The Critical Reputation and Influences of Thomas Dekker's 'The Shoemaker's Holiday', Study notes of History

Download The Critical Reputation and Influences of Thomas Dekker's 'The Shoemaker's Holiday' and more Study notes History in PDF only on Docsity! The Woman's College of The University of North Carolina LIBRARY COLLEGE COLLECTION CQ no. 639 Gift of BARBARA HANCOCK COLE COLE, BARBARA HANCOCK. The Shoemaker's Holiday: A Study in Technique and Significance. (1969) Directed by Dr. Joseph Bryant. Although Thomas Dekker is accused of being a "hack without ideas," a man whose talent was chiefly journalistic, his contributions to Elizabethan drama through The Shoemaker's Holiday (1599) cannot be ignored. This play is usually classified as a romantic comedy; but the Shoemaker's Holiday is not so lacking in serious thought as many critics propose. On the surface this play is simple in theme, purpose, and construction, but it is really a piece of subtly designed dramatic fiction. Dekker's method involves the principles of romantic comedy, but his play is set against a verifiable background. Characters come from chronicles, records, legends, and contemporary London; landmarks in the play were outstanding in Dekker's day; situations and events arose from customs and life in the early seventeenth century. Above all The Shoemaker's Holiday reveals particular strength in the authenti- city of characterization. Dekker had special ability in portraying convincingly the many sides of man's nature and the various forms of his personality. Through the outward forms of romantic comedy and the methods of the currently popular chronicle play, Dekker probably hoped to achieve a successful play, financial reward (enough to stay away from the Counter, at least), and some assurance of his ability. Clearly he succeeded. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I II III IV THE CRITICAL REPUTATION OF THOMAS DEKKER Literary Background Reali stic approach Journalistic talent Literary productions affected by existence Pro-Dekker critics PURPOSE AND DESIGN OF THE SHOEMAKER'S HOLIDAY Theme of The Shoemaker's Holiday Presentation of Characters Reflections of Elizabethan society Lack of social argument DEKKER»S DEPENDENCE UPON RECORDS, LEGENDS, CUSTOMS AND THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE Popularity of the chronicle play Dekker, Deloney, and history, a table History and characters in The Shoemaker's holiday • Contemporary London and place n^.mes in The Shoemaker's Holiday Contemporary London and verisimilitude in The Shoemaker's Holiday THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SHOEMAKER'S HOLIDAY Strategy for success Power of characterization Influence of lower and middle classes on The Shoemaker's Holiday Choice oflandmarks and success of The Shoemaker's Holiday VLL" Influence of contemporaneity on success of The Shoemaker's Holiday Unity Theme '"' Dekker's contributions to drama through The Shoemaker's Holiday BIBLIOGRAPHY PAGE 1 1 3 6 6 16 18 20 20 21 ?? 28 35 li9 50 53 % % 57 58 59 63 iii 34U417 Chapter 1 The Critical Reputation of Thomas Dekker Thomas Dekker's literary life was twofold. Between the years 1598 and I60I4, he devoted his efforts to dramatic productions; during the remaining twenty-eight years of his life, he wrote plays sporadically and depended upon prose as his chief resource. From the first period, Henslowe assigned twelve plays to Dekker and ten written in collaboration with other dramatists. During the second period of his career, he wrote fifteen plays both alone and in collaboration with others. Of all his work, The Shoemaker's Holiday, a play written by Dekker alone, is among the most outstanding and best loved. Judging from the entries in Henslowe's Diary, The Shoemaker's Holiday was written between May 30, 1599, and July 1$, 1599. So great was the acclaim it received at the Rose Theatre that it was chosen to be performed before the Queen at the royal court on the night of January 1, 1600. A. F. Lange has voiced the conclusion of many critics concerning The Shoemaker's Holiday: "The Shoemaker's Holiday is the best adapta- tion, before 1600, of the Romantic Comedy to the deeds and language such as men do use." It is in this phrase, "deeds and language such as men do use," that the realistic nature of Dekker's play is implied. Many critics call Dekker a romanticist, a sentimentalist, and a realist, and some hint at another characteristic when they say The Shoemaker's Holiday presents one of the best life-like pictures of Elizabethan London; but this realistic aspect of his work has received little attention. Yet in the minds of critics of the Elizabethan stage, Thomas Dekker maintains a position of debatable importance. A. H. Bullen long ago appealed to Dekker's biography in an attempt to explain what he considered Dekker's literary failure. The reason for Dekker's low rank, he said, was a long struggle with poverty, sheriff's officers, and printers' devils.2 Neither wealthy patron nor powerful friend allied himself with Dekker. Bullen went on to say that great artistry was denied the playwright because "he had not the time (and perhaps too the ability) to conduct his plays with patience and orderliness."-^ This point is borne out by Satiromastix, Dekker's reply to Jonson's Poetaster. It has been plausibly conjectured that Thomas Dekker had begun to compose a serious play about William Rufux and Sir Walter Tyrrel before the appearance of Poetaster, and that he rapidly included the necessary farcical and satirical matter to produce this odd gallimaufry. "To turn from Dekker to Jonson is to be jolted into recognition of the gulf between the higher and lower ranges of Jacobean dramatic literature,"^ writes L. C. Knights. Miss Bradbrook supports Knights when she comments: "All Jonson's virtues of concentration, order, and 2A. H. Bullen, Elizabethans (London, 192b), p. 77. fobid. kjbTd., p. 79. ,T . ,.„_. 5LTTI. Knights, Drama and Society in The Age of Jonson (London, 1937J, p. 228. sought for in vain in Dekker's work. Lack of structure, inconsistency, unfinished work, endless collaboration, and repeated re-working of the same vein appear too frequently. Scenes introducedfor the sake of racy dialogue, episodes that find their interest in Elizabethan appreciation of the unusual and the unhealthy, lack of development of main themes and unreasonable devotion to minor interests are too familiar in the make-up of the Dekker plays. Often it seems that 17 Dekker was driven to his task with little joy or purpose. He has been called a "hack", a "slave", a "hack without ideas", a writer "whose work was made still less dignified by a total lack of the brooding faculty, the austere enthusiasm of a great artist for his art."18 Critics other than Bradbrook, Bullen and Knights agree that Dekker's biography can be summed up in these words: "poverty, talent, Henslowe quarrels, prison." R. B. McKerrow admits that great artistry was denied Dekker because of a hard, hand-to-mouth sort of existence; the only incidents of real importance were his visits to debtors' prison.1^ Ward, too,suscribes to the idea that Dekker had "more than his share of the difficulties that confronted the playwrights of the 16 "JA. C. Swinebutne, The Age of Shakespeare (London, 1908), p. 62. I7K. L. Gregg, "Thomas Dekker: A Study In Economic And Social Back- Grounds," in University of Washington Publications in Language and Literature, II (Seattle, 1921.;, 72. 