our interest on Henry; we feel that he is a royal and heroic figure, whose faults may in the last resort be palliated by the consideration that he is the father of Elizabeth. I agree with the critics who regard the play as a failure from the artistic point of view; it lacks unity, and it moves awkwardly. It might even be called a spectacular experiment. But I rate it higher than they seem to do; its faults are largely due to the subject; it has much of Shakspere in it, as for example, the conscientious way in which the historical details are introduced.(315) It is full of superb and moving passages, and it uses the eleven-syllable line with skill and tenderness. If some of its defects remind us faintly of Massinger, its excellences are altogether beyond his abilities. Doubtless, it is natural to wish that each play of Shakspere should excel its predecessor, and to be unwilling to confess that he ended his career with something that was not supremely excellent. In the same way we may be sorry that one of Mozart’s last works, _Titus_, was a failure. But it is better to take things as we find them than to seek to twist them into something else on inadequate grounds. Boyle’s attribution of _Henry VIII_ to Fletcher and Massinger(316) was coldly received by the New Shakspere Society.(317) Let us look at his arguments. I trust that condensation will do them no injustice. 1. There is a change in the conception of the character of Buckingham. Such changes constantly occur in the plays which Fletcher and Massinger wrote together, notably in the character of Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt. Therefore Massinger wrote part of _Henry VIII_. This line of argument, even if valid, would only prove collaboration by Fletcher with someone else. 2. The Shakspere play _All is True_ may have perished in the “Globe” fire of 1613. _Henry VIII_ was written to take its place, but not produced before 1616. The evidence quoted for the date 1616-17 is very weak, and does nothing to prove Massinger’s co-operation. 3. If it be urged that the reputed authors of the play were alive in 1623, when it was published as Shakspere’s work in the Folio, Boyle replies,(318) “that, with the exception perhaps of Ben Jonson, it would never have occurred to a dramatist of that age to claim as his property what was published under another’s name.” This is a bold statement. Can an instance of such indifference be quoted? Or are we merely bidden to remember that Massinger was poor? 4. Boyle then works through the scenes which he ascribes to Massinger. I., 1.—The opening is like _The Emperor of the East_, III., 1. “An untimely ague” corresponds to “a sudden fever.” The resemblance of the scenes is undoubted, and the parallel phrases are remarkable. Note, however, that the writer says the same thing twice (lines 4 and 13), while lines 9-12 are not like Massinger. I., 4.—Lines 1-18, and 60 to the end. I find no trace of Massinger’s style in these passages. He never wrote lines 75-6: