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).