18 Ibid. j.u .a 19Grossart, "The Gvls Horne-Booke," II, 199. Elizabethan period."20 Per*13*^ A- P- Lange has expressed this P°int best: "Nor is the serenity of p<jffect mastery ever likely to be his who stands in daily fear 0f ^ CoUnW'"21 Standing alone in hef ^ttitucle t°ward Dekker, Mary Leland Hunt strongly believes the poverty in Pekker' s life has been oVeremphasized. For her,his early work is 0*P*<es5i ve 0f "an independence and buoyancy 22 incompatible with the dread °* s"rdid specters." ' Since frequent visits to the debtors' priSon \,ete * c<"nmon occurrence among; men 0f this profession, not too mUch mu^ *>e made of this element in Dekker's life,23 says Miss Hunt, for her, Dekker was a poet whose uncommonly deep understanding and appreciati on of life was expressed in a style of grand simplicity in keeping Ht& *** very existence—both physically and spiritually. That Whicn is Sin*le in fortn lends itself m°St readily to criticism, and ******&*» mistakes and weaknesses in „0rk of less elaborate plan are most obtfious> She sees in Dekker no attempt to rise above his position in ******* say more than he believes, or to depict life other than tb»* *hic* he understands. Hunt is very likely the most pro-Dekker critic ^ong th* V*t indeed, it is difficult to find any area of his life or work f(jf which she has not carefully made amends where apology or explanation se^' hecessary. Ernest Rhys, anoth^r War*1 *H&* and admirer of Thomas Dekker, has explained his lack 0f ^f^nt in a sympathetic yet reasonable 20A. W. Ward, A History oOtyl^ Dramatic Literature_gf The_Age__of Elizabeth (Boston, ^fyb^Vl* „ » iHTTT^ oae 7? 2lA. F. Lange, "Critical *»*W lateen," cited in Gregg, p. 72. 22Mary Leland Hunt, Thoma^^T. (Mew York, 1911), p. 80. 23Ibid. manner: "Dekker lived with cares and laughed at them, but refused to let them kill him out-right...They allied themselves insiduously with his own natural weakness to defect the consummation of a really great poetic faculty."2^ If a writer's work is lacking in artistic capacities, however, there must be some sound reason why his work continues to be read and enjoyed. Rhys says this of Dekker: "Dekker is one of those authors whose personal effect tends to outgo the purely artistic one. He has the rare gift of putting heart into everything he says, and because of this abounding heartiness of his, it is hard to measure him by the standards of absolute criticism."2^ "Even though the shortcomings and disappointments of his work are constantly sounded, he remains the same lovable, elusive being, a man of genius, a child of nature."26 It will be the purpose of this thesis to examine in detail The Shoemaker's Holiday and to determine, if possible, Dekker's peculiar contribution here to Elizabethan dramatic literature. S JTBMt Rhys, 9d., Thomas Dekker (New York, 190b), vm. 25>'lbid., ix. 2^Tbid. 10 When Simon scorns Maggie and firmly refuses to forget the generosity of Hans, the Dutch shoemaker, his appreciation and humble attitude is obvious once again. Eyre knows he received the proper inheritance since he was the son of a shoemaker. But at the same time, he is distinctly aware that honor can be gained in a life of commodity: "I am a handicrafts man, yet my heart is without craft." Simon remains true to himself and avoids being false to his fellow man. That freedom is not entirely dependent upon money is a rule for the shoemaker-mayor. Even wealthy men must learn to compromise, and unpropertied men must create their own spirit of freedom and holiday. The Lord Mayor Oateley is envious of Simon's light-heartedness: "Ha, ha, ha, I had rather than a thousand pound, 1 had an heart but halfe so light as yours." And Eyre replies: "Why what should I do my Lord? a pound of care paies not a dram of debt: hum, lets be merry whiles we are young, olde age, sacke and sugar ,.32 will steale vpon vs ere we be aware. When Simon speaks to Rose about marriage, his pride in his class and his distrust of the nobler, titled members of London society who depend so heavily on money are obvious. This speech depicts a normal man with a healthy attitude toward reality: Be rulde sweete Rose, th'art ripe for a man: Marrie not with a boy, that has no more haire on his face then thow hast on thy cheekes: a courtier, wash, go by, stand not vpon pisherie pashene: those silken fellowes are but painted Images, out- 30. Wd., Act V, v, 11. 9-10, p. 83. 31lbTd., Act III, iii, 11. 19-20, p. 55. 32IbTd., Act V, iii, 11. 21-23, P. 55. 11 sides, outsides Rose, their inner linings are tome: no my fine mouse, marry me with a Gentleman Grocer like my Lord Maior your Father, a Grocer is a sweete trade, Plums, Plums: had I a sonne or Daughter should marrie out of the generation and bloud of shoe-makers, he should packe: what, the Gentle trade is a living for a man through Europe, through the world.33 Knowledge of self and truthfulness to self are combined so effectively in Eyre's life as to produce a magnanimous man. In him is recognized a successful coalition of life as it is and life as the romantic spirit would have it. Since these two conflicting elements help define the basic differences between economic and social levels, Eyre's apparent mastery over realism and fantasy tends to place him at the center of this tale about people and their society. Sir Hugh Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and Sir Roger Oateley, Lord Mayor of London, play an interesting and major role in The Shoemaker's Holiday. The two dine together, it is true, but the honor and respect they bear one another is strained to say the least. Beneath the mask of good will is much distrust; each man is deeply concerned about his social status. Indeed social status and social-status purity appear to be their main interests in life. The Rose-Lacy love affair brings to light this distrust between the Lacys and the Lincolns-in effect, England's "blooded" and "non-blooded" title groups. In his efforts to maintain his dignity, the Lord Mayor remarks to the Earl of Lincoln: Too meane is my poore girl for his high birth Poore cittizens must not with Courtiers wed, Who will in silkes, and gay apparell spend more in one yeare, than I am worth by farre, Therefore your honour neede not doubt my girle. ^bid., Act V, iii, 11. 38-U7, pp. 55-56. %bTd., Act I, i, 11. 11-H*, P- 23. 12 Oateley's recognition of money as a distinct and significant difference between the two opens the way for Lincoln to belittle his nephew's financial policies. Young Lacy plans a trip through Europe, and his benevolent uncle writes letters of introduction to influential persons and provides the boy with both money and servants; but before he travels through half of Germany, he is penniless. Because he is ashamed to admit his "unthriftiness," he remains in Wittenberg and learns the shoemaker's trade. That the "rise and fall of Rowland Lacy" happens within less than a year's time makes him a greater scoundrel. Having fully exposed Rowland's inability to accept financial responsibility, the Earl of Lincoln attacks the problem from Rose's point of view. Granted that Rose received a thousand pound dowry, Lacy wasted that much in six months. Even if Oateley made his daughter heir to all his wealth, within one year, the certain "rioting" on Lacy's part would waste the modest wealth. Lacy is a conniving man but at least he does have a degree of tactfulness about him. Instead of simply stating, "Oateley, let my nephew along; find someone else for your daughter to marry," he uses the money problem as an excuse. Out of Oateley's company, however, he speaks truthfully about the matter to LOV.U and Rowland Lacy: "1 would not haue you cast an amourous eie vpon so meane a project, as the loue of a gay wanton painted cittizen." The Lord Mayor has his own pride to protect. He looks with scorn upon the Lacys: hoping to relieve the weight of love and attention 35Ibid., Act I, i, 11. 7h-77, P. 25. 15 offers Ralph twenty pounds of gold for Jane. The idea of buying and selling a human is repulsive, but so is the fact that Harmon so quickly and openly places himself on a social pedestal high above the shoemakers. A woman is insulted, but so is the moral code of the working class. Firk states the indignation most aptly: "A shoomaker sell his flesh and bloud, oh indignitie!"" Simon Eyre's wife is also an important character. Uppermost in Margery's mind is the social ladder whereby she may climb to regal heights. Simon's new position, she hopes, will afford ample opportunity to reveal "the honour that has crept upon her." Now that her husband has a title, she likes him better than ever before. But Simon is too plain and airs are too far removed from his personality to please Dame Margery. She speaks to the Lord Mayor about the problem: "1, but, my Lord, hee must learne nowe to putte on grauitie."