|
"The Social and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Dekker," - Critic: George E. Thornton
- Source: Emporia State Research Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, December 1955, pp. 1-36.
THE HONEST WHORE
CRITICAL COMMENTARY
[(essay date 1955) In the following excerpt, Thornton evaluates the relative virtue and integrity of the various strata of society depicted in The Honest Whore.]
But gentlemen, I must disarme you then,
There are of mad-men, as there are of tame,
All humourd not alike: we have here some,
So apish and phantasticke, play with a feather,
And tho twould grieve a soule to see Gods image
So blemisht and defac'd, yet doe they act
Such anticke and such pretty lunacies,
That spite of Sorrow they will make you smile:
Others agen we have like hungry Lions,
Fierce as the wilde Bulls, untameable as flies,
And these have oftentimes from strangers sides
Snatcht rapiers suddenly, and done much harme,
Whom if you'l see, you must be weaponlesse.
The Honest Whore, I (1604)
In discussing the plots of [The Honest Whore], I & II,1 it is expedient to combine the two as one drama, since one is, actually, the sequel to the other. The plots are succinctly put forth in the original titles accorded the two plays. The 1604 edition of HW, I is described as "A Booke called The humours of the patient man, The longinge wyfe and the honest whore."2 The 1630 edition of HW, II is entitled: "The Second Part of the Honest Whore, with the Humours of the Patient Man, the Impatient Wife: the Honest Whore perswaded by strong Arguments to turne Curtizan againe: her braue refuting those Arguments. And, lastly, the Comicall Passages of an Italian Bridewell, where the Scaene ends."3
The first plot of importance to HW, I & II concerns the efforts to marry of the royal lovers, Infelice and Count Hippolito, in spite of the objections of the girl's father, Duke Gasparo Trebazzi, ruler of Milan. In a scene at once reminiscent of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the Duke drugs his daughter and convinces Hippolito that she is dead; however, with the assistance of the court physician and a priest from Bedlam, the two lovers successfully thwart the Duke.
The second major plot concerns Candido, a patient linen draper, whose wife, Viola, spends most of her time attempting to provoke him to impatience. In her efforts she receives assistance from her brother, Fustigo, and from the gallants, Castruchio, Sinezi, Pioratto, and Fluello. Candido, however, survives the many trials put upon him and is patiently triumphant at the conclusions to both plays.
The third plot is the main one. It is the story of Bellafront, the titular character herself, who is reviled by Count Hippolito for her immorality. Realizing her depravity, she tries to return to respectable womanhood and is successful. However, on all sides, her moral redemption is combatted by her former associates. She achieves her triumph single-handedly through much suffering, so that she is recognized as a truly moral person at the conclusion of HW, II.
The lowest social level in both dramas is represented by the prostitute, the pander, and the bawd. These people are Bellafront, the prostitute; Roger, her servant and pander; and Mistress Fingerlock, a bawd. At the conclusion to HW, II, Dekker takes them to Bridewell and tries them for social indiscretion. In addition, the Bridewell scene introduces a collection of prostitutes with whom Dekker has not been concerned in either drama prior to this time--Mistress Horseleech, Dorothea Target, Penelope Whorehound, and Catherine Bountinall. Although he certainly considered these individuals to be beyond the conventional code of social morality, he does represent them as highly respected members of their own chosen profession; i.e., he permits them loyally to support professional standards of their own. For example, one may observe Roger, Bellafront's servant, pursuing his work as pander in much the same way as an honest merchant might display his merchandise. Roger is proud, indeed, to be a member of Bellafront's establishment, for he respects her as the most successful woman of her station in all Milan. When she chides him for his monetary interests, naming him a "... slaue to sixpence, base metalled villain ..." he is very indignant, for he considers himself a pander only to quality: "Sixpence? nay, that's not so: I never tooke under two shillings four-pence: I hope I know my fee." Dekker shows that Roger is proud of his position, that he is a man who takes pride in conducting his affairs with a respect for the ethics of his profession. At the same time, it is made clear that Roger, like any "honest" merchant, feels free to cheat if it be to his advantage. Here, one is reminded of Dekker's criticism of business standards in The Seuen Deadly Sinnes of London: while tradesmen were seen to use false weights and measures, Roger is now seen to water down the ale for Bellafront's customers and to forget, frequently, to return their change. Bellafront knows him and accuses him of lying to gentlemen customers, but he has a ready reply to her accusations:
If it be my vocation to swear, every man in vocation: I hope my betters swear and dam themselves, and why should not I?4
Dekker was intrigued by the theory that, on society's lowest level, there is an open imitation of the sins of those who reside on society's higher levels. It is clear that the prostitutes imitate their betters in dress. In the Bridewell scene, again, a jailer explains that the prostitute's custom of dressing elaborately rests in her attempt to pass herself off as one of her more respectable sisters. She may dress lavishly, in one instance, like the ladies of gallants, since extravagance in clothing is fashionable. Later, she may affect the dress of the more humble, respectable woman of the merchant class. It is obvious that the philosophical jailer understands this vanity:
No, my good Lord, that's onely but the vaile
To her loose body, I haue seene her here
In gayer Masking Suits, as seuerall Sawces
Giue one Dish seuerall Tastes, so change of Habits
In Whores is a bewitching Art: to day
She's all in colours to besot Gallants,
Then in modest blacke, to catch the Cittizen,
And this from their Examinations drawne,
Now shall you see a Monster both in shape
And nature quite from these, that sheds no teare,
Nor yet is nice, 'tis a plaine ramping Beare,
Many such Whales are cast vpon this Shore.5
Both the jailer and Dekker admit that the citizenry of Milan (London) is easily duped into believing that outward appearance suggests a genuine quality to things. On the other hand, if Penelope Whorehound can be believed, she does not have the vice of debts:
Lodovico:
... art in for debt?
Penelope:
No--is my Iudge, sir, I am in for no debts, I payd my Taylor for this Gowne, the last fiue shillings a weeke that was behind, yesterday.6
Dekker, one remembers, had previously chastised London citizens in The Seuen Deadly Sinnes of London for purchasing frivolous things and thereby running into debt for vanity's sake; so that, actually, in the light of this knowledge, Mistress Whorehound shows a moral superiority to the gallants, for she believes in paying her way. She is an ethical member of an illicit profession! Dekker seems reluctant to suggest that this kind of a woman is ashamed of her profession; rather, he would permit her to think of herself as a member of a very essential institution. She seems instinctively to recognize that there is a double standard to her society, and she cannot be surprised, therefore, to learn that gallants who engage her services privately will castigate her publicly or even take pleasure in witnessing the cruel punishments which society metes out to those of her profession. Indeed, the gallants who had been engaging in friendly, if bawdy, conversation in Bellafront's establishment flock to Bridewell to watch the wretched prostitutes as they are humiliated and punished. Although Dekker strengthens this theory as he works his way through all three levels of his society, it is strongest in his treatment of the gallant. He extends his sympathy, however, to the prostitutes when they are caught up by justice. Catherine Bountinall, for example, chides a fellow sister who wishes to deny her trade to escape punishment:
Mary foh, honest? burnt at fourteene, seuen times whipt, sixe times carted, nine times duck'd, search'd by some hundred and fifty Constables, and yet you are honest? Honest Mistris Horsleach, is this World, a World to keep Bawds and Whores honest? How many times hast thou giuen Gentlemen a quart of wine in a gallon pot? how many twelue-penny Fees, nay two shillings Fees, nay, when any Embassadours ha beene heere, how many halfe crowne Fees hast thou taken? how many Carriers hast thou bribed for Country Wenches? how often haue I rinst your lungs in Aqua vitae, and yet you are honest?7
Catherine's contempt for the society which punishes her is scathing, and Dekker admires the woman for her courage and honesty, even if her morals, from society's viewpoint, leave much to be desired. She respects no one, it is true; when she is told that the Duke is present and that she should modify her language, she is even contemptuous of him and faces her punishment with strong heart:
If the Deuill were here, I care not: set forward, yee Rogues, and giue attendance to your places, let Bawds and Whore be sad, for Ile sing and the Deuill were a dying.8
