=Life.=[1137]--Robert Greene was born in Norwich of estimable parents,
and "in his non-age" sent there to school. He was entered November 15,
1575, at St. John's, Cambridge. According to his _Short Discourse_,
he was even then "in his first yeares." We may, therefore, date his
birth about 1560. At the university he "light amongst wags" as lewd as
himself, and was by them drawn, probably after he had taken his B.A.,
1578, "to travell into Italy and Spaine," where he "practizde such
villainie as is abhominable to declare." After his return (probably
before Part I. of his _Mamillia_ was entered for printing, October 3,
1580,--certainly by March 20, 1581, when his ballad of _Youthe_[1138]
was registered), he "ruffeled out in silks" posing as "malcontent"; but
having in 1583,[1139] "by degrees proceeded M.A.," he betook himself to
London, where as "Author of Playes and penner of Love Pamphlets" none
soon was better known "than Robin Greene." Perhaps he was in Cambridge,
September 6, 1583, when the _Second Part of Mamillia_ was registered,
for it is dated "from my Studie in Clare hall." Till about August 13,
1584, he was writing similar tales; and, despite a dissolute habit, he
maintained favour with some of honourable calling. His _Planetomachia_
appeared in 1585; an edition of his _Morando_[1140] is licensed during
the next year. Between 1584 and 1586 he visited his former home,
made a fleeting effort at reform, married a "proper young woman" of
Lincolnshire,[1141] had a son by her, "cast her off," and returned
to London. Here he gave himself "wholly to the penning of plaies,"
which with "other trifling pamphlets" were henceforth his "chiefest
stay of living." Both kinds brought him popularity and envy.[1142]
In July, 1588, he was incorporated M.A. at Oxford. In February, 1589,
this "arch play-making poet" steps forth in the rôle of patriot with
his _Spanish Masquerado_; soon after with his _Mourning Garment_
(_S. R._ November 2, 1590) in that of moralist. The didactic note
had been already struck in _The Royal Exchange_, early in 1590, and
the penitential in the _Farewell to Follie_ (S. R. 1587; pub. 1591);
but both prevail in _Never Too Late_,[1143] 1590. The disposition to
serve the Commonwealth is further displayed in his series for the
exposure of "coosnage," 1591-92. Whatever else he had written he now
counts for "apples of Sodom." In July, 1592, he[1144] "canvazed" the
brothers Harvey in his _Quip for an Upstart Courtier_, but of this we
have only the eviscerated remains. Soon afterward he indulged in that
memorable surfeit of pickled herring and Rhenish wine. The ensuing
sickness at the shoemaker's in Dowgate,--Greene's friendless lot,
"lousie circumstance," mistresse,[1145] bastard, and corpse,--Gabriel
Harvey[1146] has embalmed with the foul peculiar juices of his spite.
Those last weeks Greene spent writing his _Groatsworth of Wit_ which
is partly, and his _Repentance_ which is wholly, autobiographical, to
dissuade men from a like "carelesse course of life." He sent back their
son to his wife; and the night of his death received "commendations"
from her "whereat he greatly rejoiced," and wrote a pathetic farewell.
That was September 3, 1592. Mrs. Isam, his hostess, garlanded the dead
poet with bays; and he was laid in the New Churchyard, near Bedlam.
=Misapprehensions concerning Greene.=--On the title-page of
_Planetomachia_, 1585, Greene subscribes himself "Student in Phisicke";
and from this it has been inferred by most of his biographers that
he was then studying medicine. But for Greene, as for Chaucer and
Gower, whom he diligently perused, 'phisicke' sometimes meant
natural philosophy,[1147] and always included a grounding in
'astronomie.'[1148] The word is here used with reference to the 'magic
natural' of his subject,--the book being a narrative dispute of
astrological influences.
According to popular assertion, substantiated by the arguments of
Dyce, Fleay, Grosart, and others, Greene was at one period a parson.
Careful investigation convinces me that this assertion is untrue. Our
dramatist cannot have been the Robert Greene who, as _unus Capellanorum
nostrorum Capellæ nostræ Regiæ_, was in 1576 presented by Elizabeth to
the rectory of Walkington in Yorkshire; for at that time he was but a
freshman at Cambridge. Nor can he[1149] have been the Robert Greene
who from June 19, 1584, to February 17, 1586, was Vicar of Tollesbury
in Essex; because according to his own story,[1150] that period was
covered by other events: to wit, the conviction of sin in St. Andrew's
at Norwich (while he was yet "newly come from Italy," end of 1584 or
beginning of 1585), a "motion" which vastly amused his "copesmates,"
but lasted "_no longer than the present time_"; the relapse; the
marriage "soon after to a gentleman's daughter" (sometime in 1585);
the brief sequel of "wickedness" during which he "spent up" his
wife's marriage-money; the "casting off" of the wife; and the return
to play-writing in London. This last, six years before his death;
therefore in 1586. Such manner of life is not that of the Vicar of
Tollesbury; nor is the recital that of Greene if he ever was vicar of
anything.
Mr. Fleay[1151] attempts to identify Greene, as Robert _the parson_,
with one Robert Persj or Rupert Persten of Leicester's troupe acting
between December, 1585, and July, 1587, on the Continent. There
is, however, no proof that Greene was with these "instrumentalists
and acrobats"; nor is the name _Persj_ or _Persten_, as it appears
in the Danish and Saxon records, either the English name _Parson_
or a translation of the calling of parson into Danish or German.
Actor King became _Koning_ and _Konigk_, and actor Pope, _Pape_ and
_Pabst_,--but Persj, Percy, Persten, or Preston was untranslatable.
Indeed, if the argument proves anything, it proves too much. For if
Mr. Fleay's Persten (or as he coerces it, _Priester)_ is Greene, Vicar
of Tollesbury, this Vicar must have been acting abroad three months
of the period during which he was preaching at home;--a dual activity
terminated, moreover, not by the vestry of Tollesbury, which would
appear to have enjoyed this unusual programme, or by the bishop, but
by the Vicar himself, whose resignation is recorded as "free and
spontaneous."[1152]
It is certainly safer to accept Greene's own story and the publishers'
records, which, taken together, show that his marital estate was
a debauch with rare intervals of business activity. During this
period _Arbasto_ and the enlarged _Morando_ were registered and
_Planetomachia_ was printed.
A writer of Greene's self-exhibitive temper would not have hesitated,
and one of his didactic tendency could not have failed, to present the
world with an account of an episode which, if it existed, was the most
sensational of his moral experiences. But in none of his writings,
autobiographical, or quasi-autobiographical, does Greene give even
remote intimation of taking orders. On the contrary he speaks as a
layman, and a very wicked layman, too; as one who from infancy was
bred in sin, and who held aloof from God's ministers. So far was he
from the possibility of orders that when, in his youth, "once and yet
but once" he "sorrowed for his wickedness of life," his comrades could
conceive of no huger joke in the world than to wish that he "might have
a pulpit." _Roberto_ of the _Groatsworth_, "whose life in most part
agreed" with his, was never a minister, nor was either of Greene's
other understudies, _Philador_ and _Francesco_. In _Greene's Vision_,
which, whether authentic or not, is contemporaneous, the advice given
to our dramatist "Be a devine, my sonne," is dismissed as out of the
question, though that consummation were most devoutly to be desired.
None of his associates of later years[1153] betrays acquaintance with
his ministerial career, not Nashe or Burbye or Dekker or Heywood or
Chettle. None of his panegyrists. And of his enemies not even Gabriel
Harvey.
We may therefore conclude that the famous passage in _Martine
Marsixtus_ which (with a context partly relative to Greene) announces
that "every red-nosed minister is an author" does not apply to Greene,
but to any "unauthorized author who serves a drunken man's humor," or
that the insinuation has reference to some sobriquet born of Greene's
paroxysms of pentitence and mourning pamphlets. And, indeed, a nickname
may have attached itself to this wayward child of circumstance, as
early as that critical period in Norwich when his copesmates called
him "Puritane and Presizian ... and other such scoffing tearmes." What
more likely than "Parson," since they had gone so far, Greene tells
us, as to _wish_ him a pulpit? But if he had a pulpit, what becomes of
the joke? and of his own word--"the good lesson went quite out of my
remembrance ... I went forward obstinately in my misse"?
As to the manuscript notes in the 1599 copy of _The Pinner of
Wakefield_, the first of which states that Shakespeare said that the
play was "written by ... a minister who ac[ted] ye piñers pt in it
himself," and the second, in another hand, that Juby said that "ys
play was made by Ro. Gree[ne],"--it must be remembered that both
attributions are hearsay; that both notes are anonymous; that one or
both may be fraudulent; that there is no certain proof that they were
written by contemporaries; and finally that, unless their contents
are shown to be accurate as well as authentic, and to refer to the
same author, they do not connect any Robert Greene with the ministry.
Since our Greene's writings show that he was no minister, there is
but one hypothesis upon which, assuming the accuracy and relevancy of
both these manuscript notes, he can be the person indicated; namely,
that the designation, minister, used by Shakespeare, was a nickname.
And, conversely, Shakespeare's remark can be credited in its literal
significance only if the play was _not_ by our Greene. In the latter
event, the attribution of authorship to a minister, taken in connection
with Ed. Juby's attribution to a certain Ro. Greene, would denote some
parson-playwright to whom no other play has been traced--Robert of
Walkington, or Robert of Tollesbury, or some other of this not unusual
name. And in that case it would be easy to understand how the name of
an obscure author, if mentioned by Shakespeare, should have slipped the
memory of the title-page scribe. Internal evidence, as will later be
seen, is not conclusive of Greene's authorship; but even if it were, it
would not prove that he was a minister.
It may be conceded that, like other Elizabethan dramatists, he assumed
a part upon the stage. But that he adopted the calling, or ever stood
a chance of enjoying "its damnable excessive gains," is only less
improbable than that he was a parson. Dyce's quotation from Harvey
to the effect that Greene was "a player" misapprehends the "puissant
epitapher" who was merely enumerating the "thousand crotchets" that
littered Greene's "wilde head, and hence his stories."[1154] None of
his contemporaries hints that Greene was an actor; none regards him in
that light. He himself despised the profession.
In respect of his relations with Shakespeare, I cannot but feel that
he has been harshly judged. We shall be justified in calling the
_Shakescene_ remarks unduly rancorous when it has been ascertained
that the "admired inventions" of Greene and of those whom he was
addressing in the _Groatsworth_ had not been borrowed by the young
actor-playwright; or that Greene should have let himself be plundered
without protest by this revamper of plays because the revamper was
destined some day to be illustrious, in fact to be the Shakespeare. I
have not observed that dramatists _et id omne genus_, nowadays, offer
the cheek with any more Christian grace than characterized Robert
Greene.
=His Development as a Dramatist: Order of Plays.=[1155]--A painstaking
investigation of the evidence leads me to conclude that none of the
plays assigned to Greene was produced before the end of 1586, or,
probably, the beginning of 1587; that their order is as follows:
_Alphonsus_, _Looking-Glasse_, _Orlando_, _Friar Bacon_, _James IV._;
and that if _Selimus_ and the _Pinner_ are his, they range respectively
with _Alphonsus_ and _James_.
1. The earliest extant exemplar of _The Comicall Historie of
Alphonsus, King of Aragon_, by R. G.,[1156] and without motto, "as it
hath bene sundrie times acted" was "brinted" by Thomas Creede, London,
1599. The play is generally supposed to have been written in emulation
of the _Tamburlaine_, which was on the stage in 1588,--perhaps, indeed,
as early as the end of 1586.[1157] While similarity of diction and
conceit might indicate a contemporaneous production, the lines in
_Alphonsus_,--
"Not mighty Tamburlaine,
Nor soldiers trained up amongst the wars,"[1158]
are proof presumptive of the priority of Marlowe's play. Indeed, Dr.
Grosart is justified in asserting that "to take _Alphonsus_ without a
tacit reference to _Tamburlaine_ is to miss the entire impulse of its
writer"; for the dramatist appears to be attempting a burlesque; and
the vainglorious claim that he makes for his hero[1159] is a manifest
challenge to Marlowe and that bombastic brood. Greene may have been
writing the play as early as 1587; he was, at any rate, interested in
the hero then, for he mentions him in the _Dedication_ to _The Carde of
Fancie_.[1160] That the _Alphonsus_ was well known in the early spring
of 1589 would appear from an allusion in Peele's _Farewell_,[1161]
which couples it with _Tamburlaine_ so closely as further to suggest
that it already clung like a burr to its magniloquent predecessor.
Whether the series of satiric reprisals in which, between 1588 and
1590, Greene and Nashe indulged at Marlowe's expense,[1162] was
stimulated by some counter-burlesque of _Alphonsus_ is uncertain;
but that Marlowe shortly before March 29, 1588, had been privy to
some public burlesque of a production of Greene's, may reasonably be
inferred from Greene's preface to the _Perymedes_ of that date. For
there we learn that two "gentlemen poets" had recently caused two
actors to make a mockery of his motto _Omne tulit punctum_, because
his verse fell short of the bombast and blasphemy with which Marlowe
captivated the vulgar. If it was the verse of the _Alphonsus_ that was
derided by these "madmen of Rome," we have here a date before which
the play had been both acted and burlesqued. Now, it is interesting to
note that our earliest copy of _Alphonsus_ (1599) has neither motto
nor colophon. This is strange, for in all other respects the edition
is uniform with that of _James IV._, which had been brought out by
the same publisher, Creede, only the year before, with Greene's _Omne
tulit punctum_ upon its title-page. In fact, all other plays written by
Greene alone, and bearing his name, have a motto of some kind. One may
naturally query whether it was to Creede's advantage to dissociate this
particular play from some eleven or twelve years' old derision; or,
whether he was following, without definite purpose, the policy of some
previous edition, now lost, which likewise had omitted the motto.
Be this as it may, there is, in the preface of March 29, 1588,
undoubted allusion[1163] to Greene and Lodge's _Looking-Glasse_,
which, as will presently be shown, was written before June, 1587. The
_Alphonsus_ must be assigned to a still earlier date, because, in
its prologue,[1164] it gives evidence of priority to Greene's other
efforts in serious or heroic style. This conclusion is confirmed by an
examination of the play. The copious crude employment of mythological
lore, the creaking mechanism of the plot, the subordination of vital
to spectacular qualities, betray an inexperience not manifest in
Greene's other dramatic output. Moreover, in spite of the fact that our
edition of _Alphonsus_ appears to preserve the details of the author's
holograph, the versification makes a clumsier showing than in the
rest of his plays. The lines are frequently rhymed, sometimes within
the speeches, but more often in a perfunctory fashion at speech-ends.
And, though this practice wanes as the play proceeds, the verses are
throughout more frequently endstopped, and the rhythm more mechanical,
than in the other dramas. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the
lines have the monotonous cæsura at the end of the second foot; and of
the lyric cæsuræ, which should _par excellence_ lend variety to the
verse, about eleven-twelfths fall in the middle of the third foot.
We may indeed say that in four-fifths of the lines these sources of
sameness prevail. Of prose there is no sign. Both in material and style
the play is inelastic, only too easily open to attack. That Greene
should prefix the _Omne tulit punctum_ of his popular prose romances
was natural, but it was also courting the attack of Marlowe, Kyd, or
any gentleman-poets derisively inclined.
2. _A Looking-Glasse for London and England_ made by Thomas Lodge,
Gentleman, and Robert Greene, _in Artibus Magister_, is called by
Professor Brown the "finest and last" of the plays in which Greene
had a hand, and is assigned to a date "after Lodge's return from
Cavendish's expedition in 1591." This conjecture may at once be
dismissed,[1165] for that expedition did not start till August 26,
1591; none of its ships returned before June 11, 1593; and, by that
time, Greene was dead. The play was registered in May, 1594, and our
earliest exemplar (Creede) was printed in the same year. Henslowe
records the presentation of the play, but not as new, March 8, 1591-92.
We have abundant proof of its popularity. Therefore, since only four
representations are recorded during the remainder of that season,
which lasted till June 22, 1592,[1166] it must have had its run at
an earlier date. Spencer's line in _The Tears of the Muses_, 1591,
about the "pleasing Alcon" has been regarded as an allusion to Lodge's
authorship of that character in the _Looking-Glasse_; and with some
show of reason, for nearly all the speeches of Alcon are distinctively
the work of Lodge.[1167] But an earlier reminiscence of the play may
be found in Greene's mention of Ninevie and Jonas in the dedication
and epilogue of the _Mourning Garment_, 1590. Since it appears,
moreover, from a passage in _Scillaes Metamorphosis_, that Lodge had
renounced play-writing as early as 1589,[1168] Storojenko and Grosart
date the composition of _Looking-Glasse_ between the close of 1588 and
the summer of 1589. I am sure that the date was earlier still; for,
since the _Metamorphosis_ followed immediately upon Lodge's return
from a voyage with Captain Clarke to Tercera and the Canaries, any
such playwriting as that of the _Looking-Glasse_ must have been done
before the departure of this expedition. According to Mr. Lee,[1169]
the Expedition sailed "about 1588." Now the play contains no allusion
to the Armada; it is, therefore, antecedently improbable that it was
written in 1588 _later than the 29th of May_. And since a modernized
morality of God's wrath impending over London, if written in that year,
could not have failed to echo the first mutterings of the Spanish
thunderstorm, I am led to fix the composition before June, 1587, when
Philip and Sixtus concluded their treaty against England.
The date of first presentation must have been appreciably before March
29, 1588, for a character, the 'priest of the sun,' which figured in
the _Looking-Glasse_, but "in no other early play,"[1170] is mentioned
in the introduction to _Perymedes_, already cited. Here, Greene
asserts that even if his verse did not always "jet upon the stage in
tragicall buskins," or his "_everie_ worde" blaspheme, he could, an
he pleased, fill the mouth "like the fa-burden of Bo-Bell, daring God
out of heaven with that Atheist Tamburlan"; and, by way of proof, he
sets side by side with Tamburlan, the impious ranting of his own "mad
preest of the Sonne." The reference is, of course, to the scene in
the _Looking-Glasse_, where the mitred priests of the sun, "carrying
fire in their hands," hail Rasni as a "deitie";[1171] and he assumes
that the mention of one of the characters will indicate the play,--a
justifiable expectation if the play had been before the public for nine
or ten months.
Though affected by its moral configuration, the _Looking-Glasse_ is
well constructed. In plot, characterization, manners (especially those
of low life), in worldly wisdom and fervour, it leaves _Alphonsus_ far
behind. The subtler handling of classical adornment and the bubble of
the humour would, of themselves, justify us in assigning it to the
same period with _Orlando_ and _Friar Bacon_. The advancing maturity
is manifest also in its verse and prose. I do not attribute Greene's
improvement in blank verse entirely to Lodge's coöperation; for Lodge's
verse in the _Civill War_, 1587, was not markedly easier than that
of the _Alphonsus_, and his verse in this play[1172] is but a trifle
more elastic than in the _Civill War_. Taking at random fifty-seven of
Greene's verses,[1173] I find that some fifty-two avoid the monotone,
and, of these, no fewer than twenty-five escape the penthimimeral
cæsura as well. In other words, five-sixths of the rhythms are free,
and one-half of these skilfully varied. In the prophetic verses the
monotone is properly more prevalent. About thirty per cent of Greene's
have it. But even there almost half of the 'free' rhythms display
artistic handling. Speech-end rhythms are fewer than in _Alphonsus_;
rhyme, indeed, is altogether less in evidence--except in the prophetic
rhapsodies. Lodge's lines for Oseas rhyme, however, more than Greene's
for Jonas. Not only is the proportion of prose larger than in any other
of Greene's plays,--a feature which is, perhaps, due to the fact that
each collaborator had his own set of mechanicals to exploit,--but the
style of it is more conversational than in any preceding English play.
3. Our earliest impression of _Orlando Furioso, One of the Twelve
Peeres of France_, "as it was playd before the Queenes Maiestie," is
published by Burbye, 1594. It had been entered for Danter, December 7,
1593, but was transferred to Burbye on the ensuing May 28. He issued
a second edition in 1599.[1174] Greene was accused in 1592[1175] of
having sold the play to the Lord Admiral's men while the Queen's
company, to which he had previously disposed of it, was "in the
country." Now the Queen's men had acted at court for the last time,
December 26, 1591; and they did not reappear in London till April,
1593.[1176] But the Admiral's, meanwhile (February, 1592), had entered
into a temporary alliance with Lord Strange's,[1177] through Henslowe
and Edw. Alleyn; and under the auspices of the latter company almost
immediately (February 21) the _Orlando_ was acted in one of Henslowe's
theatres.[1178] It was already an old play; and Henslowe records no
later performance. During the same period three or four other plays
formerly belonging to the Queen's passed into the hands of Lord
Strange's company.[1179] The date of the second sale of _Orlando_ would
accordingly seem to have been during January or February, 1592. It
appears, then, that up to December 26, 1591, it belonged to the Queen's
men; and it had probably been presented at court by them, for its
classical and Italian features were evidently from the first designed
to suit her Majesty's taste.[1180]
That the play was written later than July 30, 1588, may be deduced from
a mention (ll. 89-95) of the "rebate" of "mightie Fleetes" which "Came
to subdue my Ilands to their king;" for the allusion to the Armada
is historically minute (note the conjunction of 'Portingale' with
'Spaniard' in reference to the start from Lisbon), the sequence does
not savour of afterthought or actor's clap-trap, and the theme receives
attention in other parts of the play.[1181] Now, between the "rebate"
of the Armada and the disappearance of the Queen's men from London that
company acted at court ten times;[1182] and upon at least one of these
occasions I conclude that the _Orlando_ was played. During the year
that followed the Armada there are but two such occasions on record,
December 26, 1588, and February 9, 1589; and of the latter the notice
is open to question.[1183] In any case the former is more likely to be
the date of the presentation of _Orlando_; for the reference to the
Armada, and the championing of Elizabeth under the figure of Angelica,
would be the policy of a court play acted on the St. Stephen's day
following the Spanish defeat. If this was the play, we may be sure
that it won her Majesty's approval; and that the dramatist seized the
opportunity to further his good fortune. And that is precisely what
Greene did. In February, 1589, he brought out his _Spanish Masquerado_,
which was hailed with such enthusiasm that his friend Lodge declared
that the name of Greene was become a terror to the _gens seditieux_,
that his laurel was deathless, and that from a mortal he had become a
companion of the gods.[1184] Now I incline to think that the success of
_Orlando_ contributed to this popularity; there is certainly not enough
of political or literary worth in the _Masquerado_ alone to account
for it. There is further reason for dating the _Orlando_ before 1590
if the resemblances between it and the _Old Wives Tale_[1185] are due,
as I think they are, to Peele's acquaintance with the former. And if,
in his _Farewell_, the same poet is alluding to our play, under the
title of _Charlemagne_,[1186]--which, considering Orlando's frequent
brag of kinship with the emperor, is not unlikely,--the play must have
been acted before the spring of 1589. That Greene was occupied with the
_Orlando_ at a still earlier date would appear from his repeating in it
no less than five of the character-names which he had used in one of
the stories of the _Perymedes_.[1187] Nor does the tracing of certain
resemblances to their common source in the epos lessen the general
probability that Greene's story and play were written at approximately
the same period; the latter following, as the former had preceded,
the summer of 1588. Mr. Fleay would, indeed, push the date back to
1587 "when the Admiral's men re-opened after the plague,"[1188] and
Professor Brown sets it with that of _Alphonsus_ and _Bacon_, between
1584 and 1587;[1189] but I do not think that the contents warrant
either of these conclusions.
Though the _Orlando_ must be of later date than the _Alphonsus_,[1190]
it betrays the influence of the still earlier _Tamburlaine_. But it
is more than a sensational or spectacular play; it is a parody of the
ranting "mad plays" which were then the rage. Numerous characteristics
which appear to some critics to be defects of construction are proof
of this. Orlando's sudden insanity and the ridiculously inadequate
occasion of it, the headlong _dénouement_, the farcical technique,
the mock-heroic atmosphere, the paradoxical absence of pathos, the
absurdly felicitous conclusion,--all seemingly unwitting,--are
purposive and satirical. Of such a burlesque the author of _The
Spanish Tragedy_,[1191] perhaps of the pre-Shakespearian _Hamlet_,
may have been the butt. Greene and Nashe had no affection for Kyd.
The raving and bombast of this play--the stuff, too, that the actor
Alleyn injected--suggest a parody of Kyd; and the dates accord. At any
rate I think it likely that the _Orlando_[1192] was produced while the
pre-Shakespearian _Hamlet_ was fresh; and this consideration also looks
toward 1588.
Many similarities of style may be pointed out between _Orlando_
and other of Greene's productions during 1588 and 1589.[1193] The
resemblances to _Friar Bacon_ not merely in diction, imagery, and
allusion,[1194] but in quality of verse, are numerous. In respect of
this last the plays may be considered together since they are of a
piece. They were apparently written within a year of each other, both
with a view to presentation at Court.
4. The earliest impression of _The Honorable Historie of frier Bacon
and frier Bongay_ (as it was plaid by her Maiesties servants) is of
1594, and was printed for Edward White, in whose name (substituted
for Adam Islip's, erased) it had been entered, S. R. May 14, of the
same year.[1195] The earliest record of its presentation is Henslowe's
of 1591-92: "Rd at fryer bacone, the 19 of febrary, satter-daye ...
xvijˢ iij.ᵈ" The play is first in the list of those performed by
"my Lord Strange's men"; but is not marked "new." It is, however,
a drawing play: Strange's men act it about once every three weeks,
between February 19 and May 6; and once a week, between the ensuing
January 10 and January 30, while Queen's and Sussex act it twice in an
engagement of a week beginning April 1, 1593-94. It must have preceded
the anonymous play _Faire Em, the Miller's Daughter of Manchester_,
which imitates it[1196]--perhaps with ironic intent. Indeed, _Bacon_
would seem to have been acted as much as twelve months before _Faire
Em_ appeared. For in Greene's Epistle (about the middle of 1591)
prefixed to the _Farewell to Follie_, where he reproaches the imitating
dramatist with general lack of invention and with profane borrowing
from the Scriptures, he further twits him with having consumed "a whole
year" in "enditing" his foolish and inartistic play.[1197] That is to
say, a whole year from the production of the play which it so evidently
imitated. Now, what was the date of _Faire Em_? If, as Professor
Schick[1198] points out, its main source was Jacques Yvers's _Printemps
d'Iver_, it would probably follow the fresh editions of that book of
1588 and 1589. And it did. I place its date between that of Greene's
_Address to the Gentlemen Schollers_ prefixed to the _Mourning Garment_
and that of the _Address_ prefixed to his _Farewell_. For in the former
he undertakes to forestall, in general, the "fooles" who may "scoffe"
at his repentance, and in the latter while he makes a show of ignoring
the "asses" that "strike" at him (_i.e._ at his _Mourning Garment_) he
specifies one "ass" who may be expected to flout his _Farewell_, viz.,
the author of _Faire Em_,--that being indicated by quotations. In other
words the _Faire Em_ is to be dated between November 2, 1590 (when the
_Mourning Garment_ was registered),[1199] and the middle of 1591 (when
the _Farewell_ with this prefatory _Address_) appeared.[1200] Since
the "blasphemous rhetoricke" of _Faire Em_ was well known when Greene
criticised it, we may suppose that the play had been in existence since
November or December, 1590. And if its author had been "a whole year
enditing" this imitation of _Friar Bacon, Friar Bacon_ must have been a
notable play in November or December, 1589. But if _Englands Mourninge
Gowne_, which was registered July 1, 1590, be Greene's _Mourning
Garment_ under another name,[1201] then _Faire Em_ may have appeared as
early as July or August of the same year; and _Friar Bacon_, preceding
_Faire Em_ by a twelvemonth, might be dated July or August, 1589.
Even if we do not strictly construe Greene's "whole year," we must
allow some such opportunity for the vogue of _Friar Bacon_, and for
the composition, presentation, and vogue of _Faire Em_, before the
publication of Greene's retort in the 1591 edition of the _Farewell
to Follie_. Hence the period between July and the end of 1589 will
probably cover the production of _Friar Bacon_; but the latter limit
might include the spring of 1590.
Mr. Fleay,[1202] reasoning from the insertion of Greene's longer motto
as colophon to the 1594 exemplar, places _Friar Bacon_ earlier than
the _Menaphon_ (S. R. August 23, 1589), in which he says Greene's
shorter motto[1203] is first used. Of the validity of this test I
am not convinced. Much more convincing is the argument based by the
same indefatigable scholar upon a date suggested within the drama.
St. James's Day, July 25, is mentioned (Sc. i.) as falling on a
Friday. Mr. Fleay insists that in such cases dramatic authors used
the almanac for the current year; and he shows that 1589 is the only
year of such coincidence that will meet the conditions of this play.
Since the attribution of the exact day of the week to a movable
feast is more likely to follow than to precede the observance, I
should regard July 25, 1589, the limit before which the _Bacon_ was
not finished. Now, not only the eulogy of Elizabeth at the end, but
the euphuistic and classical style of the play, shows that it was
intended for presentation at court. The only dates within the limits
above prescribed on which the Queen's men played before her Majesty
were December 26, 1589, and March 1, 1590. I lean to the former, St.
Stephen's Day, as that on which _Friar Bacon_ was performed.
The relation of this play to _Dr. Faustus_ throws additional light upon
the question under discussion. We must first eliminate the assumption
that Marlowe's "wall of brass"[1204] was borrowed from _Friar Bacon_.
The sources of the conception were common to both playwrights:
the _Famous Historie of frier Bacon_, a story-book popular at the
time, and "the tradition already borrowed from Giraldus Cambrensis
by Spenser."[1205] And it is evident that Marlowe drew the scene
where Robin conjures with one of Faustus's books directly from the
story-book, not at all from Greene's play.[1206] I agree with Dr. Ward
that Greene's play was suggested by Marlowe's, and that "it is hardly
too great an assumption to regard Bacon's victory over Vandermast as
a cheery outdoing by genuine English magic of the pretentious German
article in which Faustus was the representative traveller." Greene's
play is a romantic but humorous, sometimes burlesque, treatment of
a theme like Marlowe's, but familiar to the audience, and attractive
because domestic. It may, indeed, be surmised that some scenes
in _Friar Bacon_ are parodies of their pompous analogues in _Dr.
Faustus_.[1207] I think it has not been noticed that in the title of
Greene's play we have a clue to his intention: the 'Honorable Historie'
is in evident contrast with the 'Tragical Historie' of Dr. Faustus. For
the word 'honorable' was not derived from the title of the story-book.
That is a 'Famous Historie.' If he had acted in accordance with custom,
Greene might have replaced 'famous' by 'comical,' to indicate the
fortunate ending of his fable. No other drama that I know of, up to
1589, had been denominated an 'honorable' history. But, in this case,
Greene had every provocation to emphasize the quality 'honorable.' For
his purpose was to vaunt the superiority of the English magician above
the tragically concluding German.
This consideration confirms the assignment of _Friar Bacon_ to some
time within a year after the production of _Dr. Faustus_ (1588
_end_ or 1589 _beginning_). So, also, the resemblances in style to
Greene's other writings of that period. The love theme in _Friar
Bacon_ is similar to that in _Tullie's Love_ (1589); the style is akin
to that of _Orlando_ (December, 1588). These two are also closely
related as dramatic productions. The earlier, to be sure, confines
itself more narrowly to the satirical intent, while the later aims
in æsthetic respects, also, to surpass its Marlowan predecessor. It
is, consequently, an improvement upon _Orlando_ in construction and
characterization. The dramatist is now working with free hand, and,
for the first time in this field, employs the ease and invention for
which, as a story-teller, he was already famous. In versification these
two plays continue the methods of the _Looking-Glasse;_ but the rhymed
lines are sensibly fewer. In _Orlando_ they appear at the end of the
first half-dozen speeches; in _Friar Bacon_ they are to seek. In both
plays, about three-quarters of the verses avoid the singsong pause at
the end of the second foot. In the _Orlando,_ I should say that more
than a third of the verses escape, in addition, the penthimimeral
cæsura; in the _Friar Bacon_, almost a third. The dodecasyllable with
which Greene is experimenting in the interest of freedom, is somewhat
frequent in both plays. For the reason already given, there is not
so much prose as in the _Looking-Glasse_, perhaps only half as much.
Still, of _Orlando_, one-fifth is written in prose, and of _Friar
Bacon_ nearly a fourth.
5. Storojenko[1208] holds that _The Scottish Historie of James the
Fourth_ betrays a novel tendency toward native themes and simple
style, and that, with _Bacon_ and _The Pinner_, it furnished the model
for Shakespeare's romantic comedies. Professor Brown, pointing out
that _James IV._ is "among the first plays to have an acted prologue
and interplay," thinks that Shakespeare followed Greene's example in
the _Taming of the Shrew_ and the _Midsummer Night's Dream_; and he
groups _James IV._ with _The Pinner_ and the _Looking-Glasse_ as later
than the three other plays of Greene, and free from their "alluring
pedantry."[1209] But we have already seen that the _Looking-Glasse_
preceded both _Orlando_ and _Bacon_; and I think it can be proved that
_James IV._ followed them. The unique exemplar, printed by Creede,
"as it hath bene sundrie times publikely plaide," is of 1598, and is
probably a reprint of a lost edition of 1594.[1210] Henslow makes no
mention of the play; nor have we record of its acting. Storojenko
conjectures some date after the summer of 1589 for its composition;
Brown, some date between 1587 and 1592; Ward, about 1590; Fleay,
after August 23, 1589,[1211] because it uses the shorter motto (but
elsewhere,[1212] 1591--probably in collaboration with Lodge).
The following observations will, I think, fix the limits as 1590-1591.
Ida's lines, 270-279 in Act I., beginning "And weele I wot, I heard a
shepheard sing,"[1213] are a reminiscence of the _Heard-groome wᵗ his
strawberrie lasse_ in Peele's _Hunting of Cupid_: "What thing is love?
for (wel I wot) love is a thing," etc.[1214] Notice the recurrence in
Drummond's version of the "weele I wot." The "shepheard" to whom Ida
has reference is, of course, one of the swains of the _Hunting_, or
Peele himself. The _Hunting_ was not registered for printing till July
26, 1591; but then with the proviso "that if it be hurtful to any other
copy before licensed ... this to be void." The proviso was frequently
mere form, but it suggests that Greene may have drawn the verses from a
manuscript copy, or from the public performance before July 26, 1591.
I do not think that the _Hunting_ was written very long before it was
registered, because the atmosphere and phraseology are still fresh in
Peele's mind when he writes his _Descensus Astrææ_, October, 1591.
But it is interesting to note that there occurs a premonition or echo
of these same verses on Love in Greene's _Mourning Garment_,[1215]
which had been registered in 1590, from eight to twelve months before
the registration of the _Hunting_. We may, with reasonable latitude,
assign the composition of the _Hunting_ to the year 1590, and that of
_James IV_. to a later date in proximity to that of Greene's _Mourning
Garment_--say about July, 1590. Confirmation of this conclusion may be
found in other resemblances of sentiment and style between _James IV_.
and the _Mourning Garment_,[1216] as well as in Dorothea's reference
to the Irish wars, which may have been suggested by the contemporary
rising in Fermanagh; for, since the suppression of Desmond, in 1583,
there had been comparative quiet in Ireland. Though the play exhibits
little of the affected style which Elizabeth demanded, it is courtly,
and the graceful compliment to the queen and the (English) rose in
the laudation of Dorothea's attributes, together with that heroine's
forecast of a union between Scotland and England,[1217] might indicate
a view to court presentation, and a date of composition when such union
was favourably contemplated. The further boast of Dorothea:--
"Shall never Frenchman say an English maid
Of threats of forraine force will be afraid,"[1218]
was doubtless intended for the ear of the virgin queen, who, in 1590
and 1591, was busily landing forces in France to thwart the schemes of
her implacable enemies, the Guises. This play may, therefore, have been
presented by Greene's company, at court, on December 26, 1590, or as
one of their five performances during 1591.
The moral atmosphere is that of the penitential pamphlets; while the
pictures of roguery coincide with those of the conycatching series.
The portrayal of character is that of a mature dramatist; the plot is
more skilfully manipulated than in _Friar Bacon_, and covers a larger
canvas; but, though it smacks of the folk, it has hardly the simple
domestic interest of that drama. Still, Ward calls it the happiest,
Brown the most perfect, of Greene's plays; in fact, "the finest
Elizabethan historical play outside of Shakespeare."
The versification of _James IV._ gives proof of a mature quality of
experimentation. Because rhyme prevails, Collier assigned the play to
Greene's earlier period; but the criterion is inconclusive. Though
Greene conformed to the blank verse fashion as early as 1588, he made
it clear, at the time, that he was no convert.[1219] And, while in
1590-91 he recognizes the merits of a richer and more varied rhythm,
he is not yet convinced that rhyme should be abandoned; in tender and
gently romantic passages he counts it _utile_ as well as _dulce_. Some
of the scenes in which Ida and the queen figure are, accordingly,
almost altogether rhymed. The rhythmical movement is, however, no less
liberal than in _Orlando_ and _Bacon_; the proportion of monotone and
penthimimeral is as low; and as many as fifty per cent of the _cæsuræ_
are lyrical. Fully one-quarter of the play is in prose.
Having a regard only to the unquestioned plays of Greene, we notice
that his employment of dramatic prose dates from the association with
Lodge in the _Looking-Glasse_; that his renunciation of rhyme was
short-lived, and that its resumption did not hamper the freedom of
rhythmical movement. In none of the later plays, however, is the verse
so elastic as in his own dramatic portions of the _Looking-Glasse_. And
there the mobility was probably due to a desire for contrast with the
prophetic monologues.
=Attributions.=--Various other plays have, in whole or in part, been
assigned to Greene; _A History of Jobe_,[1220] not extant; part of
_The Troublesome Raigne of King John_,[2] and of the _First and Second
Parts of Henry VI._;[1221] _Fair Emm_[1222] (with no show of reason),
and others mentioned by Dyce; _Titus Andronicus_;[1223] _The Pinner
of Wakefield_, _Selimus_, and _A Knack to Know a Knave_.[1224] We can
consider only the last three.
1. The earliest extant exemplar of _George-a-Greene, the Pinner of
Wakefield_ is in the Duke of Devonshire's library. The author's name
does not appear. But the printer, publisher, year, vignette, and motto
(_Aut nunc aut nunquam_) are the same as on the title-page of the
1599 _Orlando_; and the same printer, Burbye, had, in 1592, published
other works of Greene: the _Third Part of Conny-Catching_ and _The
Repentance_. These items do not, however, prove anything concerning the
identity of the author. The play was entered to Burbye, April 1, 1595.
We learn from the title-page that the Sussex company acted it; and
Henslowe records five of these performances between December 29, 1593,
and January 22, 1594. But, though the Sussex men soon afterwards twice
assisted Greene's former company in the presentation of _Friar Bacon_,
they do not seem at this, or any previous period, to have owned any of
the unquestioned plays of Robert Greene. Henslowe does not mark this
one 'new,' and the dramatic contents give no indication of its date,
save that one of the _dramatis personæ_ refers to Tamberlaine.[1225] No
light is thrown upon the authorship by contemporary publications; and,
as late as Kirkman's _Catalogue_, 1661, the play was still anonymous.
It has been assigned to Greene on the manuscript evidence which has
already been shown to be inconclusive.[1226] In the last resort our
decision must depend upon the detection of Greenian characteristics.
Dr. Ward has observed that the play possesses "one of Greene's most
attractive notes,--a native English freshness of colouring,"--glimpses
of which may also be had in _Friar Bacon_ and _James IV._ This is
true. The representation of the characters, manners, and speech of the
middle and lower classes is such as might have contributed to Chettle's
estimate of the dramatist,--"the only comedian of a vulgar writer in
this country."[1227] In the "plotting," also, of the play, no ordinary
skill is evinced, and that is the "quality," says Nashe, wherein
Greene was master of his craft.[1228] The material is a popular story,
like the material of _Friar Bacon_. One of the incidents, indeed,
existed not only in the popular story, but in the experience of Robert
Greene as well.[1229] The rhetorical style here and there affords an
inkling of this "very supporter" of native comedy: a word that seems
to be his,[1230] a phrase or trick of the tongue,[1231] a figure or
two,[1232] occasionally a bejewelled verse,[1233] and once, at least, a
sentiment,--
"The sweet content of men that live in love
Breeds fretting humours in a restless mind."
But in Greene's undoubted productions the Greenian attributes are
not so far to seek: the curious imagery, the precious visualizing,
the necromantic monstrous toys. With his brocaded rhetoric fancy is
captivated and judgment disarmed. He gluts each appetite in turn with
'semblances,'--rare, remote, and meretricious. His silks are gay with
'sparks' and margarites, redolent of sandalwood and spice, stiff with
oriental gold. They rustle richly on the ear. The atmosphere is sense
idealized; the melody, a bell. I do not find these earmarks in _The
Pinner_; nor the coloured negligence of Greene, the studied, off-hand
blush, the conscious affectation of unconscious art. Of such devices
_James IV._, indeed, is by no means compact; but, in its first fifth,
there are four or five times as many references to the foreign, the
historical, astrological, mythical, as in all _The Pinner_. The three
or four classical allusions in _The Pinner_ are stark. But Greene's
employment of the mythological is never unattractive; it is _sui
generis_. It has always a quiddity of the indirect, the unexpected:
a relish of distinction. These bald "Cæsars" and "Helenas" of _The
Pinner_ are not Greene. On the contrary, we come across many words,
fashions of prose dictions and comic devices, that savour of Lodge as
we know him in the _Civill War_ and the _Looking-Glasse_, and suspect
him in _Mucedorus_. The conversations are sometimes reminiscent of
Greene; but, on the whole, they fail of his humorous indirection and
his craft.
The verse is so vilely divided in the original that even after Dyce's
attempt at reconstruction, no basis for conclusive attribution of
authorship is available. Prose forms a large proportion; indeed, it
looks as if the author were trying to see how near prose he might come
without ceasing to produce unrhymed pentameters. Fragmentary lines,
dodecasyllables, feminine endings, and rhetorical pauses abound. These
last are to me more suggestive of Greene's association with the play
than is any other feature; for more than once or twice they yield the
genuinely Greenian rhythm.[1234] If Greene had a hand in _The Pinner_,
the metrical style would fix its date just before or after _James IV._
It has the ease and variety of _Bacon_, but is as signal an experiment
in conversational blank verse as was _James IV._ in rhymed dramatic;
and it is a fairly successful experiment.
2. _The First Part of the Tragicall Raigne of Selimus_ (Creede, 1594)
has been reclaimed for Greene by Dr. Grosart, principally on the
evidence of _England's Parnassus_ (1600) which assigns to Greene two
passages taken from _Selimus_.[1235] For Dr. Grosart's presentation of
the case the reader may be referred to the Introduction to his edition
of Greene.[1236] It is worthy of the most careful study. Dr. Ward after
examining the interval evidence decides adversely to Dr. Grosart's
results.[1237] The following additional considerations incline me to
the same decision. The weight of the evidence depends, not upon the
number of passages from _Selimus_ assigned by Allott to Greene, but
upon the style of each passage. In the _Parnassus_, Allott has assigned
to Greene passages from other works, which do not belong to him; two,
for instance, which have been traced to Spenser. If the passages from
_Selimus_ on _Delaie_ and _Damocles_ have not Greene's characteristic,
then twenty such assignments do not prove that he wrote _Selimus_.
They would more logically prove that the collector, in this as in
other cases, is an uncertain guide. Now there is no trace, not the
faintest, of Greene's diction, sentiment, poetic quality, or rhythmical
form, in the tintinnabulation of the _Delaie_, or the platitude of the
_Damocles_. And so throughout the play. Neither the defects nor the
merits appear to me to be Greene's. Many of the lines are, indeed,
resonant, scholarly, and strong, but not in Greene's quality. If the
play were written by Greene, it could not have been written later
than the _Alphonsus_: stanzaic form, and the crudities of rhythm,
diction, and technique determine that; nor, on the other hand, could it
have been written earlier than the _Alphonsus_, for with _Alphonsus_
Greene _began_ "to treat of bloody Mars." It is not incumbent upon me
to find an author for _Selimus_, but I think that the probabilities
indicate Lodge (_circa_ 1586-87). It has perhaps not been noted that
Bullithrumble's lines (1955-1958) about godfathers are duplicated by
Lodge's Alcon in the _Looking-Glasse_ (l. 1603); and that the parlance
of Bullithrumble is paralleled by Curtall and Poppey in Lodge's _Civill
War_ (_circa_ 1587). The dogberryisms, clipped words, and inverted
phrases of the same character are of a piece also with those of
Mouse in _Mucedorus_[1238]--a play which has indeed so many of the
idiosyncrasies that mark the _Civill War_ that Mr. Fleay is not without
warrant in conjecturing the authorship of Lodge. It should in addition
be remarked that several of the expressions which Dr. Grosart finds in
_Selimus_, and considers to be peculiarly Greene's, are to be found
in the _Civill War_ and the _Mucedorus_; and that some non-Greenian
characteristics of the _Selimus_ appear in one or the other of these
plays. The "to-fore," for instance, which Dr. Grosart marks as Greenian
in _Selimus_ occurs four times in _Mucedorus_ alone. The blank verse
of the _Selimus_ finds its parallel in that of the _Civill War_; so,
also, the quaint stanzaic form, and the apparently Greenian moralizing
on 'content'[1239] (ll. 2049-2053). And conversely, the profound and
easeful soliloquies and serious imagery of the _Civill War_ are nearer
akin to those of the _Selimus_ than to anything of Greene's.
3. 'Young Juvenall' and the 'Comedie lastly writ.'--"With thee" says
Greene to Marlowe in the _Groatsworth_, "I joyne young Juvenall,
that byting satirist, that lastly with mee together writ a comedie.
Sweete boy, might I advise thee," etc. Simpson and Grosart disprove
the conjecture[1240] that the play was the _Looking-Glasse_ and the
'Juvenal,' Lodge: The _Looking-Glasse_ had not been lately written;
the epithet 'Juvenal' did not at any time apply to Lodge; nor would
Greene, in 1592, have called him a "sweete boy" as he calls this
fellow-dramatist, for Lodge, born 1557, was thirty-five at the time and
older than Greene by three years. It is argued that 'Juvenal' was Nashe
as follows: Nashe was already proficient in satire; he had, between
1589 and 1592, published half a dozen pasquinades which had met with
immediate success; he calls himself and is called by others 'Pasquil'
or 'Aretine' or the 'railing Nashe'; and Meres in 1598 addresses him
as "gallant young Juvenal" and mentions him with Greene among the
"best writers of comedie." It must also be remembered that Nashe was
'young'--not quite twenty-five in 1592--"and that a difference of
seven years made him a 'sweete boy' in Greene's regard."[1241] To
these considerations I add the following: First,--Chettle feigning
a letter[1242] from the dead poet to Nashe (_Robert Greene to Pierce
Pennilesse_), makes Greene use almost the epithet of the _Groatsworth_,
"Awake, _secure boy_, revenge thy wrongs." It may be surmised that the
older poet was in the way of thus affectionately terming the younger,
and that Chettle, who had edited the _Groatsworth_, had the pamphlet
in mind when he conceived this letter. Second,--The pains taken by
Nashe, in his _Strange Newes_, to disclaim anything like continuous
companionship are occasioned by the fact that he and Greene had
"lastly" been "together." He writes, in September, 1592, "Since first
I knewe him [Greene] about towne, I have beene two yeares together and
not seene him."[1243] The "first" refers to 1588-89 when Nashe was
championing Greene's _Menaphon_ and scoring Greene's rivals in _The
Anatomie_. The "two yeares" bring us to 1591, when he was engaged with
Greene in the controversy with the Harveys[1244] which he here recounts
with such detail as to indicate no slight acquaintance with Greene's
motives and movements at the time. In that year appeared Nashe's
_Astrological Prognostication_, and in the next, Greene's _Quip_, both
bearing upon the subject on hand. We may infer that the revival of
their literary association was connected with the 'canvazing' of the
rope-maker's sons.[1245] Greene's concluding counsel is such as we
should expect him to give the 'young Juvenall' with whom he had lately
engaged against a common enemy.[1246] Nashe informs us also that he had
occasionally, of late, caroused with the poet and that he was present
at that "banquet of Rhenish and pickled herrings" from which Greene
took his death.[1247] Third,--When Dekker, some fifteen years later,
tells in his _Knight's Conjuring_ of the habitants of the "Fieldes of
Joye," he introduces Nashe as one of that group which is exclusively
restricted to the poets, and the editor, of Greene's _Groatsworth_.
