, sirrah, we
Have nothing left for traitors but our swords,
Whetted to bathe them in your bloods, and die
'Gainst you, before we send you any victuals.
_George-a-Greene_ brings us to the end of Greene's dramatic work. The
qualities of that work have been pointed out as they occurred, but it
may be as well to recapitulate them in a final paragraph. Foremost of
all will stand the crowded medley of his plots, filling the stage with
an amount of incident and action which is in striking contrast to Lyly's
conversations and monologues. The public appetite for complex plots was
stimulated, but unfortunately very little progress was made in the art
of orderly dramatic arrangement and evolution. Indeed, this feature of
Greene's plays may be thought to have been almost as much a loss as a
gain to drama. Its popularity licensed an indifference on the part of
lesser authors to clarity and restraint, and encouraged the development
of those dual plots which are to be found, connected by the flimsiest
bonds, in the works of such men as Dekker and Heywood. To the same
influence may be traced Shakespeare's frequent but skilful use of
subordinate plots. For the second quality of Greene's work we name the
charm and purity of his romantic conceptions. The fresh air of his
pastoralism, the virtue, constancy and patience of his heroines, entitle
him to an honourable position among the writers who have reached success
by this path. Thirdly, but of equal importance, is his sympathetic
presentment of men and women of the middle and lower classes; he was
here an innovator, and some of our most pathetic dramas may be traced
ultimately to his example. His admirable 'low comedy' scenes, on the
other hand, though they prove their author to have been gifted with
considerable humour, merely continued the practice of Lyly, as his rant
and noisy warfare echoed the thunder of Marlowe. The general soundness,
even occasional excellence, of his verse and prose must be allowed to be
largely his own.
* * * * *
George Peele has left behind him a name associated with sweetness of
versification and graceful pastoralism. When, however, we try to recall
other features of his work, the men and women of his creation, or scenes
from his plots, we find our memory strangely indistinct. It is not easy
at first to see why; but probably the cause is in his lack of strong
individuality. He had not the gift of his greater con
|