At the conclusion to HW, II, these women are convicted and sent off to beat hemp, the Duke himself directing the force of the law against the profession, obviously hoping thereby to purge Milan of its ills:
Panders and Whores
Are Citty-plagues, which being kept aliue,
Nothing that lookes like goodnes ere can thriue.9
To Dekker, the prostitute is a product of the social contradictions of her society. Her establishment is a haven wherein gallants repair to drink, smoke, and swagger to their heart's content. It is an establishment with an atmosphere which the gallant's more conventional realm does not provide, in return for which, however, the woman is rewarded with the contempt of her society and with a gallant's renunciation when brought to justice. Ironically, this justice, while openly punishing her, secretly encourages her practice. Catherine Bountinall and Dekker are aware of the hypocrisy inherent in this social attitude, and neither is reticent to exclaim against it. The prostitute exists for man's candlelight hours (The Seuen Deadly Sinnes of London); she cannot be acknowledged by the light of day.
Dekker is next concerned with the servant-apprentice class. His major contention is that most of the servants and all of the apprentices are eager to improve themselves socially, yet are rarely interested in working diligently to achieve their ambitions. They, too, imitate the superficial qualities which they discern in their betters. Candido's apprentices, for example, appreciate him more for his material success than for his goodly patience. Indeed, they assist his wife and the fun-loving gallants to deprive their master of that one virtue which makes him distinctive and valuable to society. George, for instance, seems to exemplify the worst qualities of the entire apprentice class. He is lazy, rude, and familiar with his customers. Candido unmasks him in HW, I when he sees him serving three gallant customers:
I pray come neare, y'are very welcome gallants,
Pray pardon my mans rudeness, for I feare me
He's talkt above a Prentise with you. ... 10
Hippolito's servant betrays a similar kind of rudeness to his superiors. Ushering Bellafront into Hippolito's study, he annoys the Count, who becomes remonstrative:
Hippolito:
Thou slave, thou hast let in the devil.
Servant:
Lord blesse us, where? hee's not cloven my Lord that I can see: besides the divell goes more like a Gentleman than a Page, good my Lord Boon couragio.
Hippolito:
Thou hast let in a woman, in mans shape. And thou art damn't for't.
Servant:
Not damn'd I hope for putting in a woman to a Lord.11
In addition to emphasizing the servant's rudeness to the master, these lines serve further to illustrate his contempt for the whole nobility. Servants were frequently made to act the pander to their masters; this servant, therefore, can not understand his being berated for performing an act that ordinarily falls to the lot of a member of his station. Thus, he is similar to Candido's George in his ability to exchange repartee with his master. One recalls that, when George was demonstrating his master's fabrics to three gallants, the ensuing conversation concerning the quality of the material in question was laced with double entendre of obscene overtones. Dekker makes it clear, however, that the gallants provoked this verbal duel, so that it becomes their example which George is following. Although the gallants are fingering a bolt of cloth (appropriately called she) which George has shown them, they are in reality looking upon Candido's wife during the entire conversation:
Castruchio:
What, and is this she saist thou?
George:
I, and the purest she that ever you fingered since you were a gentleman: looke how even she is, looke how cleane she is, ha, as even as the brow of Cinthia, and as cleane as your sonnes and heires when they ha spent all.12
At the same time, George has a contempt for the gallants similar to that of Hippolito's servant for the nobility.
A different breed of servant, however, is introduced in HW, II, offering an interesting contrast to George and Hippolito's man. Bryan, Hippolito's groom and the character in question, is devoted to his master. Unfortunately, his lack of knowledge of the English language (he is Irish) is forever plunging him into serious trouble. Although he worships his master, his actions always end unhappily. For example, Infelice falsely "confesses" to Hippolito an affair with the unfortunate Bryan, when she learns that Hippolito himself has made advances to Bellafront. The Count believes her and, in a rage, beats the hapless man, who, throughout the struggle, does not know what he has done:
Hippolito:
Prate not, but get thee gone, I shall send else.
Bryan:
I, doe predy, I had rather haue thee make a scabbard of my guts, and let out all de Irish puddings in my poore belly, den to be a false knaue to de I faat, I will neuer see dyne own sweet face more. A mawhid deer a gra, fare de well, fare de well, I wil goe steale Cowes agen in Ireland.13
Bryan is the only member of the serving-class to retain an old-fashioned virtue of duty and loyalty to master. It is curious that Dekker should have made this loyal servant an Irishman, for it was customary in this time to express a contempt for the Irish. Undoubtedly, there is some ridicule intended. Perhaps, he was suggesting that the less sophisticated country of Ireland still held reverence for humble virtue. If so, Ireland can produce loyal but incompetent servants, if nothing else. Bryan, too, is further annoyed by gallants who make him the butt of their nefarious jokes. They are a strange breed to him, for he does not understand them at all. Perhaps, it is for this reason that he does not attempt to imitate them. Consequently, he has a degree of virility that is lacking in Dekker's other servant-apprentice characterizations.
Dekker has so far concluded that the serving-class in his England possesses little humility. Like their superiors, they are arrogant, crude, and irresponsible. They have little respect for their masters, and all show a tendency to imitate the superficial qualities of the gallant. The one exception is Bryan, who is actually abused when he tries to perform his duties. Though he is stupid and has none of George's wit, he does have a few virtues of the true servant. He is one of the ironies of the author's social world.
Dekker next investigates the merchant group. Candido, the patient linen draper, is a personification of the author's "virtuous people," and will be observed in greater detail later. He should be dealt with at this time only as he affects others within his own class. Viola, Candido's wife, however, represents Dekker's pattern for this class. As the wife of the great patient man, she has reason to appreciate him the most; yet she tries constantly to undermine that virtue which makes him outstanding. She lays elaborate plans to provoke his temper. She would have him to be like other women's husbands, and she is frustrated when his patience cannot be shaken:
... he loues no frets, and is so free from anger that many times I am ready to bite off my tongue, because it wants that vertue which all womens tongues have (to anger their husbands) Brother mine can by no thunder, turne him into a sharpnesse.14
Viola's "brother mine" is very much like her with respect to his superficial qualities. Fustigo is without ambition to achieve success through hard work, yet he wants success. He is arrogant, vain, extravagant, and lethargic. His personality is made up of the worst features of the gallants whom he imitates. He has had, at one time in his life, a slight education. He mentions Albertus Magnus and Aristotle upon occasion, but his basic stupidity is revealed at every turn. Viola, of course, has no difficulty in enlisting his aid. In return, she agrees to give him "... a great horseman's French feather. He knows what is fashionable! Viola, actually, affords one the most lucid description of her brother when she offers him the feather:
O, by any means, to shew your light head, else your hat will sit like a coxcombe: to be briefe, you must be in all points a most terrible wide-mouth'd swaggerer.15
Obviously, the role she desires him to play demands that he be himself.
Fustigo's pretentious behavior is patterned after that of the gallants in whom he envies luxurious living and ease. In all respects, Fustigo is the gull, or his prototype, the kind of person whom Dekker feigns to advise in The Gvls Horn-Booke. He is without virtue. He is superficially personified. He wants to be a gentleman, but he is convinced, at the same time, that to be a gentleman he must have sufficient money to afford the best tailor. In his simple thought, the proof of a gentleman lies in the cut of a coat and the whiteness of linen. It is clear to him that the gentleman's delicate comportment, his fastidious toilet, and his clever repartee make him successful with the ladies and the envy of all. Moreover, his gentleman does not toil, yet he reaps abundantly. One can imagine his horror when Viola once told him that he was brother-in-law to a linen draper! Dekker makes a neat contrast of Fustigo and Candido. The latter is the epitome of that success which may be attained to by a man of perseverance and industry. The former represents the degree to which the virtues of the middle class man can be perverted when he disregards place and imitates the most foolish of his superiors.