^3 The shoemakers recognize Margery's pretentiousness, and it is Firk who finally tells her: "You are such a shrew, youl'e soone pull him downe." Throughout the production Margery's attempts to be far more than she really is emphasize her vanity and superficiality—her genuine snobbery. Although the backgrounds of Rose and Lacy have been discussed, it is necessary to consider them apart from their families and their traditions-both are young, determined, and in love. Love is blind to her citizen family and to his titled family. They have no plan to overthrow English social rules; their actions and decisions stem purely J^Ibid., Act V, ii, 1. 86, p. 77. ^TbTd., Act III, iii, 1. 11, P- 59. %bld., Act II, iii, 11. 138-139, P- hh. 16 from their emotional involvement. In The Shoemaker's Holidayf the king is presented as a true servant of the people. He descends from the greatest political post to honor one of the working class who has attained a measure of success; he blesses the marriage of Rose and Lacy and puts an end to social clamor by proclaiming: "Come on then, al shake hands, He haue you frends, where there is much loue, all discord ends " ' When he ends the social chaos in the story by revealing the true folly of man's concern for social status, structurally, he becomes Dekker's most important character. By him all loose plot ends are tied. To the king's wise words, nothing can be added or argued. Thomas Dekker must have been strongly aware of the rapid movement within Elizabethan society. It was a society influenced by new ambitions; the prosperous merchant, once content to win a position of new dignity and power in fraternity or town, now flung himself into the task of carving his way to solitary pre-eminence, unaided by the artificial protection of guild or city. The fourteenth century saw the rise of the De La Pole family within a single generation from the merchant class to the aristocracy; in the fifteenth century, the Boleyns ascended the aristo- cracy heights from merchant levels. As the Elizabethan periodprogressed, such opportunities increased: more and more, wealth and brains could purchase high rank. Thereafter the movement from class to class continued. Such circumstances created new opportunities for men of humble birth and US Ibid., Act V, v, 1. 119, P. 87. 17 opened the way for intermarriage between the classes. Surely Dekker knew that the rise of the new aristocrats depended on brains, money and useful service, but in The Shoemaker's Holiday, he does not set out to extract a profound sociological message. He does not point to Simon Lyre as a hero because he rose to power and position overnight, or to Rose and Lacy because they ignored class boundaries. Neither does Dekker look with ill favor upon Hammon the hypocritical citizen or Margery the genuine snob. He makes no attempt to praise the mirth of the apprentices or the kindness of the king. Dekker's motive obviously, then, was not to enlighten the masses about the levels of London society. He merely acknowledges the social conditions of the time to enhance the real purpose of his play. By using this cross-section of London people, he, through various plots, proves and praises the power of love. He takes for granted that the vaunted social principles of order and degree will work out in practice. Dekker would perhaps say to modern man: When the great ideals of order and degree are discussed in terms of the social history of the Elizabethan and Jacobean period, it is important to remember that between social theory and social practice, there was a wide u? discrepancy. The facts simply do not fit the theory. A close examination of the love story in The Shoemaker's Holiday reinforces these ideas. In the matter of the unequal marriage, there is the same conflict between actual practice and the ideal **?. Thomson, "The Old Way And The New Way in Dekker and Massinger," Modern Language Review, L (April, 1956), 168-178. U7Ibid., p. 170. 20 Chapter III Dekker's Dependence Upon Records, Legends, Customs, And Contemporary London During the latter part of Queen Elizabeth's reign, the chronicle play flourished. The Famous Victories of iienry V, which appeared about 1586, is perhaps the first true chronicle play. With the defeat of the Spanish Armada, this type of drama enjoyed increasing popularity, for patriotic feeling ran at an unprecedented high. By 1610, chronicle material was completely subordinated to the demands of romantic comedy. As early as 1599, Thomas Dekker had subordinated historical fact in The Shoemaker's Holiday to the romantic method. Dekker's story of Simon Eyre the shoemaker came from Deloney's Gentle Craft, but character names, places, and several occurrences came from chronicles. It is important in coming to terms with Dekker's technique in The Shoemaker's Holiday to examine carefully his efforts in the areas of character choice, historical corrections of Deloney's story, and usage of contemporary events and customs. 21 The following chart prepared by W. K. Chandler enables the reader to comprehend readily the facts about Simon Eyre presented in The Gentle Craft, in The Shoemaker's Holiday, and in the various chronicles of the era. Deloney Eyre came to London from the North Country Became a shoemaker Bought argosy and became wealthy Elected sheriff Elected alderman Elected Mayor Became a draper Dekker No origin given A shoemaker Same Elected sheriff Omitted by Dekker because of neces- sary condensation of time Elected Mayor Not in Dekker; play stops in the year of Eyre's mayoralty Hj story Native of Brandon, Suffolk, northeast of London. First upholsterer, then draper. No historical authority. Eyre seems to have been of a family of substantial merchants. Elected sheriff 1U3U Alderman for Walbrook. Elected Mayor llili5> Became a draper from upholsterer, but no date given; Eyre was a draper several years before being elected sheriff. Built Leadenhall after mayoralty. Built Leadenhall Built Leadenhall immediately before either in 1L19 or or during mayoralty. 1UJ5-U6. 22 Appointed Shrove Tuesday as banquet for the apprentices; originated pancake bell. Appointed Mondays for the sale of leather at Leadenhall. Died with great honor, but no mention made of philanthropy except Leadenhall. Appointed Shrove No authority. Pan- Tuesday for ban- cake bell was of quet, but did not much earlier origin, originate pancake bell. The King, at Eyre's Queen Elizabeth request, appointed appointed Mondays. Mondays and Fridays for the sale of leather. No mention since Died in 1U59, leaving the play ends be- much to charity.-^ fore his doath. The imaginative element was not totally removed from Dekker's work by close adherence to historical fact, for as the chart reveals, Dekker retained Deloney's idea of the argosy, for which there is no historical basis. "As early as 1U26 Simon Eyre seems to have been 8 draper of means. He instituted proceedings on July 21, lb.26, for the collection of a debt for wool cloth sold by him amounting to 1291." Chandler notes that other volumes of the Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry VI, relate similar facts; many entries concern a wealthy Thomas Eyre who could have been Simon's father. In The Shoemaker's Holiday, Dekker does skip the years Eyre spent as sheriff and alderman, but Professor Lange recognized the need for a compression of time - even a "rigorous compression, which involves even the untimely death of a number of aldermen...'- Hodge suggests this in the fourth act of the Play: "Wei, we], worke apace, 53tf. K. Chandler, "Sources of Characters In The Shoemaker's Holiday," ^ y. K. Chandler, "Sources of Characters," p. 176. ^Gayley, p. 7. 25 The character Sir Hugh Lacy is a serious error, historically speaking. However, even this error has been explained ann logically justified. First of all, only three Lacies became Earls of Lincoln. Edmund de Lacy, a captain in the Royal Army in Gascony, became an earl; however, no date for bestowal of the title upon him has been secured. In 123? John de Lacy became Earl of Lincoln. There was another captain in the Royal Army in Gascony, Henry de Lacy, who became an Earl of Lincoln. He died in 1311 and was buried at St. Paul's. Alice, his only surviving child, married the Earl of Lancaster, who died before 1336. Her second marriage was to Hugh de Freyne; in his wife's right de Freyne became an Earl of Lincoln. The Earls of Lincoln whose names were Hugh v.-ere not Lacies; however, there were two Hugh de Lacies. One was a baron and the other was the Earl of Ulster. During the years between 1359 and 1U67 there were no Earls of Lincoln. In 1L67 John de la Pole became Earl of Lincoln. During Dekker's lifetime the son of Edward Clinton held the title of that earldom. Edmund Lacy, who was Dean of the King's Chapel, Chancellor of Oxford University, Bishop of Hereford, and Bishop of Exeter, lived during the reigns of Henry IV, V and '/I (until 1U55). He is mentioned in almost all the chronicles of the period, and it is strongly suspected that the Lacy name suggested the title to Thomas Dekker. Also in justification of Dekker's use of this particular title, the founders of the line were Hugh de Lacies; the name Lacy was associated with the earldom and the last Earl of Lincoln connected with the Lacy family was named Hugh.0^ 62 Ibid., pp. 178-179. 26 Concerning Lincoln's Inn, John Stow wrote the following: In this place after the decease of the sayde Bishoppe of Chichester, and in place of the house of Blacke Fryers, before spoken of, Henry Lacy Earle of Lincolne, Constable of Chester, and Custos of England, builded his Inne, and for most part was lodged there; hee deceased in this house in the yeare 1310, and was buried in the new worke, (wherevnto he had been a great benefactor) of Saint Pauls church, between our Lady chappell and saint Dunstones Chappell. This Lincolnes Inne sometime pertraying the name of Lincolnes Inne as afore, but now lately encreased with fayre buildings, and replenished with Gentlemen studious in the common lawes. In the raigne of H. the 8. sir Thomas Louell was a great builder there, especially he builded the gate house and forefront towardes the east, placing thereon aswell the Lacies armes as his owne: hee caused the Lacies armes to bee cast and wrought in leade, on the louer of the hall of that house, which was in the 3. Escutcheons a Lyon rampant for Lacie.,.°3 That Thomas Dekker was unfamiliar with Lincoln's Inn and the display of Lovell and Lacy arms is highly improbable. Indeed, his familiarity with this place may be at the root of his selection of the name Lacy. John Harmon and Masters Warner and Scott are London citizens of importance in The Shoemaker's Holiday. Both Stow and Orridge record one Thomas Scott, a draper, who became the sheriff of tendon in II4L7 and mayor in lli58.6lj John Hammon, who was a citizen and fishmonger of tendon, lived during Eyre's lifetime.65 Robert Warner is recorded as a London citizen and mercer. Warner was a benefactor of St. Bartholomew's Hospital.66 Once again, Dekker relied on the accuracy of 6jW>w, II, 90. 6gCaTindar> of latent'Rolls, Henry VI, VI, 315, cited in Changer, "Sources of Characters," p. 180. 66stow, II, 23. 27 historical records for the accuracy of a character in his play. In addition to these characters, Cornwall, Lovell, and the king are included. Cornwall, who has no title mentioned in the play, appears twice. The title of Earl was added to the list of characters for the play by one Fritsche,who had no authority to make such additions. The earldom of Cornwall became a property of the crown when it was changed into a duchy after the death of the last Earl of Cornwall in 1336. Between lhl3 and lli53 there was no Duke of Cornwall. It is possible that Dekker used the name Cornwall in reference to John Cornwall^ who was a contemporary figure. He strongly supported Henry VI and was an outstanding knight. Cornwall became Lord Fanhope, custos of the Privy Seal. He gained fame in the Battle of Agincourt. To London and its citizens he gave a home for the fishmongers. Apparently Dekker1 s name for this character was well chosen since he was friendly to London citizens, a staunch supporter of Henry VI, and involved in the French wars. Although the courtier Lovell appears only one time and then only for a very short speech, he enhances Dekker's attempts at historical accuracy. The Dictionary of National Biography records a John Lovell, eleventh Lord Lovell, Viscount Lovell, Baron Lovell of Tichmersh, Holland, Deincourt, and Gray of Rotherfield who was a member of the Privy Council and a supporter of Henry VI. He resided in Lovell's Inn on Newgate Street north of St. Paul's. Earlier in this chapter the ^Gayley, p. 21. 60Stow, I, 215, and Chandler, "Sources of Characters," p. 181. 30 The Old Exchange, or Old Change as it came tc be know, is mentioned in the third act; Haramon says, "There is a wench keepes shop 77 in the old change..." Later in the play the goods in Jane's shop are named: "...callico, lawne, cambricke shirts, bands, handkerchers, and ruffles."'7 The Old Change got its name after the opening of the Royal Exchange in 1566 by Queen Elizabeth. Old Change was located on Old Change Lane, near St. Paul's cathedral, between Watling and West- cheap Streets. During Dekker's lifetime, drapers' shops were located 19 in the building. The Little Conduit or the Pissing Conduit is mentioned in the fourth act: "Am I sure that Paules steeple is a handle higher then London stone? or that the pissing conduit leakes nothing but pure fin mother Bunch?" The Pissing Conduit located by Stockes market at the intersection of Lombard, Cornhill, Thread Needle and Poultry streets was constructed about 1500. "Portegues thou wouldst say, here they be Firke, heark, they 82 gingle in my pocket like saint Mary Oueries bels," says Hodge. "East from the Bishop of Winchester house directly ouer against it, a fayre church called saint Mary ouer the Rie, or Ouerie, that is ouer the water."83 This Church "or some other in its place thereof was of old time long before the conquest an house of sisters founded by a mayden ""The Shoemaker's Holiday, Act III, i, 1.$1, p. U8. glbiri., IV, iv, 11. 2% 2k, 26, 28', p. 58 80ihfshoemaker's2HSi3da^!3fv, iv, 11. 109-111, p. 71. 812Tow—I—T7T 32The Shoemaker's Holiday, Act II, Hi, 11. 21-22, p. hO. 83Stov, I, 56. 31 pi named Mary..." In December, 15liO, the Priory was purchased from King Henry VIII by the inhabitants of that borough. With the help of Doctor Stephen Gardner, Bishop of Winchester, the Friory became a parish church. "The tower dates from the sixteenth century, and had a fine peal of twelve bells." ^ Reference to bells in the old church makes the allusion quite obviously contemporary with Dekker. Dodger reports the wedding of Lacy and Rose at the Savoy: "Your Nephew Lacie, and your daughter Rose, earely this morning wedded at the Sauoy..." In 1 £05, Henry VII ordered to be built the "Hospital of St. John the Baptist for the housing of one hundred poor people."^ It was built on the site of Savoy Palace, the house of Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, which was destroyed by Wat Tyler and his rebels in 1381. "The Savoy", as the official name of the hospital was retained, and "the Chappell of this Hospitall serueth now as a Parish church to the Tenements thereof...." Sybil bears a message, "None but good: my lord Mayor, your father, and maister Philpot, your vncle, and maister Scot, your cousin, and mistres Frigbottom by Doctors' Commons, doe all (by my troth) send you most hearty commendations."8' The Doctors' Commons was located on Knightrider Street, two blocks south of St. Paul's. Before Elizabeth ascended the throne, the great stone house served as the town house of 8U 8* Ibid. Edward H, • Sugden, A Topographical Dictionary To The .forks ot .Shakespeare And His Fellow bramaiists ^Manchester, Wb), p. 335. 86The Shoemaker < r, Holiday, Act V, flTTL. Tli9-1$0, p. 79. »7stow, II, w. 88 Ibid. 9The~3hoemaker's Holiday, Act I, ii, 11. 21-23, p. 31. 32 the Blounts, Lords Mount joy; however, in the early years of her reign Henry Harvey, Doctor of Civil and Canon Laws, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, purchased it. Under his ownership, it served as a lodging 90 place for doctors and thus it gained its name.7 The Boar's Head Tavern, the Swan Tavern, Eastcheap, Gracious Street, and St. Martin' le Grand are other prominent landmarks named in The Shoemaker's Holiday. These places are used in such a manner as 91 to imply contemporary existence with Dekker, not with Eyre. Although there were several taverns bearing the name Boar's Head, and although no distinction of the particular Boar's Head is made by Simon Eyre, the merry shoemaker in all probability spoke of the Eastcheap or High Street tavern. Not only were these two the most outstanding, but the locations would have been easily reached by Eyre and his company.92 The Boar's Head on Eastcheap would be the most logical choice. Other Boar's Heads were at least one half mile from Tower Street. The Boar's Head in Eastcheap was not an old tavern in Dekker's day, for mention of it was first made in 1537. "Want they meate?", cries Eyre. "Wheres this swagbelly, this greasie kitchinstuffe cooke, call the varlet to me: want meat! Firke, Hodge, lame Rafe, runne my tall men, beleager the shambles, beggar al East-Cheape, serue me whole oxen in chargers, and let sheepe whine vpon the tables like pigges for want of good felowes to eate them. ,9b 9?Stow, II, 17, and Sugden, p. 153. . 91W. K! Chandler, "Topography of The Shoemaker's Holiday, Studies m Philology, XXVI (1929), 501. yTbTd. . Qri 9l)TKe~Shoemaker's Holiday, Act V, iv, 11. 20-26, p. 82. 35 sellers of wares in this City haue often times.. .chaur.ged their places, as they haue found their best advantage... the Shoomakers and Curriors of Cordwayner streets, remoued the one to Saint Martins le Grand, the other to London wall neare vnto Mooregate..." " Attention to the note Stow recorded just above the preceding information provides additional depth to the significance of Dekker's use of St. Martin's le Grand Street. "Thus farre Fitzstephen, of the estate of thinges in his time, whereunto may be added the 'present', by conference whereof, 105 the alteration will easily appeare." Simon Fyre himself helps to set the scene for the contemporaneity of the Shoemaker's Holiday. Neither his wealth nor his rapid rise to social and civic prominance were unusual in Elizabethan times. For instance, when Sir Stephen Soame, lord mayor in 1598-1599, died, he was worth 4. U0,000 in goods and 4, 6,000 in lands. "Sir Henry Billingsly, lord mayor in 1596-1597, was probably better known to his contemporaries as "a Cambridge scholar who, apprenticed to a London haberdasher, became a wealthy merchant."107 But the foremost example in the minds of Dekker's audience was that of Sir John Spencer. When Thomas Dekker wrote The Shoemaker's Holiday, it is very likely that he had in mind Sir John Spencer, Lord Mayor of London for the year beginning October 29, l59h. He became so rich as a merchant that he was known as "Rich" Spenceu. His trade with Turkey, Spain, and lOh Stow, I, 82. 10?J.bid., 81. , 106Tne~Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. Norman E. McClure (Philadelphia, 1939), II, 2kl, cited in David Novarr, "Dekker's Gentle Craft and The Lord Mayor of London," Modern Philology, LVTI, I960, 2%. 107Sidney Lee, "Sir Henry Billingsley," Dictionary of National Biography, II, (London, 1921-22), U95-L96. 36 Venice was so profitable that he left an estate estimated between L300,000 and L800,000. He and two other merchants held a monopoly- over trade with Tripoli. In 1570 he purchased an estate at Cononbury from Thomas, Lord Wentworth; the Queen is said to have visited there in 1511. Even before he became an alderman, he was made sheriff of London. When Spencer became Lord Mayor in 1591, he bought and refurnished Crosby Place on Bishopgate Street; Crosby Place was erected about lli71 and was London's tallest domestic building. Richard III used it for a residence for some time and it had been owned by wealthy lord mayors and by Sir Thomas More. In 1599, Spencer's residence at Crosby Place was most conspicious. Spencer was well known, but his fame did not stem from 10? benevolence--"he was remembered for dearth and opposition." In the tenth month of his mayoralty, he committed a silk weaver to Bedlam for complaining about the city government. Throughout London,food riots and popular disorders flourished; apprentices were shipped and imprisoned. Some of the accusations against him included selling and converting offices to his own gain, allowing officials to be negligent, and unsatisfiable greed. One man was sent to the Counter for spreading the rumor that apprentices were planning an uprising for the good of the Commonwealth. Thomas Peloney was among a group of men imprisoned at Newgate for composing a seditious pamphlet. Attempts were made by Novarr, p. 23L. 1Q9lbid. 37 Spencer to control the scarcity of food and the lawlessness that resulted, but the common people considered him responsible in great measure for their plight; Spencer and his disciplinary efforts were highly unpopular.111 There was hardly an area in public affairs in which Spencer did not make himself most vehemently apparent. For instance, one of the events affecting, or at least interesting, almost everyone occurred in the first week of Spencer's mayoralty. When he learned that a new theatre was planned for the Bankside, he took it upon himself as a public duty to beg the Lord Treasurer to suppress all stages. According to Spencer, all plays were: corrupt & prophane..., conteining nothing ells but vnchast fables, lascivious divises shifts of cozenage & matters of lyke sort, wch ar so framed & represented by them that such as resort to see & hear the same beeing of the base & refuse sort of people or such yoong gentlemen as haue small regard of credit or conscience draue the same into example of imitation & not of avoyding the sayed lewd offences. Wch may better appear by the qualitie of such as frequent the sayed playes beeing the ordinary places of meeting for all vagrant persons & maisterles men that hang about the Citie, thteues, horsestealers whoremongers coozeners comycatching cersones practizers of treason & such lyke whear they consort and make their matches to the great displeasure of Almightie God & the hurt and annoyance of hxr Maties. people both in this Citie & other places about, wch cannot be cleansed of this vipodly sort (wch by experience wee fynd to bee the very sinckTcoSagion not only of this Citie but of this whole Realm) so long as these playes & places of resort ar by authorities permitted 11? 110 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1*95-1*97, p. 63, cited in Novarr, p.?35- n^Ch^bers'and W. V. Gregg, "Dramatic Records of the Cit>rot London: The Remembrancia," M.mnp Society Collections, I, Part I, (Oxford, 1907), 75-76, cited in Novarr, p. T3T. ho Details of the courtship of Compton and Elizabeth were related to Dudley Carleton by John Chamberlain. Chamberlain wrote the following note on January 31, 1599: Yt is geven out that the Lord Compton shall marry our Sir John Spensers daughter of London, on these conditions that he geve him 10000 li redy money with her, and redeeme his land that lieth in morgage for 18000 li more.1^1 Early in March Chamberlain wrote: Our Sir John Spenser of London was the last weeke committed to the Fleet for a contempt, and hiding away his daughter, who they say is contracted to the Lord Compton, but now he is out again and' by all meanes seekes to hinder the match, alledging a precontract to Sir Arthur Henninghams sonne; but upon his beating and misusing her, she was sequestered to one Barkers a procter and from thence to Sir Henry Billingsleyes where she yet remains till the matter be tried. Yf the obstinate and selfwilld fellow shold persist in his doggednes (as he protests he will) geve nother her, the poore Lord shold have a warme catch.1Z2 Spenser's strong dislike for Compton has been given neither reason nor explanation in records. Perhaps it was the rather extra- ordinary dowry conditions that he objected to, or perhaps (though unlikely) that he, like Oateley, wanted his daughter to marry in her class. Even though little is known about Rich Spencer in modern times, we know scarcely more about other Londoners of Dekker's day. It was widely known that John Spencer, a former lord mayor, had fought against the theatre, had sent the apprentices to prison, and had been sent to the Fleet himself for interferring, with a romance between his daughter 121Chamberlain, I, 67, cited in Novarr, p. 237. 122Ibid., p. 35- 1*1 and a favorite courtier of the Queen. The audience certainly smiled knowingly when The Shoemaker's Holiday was presented in August, 1599. Not fifteenth century figures were Roger Oateley, Rose, and Lacy the shoemaker-courtier. Here in delightful form was a bit of city-court scandal of the seventeenth century. The Queen's interest in The Shoemaker's Holiday will always be questionable—was she genuinely interested in Dekker's work, or had she heard about the obvious implications made by the playwright? The idea of forcing a child to marry a mate selected by the parents was nothing new; in fact this was a feudal custom. During the Renaissance, however, marriages of love grew more frequent; it was only after this custom had been somewhat established that protests were raised in literature against the enforcement of marriages by parents and other concerned individuals. In feudal society, the common and accepted thing was a marriage arranged for either material or social advantage. Of such marital practices, C. S. Lewis writes: Marriages had nothing to do with love, andno 'nonsense' about marriage was tolerated. All matches were matches of interest, and, worse still, of an interest that was continually changing. When the alliance which had answered would answer no longer, the husband's object was to get rid of the lady as soon as possible.123 Although the idea of forced marriages appears as a minor theme in The Shoemaker's Holiday, Dekker does champion free choice of a marriage partner in both the Rose and Jane love affairs. Even Hammon 123 'C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love (London, 1936), p. 13, cited in Glenn H. Blayney, "The Enforcement of Marriage in English Drama, 1600-1650," Philological Quarterly, XXXVIII (1959), hSh. l»2 admits, after the Lord Mayor's attempts to make Rose marry him have failed, "Enforced love is worse than hate to me." " As previously stated in this thesis, the apprentices play a leading role in The Shoemaker's Holiday, and the author was once again very careful in his portrayal of Eyre's helpers. The apprentices formed a large and powerful segment of London society. They had their own military exercises, their own dress, with leather jerkin, flat cap, and club which was carried in the place of a sword. This character- istic weapon gave its name to the apprentices' call to arms. The cry "clubs" rallied the apprentices whether for help in a street riot or for political warfare. Armed in this manner, the apprentices were formidable foes to those who merited their displeasure.125 How well remembered and how true to life is the street scene when the apprentices cry against Hammon who is on his way to be married to Jane--"Downe with 126 that creature, clubs, downe with him!" Although apprentices and masters worked well together, and apprentices became a part of the household, they performed the duties of a servant during their apprenticeship. Beasant says, "The ordering of the household was strict. Servants and apprentices were up at six in the summers and at seven in the winters."127 Margery reports to Simon, "It is almost seuen;"128 Simon has just shouted to his apprentices: 12lThe Shoemaker's Holiday, Act III, i, 1. $0, p. 18. 1?5V£ 126Th 'Mrs. Frederick Boas, In Shakespeare's England (London, 1903;, p. 50. ^ e Shoemaker's Holiday, Act V, ii, 1. W>, p. 76. 127Walter Beasant, London (London, 1012), p. 200. 128The Shoemaker's Holiday, Act I, iv, 1. 109, p. 36. -1 \6 for "bright colors and elaborate trimming were the most notable characteristics of Elizabethan dress."^ Stomachers and gloves, cork shoes and French hoods were all a part of the fashionably attired woman's wardrobe. Up to this pointvonly women's fashions have been discussed, but men were just as interested in what they wore—often more so. In fact, the only drastic change in Simon Eyre's life after he became wealthy is his concern for his clothes. Recall the "clothes conversa- tion" at Eyre's house before he was worn into office: Eyre: ...Hodge, He go through with it, heers a seale ring, and I haue sent for a garded gown, and a damask Casock, see where it comes, looke here Maggy, help me Firk, apparrel me Hodge, silke and satten you mad Philistines, siIke and satten. Firk: Ha, ha, my maister wil be as proud as a dogge in a dublet, al in beaten damaske and veluet. Eyre: Softly Firke, for rearing of the nap, and wearing thread-bare my garments: how dost thou like mee Firke? how do I looke, my fine Hodge. Hodge: Why now you looke like your self master, I warrant you, ther's few in the city, but wil giue you the wall, and come vpon you with the right worshipful. Firk: Nailes my master lookes like a thread-bare cloake new turn'd, and drest: Lord, lord, to see what good raiment doth? dame, dame, are you not enamoured? 133 Ibid. 1,6 Eyre: How saist thou Maggy, am I not brisk? am I not fine?13" Once again in the last act, Simon speaks of his clothes in a rather proud manner. That dress has enhanced his position and wealth is evident in his remark: ...Simon Eyre had neuer walkte in a redde petticoate, nor wore a chaine of golde, but for my fine lourneymans portigues... "The people were greatly addicted to showy dress, but show in dress was a mere bagatelle. Pageants of all sorts were planned upon the least occasion. Coronations, funerals, and progresses were always got up on a most spectacular basis."1' People were used to a great festival when a newly elected lord mayor assumed office. The parades of riding watches, the civic officials in their gaudy robes of state, the livery companies upon the river in their brilliant barges, manned by oarsmen in full livery—all such spectacles were provided with gorgeous 137 pageants, triumphal arches, and side shows. The Order of Communion published in 15U8 bycrder of King Henry VIII threatened both religious doctrine and festivity of English life. The opening direction delivered a powerful blow against penance. Communicants were informed that if they were in a state of sin, they need not confess to a priest before receiving communion: the general 13lThe Shoemaker's Holiday, Act II, 111, 11. 91-110. 135lbid., Act V, i, U. 16-18, p. 73. 136^ep"henson, p. 12. x37ibid. 1,7 absolution pronounced in the communion rite was sufficient. The people willingly endured a change of doctrine so long as they were not called upon to give up their feasting. The Easter and Christmas feastings were kept, and all the saints' days called for celebration and something better than usual to eat. There should be no surprise when Firk cries: Nay more my hearts, euery Shrousestuesday is our yeere of Iubile: and when the pancake bel rings, we are as free as my lord Maior, we may shut vp our shops, and make Holiday: lie haue it calld Saint Hughes Holiday. ^9 In England, Shrove Tuesday was a holiday for the apprentices and working class in general, yet the name indicates a penitential date when it was the custom of the faithful to confess their sins before entering into the holy Lenten season of fasting and prayer. "That none would forget this duty, a great bell was rung at an early hour in every parish, and in after-times the ringing was still kept up in some places, though the cause of it ceased with the Reformation, when it became merged with the Pancake Bell." h After confession, the people were allowed to indulge in merry-making, "which in the later days of Catholicism and the earlier ones of Protestantism degenerated into unbounded license." Ancient is the association of pancakes with Shrovetide. A plausible explanation is offered, by a Catholic ecclesiastic: 138Phillip Hughes. A Popular History of The Reformation, (Garden City, ,,0New York, 1957), p. 220. ijyThe Shoemaker's Holiday, Act V, ii, 11. 