the shoemaker's holiday: a document in egalitarianism, Study notes of English

Download the shoemaker's holiday: a document in egalitarianism and more Study notes English in PDF only on Docsity! THE SHOEMAKER'S HOLIDAY: A -- DOCUMENT IN EGALITARIANISM By Raylena Ann Noland II Bachelor of Arts Houston Baptist University Houston, Texas 1968 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December, 1981 The'Si~ · IQ~I f\}1'6Gts Qop.~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page THE SHOEMAKER'S HOLIDAY: A DOCUMENT IN EGALITARIANISM . • . . . . 1 NOTES 39 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 44 iv THE SHOEMAKER'S HOLIDAY: A DOCUMENT IN EGALITARIANISM Traditionally English society has been divided into various social stations. Laws have even been passed to regiment the degrees of society. The Sumptuary Laws, for example, made individuals subject to fines if they did not dress in accordance with their social degrees. 1 By Elizabethan times there was a belief that each degree not only had but should keep its place. Thomas Dekker does not altogether disagree with such a belief but, even though he acknowledges the degrees of society, he does not accept the rigid categorization of a person. He does not view social classes as static and neither does he believe that member- ship in a particular class necessarily imparts certain qual- ities or attributes to the individual. Dekker aptly sup­ ports such beliefs in an early. work entitled The Shoemaker's Holiday. Dekker's critics, however, appear almost universally unimaginative on this point. Although they may be charmed and entertained by Dekker's effervescent, bubbling charac- terizations, most critics find The Shoemaker's Holiday of­ fensively unoriginal. Muriel Bradbrook declares Dekker to pe "the most traditional of Elizabethan writers .. who 11 Shmvs 1 only the happy, the faithful and the generous" in his 2 plays. L. C. Knights quite unfairly pits Dekker, a good 2 playwright, against the superlative. "Shakespeare," writes Knights, "took popular elements and transformed them into his own purposes; Dekker gives us an amalgam of all that 3 popular taste demanded." Of the play itself he writes that "It called for no effort of readjustment or reorganiza- tion . . . but simply reinforced a prevale-nt social atti­ tude."4 But James H. Conover, perhaps the most sympathetic of Dekker critics, does not agree with Knights, for he devotes an entire work to "an attempt . to re-evaluate Thomas Dekker as a play-craftsman, to subject some of his plays to structural analysis." 5 Conover gives a great deal of insight into Dekker's creative processes and, in so doing, appears to be the only critic seriously to consider that much of Dekker's work is more than cheerful platitudes and stereotyped characters. Much research has failed to uncover another critic who views Dekker as a possible champion of the individual, regardless of his station in life. To understand Dekker's attitude it is important to remember that he lived in a time of social and political change. Social structure was still rigid, but the increasing importance of the middle class was causing more fluidity of movement between groups. Political thought was being scrutinized and evaluated. People were beginning to ques- tion the system of monarchy and, because of such things, many of the ideas which eventually le~ to a more democratic 5 wins Ursula's affections while fitting her for a pair of shoes. Dekker borrows most of Deloney's story concerning Simon Eyre, but Dekker's changes in social rank are signifi­ cant. Deloney's serving girl becomes Dekker's Jane and her· two lower-class suitors in The Gentle Craft, Part !_, become the wealthy citizen Hammon and the cobbler-soldier Rafe. Deloney's two princes become Dekker's Hammon and the noble Lacy, who at times disguises himself as the shoemaker Hans. Such contrasts in social rank and the competitions they create help to further Dekker's egalitarian philosophy. Dekker also changes the character of Simon Eyre to a large degree. Deloney's Eyre has a sense of humor but is much graver than Dekker's boisterous fellow. Dekker keeps the good qualities of the original Eyre, especially those of diligence and generosity, but he also gives him a robust sense of humor, an awareness of his own idiosyncrasies and more honesty and business integrity than Deloney's Eyre. Confronted with an unexpected opportunity to gain wealth and uncertain of how to make use of it, Deloney's Eyre agrees passively to carry out the dishonest schemings proposed by his wife Margery. Nowhere in Dekker's characterization of Eyre is there evidence that he would ever be so dishonest and he certainly would not so spinelessly buckle under to his wife's desire to gain wealth and social rank through illegal transactions. Dekker's Margery most likely would not stoop to such means, possibly because she would never think of it. Dekker completely changes Deloney's ambitious, 6 plotting Mistress Eyre to the stock character of a prattling wife; only their love and loyalty toward their husbands is the same. Also much altered by Dekker are Deloney's master­ servant relationships. Exchanges between masters and ser­ vants are far more egalitarian than Deloney's. In The Gentle Craft, Part !r the servants obey Eyre without ques­ tion the few times that they appear in scenes with their master. Deloney usually separates scenes involving the servants from those with Eyre, his wife, or the aldermen of the city, thus curtailing any development of master-servant relationships. By contrast, the servants in Dekker's play constitute almost half of the action and they