In Matheo, Dekker proposes an intermediary between the merchant and the gallant. Matheo, Bellafront's original seducer, was a member of the merchant class; however, when he first appears early in HW, I, Dekker would seem to place him next to Hippolito in social importance. Nevertheless, one suspects that Matheo has not long been a member of this class, for the Duke tells him that he plays the gentleman well and engages him in the plot to subdue the distracted Hippolito. Matheo, as well, fears that his new, exalted position in society may be endangered if Hippolito persists in antagonizing the Duke. He agrees, therefore, to assist the Duke, and in the lines which follow his decision, Dekker clearly shows Matheo's social position as he expresses deep fear for his "new Blacke cloakes." Eventually, Dekker will reveal Matheo as the most depraved character in the drama, for he is one individual who is thoroughly without scruple. He will do anything to further his ambitions,--to live in ease and to bask in luxury. Nor can he understand Hippolito's grief for Infelice, thought dead, for it is his contention that one woman will serve as well as another. When Hippolito, overcome with tragedy speaks of sorrow, Matheo unburdens himself of a contempt for all womankind:
... sfoote women when they are alive are but dead commodities, for you shall have one woman lie upon many mens hands.16
When Hippolito insists that he shall never again look upon another woman, Matheo, in turn, vows that he will take his friend to a brothel within the next few days:
If you have this strange monster, Honestie, in your belly, why so Jigmakers and Chroniclers shall picke something out of you: but and I smell not you and a bawdy house out within these ten daies, let my nose be as big as an English bag-pudding: Ile follow your Lordship though it be to the place aforenamed.17
Consequently, when next seen, Matheo has been successful in bringing Hippolito to the house of Bellafront. Matheo is very much at home in this environment, and, true to his own pattern, he expresses friendly contempt for Bellafront, a contempt which he displays for all women. It must flatter his ego to think that he originally had discovered the most attractive courtesan in all Milan! Furthermore, he appears to have a sinister power which he exercises over people. He was successful, at first, in seducing Bellafront, taking her from a good home and a kind and loving father. And he was successful, secondly, in bringing Hippolito, against the latter's wishes, to Bellafront's establishment. Hippolito, however, is most uncomfortable in the company of Bellafront, and the riotous behavior of Matheo and his friends only intensifies his grief. But Matheo pays him no need, for he is not one to waste sympathy on his fellow man.
Later, when Bellafront decides to abandon prostitution and announces her intentions to Matheo in the presence of the gallants, he believes that she is amusing herself at the expense of all present; he feels that she has invented the story for the purpose of being alone with him. That a person might wish self-redemption is a thought which never occurs to him! When the gallants subsequently leave, he congratulates her for what he calls her "gulling" of them:
Ha, ha, thou dost gull em so rarely, so naturally: if I did not thinke thou hadst beene in earnest: thou art a sweete Rogue for't yfaith.18
This deep, sadistic pleasure which Matheo derives from a manipulation of people causes him to appreciate what he believes to be a similar trait in Bellafront. He shows more appreciation, indeed, for her in this one scene than he has before or ever will, but his amusement is shortlived. When she tells him that she hates him worst of all--"you were the first to giue me money for my soul"--, his rage is uncontrollable, and he releases his venom: "Is't possible to be impossible! ... for a harlot to turn honest is one of Hercules labours. ..." When she demands that he marry her, he replies that he will be "burnt first!" Dekker says that Matheo depends upon the naivete and honesty of other men whose traits enable him to victimize them; however, in the Bedlam scene of HW, I, he completes this characterization in the episode in which the Duke orders Matheo to marry Bellafront, an action for which he had previously said he would rather be "burnt." Matheo, back against the wall, complains:
Cony-catcht, guld ...
Plague found you for't, tis well.
The Cockolds stampe goes currant in all nations.19
At last, the past master of the art of gulling falls victim to his own devices. He is now the gull gulled, as it were, another of Dekker's ironies.
Dekker's gallants in HW, I & II are superficialities. They possess the immorality of which he spoke so vehemently in The Seuen Deadly Sinnes of London. They are rich, idle, frivolous, lecherous, dissembling, and cruel. They have provided the pattern which directly influences every class beneath them, and they are one of the forces contributing to the innocuous behavior of most of the dramatis personae. The apprentices imitate their clever but immodest conceits. Almost all of the characters imitate their idle qualities, apprentices and serving-men even neglecting their work because they think the gallants' easy lives to be fashionable. They are cruel to the prostitute, as are all other "respectable" classes in the dramas. Their consummate selfishness is the pattern for Fustigo and Matheo. Fustigo, in fact, is made thoroughly useless to his society because of his aping of gallant mannerisms, and Matheo represents the values of the gallant when carried to a natural and pernicious conclusion. Although these gallants possess few individual qualities of distinction, they are people who are admired by the majority of the characters in Dekker's works. The gentle class, which has been the core of medieval society, is shown through the gallant to be on the threshold of a complete degeneration. In short, the gallant and his standards are society as Dekker conceives of it in these two plays.
The loftiest social class in HW, I & II is represented by Count Hippolito, Infelice, his wife, and her father, Gasparo Trebazzi, ruler of Milan. The whole of society in these two plays rises or falls with the royal class. Hence, this class and Dekker's understanding of it are most essential to the development of his social and moral philosophy. Infelice, daughter to the Duke and member of the royal family of Milan, is an egotistical, strong-minded young woman who will not permit her desires to be frustrated. To the modern reader, the fact that she disobeyed her father and married the man of her choice does not seem amiss. However, to the Elizabethan and to the conservative Elizabethan like Dekker, Infelice's action would seem to be that of a willful and spoiled child of an ever-indulgent father. Dekker is calling attention, undoubtedly, to the fact that one whose duty it was to rule Milan and to disseminate justice and equity to all could not control his own daughter. Indeed, Infelice was very much the daughter of Trebazzi. He, too, was self-willed, self-indulgent. He was a man enraged when his will was defied, and he could commit a murder with no moral compunction. But it was only natural, therefore, during this episode that the Duke put the affairs of state from his mind and concentrate wholly upon his pressing family problems. However, as head of state, he was supposed to be an example to all. Dekker calls specific attention to this neglect of duty, yet the Duke was no more neglectful of his duties than were the lowliest citizens of Milan. Certainly, his own gallants at court were the products of his inability to teach by precept and example. The Duke was not playing the part to which God elected him; Dekker was a staunch believer in the divine rights of kingship which emphasized the importance of good example to one's subjects. Consequently, when Infelice pleads with the Duke to save her marriage from the threat of Bellafront, he decides to purge Milan of prostitution. He was not actually concerned with the act of stamping out an evil; such an idea was entirely contrary to his pronouncements. He was, first and last, interested in resolving his daughter's marital problem. One need only observe his subsequent proclamation to discern a lack of sincerity. The core of the man's whole social and moral philosophy is contained in the expression, "Nothing that lookes like goodnes ere can thriue."20 How it probably concerned him greatly that his son-in-law's interest in Bellafront's charms could not "look like goodnes" to the state! However, that Bellafront was a good and moral woman was proved to the satisfaction of Orlando Friscibaldo, a man whom the Duke admired and respected. It is pertinent to realize that the Duke eventually explains his son-in-law's aberration in this way:
... for to turne a Harlot
Honest, it must be by strong Antidots,
'Tis rare, as to see Panthers change their spots.
And when she's once a Starre (fixed) and shines bright,
Tho 'twere impiety then to dim her light,
Because we see such Tapers seldome burne.
Yet 'tis the pride and glory of some men,
To change her to a blazing Starre agen,
And it may be, Hippolito does no more.
