When finishing The Shoemaker’s Holiday, by Thomas Dekker, I was surprised to find it a very light play in comparison to the past ones we’ve read. Every character ended up in a favorable position, even the so called antagonists, Oatley and Lincoln. First, Lacy who rebelled against Lincoln and the English in general, was not only allowed to keep his marriage but also knighted by the King; Lincoln and Oatley got over their obsession over social standing because of this event. Simon Eyre changed from a lowly shoemaker into the high position of a Mayor, taking the place of Oatley. The shoemakers gained a holiday despite any actions of their own and the King was so pleased with Eyre that he obliged to his request for Leadenhall. Ralph was able to reunite with Jane. It may seem that only Hammon didn’t come out favorably in this play; however that is not really an option for him since it didn’t seem he was very driven for Jane anyway. He wagered money over her and even before meeting her, he had his fickle mind set on Rose.
So what does this make for the purpose of this play? I wondered about this, seeing that many plays we’ve read already presented very serious messages, going as far as murder in order to get them across. Is this simply a grown-up fairy tale in that everyone has their happy endings with a multitude of crude humor mixed in? Well, it could very well be that this play was made for this reason, maybe because of tragedy-based plays being presented during the Renaissance Era or maybe it could be a voice for different social classes in the English audience; where characters like Firk and Ralph can shine as unexpected heroes and instigators despite the higher authority they might be facing, be it Oatley, Lincoln, or Hammon. Simon Eyre can also serve as an escape for older members of the audience who dream of changing their economic standing despite the odds. It’s funny to think that the kind of messages this play sends out was even performed in front of royalty, who would probably relate the least to the main characters in the play.
That’s a nice point about the Queen seeing this performance in which a King plays such a graceful part. I suppose that would be appealing to her, as would the vision of a bustling marketplace promoting English goods.
I agree that this play was very different from the other works that we have been reading. It is drastically different from the likes of “The Spanish Tragedy”. Your interpretation of the meanings of the characters is very insightful and provokes a view that I had not previously thought about!