202-205, p. 80. ^Beasant, p. 20h. ^William S. Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs and Rites, Ceremonies, Observances, and Miscellaneous Antiquities (Philadelphia, Loyf), p. BBli. 50 Because the places, events, and characters were drawn from records, legends and contemporary London, much of the creative process was eliminated; characters came with a name, a certain degree of personal- ity, and, more than likely, a legendary reputation. Use of such persons lessened the risk of an ineffective, unappealing drama. The contemporary John "Rich" Spencer tale was easily incorporated into Dekker's plan. Of course, the chronicle method paved the way toward open expression of patriotism, another common characteristic of popular drama in the late sixteenth century. These ideas are not presented to suggest Dekker had no talent for creating his own characters and situations but to suggest that he had little self-confidence, needed the security of an "already created" character, needed limited room (provided by the loose construction) to use his own imagination, needed the security of knowing the chronicle- romantic comedy was extremely popular with audiences. He wanted to begin with as little risk as possible. The more concrete the facts or details with which he could begin, the more he could be assured of achieving success. Also, Dekker must have seen the chronicle play and the romantic comedy presented enough times to be thoroughly familiar With the requirements of both for effectiveness. Characterization is perhaps the most powerful element in The Shoemaker's Holiday. Character portrayal, though, was Dekker's greatest strength throughout his career as a dramatist. For the most part, people in this play are strong representatives from a particular level of London society. The people in The Shoemaker's Holiday, are admirable because in their social environment they reveal neither 51 isolated traits nor an abnormal tendency—but a concrete whole in its living context. Eyre is the best example. From the opening of the play, he is a humorous character, and throughout the remainder of the drama he is consistently so. The scenes, however, that reveal his humorous nature also point to his qualities as friend, employer, businessman, husband, subject, and citizen. Simon Eyre is an indivi- dual, but an individual with the mark of his occupation. Bellafront and Fortunatus from The Honest Whore and Old Fortunatus are excellent examples along with Simon Eyre to prove Dekker's capacity to present many sides of man's nature and personality and yet contain him within his social position. This depth of depiction made certain of his characters immortal. Indeed, all key characters in The Shoemaker'g Holiday are distinguished as individuals modified by their stations. All are ingeniously bound by being Londonners and Englishmen. Although interest in The Shoemaker's Holiday pivots on the character Simon Eyre, outstanding and memorable character depiction is not mirrored only in him. Dekker's women, not only in The Shoemaker's Holiday, have long been recognized by critics as brilliant portrayals of human nature and personality. Basically, Dekker used the four female characters to depict not only womanhood in general but also women in the various social levels as well. Structurally Jane is a minor character, but even in this position, she is one of the most beautiful and vivid representatives of womanhood in all of Elizabethan drama. Jane belongs to the working class; her husband Ralph is a shoemaker. This however, is unimportant; for her loyalty, patience, and kindness as a woman and as a wife transcend social barriers and make her a model for 52 all levels. There is a certain naivete about Jane. She is wary of Hammon, but when he presents the letter proving the death of her husband, she believes him without further questioning. As a widow, she is properly and sincerely mournful. As a business woman, she is thrifty and practical. She is respected and loved by Ralph's friends. For romantic comedy's demand of an idealized heroine, Jane is perfect. There is no flaw in her character; she is pure and honest in every respect from citizen to wife to business woman. Rose is Dekker's example of the upper middle-class woman. She is youthful, delightful, but always a lady—polished and refined. Rose is aware of social barriers, but her mind is of the newer mold—where love is concerned, social barriers are not barriers. The Lord Mayor's daughter is simply a happy, scheming, determined girl in love. Representative of the working class woman is Margery. Probably upper lower class would be her classification most properly defined. She is interested only in rising to a more dignified social position. Even with the fine clothes, fancy language, and new honor, Margery's crudeness is neither forgotten by the audience nor concealed in her actions. Her intense desire to be so very much more than she is, and her belief that money could give her all she lacked both in character and in material goods proves her genuine snobbery. In her own unpolished manner, she loves Simon Eyre. Their affection for one another is real, but outwardly Simon never rises above his occupation even when he becomes Lord Mayor. She badgers her husband, but he obviously has grown accustomed to the nagging (and rather depends upon it), the domineering attitude. Indeed, Eyre really shows unquestioned and 55 itself was taken from a collegiate church and sanctuary. In medieval times St. Martin's great bell tolled the curfew which was the sign for the city gates to be closed. At this church criminals found safety and could not be arrested, a privilege which lasted long after the dissolution of the religious houses.111" In the early 1500's Sir Thomas More wrote of the sanctuaries of St. Martin's and 'Westminster; "•What a raggle of theves, murtherers, and malicious heyghnous traitours, and that in twoo places specayllye. The tone at the elbowe of the Citie, the tother in the very bowelles. • "llj5 On this street too was Northumberland House once owned by King Henry IV. St. Mary Overy's is another outstanding landmark with an interesting and widespread legend. Before London Bridge was built, a ferry plied the river between what is presently Bowgate nock and St. Saviour's Dock. The ferry master, Awdrey, became rich but extremely miserly. One day he pretended to be dead hoping his family and servant: would mourn and fast thus saving his food. But his plan went aw--. indeed, the servants were so happy they took everything possible. Realizing his misfortune, Awdrey ran through the house and met his real death when a servingman, thinking him to be a ghost, hit him across the head with an oar. Mary, his daughter, received the family fortune, and she at once sent for her lover whom her father had denied her. But on his way to meet Mary, he fell from his horse and was killed. The Beasant, p. 39. ififstow, II, p. 3U3. llt6Stow, II, pp. 3U2-3U3. 