extremely numerous, and probably neither as yet wholly ascertained. Those I have perused, display a rich and glowing fancy, much originality and universal command of language, combined with an extensive knowledge of the world. His crowded similes are in unison with those of the period when he wrote, and prove him a disciple of the then fashionable Euphuean sect; they are in general well selected, appositely applied, and quaintly amuse while his moral instructs. He possessed considerable, if not first rate abilities, and it is inconsistent to measure either poetry or prose by any standard of criticism erected two centuries after the decease of the author. The fame of Greene is not indebted to his biogra phers for any assistance; nor his character under any obligation to their lenity. To censure and condemn his weakness has not been sufficient; he has been stigmatised with the grossest vices, and it would be useless now to inquire for every authority. Much of the abuse is dictated from the pages of his inveterate antagonist Gabriel Harvey. The severe notes by Oldys are principally derived from the same polluted source, and the adoption of them by Steevens has tended to confirm their severity.* The names of Oldys and Steevens are entitled to universal respect and confidence; they may be considered to have sacrificed the greater portion of their lives in substituting facts for theory, and purifying English works from errors and inconsistency. Neither is it the province of one who occasionally recreates a mind, worn and corroded by the pursuits of others, in the * Berkenhout's Biographia Literaria, p. 389. gratification of reading, to attempt the controverting their pages; yet, it may be diffidently suggested, that the sombre shadows might have been relieved without deviating from the fair colouring of truth. Little of the real life of Greene was known at the close of the seventeenth century. Langbaine, who had been many years compiling his "Account of the English Dramatic Poets," and who sought on all occasions to expose the errors of Winstanley, was under the acknowledged necessity of copying from that writer's meagre narrative; and which narrative like the distending bladder that swells with each gust of foul air, has been increased in its appearance of malignancy by every subsequent writer. The thoughtless imprudence repeatedly described by Greene in giving an outline of his own character, must be considered as overstrained, for one who had "tasted of the sweet fruits of theology," and probably manufactured with new and exaggerated incidents of folly and extravagance, to swell the hungerwrought pages, and give variation and strength to his novels.* Charity demands this inference when the whole of the vices displayed are found to be gathered with a miser's industry, and embodied, from the tales of invention, for the purpose of degrading him beneath the level of decency and common repute in society. Wood, whose authority is relied on in other points, says, he wrote "to maintain his wife;" a memorial in his favour passed unnoticed: See the preceding article where the gay and thoughtless career of the author is interestingly described under the character of a pilgrim. while that source of existence has been asserted to have been prodigally consumed in the support of a wanton. The works of Greene obtained an extraordinary portion of popularity. In Ben Jonson's "Every Man out of his Humour," Maddona Saviolina is described to observe "as pure a phrase and use as choice figures in her ordinary consequences as any be i'the Arcadia. Car. Or rather in Greene's works, where she may steal with more security." Sir Thomas Overbury, in his character of "a chamber maid," says "she reads Greene's works over and over; but is so carried away with the Mirror of Knighthood, she is many times resolu'd to run out of herself, and become a lady-errant." These passages are given in full from their being quoted by Oldys. Of the last he observes "we may know in what class to rank Greene from what Sir Thomas. Overbury says in his character of a chambermaid, wha reads Greene's works over and over."* If this negative conclusion is supposed to convey a critical decision, or if it means to convey any thing, it must be that of an opinion which depreciates the works of Greene, and to pronounce them either trifling and unworthy notice, or vulgar and contemptible. Either point may be refuted; but such authority is too light for a decision, while the vague inference of the critic is more easily destroyed in an immediate and familiar view of the passage in question, by considering it written of the era of yesterday, and adopte Biographia Literaria, p. 390. 1 ing the name of Fielding, or Smollett, (whose pieces have been equally idolized by chambermaids); thus the distinction of class no longer despoils his literary reputation. Wood considers him "author of seyeral things which were pleasing to men and women of his time; [that] they made such sport and were valued among scholars, but since they have been mostly sold at ballad-monger's stalls." This huckster circulation is a presumptive proof of their morality, if not of their merit; and Warton has pronounced in an extended acceptation, that his prose pamphlets, may "claim the appellation of satires."* Had the obloquy cast on Greene been attached to any modern author, who had obtained similar excess of popularity, the hands of Briareus would not have been sufficient to contain the pens employed to apologise for his weakness and dissipation, or canvass the proof of his errors; yet, if "he was a bad man," to use the apposite language of a celebrated writer, "let us not palliate his crimes; but neither let us adopt false or doubtful imputations for the purpose of making him a monster."+ 1. The Myrrour of Modestie, 1584. 2. Monardo the Tritameron of Love, 1584, 1587; 3. Planetomachia, 1585. [q. an edition without. date.t] Hist. English Po. Fragment of Vol. IV. p. 81. Fox's Historical Work, p. 66. This piece was considered from Wood as theatrical, and noticed by Baker in the companion to the Play House, 1764, but omitted in the Biographia Dramatica of Reed, 4. Translation of a funeral sermon of P. Gregory XIII. 1585.* 5. Euphues censure to Philautus, 1587. 1634. 6. Arcadia or Menaphon, Camillae's alarm to slumbering Euphues, 1587, 1589, 1599, 1605, 1610, 1616, 1634. Lately reprinted in Archaica. 7. Pandosto the triumph of Time, 1588, 1629. 8. Perimedes the blackesmith, 1588., 9. The pleasant and delightful History of Dorastus and Fawnia, 1588, 1607, 1675, 1703, 1723, 1735.t. 10. Alcída, Greene's Metamorphosis, (licensed to John Wolfe, 1588), 1617. *See Phillips's Theatrum Poetarum, Ed. 1800, p. 196. To the edition of 1735 is added the history of Hero and Leander in prose, The title states both "made English from the originals, written in the Bohemia and Grecian tongues, by a gentleman who spent many years in travelling through most parts of Germany, Greece and Italy, where these stories are in as much credit and repute as any that are now extant, or ever were printed." Upon this story Shakespeare founded the Winter's Tale. It was versified probably about the beginning of the last century, and consists of fifty-eight stanzas. A short specimen from the beginning wil suffice. "Into Bohemia dwelt a king, Pandosto high to name: He had a queen, Bellaria call'd did leave his land and crown. And to Bohemia he did sail, · Pandosto for to see; received him royally." |