Chapter XXIV: Appendix (2)

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.

CHARLES MILLS GAYLEY.

FOOTNOTES:

[1137] Greene's _Groatsworth_ and _Short Discourse of My Life_ (appended to the _Repentance_). Grosart's _Introduction_ and Storojenko's _Life_ in Grosart's _Greene_, 12 vols., Huth Library; Dyce's _Account of R. Greene and his Writings_; Bernhardi's R. Greene's _Leben u. Schriften_; Ward's _Hist. Engl. Dram. Lit._ Also Grosart's _Nashe_ and _Harvey_.

[1138] _Youthe Recalleth his Former Follies with an Inward Repentance._ Not extant.

[1139] Clare Hall, July 1.

[1140] First pub. 1584.

[1141] If the Isabel in _Never Too Late_ represents Greene's wife Doll, I may be pardoned for conjecturing that the Caerbranck and Dunecastrum of that story stand for Corby and Donington, twelve miles apart, in Lincolnshire, near the Norfolk line.

[1142] See Prefaces to _Perimedes_ (_S. R._ March 29, 1588); _Pandosto_, pub. 1588; _Menaphon_, pub. August 1589 (perhaps before July, 1588); and _Ciceronis Amor_, pub. 1589. The dates are of historical importance.

[1143] _Philomela_, 1592, is of earlier style and composition.

[1144] As "chiefe agent of the companie" of poets and writers (Lyly, Nashe, Greene, and probably Lodge and Peele) whom Richard Harvey in his _Lamb of God_ had "mistermed piperly makeplaies and make-bates." Nashe, _Strange Newes_, etc.

[1145] Sister to Cutting Ball, "trust under a tree" at Tyburn.

[1146] _Foure Letters and Certain Sonnets_, London, 1592.

[1147] "Physique is ... to techen ... of everichon" (herbs, stones, etc.),

"That ben of bodely substaunce
The nature and the substance."
--GOWER, _Conf. Am._, VII.

[1148] Chaucer, _Prol. C. T._, 414-420.

[1149] As Dr. Grosart thinks he was.

[1150] In Grosart: XII. 174-179, _Short Discourse of the Life_, etc., which has every mark of authenticity.

[1151] _Life of Sh._, 92, 105; _Hist. Stage_, 82; but cf. Cohn, _Shakesp. in Germany_, xxi-xxxi (1865), and Creizenach, _Schauspiele d. engl. Komōdianten_, ii-iv (Kürschner, Nat. Litt. Bd. XXIII).

[1152] Bp. Grindal's _Register_, fol. 225, as in Grosart, I. Prefatory Note.

[1153] See respectively _Have with You_, and _Strange Newes; To the Gent. readers of The Repentance_, 1592; _A Knight's Conjuring_, Ch. IX. 1607; _Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels_, 1635; _Kind-Hart's Dreame_, 1592.

[1154] Dyce, _Account of Greene_, pp. 35, 36; and Harvey's _Foure Letters_, pp. 9, 25.

[1155] Brown (Grosart's _Greene_, Vol. I., Introduction, xi. _et seq._) arranges: _A._, _O. F._, and _F. B._ (1584-87); _Jas. IV._, and _Pinner_ (1590-91); _L.-G._ (1591-92). Storojenko (Grosart, I., 167-226) arranges: _A._ (after _Tamburl._, 1587-88), _O._, and _L.-G._ (1588-89); _Jas. IV._, F. B., _Pinner_ (1589-92).

[1156] No mention of the _M. A._, which is given when his name is attached to other plays. _Alphonsus_ is neither mentioned by Henslowe, nor recorded _S. R._

[1157] Acted by the Admiral's men, 1587, according to Fleay. _Ep._ to _Menaphon_, which refers to it, _may_ have been written as early as 1587 (Storojenko).

[1158] Act. IV.; the lines 1578, 1579 do not look like additions.

[1159] _Prologue_ to _Alph._, l. 28.

[1160] Ward, _E. D. L._ l. 324 n.

[1161] _To the Famous and Fortunate Generals_: "_Mahomet's pow_ and mighty Tamberlaine" (see Fleay, _Life of Shakesp._, pp. 96-97).

[1162] See _Perymedes_, _Menaphon_, _Anatomie of Absurditie_, and the opening of _Greene's Vision_ (written before 1590).

[1163] "The mad preest of the sonne."

[1164] Venus's lines, 40-45, which would place this play after a series of love pamphlets, and before the treatment of graver themes. See Simpson, 2: 352. Mr. Fleay unhesitatingly assigns its production to 1587 (_Life of Shakesp._, pp. 96, 97).

[1165] See for this, Grosart, _Introd._ xxv. xli.; Simpson, 2: 382; and Ward.

[1166] Cf. _The Knack_, etc., which as a "new" play was acted thrice in the fortnight (_Henslowe_).