certainly are not meekly obedient. Dekker has them speak their thoughts just as openly as do Eyre and the King. The King, it is important to note, is Dekker's own creation. Deloney ends his novel with Eyre's feasting of London's apprentices and there is no mention of a sovereign attending. Dekker, however, creates a king who, perhaps as much as Eyre, espouses an egalitarian attitude toward others. Though graver and thoroughly lacking the Lord Mayor's ram­ bunctious joviality, the King is very much like Eyre. Both are concerned with justice and fairness, regardless of class lines; both do not particularly follow protocol or the out­ ward trappings of office; and both make the most of life for the moment. Indeed, Dekker makes it quite clear that, while Eyre and the King each acknowledges the other's position in 7 society, they respect each other and they are men who, re- gardless of class, are striving for the same things. The idea that Simon Eyre is possibly as "noble" as the 11 King permeates the play. Nowhere does Dekker more bla~ tantly illustrate his egalitarian attitude than in Eyre's eloquent catch-phrase, "Prince am I none, yet I am Princely borne" (III.ii.38-39). According to W. F. McNeir, Thomas Dekker borrows the idea for the phrase fro~ Deloney's work but actually patterns the phrase after Orlando's statement, "I am no king, yet I am princely born," in Robert Greene's The Historie of Orlando Furioso. 12 That the phrase, in general, existed in Renaissance literature then is known. Dekker, however, seems to imply something more than just that Eyre is of the same trade as the saintly and noble shoemakers St. Crispin and St. Hugh or that he considers birth something that all men, beggars and kings alike, experience. The word "borne" could mean "carried" and Eyre definitely believes his bearing, carriage, and actions to 13 be as good as any nobleman's. There is, though, stronger evidence that Eyre thinks he is innately as good as any king. At the beginning of the last act Eyre is making ready to feast both the apprentices and the King and to intercede on behalf of the marriage of Rose to Lacy. Margery reminds her husband to be a "friend [to Lacy] in what thing you may" (V.i.lO). Eyre replies that he certainly will, for he owes all his opportunity for wealth to his friend and former employee Lacy. Eyre answers his wife: 10 neither loves nor accepts him. Ironically, what blinds Lincoln to his nephew's good qualities is the fact of his nobility itself. Lincoln considers Lacy's colonelcy, which he himself conveniently arranged for his nephew, as a means· not only to interrupt Lacy's courtship of Rose but also as a way to win honors and increase family prestige. The Earl of Lincoln threatens Lacy with disinheritance if he does not succeed in his "noble" obligations: I pray thee do thou so, remember coze, What honourable fortunes wayt on thee·, Increase the king's loue which so brightly shine, And gilds thy hopes, I haue no heire but thee: And yet not thee, if with a wayward spirit, Thou start from the true byas of my loss. (I.i.B0-86) It is apparent, then, that although Lincoln may be gentle by birth, he does not always exhibit the qualities of such. 17 Gentle of birth but selfish and cold toward his fellowman, Lincoln acts rather like a foil to the baseborn but loving and generous character of Simon Eyre. Dekker's contrasting of the two is but a theatrical enactment of the views of a contemporary, John Rastell: The thyng that makytD a gentylman to be ys but vertew and gentyll codycyons whych aswell in pore men oft tymys we se As in men of grete byrth or hye degre And also vycious and churlyish codycyons May be in men born to grete possessyonsl8 In the characters of Lincoln and Eyre Dekker essentially reiterates his own idea that gentle birth, or the lack of it, 11 is not the sole criterion for a virtuous person. Another point obviously in keeping with Dekker's egalitarianism is that Lincoln does not understand Lacy, but the shoemakers and King do. These people, because they have excellence of character and not necessarily quality of social station, recognize "that noblenes apprehended by proper merit, is far more excellent then the gentle~es of linage and bloud, not beautifyed with vertue." 19 Lincoln, evidently believing Lacy to lack "proper merit," accuses his nephew of being a traitor and then he, along with Sir Roger Otley, tries to have the marriage between Lacy and Rose dis- solved. To the nobles' chagrin, however, the King pardons Lacy and sanctions the marriage: Dost thou not know, that loue respects the bloud? Cares not for difference of birth, or state, The maide is yong, wel borne, faire, vertuous, A worthy bride for any gentleman: Besides, your nephew for her sake did stoope To bare necessitie: and as I heare, . Forgetting honors, and all courtly pleasures, To gaine her loue, became a shooemaker. As for the honor which he lost in France, Thus I redeeme it: Lacie, kneele thee downe, Arise sir Rowland Lacie: . Tell me now, Tell me now in earnest Otley, canst thou chide, Seeing thy Rose a ladie and bryde? (V.v.l04-15) Conover has noted this episode with disdain, stating that Lacy is knighted, ironically, for neglecting rather than fulfilling his duties. 20 It is, however, helpful to under- stand three issues here: that by 1600 the knight was no longer a chivalric figure 9n stage; that the knighting of Lacy benefitted Rose more than it did him; and that the 12 King's speech is primarily one about love and forgiveness, rather than honor and duty. An Elizabethan audience would have surely understood the knighting of Lacy to be symbolic and to mean little in actuality. 21 The egalitarian slant here is that, in Dekker's day, gentility was not necessarily a matter of blood; it was often a product of the pocketbook. By Elizabethan times almost anyone, noble or not, who had enough money could obtain "gentility" and-a coat of arms. Dekker is here satirizing such a practice and making the point that the bestowing of titles does not improve one's virtue or erase one's past transgressions. Indeed, the purchase of nobility had become such a widespread practice that many writers openly condemned it. In 1586, John Ferne chided: . . let not a Gentleman thinke it sufficient to the perfecting of his gentrye, to have the liuinges and coat-armour of his auncestor, except also he possess his vertues. Both which concurring, shall cloath him, with the rich vesture of perfect noblenes; and hee then may justly be called a gentleman, of a perfect coat; otherwise, it is but stayned.22 Because it had lost its prestige, knighthood was often lam- pooned by the theater companies of the time; Shakespeare's amusing but cowardly Falstaff made his stage debut only a year prior to the first performance of The Shoemaker's Holiday. VJith knights in such disrepute, it is likely then that Lacy would gain nothing but higher taxes or more social -obligations. It would, though, bring his bride to the 15 economic standing, for he is the newest worker in the shop and is expected to do the "grosse worke" (II.iii.81). But the true significance of all this is that Rafe and Lacy become friends. They work together and make merry together with no thought of "differences." Here again Dekker shows that true merit and sincere kindness are not dependent upon birth. Throughout the entire play Dekker makes it quite clear that shoemakers, whether "real" or "disguised," are admired and often helped on their merit as people. Lacy, as Hans, is hired by Eyre initially to humor Firk; he remains, how­ ever, because he is a very good cobbler. Lacy (Hans) wins the friendship 6f the whole shop and he, in turn, grows particularly fond of Simon Eyre. Out of respect and admira­ tion for Eyre, Lacy (Hans) not only avails Eyre of an op­ portunity to grow rich but also advances him the necessary money for the downpayment on the entire cargo of a merchant ship. This transaction takes place friend-to-friend, with no mention of birth or rank. Dekker further enlarges upon the idea of shoemakers helping one another when he has a whole gang of them help Rafe regain his wife from the wealthy citizen Hammon. Group loyalty and friendship for Rafe ready his fellow craftsmen to use force and brute strength, if necessary, to rescue Jane and reunite her with her husband. No evidence of respect or deferment to class exists in Hodge's speech ·that rallies the crowd of cobblers. My masters, as we are the braue blouds of the shoemakers, heires apparant to saint Hugh, and perpetuall benefactors to all good fellowes, thou shalt haue no wrong: were Hammon a king of spad~s he should not delue in thy close without thy sufferaunce . . (V.ii.l-5). 16 That Firk and Hodge, along w.ith "fiue or sixe shooemakers, all with cudgels, or such weapons" (V.i.stage directions) cause the armed Hammon, Otley, and Lincoln who, as ·gentlemen should be skilled in sword and rapier, to back down and to eventually scatter, is proof enough that the "gentled" bbl 1 t h f them. 28 Th' . 'd t . co ers are an equa rna c or lS 1nc1 en ls merely a physical, and somewhat comic, enactment of an idea that Simon Eyre verbalizes throughout the entire play: that there is little difference in nobility by rank and the true, innate nobility of the gentle craft. In the same scene Jane, Rafe's wife, gives further evidence of Dekker's egalitarian attitudes. Here Dekker presents Rafe as both penniless and lame as a result of his having been pressed into service during the wartime, yet he is preferred by Jane to Hammon, even though the latter is rich and prominent in society. Jane voices a democratic view of love and also makes a small speech on the rights of the poor against the rich when she says that she wants to leave Hammon and to return to her husband Rafe: Whom should I choose: whom should my thought affect, But him whom heauen hath made to be my loue? Thou art my husband and these humble weedes, Makes thee more beautiful then all his wealth, Therefore I will but put off his attire, Returning it into the owners hand, And after euer be thy constant wife. (V.ii.53-59) Jane's belief that a man is important for himself and not 17 for his title or his ability to purchase finery was begin- . t . . l' b . 29 n1ng o ga1n some acceptance 1n E 1za ethan soc1ety. Evidences of Thomas Dekker's own belief in the worthi- ness of an individual, regardless of his class or occupation, can be found in many of his plays, but it particularly is evident in The Shoemaker's Holiday. 