It cannot be, but y'are acquainted all
With that same madnesse of our Sonne-in-law,
That dotes so on a Curtizan.21
To Dekker, the Duke's statement must have smacked of sacrilege.
The madman who speaks in the Bedlam scene of HW, I analyzes the social conditions of Milan and seems to be Dekker's mouthpiece for warning to all England. The scene is the one in which the madman has confused the Duke with his own son. He holds the Duke's hand and notices that the fingernails are long:
Such nailes had my second boy: kneele downe thou varlet, and aske thy father blessing: Such nailes had my middelmost son, and I made him a Promoter: and he scrapt, and scrapt, til he got the divel and all: but he scrapt thus and thus and thus and it went under his legs, till at length a companie of kites, taking him for carrion, swept up all, all, all, all, all, all, all. If you love your lives, looke to your selves: see, see, see, see, the Turkes Gallies are fighting with my ships, Bownce goes the guns: ooh! cry the men: romble, romble goe the waters: Alas, there; tis sunke, tis sunke: I am undone, I am undone, you are the damn'd Pirates have undone me: you are by the Lord, you are, you are, stop'em, you are.22
Dekker's meaning is unmistakable. The state is ruled by a fool who keeps company with "kites," and, as a result, the ship of state is unmanned when the enemy attacks. The Duke, upon deciding to rid the city of prostitutes, continues the image:
Ile try all Phisicke, and this Med'cine first:
I haue directed Warrants strong and peremptory
(To purge our Citty Millan, and to cure
The outward Parts, the Suburbes) for the attaching
Of all those women, who (like gold) want waight,
Citties (like Ships) should haue no idle fraight.23
Earlier in The Seuen Deadly Sinnes of London Dekker had expressed his opinion that the plague was a visitation from God--it was a divine warning. Here, again, he seems to be saying, through his ship image, that the state is in danger of a new divine intervention, since London is so wasted.
The lasting impression of HW, I & II is that of Dekker's concern for individual and social morality. He believes that state inferior whose inhabitants are not virtuous; therefore, a state which is not good must be made good, else a vengeful God will destroy it. He believes further that this God, because He knows that man is weak, has given man examples of strongly moral people to emulate and from whom to learn virtue for himself. The whole class structure of these plays shows an interdependency of one class upon another, a kind of social chain of being, crowned by the ruling classes with the ruler himself ordained by God. Dekker concludes that it is God's wish that this ruler be a good and virtuous man. If he be not so by nature, says Dekker, he can learn to be so through study of a virtuous man. Now, Dekker's philosophy permits of two kinds of virtue. One man is virtuous by nature. He has a natural affinity for goodness. It does not require much struggle for him to remain good. He merely has to defend his virtue from attacks of the stupid, who cannot recognize virtue when they see it and consequently try to destroy it. There is a second kind of virtue, however, which is probably the greater of the two in Dekker's thinking, since it is achieved only through great moral struggle. It achieves strength through sin; it suffers the agony of the tormented but receives a final purity only after moving dangerously near to eternal damnation. Candido possesses Dekker's first kind of virtue--a virtue which Milton would call blank. Bellafront possesses the second kind, a tested virtue. And there is a third person, Orlando Friscobaldo, who typifies that which can be learned from observation of the virtuous man. He is capable of learning, and, what is more, capable of accepting the truth, even when it contradicts the fashions of the times. True, he is motivated by love for his daughter, but when she tells him she is no longer a prostitute, he pretends not to believe her. He even denies her. Later, he resolves to test her, and when he muses aloud, one is permitted to understand his true character:
Las my Girle! art thou poore? pouerty dwells next doore to despaire, there's but a wall betweene them; despaire is one of hells Catch-powles; and lest that Deuill arrest her, Ile to her. ... Yes, I will victuall the Campe for her. ... 24
With Bellafront's moral redemption, Orlando Friscobaldo's life is complete.
