The period which characterises the society in that moment was the Elizabethan which started just after a revolution that Henry VIII carried out. The aim of Henry's revolution was that the crown obtain all the possessions the church had, economic power, the huge territories that the church own and the political control that the head of the church hold.
Elizabethans were born in the darkness and depression so this age was an economic and social revolution consequential from the rising inhabitants upon scarce land and limited resources. In summary as the population increase, the territory and the food began to give out. All this took to a terrible condition of life; over-crowded houses, the increase of childbirth, lack of medicines, epidemics, starvation and wars. [1]
The society of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century of England was hierarchical in fact still existed laws which ordered people how to dress in order to keep them in their social position.
At the top of the social level was the monarch at court which in this time broke all the structure the society had always expected because of being a woman. Elizabethan broke up England from Rome and manifested herself and all her kingdom as protestant.
As the society was very hierarchical in London lived a wide variety of people: artisans, wealthy merchants, servants, the poor, and criminals in addition to some of the country nobility.
These Londoners had a social centre were they regularly met, St Paul's Cathedral. People met there their friends; people look for a work and others sell and buy a mixture of items although people were aware of that this kind of massive meeting attacked pickpockets.
There were lots of guilds in the city; each company occupied an area of London. These included Mercers, Fishmongers, Ironmongers, Cloth workers, Goldsmiths and Shoemakers. All merchants had a building where they their shops. Generally the ground floor was the place of commerce, selling and production and the merchant ant his family lived above the shop.
Although London was prosperous for many people, there were also many poor men and women whose lives were miserable, many people who fought for England and their queen in 1588 against the Spanish Armanda were never paid. To sum up, the harvests were little; and the prices were elevated while food provisions were limited.
Another important thing to consider in that time was the witchcraft whose most of the accused were poorer women (this kind of phenomenon was used by Shakespeare in the first act of Macbeth). The Elizabethan society was concerned as well as of witches, of Jews and Africans. Jews were expelled in 1290 from England and were not allowed officially to return. The word "Jew" became part of the current vocabulary as a term of mistreatment, frequently directed to other Christians.
In addition to the health in this time, epidemics, plagues and other sickness encouraged people to think about how to survive and how to conserve a long life although some people who fell sick thought that was God's will.
Besides this period gave social importance to marriage; this is often shown in the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries together with matter to do with sex and courtship. The word "marriage" involves not only the union of a couple but the household including servants. Not only was important in regards to the social aspect was also significant for financial activity, and in particular for showing the patriarchal power of men. [2]
The difficult problems of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century were used by Shakespeare, Thomas Dekker and other poets into plays of huge power and persuasiveness.
The first play to analyze and compare with the English society is "The taming of the shrew" which reflects clearly the background of the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
Although it evokes the Elizabethan society it also shows some details about the Italian atmosphere in order to add more fun or just to make some absurd scenes acceptable to the audience.
Inside of the Italian environment the play shows the picture of Gremio´s rich-merchant's house, some allusions to Italian towns and several Italian expressions. For example Gremio is called "A Pantalowne" which makes reference to a rich old Venetian who is always looking for young girls with grotesque aptitude. This term was used in the "Commedia dell´Arte" which was the Italian improvised comedy of the time. [3]
As regards of the similarities with the society of that time, at the beginning of the play there is a clear manifestation of class division and trickery which shows the hierarchical aspect mentioned in the introduction. The Lord takes profit of Sly while he is drunk changing her clothes and making him think he is a Lord just as a joke for having fun. Apart from this the Lord calls their servants "fellow" which symbolizes a lower class position than "man". [4] The fact of changing Sly´s clothes and social class could be also related with a folk festival celebrated in Christmas or May Day during the Elizabethan England which was a celebratory abolition of the social differences and a humorous exchange of function between masters and servants. [5]
As well as the social class differences one of the main aspects treated and reflected with the society is the patriarchal power linked with the marriage, domesticity and women's status.
That period was characterized as the power that men had over women, the property and the domestic setting due to the patriarchal system. The wife was the subordinate of the dominant husband and this was the case of Katherine and Petruccio.
The term "shrew" seen in the play was used in the sixteenth and seventeenth. It describes the stereotype of a dominant woman; one characteristic of the shrewishness was talking too much and very loud. Talking was the way to express their anger, like Katherine who makes use of her tongue was a weapon. The fact of calling a women "shrew" because of the excessive use of their tongue shows that what was expected from women was being silence like Bianca. [6]
The other attributes of shrewishness was refusing men's authority and declaring their own independence but unfortunately, the word independence was liked with men and not with women.
