﻿146 



INDIANA rXIYEESITY 



general information that his methods were called into question even 

 in his own day. There is no good reason to doubt that Greene had 

 Shakespere in mind Avhen he gave expression to his remarkable 

 and oft quoted indictment of the great dramatist's embryonic ef- 

 forts at playwriting: ''There is an upstart Crow, beautified with 

 our feathers, that with his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hide, 

 supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a, blanke verse as the best 

 of you: and being an absolute Joliannes fac totiim, is in his own 

 conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrie.''- 



In 1592 when Shakespere was yet a novice and Greene, ac- 

 cording to one competent judge, "the only comedian, of a vulgar 

 writer" in England," the above accusation contained an element of 

 truth. But then how quickly this truth was dissipated! How 

 ihoroughly the upstart cronrs brilliant achievements gave this in- 

 dictment the lie ! I fancy it has had a rather hollow ring for a 

 goodly number of years^ — in round numbers three hundred, and 

 more. AVhat if in 1598 or thereabout this SJiake-scene, according 

 to a habit contracted early in life, took certain liberties with a de- 

 lightful novel by one Thomas Lodge called "Rosalynde"? What 

 if "As You Like It" does actually owe this novel a good deal — and 

 it actually does ? It ought to owe it one thing more, its name. Be 

 that as it may, Jacques, Touchstone, and Audrey are net gain. And 

 this trio is certainly worth while. Intelligence tells us that Shake- 

 spere 's method has more than justified itself. One could, of course, 

 go through the entire list of plays and sources and still find oneself 

 un\nlling to be anything ])ut chary in the handling of the man's 

 name and fame. Here is one case where we make distin::tions 

 gladly. 



If, therefore, Shakespere 's immorality were all that a treatise 

 on Elizal)ethan plagiarism had to prate about it would be dreary 

 stuff' at ])est. There was, however, in his day a form of pilfering 

 th'dt remained untouched by the hand of genius; this w^as pernicious 

 appropriation of other men's thought, downright theft and slavish 

 copying of their work. Of this sort of gross immorality Samuel 

 Rowlands in "Greenes Ghost Haunting Conie-catchers" is guilty. 

 For his conduct there is not now, nor ever was, any excuse. That 

 conduct is an excellent conmientary on the degraded state of the 

 liack writer. That such catchpenny tracts as "Greenes Ghost" 

 should sell, that the laws, such as they were, protected the ]^ub- 



- Greene, Worlds (ed. Grosavt. ) XII. 144. 

 Chettle : Kind-Harts Dreame (Percy Society.) IV. II. 



