be proposed for possible inclusion in his circle. Lack of solid documentary evidence, however, precludes our singling out any candi- dates for particular consideration. Besides professional playwrights, there were, naturally, others among his associates who were directly connected with the theatre. Henslowe and a few others have already been mentioned, but there were more. When Massinger was writing for the Lady Elizabeth's (Queen of Bohemia's) at the Phoenix, he almost certainly must have known such an influential member of the company as Christopher Beeston. 29 Likewise, he presum- ably must have been acquainted with , an important mem- ber of the King's Company, who seems to have acted as its business manager." (Heminges' son William included verses on Massinger in his Elegy on Randolph's Finger.) 31 After John Heminges' death in 1630, 32 and 33 (often in conjunction with Elyard Swan- ston34 ) appear to have managed the company until the closing of the theatres.35 Doubtless, Massinger also knew Lowin and Swanston, both of whom acted in some of his plays." There is absolute certainty, though, in the case of Taylor, who was an especially good friend of Massinger's. He commended the original edition (1629) of The Roman Actor, addressing the poet as "His long knowne and lou'd Friend." He even explained his reasons for writing his verses: . . but why I write to Thee Is to professe our loues Antiquitie, 57 Which to this Tragaedie must giue my test, Thou hast made many good, but this thy best. It was indeed fitting for Taylor to commend this work for yet another reason: he had acted the role of Paris, the hero of the play. He also acted in at least two other plays of Massinger's independent authorship: The Picture and Believe as You List. In addition, he was cast in a number of plays in which Massinger is often thought to have had a hand. 37 Finally, in view of their connections with the King's Company during the thirties, it seems likely that their friendship may have endured until Massinger's death. Another famous actor who can be connected with Massinger is Edward Alleyn. That Massinger, Daborne, and Henslowe were witnesses on 23 October 1615 to three documents relating to legal transactions to which Alleyn was a party has been noted. Needless to say, this connection between Alleyn and the poet is slight and may indicate no real friendship between the two. But, if Massinger were in Henslowe's employ any length of time— which seems likely—he presumably should have had ample opportunity to become well acquainted with Alleyn, whose close connections with his father-in-law are well known. Another leading actor of this period, Nathan Field, was, as we know, one of Massinger's more important collaborators. Then, too, , who has been suggested as one of Massinger's possible collaborators, was an actor of no little reputation on the Jacobean stage. Doubtless there were other actors in Massinger's circle of associates—very probably among those who acted in his own plays. 38 Besides the playwrights there were other writers in Massinger's circle, some of whom, however, were not actually men-of-letters by profession. Among his dedicatees Sir Thomas Jay was, as previously noted, a minor poet of sorts, and Lord Mohun appears to have written verse." It has also been noted that Sir Warham St. Leger seems to have written poetry for his own pleasure. Then there was James Smith, whom Massinger addressed as "his Sonne" in a commendation to The Innovation of Penelope and Ulysses, a Mock-Poem, which was first printed in Wit Restor'd in 1658. Calling The Innovation a "neat Poem," Massinger went on to praise the author particularly for his wit and originality. Apparently he was aware of the unusual character of Smith's poem (which Douglas Bush considers "the first real burlesque" 40 in English). This poem, which met the play- wright's approval, was evidently seen by him in manuscript, since it was originally published some eighteen years after his death. But neither the date of its composition nor the date of Massinger's commendation is known. Likewise, the time of the initial acquaintance of the two poets, which