As the title of the play says shrews need to be tamed Petruccio is in charge of taming Katherine who is very resistant. In order to "educate" men could use any kind of domestic violence because was not legally forbidden in that time unless a husband hit his wife to death or distribute his neighbours, was no reason to brim him to court. But the way Petruccio chooses for the taming treating their servant very roughly and becoming what was considered to be a shrew [7]
In addition to the household while the process of teaching Petruccio mentioned about Katherine "She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house, My household-stuff" (3.3.102-3) but according to laws in that time married women didn't own anything all was husband possession. Petruccio even controls Katherine's access to clothes and food.
Either the play or the society shows a world in which women who don't get married could not find a worthy work for living by themselves and if they did it that was not acceptable. So they didn't have many options, being poor or being dependent on a man. In the case of Katherine she didn't have to love him in order to get married, economic and social aspects were the important and crucial thing for a marriage in that century.
That's why marriage was so important both for women and for men in order to show their power and their manhood of dominating their wives. One last part of the play shows the vision Katherine has of the husband considering him as the "lord": "Such duty as the subject owes the prince. / Even such a woman oweth to her husband"
(5.2.159-60) and the last speech shows the completely subordination " Then vail your stomachs, for it is not boot, And place your hands below your husband's foot, In token of which duty, if he please, My hand is ready; may it do him ease. (5.2.180-83). [8]
Although in the play also appears another marriage, this of Petruccio and Katherine is more interesting because is based on a contract between father and groom instead of bride and groom. Like in the play marriage was considered a public action due to the social importance as well as religious and political.
Thomas Dekker's play of "Shoemaker's holiday" also represents the Elizabethan society as well as Shakespeare did in the previous play. But Dekker focuses on the aspects of social differences and anxieties of social strata like the problems with marriages between different social classes, soldiers sent to the war and the things that this fact conveys such as poverty, hunger and diseases.
In contrast to the "The taming of the shrew" this marriage that appears in the play shows how love prevails from different social ranks, although there is a struggle between the relatives of the couple in order to avoid the matrimony between them because they don't belong to the same social status. This shows again that the society was hierarchical ant was not allowed to marriage with someone from other social level, or at least was not common at all.
This barbarous disagreement of class division between upper and lower class reflects clearly the Elizabethan society in fact "social mobility was a source of much anxiety" [9] there was a law called "Sumptuary Law" which tells people how to dress according to their social class. This law was a way of keeping and regulating the hierarchical society, a way of to control the concern of class movement but also a kind of looking down on the poorer people.
While in the play some obstacles between the social classes are solved, through the wedding, through the shoemaker becoming Mayor, and with the fact that an Earls nephew works as a shoemaker in the society these events were impossible to happen.
But there are still some parts where the different class levels emerge even inside the shoemaker's sphere when Firk tells Hans "Though my master have no more wit but to call you after me, I am not so foolish as to go behind you, I being the elder journeyman" showing that there are some "rules" to follow. The fact of calling Eyre as "master" also illustrates the real existence of some people above others.
The fact of facing these social differences don't show realism at all, however could show a kind of dreamed world that Dekker wishes to exist or "an attempt to improve the conditions of life that most of Elizabethan Londoners had" [10] .
As regards of this Andrew Handfield mentions that "the play is essentially a fantasy and the pain of real life lurks in the background, ready to return". [11] Furthermore Peter J. Smith argues that "London as it appears in the play is not utopian ideal. Rather it is a place of tension between the citizens and the aristocracy" [12]
There is a clear intention of breaking with the "rules" and that tension that the society had of not mixing with other people who don't belong to the same social level. Because as is mentioned above, Lacy breaks the barriers of class when he works as shoemakers with the intention of being near his lover. In fact there is a coexistence of nobility (Lacy) and poverty (Ralph) working together in Eyre's shop.
There is another important aspect that is hidden behind the plot which is the aspect of war which as in that age affected to most of the citizens but in particular to the lower classes. Poverty divides shoemakers from the upper class people. In fact the play shows how Ralph and Jane are both separated by war and in contrast to this Lacy could afford and could pay for a substitute.
As rewards of war aspects, apart from the problem of separating unities of love, wives in that period; as is mentioned above through the comparison of the Shakespeare's play; survive due to the economic support of their husbands, so this division could lead into poverty and hunger. The fact of Ralph coming from the war injured shows how horrifying and dreadful was the aspect of warfare.
As the introduction explains guilds that existed where like in the play, where all the journeymen lived in Eyre´s house like a family. This was known as households which were like communities where the good of a person was also the good of the other. "Were like governments in which some ruled and the others served." [13]
There are quite evidences of a truly relation between the comedies, despite the fact of being a comedy, that show the reflect of the turbulent society of that time, in fact Darryll Grantley notifies that "from the last quarter of the sixteenth century onwards the theatre was locating its dramatic narratives in the geographical spaces with which the audience was familiar from their everyday lives."
CONCLUSION:
