It is a holiday to look on them; Lord, the difference of men.(374) Lidia, in _The Great Duke of Florence_, when Sanazarro seems to be treating her rudely, exclaims: Oh, the difference of natures!(375) But she does not leave the stage. We might say: Oh, the difference of styles! In the one case we have a rustic maiden of low birth; in the other, a lady justly offended. I do not deny that some of the parallels are remarkable, but they may be due to imitation or reminiscence. Take the words: Thou, O jewel, O’ th’ wood, o’ th’ world, hast likewise blest a place With thy sole presence.(376) In _The Great Duke of Florence_ we find: And what place Does he now bless with his presence?(377) The phrase is one which Massinger’s courtly mind would treasure and delight to use. Theseus, addressing Artesius, says: Forth and levy Our worthiest instruments, whilst we despatch This grand act of our life, this daring deed Of fate in wedlock.(378) Phrases like this are found in Massinger; thus in _The Maid of Honour_, Roberto says of the wedding of Bertoldo and Aurelia: And rest assur’d that, this great work despatch’d, You shall have audience.(379) They may be due to reminiscence, though it is simpler to regard them as the current English of the day. The strongest evidence for Boyle’s theory is contained in Palamon’s invocation to Venus:(380) I never practised Upon man’s wife, nor would the libels read Of liberal wits; I never at great feasts Sought to betray a beauty. These words certainly remind us of Leosthenes in _The Bondman_, both in thought and style: Nor endeavour’d To make your blood run high at solemn feasts, With viands that provoke; the speeding philtres; I worked no bawds to tempt you; never practised The cunning and corrupting arts they study That wander in the wild maze of desire.(381) I think, however, that reminiscence will suffice to account for the parallel. The man who could write the last line of this passage has no need to buttress up his fame with _The Two Noble Kinsmen_, though it is of course conceivable that he edited it for publication in 1634. Lastly, the method of Massinger calls for a few words. It has been noticed by all the critics that he often repeats himself. As is the case with Plautus the same metaphors, thoughts, and words recur from time to time in similar situations. It is clear that this characteristic might help us to trace those parts of Fletcher’s plays in which Massinger collaborated.