V., 1, 116 should read thus, as in MS.: “And not to be replied to.” C. misprints: “replied be.” V., 1, 129: The MS. reads thus: For that deitie (Such our affection makes him) whose dread power Tooke forthe choicest arrows, headed with Not loose but loyall flames, who aymed at mee Ame with greedie haste to meete the shaft. C. reads line 131: ... the choicest arrow, headed with. line 133: Who came with greedy haste to meet the shaft. In 131 “the” is obviously left out by homoeoteleuton. The grammar of the passage is defective. It is all cancelled in the old ink. Similarly, 138 is cancelled: “Of gold, nor of pale lead that breeds disdain.” 178-185 down to the word “matter” are cancelled. 294-296 are cancelled in the old ink. V., 1, 371: MS. “to whore me.” A modern hand has written above “abuse.” V., 1, 531: There is an addition in the original hand which will not scan. “And gratious spectators.” Gifford in his note (II., 312) on _Parliament of Love_, V., 1, 129, refers to a corrected copy of _The Duke of Milan_, which proves the writing of the _Parliament of Love_ to be Massinger’s. _Cf._ also Advertisement to his second edition, Vol. I., and the facsimile of the dedication of _The Duke of Milan_ to Sir Francis Foljambe (IV., 593). Where is this copy now? It was at one time in Gifford’s possession. APPENDIX X. THE AUTHORSHIP OF “THE VIRGIN MARTYR” Boyle assigns to Massinger, Act I., Act III., 1, 2, Act IV., 3, Act V., 2, a total of slightly less than half the play. As far as it goes, I agree with this assignation, but it does not seem to me quite satisfactory. It is true that there are serious passages in _The Virgin Martyr_ which do not resemble the rest of Massinger’s work; it does not therefore follow that they are due, like the comic parts, to Dekker. In the first place, the exaltation which breathes from these passages may be due to the rapture of youth. Why should Massinger not have shown in what must have been a youthful work an emotional brilliancy which he lost later? And secondly, it is a mistake to say that Massinger’s style is absolutely uniform; we could only lay this proposition down positively if we had all his works in our hands, and among those we possess I am much mistaken if differences, slight though real, cannot be detected. _A Very Woman_ and _The Bashful Lover_ stand apart from the rest of his plays by virtue of their greater degree of romantic nobility. In the third place, the serious scenes assigned by Boyle and others to Dekker do not seem to me to resemble the serious style of that author, except that there are certain passages where rhymed couplets are employed. Here again we might argue that Massinger was making an experiment which he dropped in his later work. The fact is that, as is usually the case in these matters, we have not enough evidence to prove one thing or the other.