Dr. Faustus and The Shoemaker's Holiday - Essay Example

?Introduction Dr. Faustus and The Shoemaker's Holiday are two Elizabethan dramas with very different tones, morals and messages. Dr. Faustus was the classical story of the man who sold his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge and power. This play was evidently a morality play which sought to teach the audience the dangers of playing with evil, as well as the importance of keeping God in one's life. Shoemaker, on the other hand, was a light-hearted comedy which was reminiscent of some of William Shakespeare's comedy. As such, there was not necessarily a deep moral message in the play, other than the message that class does not mean anything when it comes to love. This sets is apart from Faustus. That said, both plays utilize disguise, but in manifestly different ways. In Faustus, the disguise is metaphorical, symbolic and figurative. The disguise was mainly the disguise of what Faustus was doing, what kind of bargain he was making, and how serious the bargain was. Moreover, the disguise in Faustus also served to keep Faustus blind to the reality that he could repent at any time and remove the bargain, thus being saved. On the other hand, the disguise in Shoemaker was much more literal, in that the lead character disguises himself as a shoemaker to woo the woman that he loves. Although these two plays are very different in tone and morality, they each employ a similar method of covering up, and this is the subject of the discussion below. Discussion The most obvious use of disguise in Dr. Faustus is the fact that Mephastophilis (Meph.) himself must disguise himself because his true visage is too ugly.  Although Marlowe does not go into detail as to how Meph. looked when he first appeared to Faustus, it was obvious that the demon looked like the traditional depiction of a demo. Faustus commands Meph. to instantly change his shape - “I charge thee to return and change thy shape. Thou art too ugly to attend on me; Go, and return an old Franciscan friar: That holy shape becomes a devil best.”1 This is a metaphor for all that comes after. Meph. is evil, and, as such, his appearance was that of evil, in that he was ugly. Evil is ugly. However, the deal that was struck was made to seem fairly benign, like a business transaction. That Faustus asked Meph. to take the form of a Franciscan Friar is emblematic not only of the way that evil is sanitized throughout the book, but also the fact that evil is only thinly disguised. Faustus did not ask Meph. to take the form of beauty, such as a beautiful woman or man, but, rather, a Franciscan friar who is old. If Meph. was asked to take the form of a beautiful woman or man, then it could be said that evil was more elaborately disguised, as the ugly would have been transformed into its opposite, beauty. Evil would then be considered to be disguised as its opposite, good. However, because the form was of somebody who was not objectively attractive, an old Franciscan friar, then evil is only thinly disguised, because, in this case, ugly is transformed into physical unattractiveness, not its opposite, beauty/. Nevertheless, this is the first instance where a disguise is used. Another interpretation is that, by choosing a religious figure for Meph., Faustus is attempting to transform the evil of Meph. into something religious and holy. This helps him in that he can pretend that what is happening is not really dark magic, but, rather, the work of God. Indeed, God becomes part of the theme through the rest of the play, as Faustus alternately attempts to pray to God, yet is rebuked by Meph. so that he stops. Meph. taking the image of the holy man is one way to pretend that the bargain was not really struck, and that the bargain was not all that evil in the first place. In other words, Faustus needed to trick himself into taking the bargain, and the best way to do that was not to look at evil in the way that evil looks, but, rather, to sanitize it. This was the function of the original disguise of Meph. That Meph. transformed into a benign figure also hearkens back to the original tale of Lucifer, and how Lucifer came to be. The Bible proclaims that Lucifer, as the angel before the rebellion, was very beautiful.2 Of course, this was before Lucifer was cast into the pit of hell for attempting to become more powerful than God, but the fact remains that evil was once considered beautiful. Faustus thus transforms the figure of evil, Meph., into something that is not quite beautiful, but, like Lucifer, was not ugly, either. The Franciscan Friar, like Lucifer, might be considered to be one of God's chosen ones, as the Friar devotes his life to God. This is another way that the transformation of Meph. resembles the transformation of Lucifer, but in the opposite direction. Lucifer was beautiful and was chosen by God before being cast out into hell and presumably became ugly, and his physical form showed the separation of God, at least in the depictions of Satan that were popular during Marlowe's time. Meph. takes the form of somebody who is separated from God and resembles a demon, then was transformed into something beatific and chosen by God. In this way, the transformation and disguise is the inverse of the story of Lucifer himself. Beyond the physical transformation of Meph., the rest of the book is based upon disguise. This is the disguising of evil as something benign. For instance, towards the beginning of the play, Faustus suggests that damnation and hell do not really exist, which would be part of the reason why he made his bargain with Meph. He states that “this word damnation terrifies not him, for he confounds hell in Elysium. His ghost be with the old philosophers! But leaving these vain trifles of men's souls, tell me, what is that Lucifer, thy lord?”3 That