Category Archives: Love relationships

The Shoemaker’s Holiday: Concealed Lover

Thomas Dekker’s The Shoemaker’s Holiday brings a change of pace to the usual blood, vengeance, and death I’ve grown accustomed to reading in the past few plays.  Dekker’s play, being a comedy, encompasses the up spirited topic of love.  Rightly so, this topic is usually what makes up most of our current day comedies.  Yet, at the same time, love makes up much more than a comedy altogether; it provides conflicting emotions and the intriguing chase for a lovers’ embrace.  Dekker elects Hammon to be Cupid’s target practice.

If Hammon were around today he would surly be the quirky main character of a romance/comedy who bides his time until the girl he loves finally notices his affection toward her. Given that we are studying English Renaissance Drama, the struggle for one girl’s affection is not enough.  Hammon claims love for both Rose and  Jane.  Love is always a dangerous thing because it tricks you.  Why does Hammon have this conflict between Rose and Jane?  He seems like a completely suitable man yet the love he claims to have for them goes unwanted and unnoticed.  Does he have this conflict because he doesn’t truly know what love is? Is he proclaiming love just for the slim chance that he might get noticed? I believe so.

Hammon’s going from one girl to the next announcing his love proves just how little he knows of it.  His conversation with Jane in scene 12 shows that maybe Hammon is throwing love around in hopes that he may enjoy the more physical nature of love. Hammon being ‘muffled’ at the start of the scene can also suggest that his true motives are concealed and that his urge for physical attention drives him to fall in love quickly.  There is something off with Hammon and I’m hoping that there is some perverse nature underlying his gentle, loving outward form in order to make things a bit more interesting.

Posted in Comedy, Love relationships, The Shoemaker's Holiday | 1 Comment

The Shoemaker’s Holiday, Love, Fate, and No Bloodshed

Up to the point of scene 13, we as a class have taken a harmonious holiday from the bloody affair that is love in Renaissance drama.  Unlike The Spanish Tragedy, Dekker’s characters have proposed a dubious, yet non-lethal scheme to achieving inter-class love.  Rose is attempting to reclaim her affair with Lacy but through his new identity of Hans.  Rather than Rose killing off her father or herself for love’s sake, she has devised a romantic plan of deception and triumphant love.  Surprisingly enough, Lacy seems to agree, and exits scene 13 with Sybil to go see Rose.  Ironically, the two characters are not desperately searching for each other, but have shown that they desperately love each other.  They fatefully cross paths at a celebration for Eyre.  It seems to me that Dekker substitutes bloodshed for fate.  If fate achieves love, then bloodshed may be avoided.

Also adding an ironic twist, Dekker gives us Hammon.  He desperately seeks love but cannot obtain it from a woman.  Whether from Rose or Jane, Hammon just wants somebody to love.  He “will do any task at your command” he tells Jane (12.37).  Hammon is a “gentleman” and from descriptions a handsome man, but he cannot woo a woman to love him.  What seems like fate to him, Ralph’s name on the list of the dead, is actually a lie.  After seeing Ralph’s name, Jane forces herself to agree that if she marries another man it would be Hammon.

It seems as though Dekker has removed the bloodshed to project his opinion on fate.  In the case of Rose and Lacy/Hans, their love is true and not sought for class, wealth, or to fill loneliness.  On the other hand is Hammon.  He so desperately wants love, but everyone he seeks it with loves another person.  His persistence forces Jane to believe her love is dead but gains no love for himself.  I can only hope in the following scenes that fate brings Jane and Ralph back together to show that fate and true love prevail.

Posted in Comedy, Love relationships, Power struggles, The Shoemaker's Holiday, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Shoemaker’s Holiday and Humor?

Humor. It differs from person to person in their ability to perceive it or react to it. This is either due to culture, religion, or other factors. In The Shoemaker’s Holiday the humor is very geographically and culturally based. Which makes sense since it is an Elizabethan play. But because of the way the humor is presented, it often causes confusion and bewilderment from readers that don’t come from London. This was the case when I was reading it. Half the time I couldn’t understand what they (the actors) were saying and the other half was spent in re-re-reading what I had just read because I couldn’t believe what I had just read.

That being said the play itself, once you get over the odd humor, is quite sexual. At every turn there seems to be some sexual joke or hint that seemingly comes out of nowhere each and every time. At the end of each one you would probably scratch your head in confusion and need to refer to the footnotes and definitions just to understand what the actors mean.  Like in scene 7 where Firk, Hodge, and Eyre are mentioning the various ways they will “firk” or “take down” various women. Or how Firk mentions how he “For yerking and seaming let me alone, an I come to’t.” and that he will “deal with her.” At first glance their little conversation makes no sense but reading deeper into it you realize exactly what Firk wants to do with Sibyl.

The rest of the play goes along the same lines. There are references to sexual acts and actions that seem to mean one thing often turn into something more…carnal. The entire play seems to be one long sex comedy that’s been “hidden” by the citizen comedy it tries to portray itself as. Granted I’m not positive since the entire play still has me scratching my head!

Posted in Comedy, Love relationships, The Shoemaker's Holiday | Comments Off on Shoemaker’s Holiday and Humor?

Human and Goddess

John Lyly’s Endymion was a love play. Endymion was in love with Cynthia, the Moon Goddess. In the original myth, it was Cynthia that pursued Endymion. In Lyly’s version, the reverse occurs. However, there were obstacles in the way, including Tellus, who does not believe Endymion, and Cynthia, who holds unlimited power because she was a goddess. Tellus puts Endymion to sleep because he rejects her love and Endymion’s chances with Cynthia were over before it even started because Cynthia had power and knew that Endymion did not belong to her, however heartfelt Endymion was during the course of the play.

This play was written to Queen Elizabeth. However, Elizabeth was the role of the Moon Goddess in this play, while Endymion was one of her lovers, Tellus the loyal guard who believed Endymion was lying. Elizabeth died without a husband, so Endymion (the lover role) does not have Elizabeth’s love. Tellus was the guard who loves Endymion, yet he does not believe him. Love is blind, even if Endymion confesses everything, since everything was lost by the end.

Posted in Endymion, Love relationships, Power struggles | 1 Comment