[1167] Fleay assigns "most and best" of the play to Lodge. Grosart disagrees, but does not specify. A comparative investigation satisfies me that only the following passages can be assigned to Lodge: Sc. iii. (Dy., pp. 120-122; Gros., ll. 319-480) Usurer, Thrasyb., Alcon, as far as _Enter Remilia_; Sc. v. (Dy., pp. 124-126; Gros., ll. 654-868) Alcon, Thr., Lawy., Judge, Usur., as far as _Enter Adam_; Sc. vii. (Dy., pp. 129, 130; Gros., ll. 1070-1169) Jonas, Angel, Merchants, etc.; Sc. x. (Dy., pp. 134, 135; Gros., ll. 1512-1604), Merchants, etc.; Sc. xiii. (Dy., pp. 138-139; Gros., ll. 1900-2020) Thr., Alcon, etc.--Sc. viii. (Dy., p. 130; Gros., ll. 1180-1363) Alcon, etc., to _Exit Samia_, shows signs of Lodge principally, but some of the lines are Greene's. In general, each of the prophetic interludes is by the author of the scene preceding. _E.g._ ll. 1591-1653, Jonas, Angel, Oseas, by Lodge. From l. 2020 all is by Greene; therefore most of Jonas.

[1168] He vows:--

"To write no more of that whence shame doth grow
Or tie my pen to penny-knaves delight,
But live with fame and so for fame to write."

[1169] _Nat. Dict. Biog._, art. _Lodge_.

[1170] Fleay, _Life of Shakesp._, p. 98. Mr. Fleay, conjecturing that Lodge was associated with Marlowe in the attack upon Greene's unsuccessful heroic play, and that Lodge is satirized under the (_Perymedes_) mention of the "mad preest," assigns the _L.-G._ to a later date. But we find no evidence of coolness between Lodge and Greene during 1588 and 1589. On the contrary, Lodge prefixes to the _Span. Masquer._ (_S. R._ February 1, 1589), verses calling Greene his _doux ami_ and _compagnon de Dieux_, and rejoices to be associated with his fame. The friendship was still fresh when Greene died. Lodge was not the "mad preest." Nor can I adopt Mr. Fleay's other conjecture (_Biog. Chron._ II. 31) that the "preest" was Hieronimo.

[1171] The direction _A band_, etc., might well follow close upon "tempt you me?" of line 1764. The passage, ll. 1764-1782, interrupts a scene otherwise sufficient to itself, with a pageant of supernumeraries whose utterance is a veritable "fa-burden." The bit looks almost like an afterthought, aping Marlowan style; but it is manifest Greene, not Lodge.

[1172] For the distribution of authorship, see note 3, p. 405.

[1173] Lines 80-116, 481-508.

[1174] Grosart, XIII. vii., and Arber's S. R. there quoted.

[1175] By the author of _The Defence of Connycatching_.

[1176] Fleay, _Hist. Stage_, pp. 76-82.

[1177] Lee, _Life of Shakespeare_, p. 37.

[1178] Probably the _Rose_; Henslowe's _Diary_. For Alleyn's copy of the title role see Dyce, ed. _O. F._

[1179] Fleay, _Life of Shakespeare_, p. 108.

[1180] So Ulrici and Storojenko.

[1181] _E.g._, Orlando's espousal of Angelica's cause and his challenge to Oliver (ll. 1485-1486):

"Yet for I see my Princesse is abusde,
By new-come straglers from a forren coast."

[1182] 1588, Dec. 26; 1589, Feb. 9 (?), Dec. 26; 1590, Mar. 1, Dec. 26; 1591, Jan. 1, 3, 6; Feb. 14, Dec. 26. Fleay, _Hist. Stage_, pp. 76-80.

[1183] The date is assigned also to the Admiral's men.

[1184] Lodge's prefatory Sonnet.

[1185] The 'Sacrapant' of both; cf. also _O. F._ ll. 73-76 with _O. W. T._ ll. 808-811.

[1186] So Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_; Fleay, _Shakespeare_, p. 96.

[1187] Dr. Ward has mentioned the 'Sacrapant'; but even more striking is the appearance in _Perymedes' Tale of the Third Night's Exercise_ not only of 'Melissa' and her cousin 'Angelica,' but of 'Brandamant' and 'Rosilius,' who at once suggest the Brandimart and Rosillion of _Orlando_.

[1188] _Life of Shakespeare_, p. 96.

[1189] Grosart, I. xxvi.

[1190] See above, p. 404.

[1191] Between 1584 and 1588 (see _Induction_ to _Barth. Fayre_). Maybe as early as 1583-1587 (Schick, _Span. Trag._).