"Marlow, Greene, and Peele," writes he, "had got under the shades of
a large vyne laughing to see Nash [the favourite of the group, and
even yet the 'sweete boy'] that was but newly come to their colledge,
still haunted with the sharpe and satyricall spirit that followed him
heere upon earth...." And why there? He had "shorten'd his dayes by
keeping company with pickle-herring" [many another night, no doubt,
than that of August, 1592, with Will Monox and Ro. Greene,--but that
night persisted]. And with what do they greet him? "How [do] poets and
players agree _now_?" A precise _Groatsworth_ issue to which Nashe
responds in proper _Groatsworth_ phrase, with echo as well from his
Preface to the _Menaphon_, and with a parting fling at Harvey.[1248]
Then, as if to round out the company, there enters Kind Hart,
a-puffing,--Chettle, himself, the conservator of the 'Colledge.' Thus
Dekker the contemporary of the _Groatsworth_ group fixes the identity
of its 'Juvenall' on earth and under. And the 'comedie' was writ in
1591 or the first half of 1592.
But it is not easy to determine its name. A plea might be made for
_Summer's Last Will and Testament_,[1249] on certain counts of R. W.'s
diatribe in _Martine Marsixtus_,[1250] but I doubt whether it would
convince. Simpson thinks that the 'comedie' was not improbably _A
Knack to Know a Knave_, which had been acted as new, June 10, 1592.
Fleay,[1251] however, asserts that there is not the slightest ground
for this conjecture; and Grosart[1252] is sure that "no one who reads
_A Knack_ can possibly find in it one line from either Greene or
Nashe." I shall not undertake to prove that Mr. Simpson was right:
it must, however, be observed that the subject of _A Knack_ was not
foreign to the genius of Nashe; that two of the characters, the
satirical commentator and the Welshman, have their counterparts in his
_Summer's Last Will_; and that Greene had with godly intent written up
and published the whole truth about knaves and 'coosnage' only within
the past year and a half. As for the plot, it may have no analogue in
Nashe's works, but in one[1253] at least of its threads it parallels
_Friar Bacon_, and in another[1254] the _Looking-Glasse_; and four or
five of its situations[1255] reproduce peculiarities and language of
those plays. As for the speeches, though more than one is reminiscent
of Greene's _rococo_,[1256] the style is more like that of the _Last
Will_. To be sure there are _septenarii_ in the _Knack_, and none in
the _Will_; but the blank verse, such as it is, might readily have been
chipped from Nashe; so also the short irregular rhymed lines, and much
of the prose. The vocabulary is not unlike his. Nashe might have been
capable of the classical excrescences; Greene certainly was not. These
coincidences are, of course, merely suggestive. For me they indicate
possibly that if Greene had no hand in the play, some one who lacked
his touch and most of his cunning has freely plundered him;[1257]
and that, if he had an interest in the play, it was limited to the
suggestion of plot and treatment. Nashe may have thrown the material
into shape. It is a small matter, but perhaps worth recording, that the
_Knack_ calls itself "a most pleasant and merie new _Comedie_," that
Greene calls the play "lastly writ" a 'comedie,' and that no other play
connected with his name save the doubtful _Pinner_ is so described.
Also that the date of the _Knack_ accords with the conditions: it was
played about two months before the _Groatsworth_ was begun, and by a
company that then was acting three dramas known to be Greene's.
=Friar Bacon: Stage History and Materials=.--The position of Greene's
plays in the history of English comedy is indicated in Professor
Woodberry's article. The play here under discussion was acted with some
frequency between 1591 and 1594, sometimes at important seasons, always
with fair attendance, and occasionally with large profits. It was
performed at court as late as 1602, and was occasionally revived under
James I. and Charles I.[1258]
The necromantic theme with its instruments, the characters primarily
concerned (Bacon, Bungay, Vandermast, Miles), and the catastrophes
connected with the 'wonderfull glasse,' _i.e._ the materials for
Scenes ix., xi., xiii., are derived from _The Famous Historie of Frier
Bacon_, already mentioned--"a popular story-book probably written
toward the end of the sixteenth century, and founded upon accretions
of the legendary history of Roger Bacon."[1259] The same source
afforded also the suggestion of Scenes ii. and vi.--the exposure of
Burden's intrigue and the interrupted wedding. The romantic theme, its
characters and incidents, and the enveloping action are of Greene's
devising. What slight resemblance the last bears to history need not
here be recapitulated. For that, and for the literary career of the
magical devices, the readers may consult the admirable summaries of
Ward[1260] and Ritter, to which I have nothing to add save that there
exists a prior suggestion of the 'head of brass,' in English drama,
in the _Conflict of Conscience_, III. iii. 5, and, in the same play,
an instance of the 'crystal clear' or 'gladsome glass.' The latter
might seem, indeed, to be anticipated by the 'Glass of Reson' in
Redford's _Wyt and Science_, but that is a different thing. The 'glass
prospective' is adapted in _Friar Bacon_ to a species of stage business
which is unique: the _scene beside a scene_,--a device essentially
distinct from the play within the play. While the persons to whom we
owe the disclosure of this parallel scene are no less surprised thereby
than are we, the persons of the scene disclosed not only vitally affect
the main action by the unaffected pursuit of their own interests,
but incidentally present the fact that is stranger than fiction.
To the double illusion of the play concocted within a play, this
impromptu enlistment of nature in the ranks of art adds the illusion
of unconscious drama. Moreover, in the glass prospective scenes, the
piquancy of the preternatural is surpassed by that of the natural;
the artless eclipses the artificial, and the result is an artistic
irony. And, after all, these scenes beside the scene are but the dear
device of eavesdropping purged of the keyhole and the sneak. They
are not the strategic contrivance of the inner play of the _Spanish
Tragedy_ or _Hamlet_, nor a mere mechanism for diversion as in _James
IV._ and _Midsummer Night_, nor an episode as in _Love's Labor_, nor
a substitute for the initial movement like the play within the _Old
Wives' Tale_, but a something that combines qualities from each. The
parallel scene is at the same time its own _raison d'être_, and a
reflex of its principal which it multiplies and raises to a higher
power.
The _motif_--the wooing by proxy--is, of course, as ancient as the
Arthuriad, and as modern as Miles Standish; indeed, older and younger
yet. This appearance precedes, however, several other dramatic
instances, such as those of _Faire Em_, the _Knack_, and, I believe,
_1 Henry VI._ There are likewise to be found precursors of Edward's
renunciation, as in the _Campaspe_, and later instances, as in the
_Knack_ and other plays. The apparently motiveless abandonment of Peggy
is, however, a novelty, and uniquely handled; a capital instance of
'comic' irony, invested with solemnity, and introduced with a wink.
=Dramatic Construction.=--The pedant might find it easy to break this
plot upon a wheel; but the plot is none the less a dramatic success.
