PHILIP, a distinguished dramatic writer, was born at Salisbury in 1584, and educated at Wilton, the seat of the Earl of Pembroke, to whose family his father was attached. In May 1602, he became a commoner of Alban Hall, Oxford, where he studied for some time; but he left the university abruptly, without taking a degree, probably in consequence of having exchanged the Protestant for the Catholic religion. "A close and repeated perusal of Massinger's works," says Mr Gifford, "has convinced me that he was a Catholic." But whatever might be the cause, the period of his misfortunes commenced with his arrival in London, where he was driven by his necessities to dedicate himself to the services of the stage. This expedient, though not the most prudent, nor indeed the most encouraging to a young adventurer, was not altogether hopeless. Men who will ever be considered as the pride and boast of their country, Shakespeare, Jonson, and Fletcher, were solely, or in a considerable degree, dependent upon it; nor were there wanting others of an inferior rank, such as Rowley, Middleton, Field, Decker, Shirley, and Ford, writers to whom Massinger, without any impeachment of his modesty, might consider himself as fully equal, who subsisted on the emoluments derived from dramatic writing. Little is known of him, however, from the year 1606, the period of his first appearance in London, until 1622, when his Virgin Martyr, the first of his printed works, was given to the public. This long interval of sixteen years Mr Gifford endeavours to account for, by supposing that at first his modesty deterred him from attempting to write alone, and that he lost his assistance to others of a more confirmed reputation, who could depend upon a ready vent for their joint productions. He afterwards produced in succession a variety of plays, of which ten or twelve have been lost, and eighteen preserved. Massinger died on the 17th of March 1640. He went to bed in good health, and was found dead in the morning, in his own house on the Bankside. He was buried in the churchyard of St Saviour's; but it does not appear that a stone, or inscription of any kind, marked the spot where his dust was deposited; and even the memorial of his mortality is given with a pathetic brevity, which accords but too well with the obscure and humble passages of his life. Of his private life so little is known that all his editor has presumed to give is merely the history of the successive appearance of his works, for which the reader is referred to Mr Gifford's Introduction. But though we are ignorant of every circumstance respecting Massinger, except that he lived, wrote, and died, we may yet form to ourselves some conception of his personal character from the incidental hints which are scattered throughout his works. In what light he was regarded, may be collected from the recommendatory poems prefixed to his several plays, in which his panegyrists express an attachment, apparently derived not so much from his talents as his virtues. All the writers of his life unite in representing him as a man of singular modesty, gentleness, candour, and affability; nor does it appear that he ever made or found an enemy. He speaks, indeed, of opponents on the stage; but the contention of rival candidates for popular favour must not be confounded with personal hostility. Yet notwithstanding all this, he appears to have maintained a constant struggle with adversity; since not only the stage, from which his natural reserve seems to have prevented him from deriving the usual advantages, but even the bounty of his particular friends, on which he chiefly relied, left him in a state of absolute dependence. Jonson, Fletcher, Shirley, and others not superior to him in abilities, had their periods of good fortune, their bright as well as their stormy hours; but Massinger seems to have enjoyed no gleam of sunshine. His life was all one wintry day, and shadows, clouds, and darkness rested on it. Davies finds a servility in his dedications which no one else has been able to discover. They are principally characterized by gratitude and humility, without a single trait of that gross and servile adulation which distinguishes and disgraces the addresses of some of his contemporaries. Poverty made him no flatterer, and, what is still more rare, no maligner, of the great; nor is there one symptom of envy manifested in any part of his compositions. His patriotism is unimpeached, and his morality is superior to that of his contemporaries. His loyalty is combined with just and rational ideas of political freedom; and guilt of every kind is usually left to the pu- nishment of divine justice. Nor is the rectitude of his mind less apparent in the uniform respect with which he treats religion and its ministers. No priests are introduced by him, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh at their licentious follies; the sacred name is not lightly invoked nor daringly sported with; nor is Scripture profaned by blasphemous distortions or buffoon allusions put into the mouths of fools and women. Compared with the other dramatic writers of his age, Massinger appears more natural in his characters, and more poetical in his diction, than Jonson or Cartwright, more elevated and nervous than Fletcher, the only writers who can be supposed to contest his pre-eminence. It must indeed be confessed, that in comedy he falls considerably below Shakspeare. His wit is less brilliant, and his ridicule less delicate and various; but, in his Great Duke of Florence, he exhibits a specimen of elegant comedy, of which there is no archetype in the productions of his great predecessor. In tragedy he is rather eloquent than pathetic. If not a master of the passions, he is a powerful ruler of the understanding; with the heavy disadvantage of succeeding Shakspeare, there is still much original beauty in his works; and the most extensive acquaintance with poetry will hardly diminish the pleasure which they afford on perusal. His occasional grossness is to be considered as the vice of the age rather than as the fault of the writer. Of the editions of Dell in 1761 and Davies in 1779 it is unnecessary to say anything, much less to point out their numerous faults and imperfections. They have been completely superseded by that of Mr Gifford, which has revived the fame of Massinger, and fulfilled the most sanguine expectations of the lovers of our dramatic literature. This, which is perhaps the most correct edition of any of our ancient poets, was published in 1805, in four vols. 8vo, and reprinted in 1813. It displays a genuine spirit of research, united with great acuteness and critical ability, in detecting and rectifying the mistakes of former editors; and it admirably explains the customs, and manners, and language which obtained at the time when Massinger lived and wrote.

(A.)