56 daughter became so distressed she founded a convent of sisters at the south end of the ferry and took refuge in her own foundation. In time, she died there. "7 Quite obviously practicality limits discussion of all landmarks and stories that are referred to in The Shoemaker's Holiday. These three were presented only as samples of Dekker's reasons for selecting certain landmarks. Possibly the places were simply familiar to him, but in almost every instance the landmark was currently familiar to the populace or remembered through popular legend. Dekker's desire to please has been recognized in characters and in landmarks and yet one step more must be taken to appreciate fully his attempts to give the audience something more than a story. The contemporary scene was rich with materials that could draw people to the playhouse. Even in details such as dress and impressment procedures, he held rigidly to truth. The problem of crossing social barriers was realistically handled. John Spencer afforded an opportunity to hint not only at gossip and scandal, but he had been involved in activities that affected either directly or indirectly members of every class of society. Were Dekker's efforts purely patriotic when at the close of his play he presented the king to bless the "forbidden marriage", or was he realistically proving that although such marriages did occur, it would take a sovereign to dissolve the anger and make lasting peace between families? Why Dekker turned to the historical and contemporary scene for ■^Beasant, p. hi. 57 characters, places and events for The Shoemaker's Holiday may never by known. Only guesses can be made. We do know from the prose pamphlets that Dekker was poor and desperately needed success—not only for physical needs but also for personal reassurance of his ability. He wrote The Shoemaker's Holiday knowing people wanted first of all to be entertained, and that because of the historical emphasis of the day, they knew and trusted chronicle material; they also liked gossip, especially gossip that hinted at court scandal. Deloney had made the Eyre legend popular, or at least set the stage for credibility of Dekker's drama. Dekker must have presented Eyre not only for pure entertainment but also as proof that an Englishman is not bound to a lowly position. Banking on his knowledge of Elizabethan tastes and human nature, he presented his play hoping his audience could willingly suspend their disbelief, love his drama for its reality and fantasy, talk about it on the street and in taverns, inspire others to see the play and even return themselves to see a drama whose invitation to delight never quite ended. In the final analysis, The Shoemaker's Holiday is a series of three stories connected by the love feast at the end of the play. The center of attention is Simon Eyre, and it was almost assuredly Eyre who was the organizing nucleus in the genesis of the plot as a whole. There is every reason to believe that Dekker focused his attention on the biography of Simon Eyre, but this must have appeared epic rather than dramatic to him. From the biographical data could be drawn scenes too promising to omit, but these events did not represent a chain of dramatic action. Much in the shoemaker scenes has very little or no 60 unfortunately not counteracted by any marked synthetic power of the more discursive sort.^ko When imagination and insight failed to create and develop a complex unit, Dekker could not call on logic for aid as could Jonson. He did not have the steady and determined will necessary for excellence. It was in Dekker1 s nature to follow the "humorous tide of the age" rather than to fashion himself and pursue his own path resolutely. And Dekker's pathway in comedy at least lay in the area of social comedy of humour. He was not a scorner—no "gall dropped from his quill." His comic method was not constructed or influenced by wit but simply by common sense in conjunction with keen discernment and appreciation of the humorous. For him actual phenomena supplied materials and postulates. Motives came from social relations. Sources of gaiety came from characters and manners. He had been trained in fidelity to fact and inherited tradition by the domestic tragedy and the chronicle play. London provided an intimate knowledge of human • conduct and experience. And his center of interest lay in conduct-- but not in conduct resulting from relation of character to itself but in that conduct resulting from family or communal relationship::. Only Old Fortunatus and If It Be Not Good The Divel is in It emphasize the individual aspect of character. The most characteristic qualification for the humorous treatment of social aspects of character is realized in his ability to reproduce them in their living contexts. His sketchy pictures of London appear artlessly but convincingly true because of his exhibition of men and women as individuals in the varied unity of existence. 11x9 ^Gayley, p. 13- J-^Ibid., p. 1U - 61 For all of thisythe romantic drama offered the best form of self-expression. But it is at this point that too many critics call The Shoemaker's Holiday a romantic comedy and carry the matter no farther. The Shoemaker's Holiday does use disguise of a lover, Tiruch outdoor action, easy reconciliations, an idealized heroine, and a happy ending; but this must not be the end of the critical appraisal. Dekker was often extremely realistic. Not only was he realistic in his topographical choices, people, situations, language and events but also in his approach to the state and in his own ability in dramatic composition. For all of his limitations,Dekker was a "genuine master of humor; he had a sure grasp of its method and its spirit." ' Dekker's play is among the first exhibitions of a frame of mind and a view of life that mixes humorous with humane "in a cheerful, pleasant, comforting blend. But if he made full allowances for sentiment, he vac no sentamentalist; he knew how to handle irony and a sly implicit meaning; while most often negligent in his work, he could write with care, even with artistic finish. ,,151 It is extremely difficult to judge Dekker fairly. An admirer may run into raptures over Dekker as quickly as the sober critic may voice his weaknesses. Even on slight consideration, the faults of his work are evident; at the same time his richness of imagination shines through. His plays continue to contain many passages of exquisite beauty, but in no single one has he been consistently strong. Even though Dekker appeared not to take any pains, he did possess a l5°Louis Cazamian. The Development of English Humor (Durham, North Carolina, 1952), p. 171. ^llbid. 62 vein of infinite tenderness and delightful humor. His work may be torn apart and belittled by criticism, but without his wayward genius, his frank, honest, abundant mirth, his glimpses of London life and people, a gaping hole would exist in Elizabethan drama. 65 Gayley, C. M., ed. Representative English Comedies, III. New York: MacMillan Company, 19lh. Gregg, K. L. "Thomas Dekker: A Study In Economic And Social Backgrounds." University of Washington Publications In Language And Literature, II. Seattle: University of '.-/ashington Press, Hunt, Mary Leland. Thomas Dekker. New York: Russell and Russell Publishers, l?Tu "Impressment". Encyclopaedia Britannica (1963), XII, 127. Juaserand, J. J. Literary History of The English People. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1«?5. Knights, L. C. Drama and Society In The Age of Jonson. London: Chatto and Windus, 1937. Novarr, David. "Dekker1s Gentle Craft and The Lord Mayor of London," Modern Philology, LVII, I960. Orridge, B. B. jme Accounts of The Citizens of London and Their Rulers From 1060 to 1B67. London: Kffingham Wilson, 1U67. Quenell, Marjorie, and C. H. B. Quenell. A History- of Everyday Things In England, 1500-1799, II. New York! Putnam, I960. Stephenson, Henry I. Shakespeare's London. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Company, 19o!T Sugden, Edward H. A Topographical Dictionary To The Works of Shakespeare And His Fellow Dramatists" Manchester: The University Press, wz: Swineburne, A. C. The Age of Shakespeare. London: Harper and Brothers, 1908. Thomson, P. "The Old Way And The New Way in Dekker and Massinger," bdern Language Review, L, April, 1956. Toliver, Harold. "The Shoemaker's Holiday: Theme And Images," Boston University Studies in English, V, 1961. Walsh, William S. Curiosities of Popular Customs And Rites, Ceremonies, Observances, And Miscellaneous Antiquities. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippinscott Company, 1B97. 66 Ward, A. W. History of English Dramatic Literature To The Heath of Queen Anne, ll" Oxford: Macro'. 11 an and Company, 1599. '.-.hippie, Edwin Percy. Literature In The Age of Elizabeth. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, !>?%. «