3° Fully aware that in just his own lifetime the English middle classes were becom- ing very important to the livelihood of an increasingly commercial nation, Dekker often gives the common man an opportunity to express his awareness of his worth and the self-esteem it creates within him. For example, Simon Eyre talks freely with nobility even before he becomes Lord Mayor of London. At one point Eyre argues furiously with Askew, a nobleman, in an effort to free Rafe from military service. Eyre's workmen, too, display highly independent attitudes. Firk and the other apprentices in the Tower Street shop threaten to walk out if their demands to hire the Dutch shoemaker Hans (Lacy) are not met. Thomas Dekker's belief in social egalitarianism does not only erupt in forceful or angry speeches, however. Everyday conversations between servants and theirmasters are usually devoid of any references to any class distinction. Such are the dialogues between Rose and her maid Sybil. Sybil expresses her opinions freely and openly; Rose never appears to be upset 20 role in society and believes that although he is not a prince, that he is "princely borne." It· is precisely this boldness and familiarity of manner that please the King most about the new Lord Mayor. Just before meeting Eyre, the King tells a nobleman that most men are grave and sober in his presence and implies that it would be refreshing to have Eyre "put on his wonted merriment" (V.iii.l6). The nobleman praises Eyre, telling the King that he doubts that the King will be disappointed for Eyre is "one of the mer- riest madcaps in your land" (V.iii.2) and yet he says that Eyre is highly competent: In al his actions that concerne his state, He is as serious, prouident, and wise, As fell of grauitie amongst the graue, As any maier hath beene these many yeares. . (V.iii.6-9) Such a spirit of optimism and an appreciation of commoners is, by most Elizabethan standards, egalitarian. 31 Eyre does not disappoint the King. Eyre greets him with the same jovial, unabashed spirit and sincere hospi- tality that he shows to his fellow tradesmen. Eyre sees no awkwardness or breach of social etiquette in the fact that he will entertain his apprentice friends and the King on the same day and at the same feast. The morning of the festivities he speaks of his anticipation of the day: Its a madde life to be a lords Mayor, its a stirring life, a fine life, a veluet life, a careful life .... soft, the King this day comes to dine with me, to see·my new buildings, his majesty is welcome, he shal have good cheere. This day my fellow prentices of London come to dine with me too, they shall haue fine cheere, . gentlemanlike cheere (V.i.37-43). 21 To Eyre, all his guests are socially equal. They all take pride in themselves; they all should be treated with respect. Eyre even serves the King the same food as he does the apprentices. Such a practice ordinarily would be unthinkable to Elizabethans. Even minor nobility, let alone Kings, did not eat the same foods as commoners, nor did they eat at the same times or at the same tables. 32 Any doubt of Dekker's egalitarianism here vanishes upon close scrutiny. Not only does Eyre offer the King the same food as he offers the working class but he feasts the King last, for most of the apprentices have.already dined and departed (V.v.l80- 82).. Dekker merely has Eyre host the King as one might any guest, in accordance with time of arrival and food available. And the King is a gracious guest; neither arrogant not proud, he evidently believes that creating a common bond of sharing between peoples is more important than observing rigid protocol and social etiquette. In this matter Dekker's King is no less egalitarian than is Eyre. When Simon Eyre entreats his sovereign to '.'Yet adde more honour to the Gentle Trade, I Taste of Eyre's banquet, Simon's happie made'' (V. v .182-83) , the King heartily accepts: Eyre, I wil tast of thy banquet, and wil say, I have not met more pleasure on a day, Friends of the Gentle Craft, thanks to you al, Thanks my kind Ladie Mistresse for our cheere, 22 Corne Lordes, a while lets reuel . (V.v.l85-89). Nowhere does the King behave as if he is superior to his host. He is apologetic, in fact, for being so much trouble to Eyre. Never is the King condescending to the Lord Mayor or to anyone else. Dekker's King is plainly very egalitar- ian in his treatment of others. Such a spirit is again shown when the King sanctions the marriage of Lacy to Rose, a woman socially inferior to him. When Lacy's uncle pro- tests that "Her bloud is too too base'' (V.v.l02), the King replies that true love is not always a respecter of gentil- ity or social rank. Dekker's King, contrary to most Elizabethan thought, seems to feel that stability of society depends on more than recognition of social stations. When he states twelve lines later that "Where there is much loue, all discord ends" (V.~.ll9), the King seems to place the responsibility for a harmonious society upon the individual rather than relying upon social categories and legalities. Perhaps it is the creation of such an egalitarian sovereign that makes Esther Gloe question how Dekker managed to escape 33 a jail term for the writing of this play. Dekker is going against prevailing attitudes--or at least professed attitudes--in creating such an egalitarian monarch. The general attitude of the times is emphatically stated by Louis B. Wright: [An] important fact [of Tudor England] is the general endorsement and justification of political and social inequality. On the political side it 25 or the upper society of London until he achieves wealth in hiw own right. As is, this ~ppears but a repetition of the age-old theme of wealth be.getting political power. Observed, however, with similar ideas about money found in other works, an egalitarian attitude becomes evident. In Old Fortunatus, Fortunatus states that, "This age thinks better of a gilded fool, I Then of a threadbare Saint in wisdomes school" (I.i.266-67). He goes on to say that "A maske of Gold hides all deformities" (I.i.291). Dekker has Fortune grant his wish for wealth, but ultimately Fortunatus dies lonely, disillusioned with life. Gold brings him no hap­ piness; rather, it is the beginning of all his woes. The use and misuse of money is also central to the plot of Dekker's If This Be Not !2 Good Play Then the Devil Is In It. Here Scumbroth observes the power of money on society, noting that "the world is changde: a beggar yesterday, and full of gold I to day: an asse to day, and a prow'd scab to morrow" (III.ii.l38-39). In this play, too, is Bartervile. He is, without doubt, one of the most avaricious merchants and usurers in all Elizabethan drama. An unfeeling, cold man, Bartervile grasps and grabs money by any method that he can. He reveals one of his financial secrets to the demon Lu.rchall: "Hee that would grow damnd-Rich, yet liue se- cure, I Must keepe a case of faces, sometimes demure, I Sometimes a grum-surly sir, now play the Iewe" (IV.i.l0-12). For riches, he not~s that "all chaunge their honestie" (IV.i.8). Dekker paints Bartervile a thoroughly despicable 26 villain, a man who cheats even the poorest widows and or- phans in order to fill his own already over-flowing coffers. But he pays dearly for his greed. The play ends with Bartervile in Hell, doomed to spend eternity in a 11 boyling Lake I Where molten Golde runnes 11 (V.iv.254-55). Such situations in his plays, along with his amusing but highly satirical The Gull's Hornbook, a book of advice to gallants and other popinjays on how to best use the.ir money to pro- mote themselves, make it obvious that Dekker believes money and finery in themselves neither increase virtue nor dis- guise faults. As Matheo in Dekker's The Honest Whore, Part II, bears out, the inner man remains the same, whatever amount of money in his purse or finery on his back; any change of character must come from the inside, in the heart and the mind. Nennio aptly expresses the idea when he v1rites of nobility of character: For it consisteth in the vertues of the mind, whether the Sight of our outward eies cannot pierce, and not in the linaments of the bodie. 40 Although Dekker takes a harsh view toward people who either cannot or will not penetrate the facade that wealth sometimes creates, he in no way condemns riches or those who possess them if they use their money wisely and magnani- mously. For Dekker, morality is, to some degree, the seemly use of money: he admires a lavishness of spirit and believes that virtue is, in part, the generous use of money. No doubt Dekker agrees with Giovanni Nenna's observations about wealth: Riches do drive all sadness & sorrow from the mind: they expell all melancholie thoughts from the imagination: they keepe the bodie from wearisome labour: they increase sweete friendship: they cause in man waighters of honor and renowne, and finally they are the occasion of all high fame and glorie.41 Writing four years after Nenna, Dekker wistfully presents such ideas in his Old Fortunatus: Gold is the strength, the Sinnewes of the world, The Health, the soule, the beautie most divine, A maske of Gold hides all deformities; Gold is heavens phisicke, lifes restorative, Oh therefore make me rich: Not as the wretch, That onely serves leane banquets to his eye, Has Gold, yet starves: is famisht in his store: No, let me euer spend, be neuer poore. (I.i.289-96) Andelocia, in the same play, echoes his father's ideas: Riches and knowledge are two gifts diuine. They that abuse them . To shame, to beggerie, to hell must runne. (V.ii.l73-75) 27 Here and elsewhere in his work~ Dekker's message is clear. In itself, the possession of money is nothing; it is one's use of wealth that matters. ·While it may do a great deal to promote the recognition of a newly rich man and elevate him to social and political positions that he could not have attained as a poor man, riches in themselves do not 42 change the inner man. It is important to recognize that Eyre, long before his rise to prominence of any kind, is Father, a Grocer is a sweete trade . had I a sonne or Daughter should marrie out of the generation and bloud of the shoe-makers, he ·should packe (III.iii.38-46). In spite of what he tells Rose, Simon Eyre does very much 30 approve of her nobleman-fiance Lacy. This is surely in part due to the fact that Lacy has learned the cobbling trade and has worked for Eyre under the guise of a Dutchman named Hans. Although he may be rich and of good parentage, he is not idle, nor is he all "outsides." Lacy, with his sincerity and caring, along with Rose and the good King, appear to be exceptions to an otherwise rather unsavory set of upperclass figures in this play. Rose, Lacy, and the King are exceptions precisely because Dekker gives them completely egalitarian views of life. Rose treats her maid Sybil as an individual rather than as a menial servant. Rose makes it clear that she wishes to marry Lacy because she loves him and not because the marriage will bring her prestige or position. Dekker even has Rose display a certain disregard for money and what it can buy while at the same time showing that Sybil is like most women in that she likes beautiful clothes; this happens when Rose promises Sybil several items such as "a cambricke apron, gloues, a. paire of purple stockings, and a stomacher" (I.ii.SB-59) in exchange for obtaining information about Lacy's supposed impressment to France. Here is one woman talking to another; never is there mention of class or social barriers. As for Lacy, he is much the same as Rose in his 31 generosity of character. Lacy truly enjoys the company of his cobbler friends, and he wants to help them in every wayi his loan to Eyre stood to profit him nothing for himself. The good King enjoys people and lives life eagerly, without regard to protocol and established custom. In contrast to these three egalitarian figures, the other gentles are cast in varying degrees of unfavorable light. Sir Roger Otley and the Earl of Lincoln are not completely honest in their- personal dealings with each other. While deception in certain matters was not a totally unacceptable Renaissance business practice, it does serve as a contrast to Simon Eyre . 