Dekker's HW, I & II are experiments in the negative presentation of moral virtue, in which are depicted various levels of morality, or the lack of it, which exist in mankind from the lowest state of society to the highest. At the very bottom of the scale of being there is a complete amorality, a total lack of understanding for much which is moral. At the top of the scale, there exist three characters who typify moral qualities. Although these three possess virtue, they differ in their kinds of morality and in the ways they have succeeded in achieving it. It would seem, therefore, to be Dekker's theory that few people have a knowledge or appreciation of virtue, insofar as most of the action in these two dramas is concerned with the attempts of those who represent the ungainly majority to deprive those who represent the virtuous minority of their virtue. That many of the scenes dealing with attempted seduction are laden with crude humor does not lessen the very serious intent of Dekker, but only veils it. Dekker would seem to have one think that virtue is rare, that the vulgar, the stupid, and the shallow are either oblivious to it or work consciously against it. The clever character becomes vain and frivolous in close analysis; the dull one becomes ambitious, yet lethargic, highly desirous of that which is sham and ephemeral. Dekker's evaluation of mankind is not pleasant, necessitating that he conceal such human spiritual weakness in clever comic exterior; the arrangement of his acts, by which two seemingly dissimilar plots dovetail and compliment each other, prevents Dekker's message from having a very direct contact with the audience. Indeed, upon cursory reading, the continuity of these acts seems haphazard, even to the point of being unplanned. It is only later that one realizes that Dekker has, perhaps, gulled his reader. The true message of HW, I & II is a hidden one, although there are visible signposts everywhere along the way. Out of these dramas has come Dekker's picture of social degredation. Always the moralist, he is understandably shocked by conditions as he finds them. At the same time, fortunately, he is also enough of a realist, a trait possibly derived from his pamphleteering days, to face up strongly to the situation in the interests of faithful reproduction. Although HW, I & II do not sustain his annoyance with the new order as he has shown it in his pamphlets, the dramas do reveal, often with a surprising subtlety, the whole complex social order of the London which Dekker knew.
Notes
1There is a textual problem of dates, here. Dekker's HW, I was published in 1604; his HW, II, in 1630. It has long been assumed that the first play was also written around 1604; however, there is still speculation concerning the date of composition for the sequel. Although a quarter of a century had lapsed between publications of these two plays, Hunt contends that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the second play was written shortly after the first (Mary Leland Hunt, Thomas Dekker, p. 94). On the other hand, there is the theory that the second play shows a greater maturity than the first, a theory which immediately suggests that HW, II may have been written on or about the date of its accepted publication date (Thomas Dekker, edited by Ernest Rhys, p. xxix). Henslowe mentions having made payment for HW, I to Dekker and Middleton between 1 January 1604 and 14 March 1604 (E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage, III, p. 295), and he records its acting by the Prince's Men soon afterwards. Middleton's share in the composition of HW, I is also a matter for disagreement. There is no doubt, however, that Middleton collaborated with Dekker, but it is difficult to single out those portions of the drama which belong to Middleton and those which belong to Dekker. Some critics contend that Middleton's contribution was negligible, consigning the major portions of the drama to Dekker (Thomas Dekker, edited by Ernest Rhys, p. xxx). However, Hunt finds evidence of Middleton's hand in HW, II (op. cit, p. 94).
2. ... p. 294.
3Loc. cit.
4Thomas Dekker, The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker, II, p. 49.
5Ibid., p. 178.
6Ibid., p. 177.
7Ibid., p. 179.
8Ibid., p. 181.
9Ibid., pp. 181-82.
10Ibid., p. 19.
11Ibid., p. 58.
12Ibid., p. 18.
13Ibid., p. 132.
14Ibid., p. 10.
15Ibid., p. 11.
16Ibid., p. 6.
17Ibid., p. 7.
18Ibid., p. 53.
19Ibid., p. 159.
20Ibid., p. 182.
21Ibid., pp. 156-57.
22Ibid., pp. 81-82.
23Ibid., p. 158.
24Ibid., p. 107.
Source:
George E. Thornton, "The Social and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Dekker," in Emporia State Research Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, December 1955, pp. 1-36.
|