Faustus talks so nonchalantly and off-handedly about hell, which is where his soul will be eternally damned, shows that he is not taking the whole prospect of hell seriously, and that, even if hell does exist, it is not as bad as it has been portrayed. Otherwise, he would not refer to the people damned to hell as “vain trifles.” In fact, Faustus “confounds hell with Elysium,” which suggests that he actually believes that hell is a good place to go. This is evident by the use of the word “Elysium.” According to Michael Keefer, editor of the edition of the play used in this paper, Elysium is actually a “place of comfort and perfect happiness reserved to well-connected heroes like Menelaus, the son-in-law of Zeus.”4 Therefore, Faustus is nonchalantly stating that hell is the same as a place of comfort and joy. In this way, the evil of hell is disguised, in Faustus' mind, as something that is benign, even good. Later on , Faustus further trivializes hell, calling it a “fable,” and an “old wive's tale,”5 which further tells the audience that Faustus managed to disguise the true nature of the bargain by telling himself that hell is either not that bad or non-existent. The bargain itself is disguised in that Faustus believes that, in exchange for his soul, he would be receiving something really worth having. Faustus believes that, with Meph. as his slave for the rest of his earthly years, he would be privy to all the secrets of the universe. Instead, what Faustus received from Meph. was mainly trivial, and Faustus did not use the bargain to gain any kind of great knowledge that might have made him immortal, in the same way that Da Vinci, Copernicus or Mozart is immortal. While asking for, and receiving, the kind of vast knowledge which would make him the only man in the universe to possess this kind of knowledge is certainly not worth of the price of his soul – nothing would be worth that – at least Faustus could have justified his bargain somewhat. However, that was not the case, and Faustus really did not get anything worthwhile from the bargain, so this was another disguise. The bargain that Faustus thought was worthwhile really wasn't. For instance, Faustus does learn some secrets of the universe. He learns certain things about the moon and the heavens, and the motion of these celestial bodies. However, he does not do anything with this knowledge - he doesn't commit it to paper, or even tell anyone this. Therefore, this knowledge is rather pointless, as he does not share it with anybody. As another example of this, Faustus is able to see the seven deadly sins personified. This knowledge, too, is pointless, as Faustus does nothing else but ask these sins where they came from and to describe themselves. Faustus could have, presumably, done much more with these seven deadly sins – say, he might have asked Meph. to rid the world of these sins – but, instead, he merely sees them, talks to them, and lets them leave. Further, Faustus goes around the world with Meph, and, in perhaps the most trivial use of his new power, sees the Pope and takes his meat away from him. Another trivial way that Faustus used his powers was by conjuring up the spirit of Alexander the Great at the request of the Emperor. The Emperor merely wanted to see Alexander the Great because he had heard so much about him, and never got to meet him “As when I hear but motion made of him it grieves my soul I never saw the man.”6 Like Faustus, the Emperor is not really interested in Alexander the Great for anything worthwhile. He doesn't want to talk to Alexander to find out military strategy or even find out what life was like during Alexander's time. He simply wants to see him, and this is exactly what happens – Alexander's spirit appears, the Emperor gets to see the spirit, then the spirit disappears without a single word. Doctor Faustus does the same thing with Helen of Troy. Like everything else in this play, the conjuring of the spirits are pointless and meaningless, making the power itself pointless and meaningless as well. It would be one thing if Faustus could conjure spirits from times past to find out their knowledge and experiences, and put this knowledge and experience to good use for mankind. However, just to conjure up a spirit just for the sake of conjuring up a spirit is the height of uselessness, and this is another example of the bargain being disguised as something that would be beneficial. Thus, the bargain was disguised as something worthwhile. Now, if Faustus would have used the power given to him to do something completely spectacular – say, end all war, or cure disease, or, as mentioned before, rid the world of the seven deadly sins, which would have the effect of bringing about peace and prosperity in the world – then, perhaps, his bargain would have been more worth it. In that way, he, at least, would be using his powers for the good of mankind or for the good of others. However, he used the powers in a completely selfish way - he gained knowledge, but did not share it; he witnessed the personification of the seven deadly sins, but did not try to eradicate them; he conjured up spirits, but did not try to gain knowledge from them – so the bargain that he made was one that was not worth the price of his soul. Since he originally thought that it would be, otherwise he would not have made the bargain, one could say that the original bargain was disguised. The disguise also works in that the prayers to God that Faustus attempts are deflected by Meph. as damnable. Obviously, the prayers that Faustus offers throughout the play are those which are considered good, not the opposite, which is the object of damnation. However, because Meph. is desperate to keep Faustus' soul to deliver to Lucifer, Meph. leads Faustus to believe that these prayers are damnable and somehow the work of evil. In