45 and his plainspoken tradesmen. Tactless as they are sometimes, the cobblers are not deceitful. Firk only once makes use of deception and he most likely would not have done so had not Lincoln and Otley already been responsible for the situation of Lacy and Rose having to elope. Sir Roger Otley, Rose's overbearing father, tries to force his daughter into a marriage with Hammon that she does not want and later he and Lincoln, Lacy's uncompromising uncle, try to keep the lovers apart. The two "gentlemen" do not even balk at possibly creating· a public brawl in order to stop the marriage. As a result of Dekker's careful charac- terization, the ,sympathies of the audience are usually with Rose and Lacy, as they are with the two lovers Rafe and Jane, and the defeat of Lincoln and Otley at the hands of both the band of shoemakers and the Xing is not only amusing but welcome. Lincoln and Otley, in spite of all their upperclass 32 station and finery, are nothing more than gullible, selfish men. But however ignoble the actions of Lincoln and Otley may seem at times, it is Hammon who is Dekker's most un­ gentlemanly gentleman in this play. Hammon, presumably a rich merchant's son, comes close to seeming a ridiculous weakling. In addition to making Hammon a man of few moral scruples, Dekker takes care to emphasize his inabil~ty to be a gentle· in a physical sense. He does thi·s by having Rose's maid Sybil, with the aid of another servant, catch and kill a deer that has eluded Hammon in a woodsy area near Sir Ot·ley' s home (II.ii.2-9). Since leisured gentlemen were supposedly skilled hunters, this would be an insult that Elizabethan audiences would readily understand. 46 In addition to satirizing "noble" prowess, the incident also carries an additional egalitarian slant: it implies that servants, women as well as men, can be just as physically capable as gentles. Besides implying that Hammon lacks physical ability, Dekker also casts doubts as to his ethics and moral values. Hammon vacillates between wooing Rose and courting Jane. When Rose finally spurns him, he then earn­ estly pursues Jane. To his plea of "Let's play" she replies that she has to keep her needlework shop open. He then offers to buy her company for the evening (III.iv.30-35). When this ploy does not prove effective, Hammon apparently falsifies a letter that he shows to Jane, telling her that her husband Rafe was killed in the war. Believing him, Jane ultimately agrees to marry him. When Rafe returns home . 35 cannot take into consideration the power of the individual to redeem himself. In addition, he seems to fear that regimented legal action also leads to the abuse of power and, thereforef sometimes to corruptness in government. 50 Amid all the rollicking joviality of his play, there is a quiet statement that application of the law to the individ­ ual according to his character arid not social status is best. Lacy's situation exemplifies this quite well. It is plain that Lacy commits treason when he ignores his orders to go to battle in France. ·The King realizes that Lacy is guilty of grave misconduct, for he ~nswers Lincoln's accusa­ tion quite plainly, saying "I know how Lacie did neglect our loue, I Ranne himselfe deepely (in the highest degree) I Into vile treason" (V.v.49-51). However, in spite of Lacy's guilt the King forgives him, not because he is a nobleman and his family has political power but because Lacy appears truly repentant. It is clear that Lacy acts out of a belief that his action is truly the best course to pursue. It appears, then, that the King-feels he can hardly condemn as a traitor a man "\vho is simply acting in what he thinks are the best interests of all concerned. The King also does not believe that he has the power to divorce couples who marry willingly and out of love for each other. He asks Rose and Lacy if they wish to remain married; they reply that they do. The King, much to the dismay of Lincoln and Otley, refuses to divorce them. Love, he reminds the in-laws! comes from high authority and should not or cannot be legislated: Shall I diuorce them then? 0 be it farre, That any hand on earth shduld dare vntie, The sacred knot knit by Gods maiestie, I would not for my crowne disioyne their hands, That are conjoyned in holy nuptiall bands. (V.v.60-64) 36 He does not feel that he has the moral authority, or possi- bly the religious authority, to separate a couple who, out of love, marry in the sight of God. The King's actions, therefore, support Dekker's egalitarian attitude; people, not classes, marry. Elsewhere in the play, too, the King shows that he is fully aware of his power and how his use of it can affect men's lives. For instance, the King is no less friendly or generous with Eyre or the feasting apprentices. He publicly praises Eyre's funding of Leadenhall, a new public meeting place and he graciously grants the cobblers' request 11 for vs ·to buy and sell leather there two dayes a weeke 11 (V.v.l55). And, of course, the King accepts the invitation to dine with the shoemakers of London at this Shrove Tuesday feast. But, for some reason, Dekker has the King end the play on a bit of a serious note. On his way to join the merry cobblers at the banquet table, the King laments that, "When all our sports I and banquetings are done, I Warres must right wrongs which Frenchmen haue begun" (V.v.l90-9l). Dekker's attempt here could be to show patriotiBm or the King's concern for his people. But is it not possible that 