58 might prove to be of some help in dating these compositions, is unknown. But since Massinger used such a poetical term of endearment as "son" in addressing Smith in his commendation, it may well be that they had been friends for some time before its composition. With John Selden, Massinger may also have been on good terms. In an earlier chapter mention was made that one John Selden drew up a Chancery bill for Massinger and Bagnall in 1624 and that his signature on this document has been adjudged to be "almost certainly" that of the famous jurist. If Massinger and Selden were friends, their friendship may well have been a fruitful one. Besides being a jurist, Selden was, among other things, a politician, a philologist, an Orientalist, a Biblical scholar, and an author. He was appallingly learned and was, perhaps, the greatest scholar in England during the first half of the seventeenth century. Accord- ingly, he and Massinger could have profited immeasurably from each other's company. Sir Henry Moody, too, may possibly be placed in this group; accord- ing to Wood, he was held "in some esteem at court for his poetical fancy. "41 I take Wood's statement to mean that Sir Henry wrote poetry that was admired in court circles. But apart from commendatory verses prefixed to the 1647 Folio and to the 1633 quarto of A New Way to Pay Old Debts, I know of no other poems of his. Perhaps they have not come down to us, or are somewhere in manuscript, or are scattered here and there in the an- thologies of the period which pay little heed to authorship. However this may be, his verses commending A New Way are rather pedestrian. In them he addresses Massinger rather stiffly as an "INGENIOVS AVTHOR" rather than as a friend. The concluding lines of the commendation, however, would suggest friendship between the two: I am your debtor too, but to my shame Repay you nothing backe, but your owne fame. Indeed, a literal interpretation of the passage would seem to indicate that Moody was personally indebted to the poet. Still this is uncertain, as are the circumstances under which the two became acquainted. Daniel Lakyn, a commender of the first edition of The Renegado upon its publication in 1630, is another who probably ought to be included in this same group. He was, in all likelihood, the Danial Lakyn whose trans- lation, A Miraculous Cure of the Prusian Swallow-Knife, was published in 1642. 42 As two treatises of Lakyn's own composition are appended to this translation, he can, therefore, be considered an author in his own right. 43 It can be said with certainty, though, that the Daniel Lakyn who commended The Renega,clo addressed Massinger as "his worthy Friend" and expressed his admiration for the playwright's work. 59 In the present grouping we may, perhaps, also include William Bagnall, who was, as we know, Massinger's fellow plaintiff in a Chancery bill of 1624. McIlwraith 44 thinks it likely that Bagnall was the "W. B." who contributed commendatory verses to the first editions of The Duke of Milan and The Bondman, which were published in 1623 and 1624, re- spectively. In support of this hypothesis, McIlwraith believes that the Chancery bill in which the two are coupled "furnishes a definite connec- tion, and at the right time." 45 He may be correct, too, in thinking that the William Bagnall who commended the 1607 edition of Barksted's Mirrha the Mother of Adonis and the William Bagnall who wrote an Induction to Certaine Selected Psalmes of Dauid (in Verse)," composed by Francis Davi- son, was Massinger's associate of the same name 4 7 If this critic's identifi- cations are correct, it may be that Bagnall was a minor poet of sorts. How- ever this may be, the "W. B." who commended The Duke of Milan called Massinger "HIS beloued friend" and seemed to be defending him against some critic who was apparently a poet. And in his verses prefixed to The Bondman, "W. B." stated that Massinger did not "write to please, but to endure." George Donne, another of Massinger's associates, may possibly be classified as an amateur poet, and thus he, too, may be tentatively assigned to the group under consideration. The commendatory verses under the sig- nature of "George Donne" which are prefixed to Massinger's The Great Duke of Florence (pub. 1636), to Ford's The Lover's Melancholoy (pub. 1629), and The Chronicle History of Perkin Warbeck (pub. 1634), and to Heywood's Philocothonista, or the Drunkard (pub. 1635) are often thought to have been written by one and the same individual, who has been tentatively identified as the second son of the Dean of St. Paul's. 48 Massinger's commender may also have been the same George Donne who contributed an elegy on Jonson, 48 which appeared in Jonsonus Virbius." It may be, then, that this George Donne was an amateur poet: if he were Dr. Donne's son, his interest in poetry is easily accounted for. If this identification is correct, Massinger would thus be linked with the son of the greatest metaphysical poet of the age. But it is certain that, in com- mending Massinger, the George Donne with whom we are concerned addressed him as his "much esteemed friend." Of come significance, per- haps, is the possibility that this George Donne may have known about Massinger's collaborations, 5 ' for in the course of his commendatory verses he told the playwright that "Almost neglected Poetrie" would have Wither'd into a dulnesse of Des paire, Had not thy later labour (Heire Vnto a former industrie) made knowne This work, which thou may'st call thine owne. 60 In view of this commendation it would seem likely that Massinger and this George Donne were close friends. Several others whom I have been unable to group otherwise deserve consideration in this chapter. One of them is a certain Robert Harvey, who contributed a set of verses to the first edition of The Roman Actor. Although there is nothing in his verses to indicate his precise relation- ship with Massinger, the very fact that he commended him would suggest that they were friends. Then there was one Henry Parker who, as I men- tioned previously, was the author of a poem ponderously entitled "To his honod: frend M. Phillip Massinger, having not had that iust applause for one of his playes web was due to him." Parker presumably presented Massinger with this poem, which reveals, in any case, that its author con- sidered himself a friend of the dramatist. Another who deserves mention here is Dorothy Knyvett, later Countess of Buchan, to whom Massinger may have addressed verses. 52 She was the daughter of Sir Philip Knyvett, who was, as has already been noted, one of Massinger's patrons. Still an- other whom it is convenient to take note of here is Nathaniel Field, the London stationer, who was the brother of Nathan, Massinger's collaborator. Previously mention was made of the fact that in 1629 Nathaniel Field petitioned the Lord Chamberlain regarding a debt of sixty pounds which he claimed Massinger owed him. Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, Massinger had become indebted to him for books purchased over a period of years. Mention should also be made of Tristram Homer and Thomas Smith, who were, as we know, named as defendants in a bill which Massinger and Bagnall filed in the Court of Chancery in 1624. Finally, I shall place a certain Walter Hopkins in this group. The bond, already spoken of, which Massinger and Daborne negotiated with Henslowe on 4 July 1615 was "Sealed and delivered" 53 in Hopkins' presence. To turn now to draw some tentative conclusions—this study reveals that men-of-letters were fairly conspicuous in Massinger's circle. In all, six dramatists" who can definitely be connected with the poet have been named, and, if Clavell was the author of the play already mentioned, the number is increased to seven. In addition, five others 55 have been suggested for in- clusion in this group, but of these there would seem to be little doubt about the assignment of at least four 58 of them to it. Besides the dramatists there were, as we know, other writers who helped to make up Massinger's circle. In all, nine individuals57 have been assigned to this group. But a number of these were not, as has been pointed out, men-of-letters by profession; indeed, a few of them were only tentatively classed as "writers." Moreover, there is a little uncertainty about Massinger's acquaintance with two pro- fessional writers58 included in this group. These figures, however, are 61 obviously unrealistic: they represent the identifications that it has so far been possible for me to make. Besides professional playwrights, there were, as we have seen, others in Massinger's circle who were directly connected with the theatre. Earlier in this chapter, nine individuals were singled out for special mention. Of this number, though, only four 59 can be connected with the poet by docu- mentary evidence. Still, of the remainder, four 6" were almost certainly known to him because of their influential positions in two of the companies for which he wrote, and another (William Rowley), if he did not actually collaborate with Massinger, may still have become acquainted with him through the King's Company. Similarly, as in the case of his literary asso- ciates, the number known or conjectured to have been members of this group is presumably unrealistic. Indeed, if he were an actor at one time, he presumably must have had quite a few friends who were connected with the theatre. Massinger's relatives whom I have been able to trace constitute another sizable group. Of the Massinger family I have been able to connect the poet directly with six," or perhaps seven, 92 members. Moreover, William Singleton, who called himself a "Kinsman" of the poet, may, as I suggested earlier, have been related to him through the Massingers. I have also been able to connect him with a fairly sizable number of his mother's family, the Cromptons.G 3 Fairly numerous, too, among Massinger's known associates were univer- sity men and members of the Inns of Court. 94 It is unnecessary, however, to try to estimate their number. For one thing, we know from the Dedica- tory Epistle to The Picture that the poet had certain select friends at the Inner Temple who remain anonymous. Probably most of them had been in residence at one of the universities as well. Furthermore, Massinger must have had numerous other friends unknown to me who were university men and/or members of the Inns of Court. Indeed, at this period in par- ticular, when there were close relations between playwrights and Inns-of- Court men (who are generally university men as well), it could almost be taken for granted that a dramatist of Massinger's stature would have had many such associates. This study also suggests that many of Massinger's known associates were commoners. But five of his dedicatees (mentioned by name) were, as I pointed out in the preceding chapter, members of the nobility. Further- more, if he were acquainted with Dorothy Knyvett, later Countess of Buchan, and if he enjoyed the patronage of the third Earl of Pembroke (which seems unlikely, though), then he can be connected with at least seven members of the nobility. Then, too, at least ten" other members of 62 his circle (who were not members of the nobility) were knights and/or baronets, although two of them did not receive these honors during his lifetime. Moreover, if the William Crompton who was knighted on 5 March 1607/8 67 was the poet's uncle of the same name, then the number is increased to at least eleven. To draw any hard-and-fast conclusions of a political nature regarding the playwright's circle would be hazardous. Still, some things would seem to be worth calling attention to. Earlier the fact that Philip Herbert was anti-Spanish was noted. Mention may also be made that Lord Mohun, one of Massinger's dedicatees, was apparently a toady of Buckingham's for a time." But what is of greater importance is the fact that a number of those in the playwright's circle were M.P.'s. Indeed, the likelihood is that as many as eleven of his friends and relations sat in Parliament." Besides his father and his uncle Richard Massinger, 7 ° the list of M.P.'s includes Dr. Thomas Crompton, Kt., his mother's brother, Sir Thomas Jay, Sir Francis Foljambe, Thomas May, John Lord Mohun, and Philip Herbert. 71 It is possible that Massinger's cousin Thomas Crompton 72 and his kinsman William Singleton" also served in Parliament. Moreover, if John Selden 74 were a friend of Massinger's, he can also be placed in this category. As well as being M.P.'s, various members of the poet's circle held a wide variety of other public offices." In Massinger's circle some Roman Catholics can be counted. Previously the suggestion was made that his mother was a member of a Roman Catholic family. In any case we know that her brother Anthony was a Roman Catholic recusant in 1583. It has been suggested, too, that her brother Thomas, who was suspected of "backwardness" in religion about this time, may likewise have been one then; however this may be, at a later date he was an influential member of the Anglican church. 76 Moreover, one of the poet's dedicatees (Sir Philip Knyvett) is definitely known to have been a Roman Catholic during some part of his life at least. 77 It appears likely that another (Robert Dormer, Earl of Carnarvon) was reared as a Roman Catholic, was later converted to Anglicanism, only to revert to his former faith just before his death. 78 It is possible that still another (Sir Robert Wiseman) may have been a Roman Catholic in his early years but later became an Anglican." Moreover, Shirley 8 ° and Cokain"—who were friends of the playwright—were, perhaps, converted to Roman Catholicism. Then, too, Dorothy Knyvett, later Countess of Buchan (to whom, as I suggested earlier, Massinger may have addressed verses), is said to have been reared in that faith. 82 On the other hand, he also had friends and rela- tives who were Protestants or even . I have already referred to a few who are known, or are conjectured, to have been Anglicans during 63 certain periods of their lives. Interestingly enough, James Smith, whom Massinger called his "son," was an Anglican clergyman, as was Thomas Goffe, who has been suggested as one of the poet's commenders. And Massinger's friend and collaborator, John Fletcher, was the son of a bishop of the Established Church. Then, too, his uncle Richard Massinger may have been a Registrar of the Bishopric of Ely at one time. 83 This study of Massinger's circle also reveals interesting interrelationships among many of the members comprising it. 84 Finally, Massinger's circle was a lively and colorful one, embracing, as it did, prominent figures in the literary and theatrical worlds, distinguished men of affairs, and various social classes and professions. 85

t

1. Edmund R. Nevi11, "The Chrysom Book of St. Thomas, New Sarum," Wilt- shire Notes and Queries, VI (September, 1909), 304. 2. Namely, Barbara, Catherine, Elizabeth, and Susan. See Thesis, pp. 281-284, 287. 3. P. C. C., 5 Harte (1604). 4. For an account of Walter Crompton, see Thesis, p. 201. 5. P. C. C., 5 Harte (1604). 6. For an account of Sir Thomas Crompton, Kt., see Thesis, pp. 192-197. 7. P. C. C., 120 Lawe (1614). 8. There is a copy of Crompton's will at the Public Record Office. P. R. 0., S. P. 14/17/24 (1614). 9. See Bentley, III, 300. 10. See Brinkley, pp. 35, 43-44, 153. 11. For a detailed account of Robert Daborne (containing much new material about him), see Thesis, pp. 204-220. 12. See Bentley, III, 242. 13. Middleton wrote a number of plays for the King's Men, and Rowley was a member of the company (by August, 1623). See Bentley, IV, 857-858; V, 1016. 14. Bentley, III, 437. 15. See Allan Griffith Chester, Thomas May: Man of Letters, 1595-1650 (Phil- adelphia, 1932), pp. 7, 34-35. See also , Ben Jonson, ed. C. H. Her- ford, Percy and Evelyn Simpson (Oxford, 1925-1952), VIII, 395; XI, 443. 16. May commended Shirley twice. See James Shirley, The Wedding (London, 1629), sig. A4r; James Shirley, Poems (London, 1646), sig. A5r. 17. See Cokain, p. 234 (misnumbered 134). 18. For example, Coxeter and Mason. 19. See Bentley, IV, 498-511. 20. Clark, II, pt. 3, 320. 21. See D. N. B., under "Thomas Goffee," VIII, 71. 64 22. For some of Cokain's friends and acquaintances in the literary world, see Cokain, p. 234 (misnumbered 134) et passim. 23. Cokain, p. 234 (misnumbered 134). 24. See Cokain, p. 137; D. N. B., under "Sir Aston Cokayne," IV, 680-681. 25. See Fosbroke, pp. 213 ff.; P. C. C., 45 Wood (1611); Stephen Glover, The History and Gazetteer of the County of Derby, ed. Thomas Noble (Derby, 1831-1833), II, 41-42. 26. See Bentley, III, 163-165. On the authorship of this play, see Bentley, III, 162-165; The Soddered Citizen, ed. J. H. P. Pafford and W. W. Greg, Malone Society Reprint ([London,) 1936), pp. v if.-hereafter referred to as Pafford and Greg; Donald S. Lawless and J. H. P. Pafford, "John Clavell, 1603-42. Highway- man, Author and Quack Doctor," N. & Q., New Series, IV ( January, 1957), p. 9. For an account of Clavell, see Pafford and Greg, pp. xiii ff.; Lawless and Pafford, P. 9. 27. See Lawless and Pafford, p. 9. 28. See Lawless and Pafford, p. 9. 29. For an account of Beeston, see Bentley, II, 363-370; III, 17. 30. For an account of Heminges, see Bentley, II, 465-469. 31. William Heminges' lines referring to Massinger read: . . . Messenger that knowes the strength to wright or plott In verse or prose, Whose easye pegasus Can Ambell ore some threscore Myles of fancye In an hower. William Heminges, Elegy on Randolph's Finger, ed. G. C. Moore Smith (Oxford, 1923), p. 13. 32. See Bentley, II, 469. 33. See Bentley, II, 591; Chambers, II, 346. 34. See Bentley, II, 591. 35. Bentley, II, 591. 36. See Thesis, Appendix C. 37. E.g., The Spanish Curate, The Little French Lawyer, The Custom of the Country, The False One, The Prophetess, and The Double Marriage, (Greg, III, 1279-1282). 38. See Thesis, Appendix C. 39. See Cokain, pp. 80-82. 40. Douglas Bush, in the Earlier Seventeenth Century, 1600- 1660 (Oxford, 1945), p. 352. 41. Wood, IV, 43. 42. See Thesis, pp. 263-266, for an account of Daniel Lakyn. 43. Daniel Lakyn (the translator) was also a doctor (Thesis, p. 265). 44. McIlwraith, pp. 326-327. 45. McIlwraith, p. 327. 46. Bagnall's Induction has been printed in various editions of Davison's A Poetical Rhapsody. See, for example, Bullen's edition (1890-1891), II, 155. 47. McIlwraith, p. 327. 38. See, for example, Williams, p. 55. 49. Herford and Simpson, XI, 462-463. 50. Dr. was, as is well known, a friend of Jonson's. 51. On this point, see Dunn, p. 26. 65 52. See Thesis, pp. 237-238, for an account of Dorothy (Knyvett) Erskine, Countess of Buchan. 53. Hens. Papers, p. 85. 54. Namely, Fletcher, Field, Daborne, Shirley, Cokain, and May. 55. Namely, Dekker, Ford, Goffe, Middleton, and Rowley. 56. Namely, Dekker, Goffe, Middleton, and Rowley. 57. Namely, William Bagnall, George Donne, Sir Thomas Jay, Daniel Lakyn, John, Lord Mohun, Sir Henry Moody, Sir Warham St. Leger, John Selden, and James Smith. 58. Namely, John Selden (the jurist) and Daniel Lakyn (the translator). 59. Namely, Edward Alleyn, Nathan Field, Philip Henslowe, and Joseph Taylor. 60. Namely, Christopher Beeston, John Heminges, John Lowin, and Elyard Swanston. 61. Namely, his four sisters-Barbara, Catherine, Elizabeth, and Susan-his father, Arthur Massinger, and his uncle Richard Massinger. 62. There is uncertainty about the identity (or even the existence) of "Walter Massinger." See Thesis, p. 288. 63. See Thesis, pp. 173-203, 269-272. 64. See Thesis, passim. 65. Namely, Sir Thomas Bland, Sir Aston Cokain, Sir Thomas Crompton, Sir Francis Foljambe, Sir Thomas Jay, Sir Philip Knyvett, Sir Henry Moody, Sir An- thony St. Leger, Sir Warham St. Leger, and Sir Robert Wiseman. See William A. Shaw, comp., The Knights of England . . . (London, 1906), passim; G. E. C[okayne), Complete Baronetage (Exeter, 1900-1909), passim. 66. Namely, Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sir Aston Cokain. Regarding the latter's creation, see Bentley, III, 167. 67. Shaw, II, 144. 68. See Thesis, pp. 289-293. 69. For generous help in confirming the identifications of the following M.P.'s, the author wishes to thank Miss Norah Fuidge, History of Parliament Trust, Tavistock Square, London. 70. Membs. of Parl., I, 423, 428, 437-438. 71. Membs. of Pan., passim. 72. See Afembs. of Pall., I, 453, 477. 73. See Mentbs. of Pad,, I, 481. 74. See Membs. of Parl., I, 458 et passim. 75. See Thesis, passim. 76. See Thesis, pp. 192-193. 77. See Thesis, pp. 261-262. 78. See Thesis, pp. 227, 229-230, 234. 79. See Thesis, pp. 329-330, 333-335, 80. On the question of Shirley's religion, see, for example, Wood, III, 737; Records of the Old Archdeaconry of St. Alban's . . . (1575-1637), ed. H. R. Wilton Hall (St. Alban's, 1908), p. 154; Arthur Huntington Nason, James Shirley, Dramatist . . . (New York, 1915), pp. 31-32; Albert C. Baugh, "Some New Facts about Shirley," Al. L. R.. XVII ( July, 1922), 229, 234-235; Stephen J. Radtke, James Shirley: His Catholic Philosophy of Life (Washington, D. C., 1929), pp. 1 ff.; 66 Aline Mackenzie Taylor, "James Shirley and `Mr. Vincent Cane,' the Franciscan," N. & Q., New Series, VII ( January, 1960), 31-33. 81. On the question of Cokain's religion, see, for example, Wood, IV, 128; Andreas Edward Cockayne et al., Cockayne Memoranda . . . (Congleton, 1869- 1873), I, 58; Frederick Leigh Colvile, The Worthies of Warwickshire . . . (London and Warwick, 1869), p. 129. See also Cokain, pp. 211 (misnumbered 111), 225 (misnumbered 125), 235-236 (misnumbered 135-136), 241 (misnumbered 141). One of Cokain's daughters became a Roman Catholic nun; see The English Franciscan Nuns (1619-1821) . . . , ed. Richard Trappes-Lomax (London, 1922), Publications of the Catholic Record Society, XXIV, 55. 82. See Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Advance of Money, 1642-1656 . . . , ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1888), II, 970. 83. See Cal. S. P., Dom., 1598-1601, pp. 388-389. 84. See Thesis, Part II. 85. See Thesis, Part II.

6 . I