Let us briefly look at these arguments. The work is “structurally and psychologically imperfect.” True, and this point might be quoted to support the theory that the play is based on an old and immature tragedy. As far as concerns structure, Massinger’s plays are always strong; so that part of the argument falls to the ground. No doubt his psychology is his weak point, but its weakness is of a different kind from that which we find in _The Two Noble Kinsmen_. There are no violent emotions of the sort in which he rejoices in it. There are no characters in Massinger resembling Palamon and Arcite. Mr. Brooke refers to their “spinelessness,” and it is true that they are not much differentiated. I suppose, however, that he would allow that they start by being a romantic pair of friends, that their quarrel when they first see Emilia is lifelike, and that their subsequent behaviour is chivalrous. When he refers to “the really revolting wishy-washiness and ingrained sensuality of Emilia” he uses exaggerated language. The fact is, that Emilia is in a very difficult position, and if her character is ambiguous it is the fault of the story rather than of the author. “The tendency to unnecessary coarseness of language.” This is based in the main on Hippolyta’s language,(336) with which Mr. Sykes compares a passage in _The Unnatural Combat_.(337) I have discussed the supposed coarseness of Massinger’s heroines elsewhere. In spite of everything that Boyle can say, with his catalogue of twenty-two passages, I wonder who is right about Massinger’s women, Boyle or Courthope, who says that “his portraits of women show more delicacy of feeling and imagination than those of any English dramatist with the exception of Shakspere.”(338) I, at any rate, feel that Courthope is nearer the truth than Boyle and his followers. “Feeble imitation of Shakspere.” That there is imitation of Shakspere in Massinger we all know; but I deny that it is feeble, and we know that others of the same age, like Fletcher, Webster, and Tourneur, have delighted to imitate him. “The frequent similarity to Massinger’s writings.” In the first place, I do not feel that the similarity is frequent; and secondly, as has already been pointed out, what similarity there is may be due to imitation of _The Two Noble Kinsmen_ by Massinger. Are we to suppose that the only author he imitated or borrowed from was Shakspere?