37 Dekker chose the words "must right wrongs" for the specific purpose of showing the King's sense of fairness and equal­ ity? Dekker's King does not bellow for a gory fight or bloodthirsty war; instead, he speaks earnestly of justice. There is, perhaps, a feeling of sorrow in this last speech; this is the same man who only a few lines before reminded us that "Where there is much loue, all discord ends" (V.v.ll9). This philosophy of the King, coupled with Eyre's state­ ment that "a pound of care paies not a dram of debt: lets be merry whiles we are yong, olde age sacke and sugar will steale vpon vs ere we be aware" (III.iii.21-23) gives, in essence, Dekker's central philosophy in this play. Dekker believes life to be an experience worthy of enjoyment. Life is too precious to fill with cares, sorrow, silly social restrictions, categorical labels, and hatred. With such a philosophy as its core, it would be easy to dismiss The Sheomaker's Holiday as merely an idealistic comedy that promotes the interests of the English working class; in truth, it is much more than this. Thomas Dekker does not share the views of most Elizabethan dramatists. He is far more tolerant than most toward the increasing social, economic, and political mobility of his day, a fact that is partially supported by the manner in which he adapted Thomas Deloney's The Gentle Craf~, Part II into a statement of praise for hard work, successful business ventures, and the many rewards they can.bring. In addition to this, Dekker's belief in the potentiality of man, regardless of 12w. F. McNeir, "The Source of Simon Eyre's Catch­ Phrase," Modern Language I'Jotes, 53 (1938), 275-76. 13oxford Eng lis~ Dictiona:ry, Vol. 1, p. 1004. 14 . . . . . . . G1ovann1 Batt1sta Nenna, Nenn1o O£, a treat1se of Nobility, 1595, sig. K2r 15 . 3r .. Nenna, s1g. K . Nenna uses rel1g1on rather than 40 clothes to impart the same idea. He writes, "Tell me I pray ~hee, if he that is borne of a christian, be straightwaies a christian? Surely no .... so it is not sufficient for a noble man, to come of Noble bloud, as a thing that maketh little or nothing in matter of Nobilitie: but that he observe that which is requisite for the attain­ ing of perfit Nobilitie, to wit, that hee become Noble thorough the vertues of the minde." 16 Deloney, p. 107, lines 19-24. 17 "The Moral Code of the Gentleman" in Ruth Kelso's The Doctrine of the English Gentleman in the Sixteenth century, University of Illinois Studies-in Language and Literature, No. 14 (Urbana: Illinois University Press, 1929) 1 PP• 70-110 • 18 John Rastell, Of Gentlenes and Nobylyte, 1525, p. 27. In The Whore of Babylon (1606) Dekker writes "hee•s noble that is good" (IV.ii.l6). 19sir John Ferne, The Blazon of Gentrie, 1586, p. 20. 20 Conover , p. 4 3 . 21Esther Mathilda Gloe, "The Influence of the English Work Laws on the Drama of the Period from 1563 to 1642," Diss. Oklahoma State University 1979, p. 178. 22 Ferne, p. 26. 23 Dekker often makes reference to marriages made unhappy by meddling parents or because the pair were made to marry. In Match Me in London (V.v.47-59) he equates forced mar­ riages with treason and murder, for the only person severely. punished here is a father who forces his daughter to betroth a man she loathes. All others, murderers and traitors in­ cluded, are pardoned. 24 E. M. W. Tillyard, The Elizabethan World Picture (New York: Macmillan, 1944),--pp.-70-72. To know oneself well enough to act out of reason rather than passion would, to Elizabethans, be commendable. Those who act out of reason would be closer to the angels 41 and, therefore, more like God. 25 . . . d d .1 ( k Lew1s E1nste1n, .Tu or I ea s New Yor : Russell & Russell, Ltd., 1962), p. 173. 26Frederick M. Burelbach, "War and Peace in Shoemaker's Holiday," Tennessee Studies in Literature, 13 (1968), 105. Gloe, p. 188. 27 Deloney, p. 137. 28 Kelso, pp. 100-01, 151-54. 29 T. Marshe, The Institucion of a Gentleman, 1555, p. 13. . 3r Nenna, s1g. I . 30Bellafont in The Honest Whore, Part I and Part II is a fine example of this concept. A reformed courtesan-,-she fully understands that her self-worth is the sum total of her personal virtues and refuses to turn whore again, even though her husband both physically and verbally abuses her to get her to do so. 31 . . 15 E1nste1n, p. . 32A. L. Rowse, The Elizabethan Renaissance: The Life of the Society (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,l97~ p. 145. Elizabeth Burton, Elizabethans at Home (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1958), p. 136-37. 33 Gloe, p. 187. 34Louis B. Wright, ed., Life and Letters in Tudor and Stuart England (Ithaca, New York:-cornell University Press, 1962) 1 P• 484 o 35Tillyard, p. 13. 36 . h 484 Hr1g t, p. . 37This is the only one of the seven plays attributed wholly to Dekker to possess a lovable, friendly king who socializes with all types of people. Most of his kings are rather unsavory types. In If This Be Not A Good Play, The Devil Is In It (1611) th"E!klng is weak and easiiy swayed-by other"S:" He is easy prey for the devil Lurchall, under whose influence he becomes corrupt, lecherous, and cruel. At the end of the play, however, he repents and vows to be a good sovereign. But even in this play Dekker has a note of egalitarianism regarding royalty. In a discussion with 42 his uncle, the king wishes that he did not have such weighty responsibilities for "Kings, .Gods are, (I confesse) but Gods of clay, I Brittle as you are, you as good as they, I Onely in weight they differ . . . I Yet all [are] but flesh and bloud" (I.ii.20-23). In Match Me in London (1620-23?) Dekker creates his worst king: anunderhanded, deceitful, philandering man whose principal amusement appears to be the seduction of newly married young women. He abducts Tormiella, brings her to court, flaunts her in front of his wife, and pesters her to submit to him; in exchange, he promises to make her husband rich and powerful. At one of her many refusals, he chides her with the statement o£ a true opportunist: "Be wise, and when thou mayst (for lifting vp I Thine arme) plucke Starres, refuse them not" (II.ii.82-83). At the end of the play he does repent and promise to reform but he is so thoroughly despicable that one has to question his sincerity. 