this way, the prayers are disguised. At other times, the prayers to God are disguised in Faustus' mind as being useless, or, worse, something that should be avoided. In this way, the prayers to God are disguised, for, if Faustus would have actually prayed to God to save him, the implication is that Faustus would have been. However, because the prayers to God were disguised, both by Meph. and in Faustus' own mind as being useless or damnable, Faustus never did repent. As an example of this, Faustus starts to waver early on in the play as he starts to contemplate God and begins to think that maybe he should turn to God once more. He thinks “What boots it then to think of God and heaven? Away with such vain fancies, and despair, Despair in God, and trust in Belzebub. Now go not backwards; no Faustus, be resolute.”7 This particular disguise of the meaning of the prayers is aided by the evil angel, who, when Faustus begins to waver and thinks about turning to God, advises against such an action. In this case, when Faustus is thinking of contrition, the evil angel advises him that the prayers are but an illusion, and that Faustus must not think of heaven, but, rather, material possessions. Thus, the disguise of the prayers as the only way for Faustus' salvation is affected by the evil angel in this instance. The evil angel further turns Faustus away from prayers again, when Faustus prays “Ay, God will pity me if I repent,” to which the Evil Angel states “Ay, but Faustus never shall repent.”8 Then, later still, Faustus wants to repent and figures that it is too late. The Evil Angel states that it is too late, but the Good Angel states that it is not too late, and that it is never too late to repent. However, the Evil Angel states that, if Faustus were to repent, that “devils shall tear thee in pieces.”9 Lucifer himself further dissuades Faustus from praying for redemption from Christ, when he is conjured after Faustus prays for Christ to save his soul. Thus, Faustus is thwarted at ever turn when he tries to repent and attain salvation. This because the evil elements surrounding Faustus have disguised his prayers and, by doing so, have made him believe that these prayers are futile or damnable. While the use of disguise is employed in Dr. Faustus as more of a metaphor than an actual disguise, the use of disguise is employed in a much different way in the The Shoemaker's Holiday. In the Shoemaker's Holiday, the disguise is not only metaphorical, but is used more for comic effect. The way that Thomas Dekker used disguises has much more in common with Shakespeare, who commonly used disguises in his comedies such as A Midsummer Night's Dream,10 then it does with Faustus. In fact, this play reads like a Shakespeare comedy, with mistaken identities and disguises playing central roles in the plot. In Shoemaker, Rowland Lacy is an aristocratic spendthrift who is in love with Rose Oatley, who is a middle-class girl. However, because of Rowland's dilettante lifestyle and Rose's background, the match is not approved. Rowland attempts to get on the good side of the Earl of Lincoln, which would presumably put him in a better position to be able to have Rose, by volunteering to join the army and fight in France. However, his heart is not really into this plan, and he convinces someone else to go in his place. Meanwhile, Lacy disguises himself as “Han,” a man who is a Dutch shoemaker. Lacy thus uses the disguise as a way to get what he wants, which is the love of Rose. First, Lacy uses the disguise to get out of going to France and fighting in the war. The way that he uses the disguise to get Rose is that Lacy originally agreed to fight the war in France because, in part, he wanted to get on the good side of the Earl of Lincoln, which would, in turn, help the Earl and, perhaps, the King, accept the union of Rose and Lacy. However, by cleverly using the disguise of sending someone else in his place, Lacy was able to not only make others think more highly of him but, also, get out of doing any kind of duty himself. In this way, the initial disguise helped Lacy to be able to woo Rose while not having to pay the price to do so, which is going into war and fighting in France. At the same time, when Lacy took on the disguise of Han, this was another way that the disguise helped him woo Rose. It soon becomes clear that Lacy's disguise of being a Dutch shoemaker was part of his plan to woo Rose. Not only does Lacy intimate that Rose's father did not like him because he was a nobleman “for her cruel father, hating the single union of our souls,”11 but he also states that his uncle Lincoln was against the union, as was the king. Therefore, he figures that, in his new incarnation as Hans, he could woo Rose without interference. In this way, he is able to do double duty. First, he is disguised as a working man, which would no doubt make him more acceptable to Rose's father as a mate for her. Second, he is able to be in a position where he can be close to Rose. This was not possible before because of all the interference from others, and it is possible now. Thus, his disguise allows him to woo Rose in the manner to which he always intended. Indeed, the disguise works, for Rose instantly recognizes him when he finally sees her in his disguise as Hans - “That Hans the shoemaker is my love Lacy, disguised in that attire to find me out. How should I find the means to speak with him?”12 In fact, there is some indication that Rose intends to marry him as Hans the shoemaker, through the help of her friend Sybil - “Hans the Dutchman...shall not only see and speak with you, but in spite of all your father's policies steal you away and marry you.”13 Thus, the disguise works to bring the lovers together. Where they could not be together before, because of their relative stations in life and because