[1192] Note the frequent calls for "revenge"; and cf. the "Hamlet, revenge!" a cant phrase in 1588-89. Grosart gives reason for believing that the _Menaphon_ first appeared before July, 1588 (_Greene_, I. 104). In the _Epistle_ prefixed to it, Nashe ridiculed the _Hamlet_.

[1193] Cf. _O. F._ ll. 83, 84, with _Tullie's Love_ (1589), "one orient margarite richer than those which Cæsar brought," etc.; and _O. F._ ll. 461, 462, with _N. T. L._ (published 1590); "If the Cobler hath taught thee to say _Ave Cæsar_."

[1194] _E.g._, Helen's "scape"--_O. F._ l. 176, _F. B._ VI. 32; "Gihon," etc.--_O. F._ l. 47, _F. B._ XVI. 66; "Demogorgon," etc.--_O. F._ ll. 1287, 1411, and _F. B._ XI. 108; "Mars's paramour"--_O. F._ l. 1545, _F. B._ XIII. 47.

[1195] Arber's _Transcript_, II. 649.

[1196] Bernhardi, Greene's _Leben u. Schriften_, p. 40; Storojenko in Grosart, I. 253. Cf. Greene's _Fair M., the Keeper's Daughter of Fresingfield_, "the proxy-wooing," etc.

[1197] "O, tis a jollie matter when a man hath a familiar stile and can endite a whole yeare and never be beholding to art? but to bring Scripture to prove anything he says ... is no small piece of cunning." (Grosart, IX. 233.)

[1198] _Spanish Tragedy_, Preface, xxvi.

[1199] Arber, and Storojenko in Grosart, I. 119.

[1200] Storojenko, as above, I. 235.

[1201] Ward, _O. E. D._ cxix.

[1202] For Mr. Fleay's arguments, see Ward's _O. E. D._ cxliii-cxliv.

[1203] Dropping the _qui miscuit_, etc.

[1204] I. 86. See Ward, _O. E. D_., and O. Ritter, _F. B. and F. B._ (_Diss._. Thorn, 1886).

[1205] _F. Q._. III. 3. 10 (pub. 1590, but privately circulated as early as 1587).

[1206] W. must be mistaken when he refers Scene xv. of _Bacon_ to Chaps. XII., XIV., of the story-book. For the Miles of the play does no conjuring; and the devil who carries him off is the instrument of Bacon's vengeance.

[1207] Cf. the summoning of Burden and his hostess with that of Alexander and his paramour.

[1208] Grosart, I. 184.

[1209] But Grosart (I xxxvii.-xl.) appropriately recalls the preëxistence of the _Taming of a Shrew_. He queries the sequence,--_James IV._, _M.N.D._,--but without upsetting it.

[1210] See Storojenko and Grosart as above; and in the _S.R._, Creede, May 14, 1594.

[1211] In Ward, _O.E.D._ cxliii.

[1212] _Life of Shakesp._, p. 309.

[1213] _Continuing_:--

"That like a Bee, _Love hath a little sting_.
He _lurkes_ in flowres, he pearcheth on the trees,
He on king's pillowes, bends his _prettie_ knees...."

[1214] _Continuing:_--

"It is a _pricke_, it is a _sting_,
It is a _prettie_, _prettie_ thing.
It is a fire, it is a cole
Whose flame _creeps_ in at everie hole...."

This is the version of the Drummond Ms. fragment, which differs from the Rawlinson Ms. See Dyce, _Greene and Peele_, p. 603. Fainter resemblances might be cited.

[1215] July 1 or November 2:--

"Ah, what is love? It is a prettie thing
As sweete unto a shepheard as a king."

--_The Shepheard's Wife's Song_, as in Dyce, p. 305.

Grosart's transcript of _Q._ 1616 (IX. 144) accidentally omits all but the last two lines of this song.

[1216] Besides the frequent identity of tone, note such coincidences as _James IV._ l. 2669, 'aldertruest,' _M. G._ (Descript. of Sheph. and Wife), 'alderliefest,' an archaism found nowhere else in Greene,--but in the Folio of 2 _Henry VI._ l. 28 (prob. by Greene, Fleay, _Shakespeare_, p. 269). The sentiment of Philador's _Scrowle and Ode_ in _M. G._ is a variant of the Ovidian precept of _James IV._ l. 1108.

[1217] Lines 1575-1580, 2655-2699.

[1218] Lines 1901-1902.

[1219] _To the Gentlemen Readers_ of _Perymedes_.

[1220] _S. R._ 1594.

[1221] Fleay, _Hist. Stage_, pp. 399, 400; _Life of Shakesp._, p. 255 _et seq._ He guesses also _True Chron. Hist. of Leir, Valentine and Orson_, and _Robin Hood_ (_Hist. Stage_, 89, 400).

[1222] Phillips's _Theatrum Poetarum_.

[1223] Grosart in _Englische Stud._ XXII. (1896).