38Einstein, p. 30-36. 39Merritt E. Lawlis, Apology for the Middle Class: The Dramatic Novels of Thomas Deloney (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1960), p. 170. 40 Nenna, sig. I 3r. 41Nenna, sig. G4r~ 42This idea is treated repeatedly by Dekker. In Old Fortunatus (1599) Dekker shows that instant wealth in no way changes a naive and gullible old man. In The Honest Whore, Part II (1605-07) Dekker weaves ideas about money throughout the-entire work. Bellafont, a reformed whore, refuses to sell herself ever again, even though it is the way out of wretched poverty. Matheo, her husband, is a "gentleman" who gambles away any money he may have and beats his wife when she refuses to prostitute herself to get him more money to squander. Hippolito, son­ in-law to the Duke of Milan, has both money and nobility; yet, after encouraging Bellafont to quit her "profession," he comes to her with money and jewels to seduce her once more. Poor, but. proud and sincere, she refuses. Mathea's actions remind one of Valasco's statement in Match Me in London (1620-23?): "You haue the Courtiers dialectright, your tongue I Walkes ten miles from your heart" (III.i. 71-72). In If This Be Not A Good Play, The Devil Is In It (1611), the king,~hough-obvious~~of-noble-sirth and-monied, is a man of totally unethical character. Here, too, is the usurer Bartervile, with his cruelty to widows and orphans; the more money he gets, the more he desires. He even plans Harbage, Alfred. Shakespeare and the Rival Traditions. New York: Barnes and Noble-; 1952-.---- Kelso, Ruth. The Doctrine of the ~nglish Gentleman in the Sixteenth Century.-Univ. of Illinois Studies in Lang. and Lit., Vol. 14. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1929. Knights, Lionel C. Drama and Society i~ the Age of Jonson. New York: Barnes and Noble~937. Lawlis, Herritt E. Apol~ for the Middle Class: The Dramatic Novels of Thomas Deloney. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1~60. 45 ----------, ed. The Novels of Thomas Deloney. Bloomington, · Indiana: Indiana University Press, 196l. Lewis, Roy and Angus Maude. The English Middle Classes. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950. McNeir, W. F. 11 The Source of Simon Eyre's Catch-phrase. 11 Modern Language Notes, 53 (1938), 275-76. Markham, Francis. The booke of honour: or five decads of epistles of~nour, 1625. (As located on University Microfilms in-osu Library) . Marshe, T. The Institucion of a Gentleman, 1555. (As located on University MICrofilms in OSU Library). Mulcaster, Richard. Positions. Abrgd._and introd. Richard DeMolen. Classics in Education, 44. New York: Teachers College-press, 1971. Nenna, Giovanni Battista. Nennio, or a treatise of nobility, 1595. (As located onUniversity MICrofilms in OSU Library) . Pendry, E. D., ed. Thomas Dekker. Stratford-upon-Avon Library Series, 4. London: Edward Arnold, Ltd., 1967. Powell, Ken and Chris Cook. English Historical Facts, 1485-1603. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and--Littlefield, 1977.-- Price, George R. Thomas Dekker. In Twayne's English Author Series. Ed. Sylvia E. Bowman. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1969. Rastell, John. Of Gentylnes and Nobylyte, 152??. (As located on Univers~ty Microfilms in OSU L1brary) . 46 Rowse, A. L. The Eliz·abethan Rena:issance: The Life of the Society. New York: Charles Scribner•s Sons-,-1971. Thrupp, Sylvia L. The Merchant Class of Medieval London: .!_300-1500. Chicago: University of Chicago Press-,-1948. Tillyard, E. M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Macmillan, 1944-.-- Wright, Louis B., ed. Life and Letters in Tudor and Stuart England. Ithaca, New York:- Cornelr-university Press, 1962. ---------- Middle Class Culture in Elizabethan England. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1935. fL VITA Raylena Ann Noland Candidate for the Degree of Master of Arts Thesis: THE SHOEMAKER'S HOLIDAY: A DOCUMENT IN EGALITARIANISM Major Field: English Biographical: Personal Data: Born in Houston, Texas, January 27, 1947. Daughter of Rayburn Rowe Noland and Verda Iellene Jordan Noland. Education: Graduated from San Jacinto High School, Houston, Texas, in May, 1964; received Bachelor of Arts degree in English from Houston Baptist College in 1968;· enrolled in Masters program at Oklahoma State University, 1974-75; enrolled in Masters program at Oklahoma State University, summer, 1976; enrolled in Masters program at University of Houston, summer 1977; enrolled in Masters program at Oklahoma State University, 1977-78; completed requirements for the Master of Arts degree at Oklahoma State University in December, 1981. Professional Experience: English and Language Arts teacher at Dowling Junior High School, Houston, Texas, 1968-74; Graduate Teaching Assistant, Oklahoma State University, Department of English, 1974-75; English teacher at Davis Senior High School, Houston, Texas, 1975-80; Graduate Teaching Assistant, Oklahoma State University, Department of English, 1980-81.