It may be that the climax is reached too soon; but the scene is none
the less effective for its suddenness and in its consequence. The sham
desertion exists merely because Greene was put to it, after his climax,
to string out the romantic interest. In itself it is an absurdity,
but a delicious absurdity; and, unsympathetic as we may be with the
mediæval test of constancy, the event somehow suffices,--perhaps
because it unfolds phases of Margaret's character which owe their
witchery to their unlikelihood. It may be said that the title thread
is, for us, of secondary interest; but such a judgment would by no
means hold true of an Elizabethan audience. That, indeed, would delight
in the necromantic 'business,' with its elements of sensation and
amaze, its contribution to 'humours,' and its intermittent influence
upon plot. It may be said that the intersection of the threads is
not of necessity, but of external agency; that the tragic minor
motive is imported, and the enveloping action thin. But why measure
the beautiful by rule of thumb? The quality here is _sui generis_,
residing in scenes rather than fable--scenes idyllic, spectacular,
amusing, so ordered that movement shall be continuous and interest
unflagging. The interest is not primarily of character or solution;
it proceeds from the pageant: and the continuity from the manager.
Greene, the story-teller, has suborned Greene, the _impresario_; there
results this panel-romance, a drama of the picturesque. On no previous
occasion had sentimental, comic, sensational, mysterious, sublime,
and tragic been so blended upon an English background for a comedy
of English life. This was something novel for the pit; a spectacle
kaleidoscopic, rapid, innocuous; a heart-in-the-mouth ecstasy, a
circus of many rings. How artistically it was contrived appears when
one considers the sequence and grouping of the scenes. These fall
into series, which happen to be five in number; but to indicate them
as acts in the text might impair the charade-like simplicity of the
show. The series are: _First_, Scenes i.-iv., four groups and four
environments, the material of all future combinations of scene and
sensation: the courtiers on the country side--chivalric and idyllic;
the doctors and the colleges--scholastic, necromantic; the country
folk and their fair--pastoral, romantic; the royal residence and the
court--spectacular; time, about two days. _Second_, Scenes v.--vii.,
Oxford: street, cell, and regent-house--the riotous, magical, romantic,
and spectacular; apparently the day after Scene i., but actually some
two days. _Third_, Scenes viii.-x., the next day: country, college, and
country again--romance, black art, peril, and pathos. _Fourth_, Scenes
xi.-xiii., sixty days later; college, court, and college--magic,
majesty, and collapse of the supernatural. _Fifth_, Scenes xiv.-xvi.,
the next day: country, college, and court--mock heroics and the
pastoral, burlesque of the supernatural, the smile of royalty, and
_couleur de rose_. Throughout, the action is sustained, the crises
are frequent, the reversals of fortune unexpected and absorbing, the
suspense sufficient.
In spite of the author's efforts to make a prig of Margaret, and in
spite of all disparity between her station and her style, the "lovely
star of Fressingfield" shines first and fairest of her daughters in
English comedy,--of country wenches born to conquer. Innocent, coy,
standing upon her "honest points," she is neither unsophisticated nor
crude--but a perilous coquette. In wit, yielding not to the Lincoln
earl, and in diplomacy one too many for the prince, she hardly needs
to warn them or us that she has had lords for lovers before. "Stately
in her stammell red," she toys with Edward, for whom she doesn't
care; but his deputy-lover she corners at first chance, and it is
then "marriage or no market" with this maid. She outplays the irate
Prince of Wales by sheer loyalty to his rival: "'Twas I, not Lacy,
stept awry;" and if her lover be to fall, she will join him "in one
tomb." When it comes to Lacy's desertion of her, the dramatist fills
her mouth with piety, but the girl bubbles through. As between the
convent and the court she vastly prefers the latter, and her farewell
to the world is eloquent of gowns. In spite of the pother with which
she welcomes "base attire," her "flesh is frayle"; and when her lover,
with "enchanting face," comes riding back, and the "wedding-robes are
in the tailor's hands," it doesn't take Peggy long to decide between
"God or Lord Lacy." In simple dignity she is most like her Greenian
sisters, Ida and Angelica. But she is also the predecessor of many a
heroine not so simple as men have thought: of Alfrida in the _Knack_,
Bridget in _Every Man in his Humour_, Harriet in the _Man of Mode_,
Dorinda in the _Beaux' Stratagem_, Lucinda in the _Conscious Lovers_.
As for her lover, his type is that of Alfrida's Ethenwald, more manly
to be sure than he, but lacking leagues of what a Lacy should have
been. Even the _Post_ is at pains to apologize for him. Still, Lacy
excels his master--an ordinary Lothario of the purple, noised abroad
as generous, admired of his associates and his dramatic creator, but
of unregal stuff. In reality, Edward is less magnanimous than his
counterpart in Lyly's play. If he appears more ready than Alexander
was to yield his victim, it is only because a keeper's daughter and
a princess are "sisters under the skin." The Castile Elinor awaits
him: Edward is as moral as a jelly-fish; and a swap of mistresses is
no hardship. The characterization of Warren and Ermsbie, though but a
score of lines, is clear-cut. Blunt Anglo-Saxons they are, prompt with
the sword, with women dubious--a complementary pair. Also complementary
are the fools--one of the court, the other of the home: Rafe the
jester, Miles the blunderer; the latter halfway between vice and clown.
Like the clown, he stimulates progress by the spur of his stupidity;
like the vice, he jogs without concern to his predestined place. With
Longtongue and Ragan he is of the kin of disputatious servants, a
brother to Greene's Jenkin, Adam, and Slipper, and, like the last two,
a "philosopher of toast and ale." Lentulo of the _Rare Triumphs_ was
an ancient relative of his, and, like him, educated in that school
whence later proceeded the Dogberrys and their cousins german--Poppev,
Curtall, and Mouse. This is the stock and discipline that Kemp's
Gothamites bewray when their tongues blossom into counsel.
=Previous Editions and the Present Text.=--The first quarto is White's,
of 1594. The copy in the British Museum (C. 34, c. 37) lacks all after
44 from the words, "for to pleasure" (xv. 49); that in the Duke of
Devonshire's library "lacks a leaf between A 3 and B, and one at end"
(Grosart). Dyce, Ward, and Grosart mention a reprint of 1599; but I do
not find it in B.M. or the Bodleian. The quarto which Dr. Ward supposes
to be of 1599 (viz. Malone, 226 in the Bodleian) is exactly like the
1630 quarto, except that it lacks the title-page and is badly clipped.
The attribution to 1599 seems to rest upon (1) Malone's Ms. note on
the fly-leaf of 1630 quarto (Bodl. Malone, 227): "See the edit. of
1599 in Vol. 69," and (2) the hand-written date, 1599 (probably, also,
by Malone) on the upper right-hand corner of the first page of the
quarto contained in the volume 69, which is the Malone 226 mentioned
above. But that Malone 226 and 227 should be respectively of 1599 and
1630, and, nevertheless, identical, would be odd: especially when
we remember that the copyright had been transferred from Mrs. White
to Mrs. Aldee in 1624, and that Mrs. Aldee's publication of 1630 was
a fresh edition "as it was lately plaid by the Prince Palatine his
servants." I think that the supposed 1599 copy is of 1630. The 1630
edition (another copy of which is in B. M.) varies considerably from
the original of 1594. The copyright passed into Oulton's hands in
1640, and in 1655 a new edition appeared. Modern issues are those of
Dodsley, Dyce, Ward, and Grosart (Do., Dy., W., G.), the last of which,
alone, retains the original forms, those of the Chatsworth, 1594. The
present edition follows the B.M. quarto of 1594, and, when that ends,
Grosart's (Huth Library) reprint of the Chatsworth. Variations in the
1630 quartos (Malone) have been indicated in the footnotes. Q 1 stands
for ed. 1594, Q 3 for 1630, Q 4 for 1655.
Since most of the emendations made by preceding editors plead as
their excuse the metrical irregularity of the quartos, I have
found it necessary to justify my retention of the original text,
by an explanation of Greene's metrical practice in this play. This
_apologia_, which, in some degree, applies to all of his plays, will
be found in the Appendix. We should, perhaps, be troubled with fewer
emendations of the Elizabethan drama if we could bring ourselves to
believe that playwrights regulated their rhythms more frequently than
is supposed, by dramatic and rhetorical conditions of utterance;
and that the plays of the sixteenth century were not written in the
eighteenth.