Rowland had fallen out of favor with the Earl and the King because of his laziness, now, as Rowland is disguised as shoemaker, they have the opportunity to be together. The disguise works to bond the lovers to one another, and this is the main function of the disguise. Rowland's disguise also allows him another advantage, and that is to be happy. There is some indication that Rowland was a layabout when he was living as the nobleman before, and that, perhaps, the reason for this was just sheer boredom. Rowland probably always wanted to have a craft and to work, but, as a nobleman, it was inappropriate to do so. However, in his job as a shoemaker, he seems to find some sense of purpose and happiness. The first indication of this is when he refers to shoemaking as a “gentle craft is living for a man.”14 Thus, for the first time, Rowland is able to live a normal life, the life of a person who makes a living and does not have to live up to the expectations of noblemen and kings, and this gives him a measure of satisfaction. That said, it soon become apparent that Rowland's disguise backfires. This occurs when his uncle Lincoln discovers that Rowland did not go to the French front as he was supposed to. At that point, Rowland is in more trouble than before as Lincoln blasts “none worse I know thou hast. Procure the king to crown his giddy brows with ample honours, send him chief colonel, and all my hope thus to be dash'd! But 'tis in vain to grieve, one evil cannot a worse relieve. Upon my life, I have out his plot.”15 Further, the Earl is not fooled by exactly why Rowland did what he did - “Love to that pulling girl, his fair-cheek's Rose, the lord mayor's daughter, hath distracted him, and in the fire of that love's lunacy, hath he burnt up himself, consumed his credit, lost the king's love, yea, and I fear, his life, only to get a wanton to his wife.”16 In other words, at this point, the plan that Rowland had set forth had backfired, because the king is sure to be furious with him for his deception, which would make the union of himself and Rose even more precarious. In the end, however, all ends well, just like it should in an Elizabethan comedy. Lacy is able to discard his disguise and seek the King's pardon as himself, and this is pardon he gets, as the king states “Well, Lacy, though the fact was very foul of your revolting from our kingly love and your own duty, yet we pardon you.”17 The King proves himself to be a fair, gentle man, as he unites the two in holy matrimony. There is some indication that Rowland's elaborate ruse in becoming a shoemaker is what actually made the King accept Rowland and Rose together - “your nephew for her sake did stoop to bare necessity, and, as I hear, forgetting honours and all courtly pleasures, to gain her love, became a shoemaker.”18 In other words, the King was touched by Rowland's efforts in disguising himself to be close to her and win her love. The King recognizes this gesture as a sacrifice on Rowland's part, and this causes him to not only accept the union between Rowland and Rose but make it more acceptable to Rose's father and Rowland's uncle by making Rose a lady. Rowland's disguise as a shoemaker also resulted in another kind of happy ending, that for the shoemakers themselves. Whereas before the shoemakers were invisible to the King and the noblemen in general, Rowland's league with them allows them to have more clout with the King. As Rowland explains “in their companies I lived as merry as an emperor.”19 Because of this, the shoemakers were able to gain special privilege with the King, as the King enabled them to have to market-days in Leadenhall, which was a privilege to them. There was another kind of disguise in this play, although this disguise was not a disguise in the literal sense. It really wasn't a disguise in the metaphorical sense, either. Rather, it was a disguise of misinformation, and this disguise complicates the relationship between, who is another shoemaker who did go to France to fight the war, and Jane, who was his wife before he went to fight the war. The misinformation is that Ralph died in the war, and Jane is showed a false document regarding this. Because of this, she allowed Hammon to woo her. Meanwhile, Ralph is kept in the dark about Jane's whereabouts - “O Ralph, your wife – perdy, we know not what's become of her. She was her a while...I checked her, and sorth; away she flung, never returned, nor said bye nor bah...”20 Conclusion Doctor Faustus and The Shoemaker's Holiday utilized disguises in manifestly different ways. In Doctor Faustus, the use of disguise was more metaphorical and symbolic than literal, with the possible exception of Meph. affecting a physical disguise at the first. However, through most of that play, the disguise was simply that of disguising what was actually occurring with Doctor Faustus, and what kind of bargain he actually made. Specifically, the evil of what happened with Faustus made a deal with the devil was disguised as something rather benign, and this manifested throughout the play in a number of different ways. On the other hand, with The Shoemaker's Holiday, the use of disguise was much more conventional. In this play, as with Shakespeare's plays, the use of disguise was literal, and it was used as a way to secure love. In the end, the disguise helped to secure this love, as it helped a nobleman win the lady that he loved, and it also helped the nobleman win approval from the King for this love. Although there some metaphorical disguise, in that the letter that arrived to Jane disguised the reality of the situation, which was that Ralph was still alive, the disguise in Shoemaker was much more literal and used in a much more lighthearted way than in Faustus. Thus, these two plays used disguises in patently different ways, both to great effect. Read More