[1224] See under 'Young Juvenall' below.

[1225] Line 48.

[1226] Page 401, above.

[1227] _Kind Harts Dreame_, 1592.

[1228] _Have with You_, etc., 1596.

[1229] Making "the apparriter eate his citation," _Strange Newes_, etc., 1592.

[1230] Dumps, affects, quaint, fair (for _beauty_), vail, bonnet (but the last two come from the prose romance).

[1231] "Why, who art thou?" "Why, I am George," etc.

[1232] "Painting my outward passions," ll. 311-312.

[1233] Bonfield to Bettris, ll. 215-226.

[1234] As described in my _Appendix_ to _Friar Bacon_.

[1235] On _Delaie_, ll. 503-509; on _Damocles_, ll. 853-857.

[1236] In Vol. I. of _Greene's Works_, and in the _Temple Dramatists_.

[1237] _Hist. E. D. L._ Vol. I.

[1238] Lines 1980-1983 of _Selimus_ are reproduced in _Mucedorus_ (H. Dods. VII. 214).

[1239] Cf. _Civ. W._, H. Dods. VII. 137, 147, 187, 192-193.

[1240] Cf. Dyce, Malone, Fleay.

[1241] Grosart, _Greene_, I. pp. lvii-lxv, who quotes Simpson, _Greene on Nashe_, Academy, 11th April, 1874, and Symonds, _Predecessors of Shakespeare_, p. 574. Of this opinion are also Farmer, Staunton, and Ward.

[1242] In _Kind Harts Dreame_, 1592.

[1243] _Strange Newes_, Sig. L. 4.

[1244] _Ibid._, Sig. c. 2, 3.

[1245] See _Saffron Walden_ (1596), Sig. v. 2.

[1246] "Blame not schollers [the Harveys'] vexed with sharpe lines if they reprove thy too much libertie of reproofe." Grosart, xii. 143, _Groatsw._

[1247] _Strange Newes_, Sig. H. and E. 4.

[1248] "Ocnus, that makes ropes in hell"--who in truth survived them all.

[1249] Privately acted between July 27 and August 21, _1592_, at Croydon. Fleay, _H. S._ p. 78.

[1250] "What publishing of frivolous and scurrilous prognostications, as if Will Summers were again revived," etc. "And yet _they_ shame not to subscribe 'By a graduate in Cambridge' '_In Artibus Magister_.' ... _They_ are the Pharisees of our time," etc. Note the plural. But though Nashe had revived Will Somers in the _L. W. and T._, though he was entitled to subscribe himself "Graduate in C.," as Greene had done, and though Greene is the _A. M._ and intended "Pharisee," etc., the "scurrilous prognostications" and the other earmarks are hard to find in _L. W. and T._, as we have it. The "lute-string" passage (Dods. IX. 22) recalls Thrasybulus' remarks in _Lk.-Gl._ Sc. v.; but that scene is probably by Lodge, and Nashe himself parallels the passage more closely in _Christ's Tears_ (1593).

[1251] _Life of Shakesp._, p. 109.

[1252] _Greene_, I. lxii.

[1253] Cf. _Kn._ (H. Dods. 514) with _F. B._, Sc. i. 155, "the vicarious wooing."

[1254] Cf. _Kn._, Episode of Philarchus, with _Lk.-Gl._, that of Radagon.

[1255] Cf. the sequel of the vicarious wooing in _Kn._ with that in _F. B._; Smith and Cobbler, _Kn._ (p. 566), "God of our occupation ... cuckold," with same conversation, _Lk.-Gl._, Sc. ii. 254-255; Thankless son, _Kn._ (p. 523), "Thou hast been fostered," etc., with _Lk.-Gl._, Sc. viii. 1247; _Kn._ (p. 523), "disdain ... want," with _Lk.-Gl._ 1273; _Kn._ (p. 526), "Mother's curse ... hated," etc., with _Lk.-Gl._ l. 1275. Resemblances to Lodge's lines are: Usurer, _Kn._ (pp. 548-549), and _Lk.-Gl._, Scs. iii. v.; _Kn._, "My house ... goods," and _Lk.-Gl._ iii. 419, "My cow," etc.

[1256] Cf. _Kn._ (H. Dods. VI. 514), Ethenwald's "to show your passions ... fairer than the dolphin's eye," etc., to the end, and (H. Dods. VI. 562) Ethenwald's "purpled main ... wanton love," etc., and (p. 570) Alfrida's "Beset with orient pearl," etc., with _F. B._, Sc. viii. ll. 26, 50-73.

[1257] On this basis, I see something to be said in favour of Mr. Fleay's conjecture of Wilson, but not of _Peele_ and Wilson.

[1258] Fleay, _Life of Shakesp._, and in Ward's _O. E. D._, p. cxliv.