In my first review I said that I would have to read the play again and I have, so now follows a second review and my original review at the end. I have increased my rating from three to four stars on the second reading!
Elizabethan and Jacobean writers are well known for enjoying innuendos and punning, especially punning of a sexual nature, Shakespeare not excluded, but Thomas Middleton's A Chaste Maid in Cheapside would win first prize if their were a "nudge nudge wink wink" competition among the playwrights of the time. A Chaste Maid in Cheapside does not let up from first ("Have you played over all your old lessons o'the virginals?"to near last "I'll pick out my runts there: and for my mountains, I'll mount upon-" line. Middleton's London society is one governed by cupidity and greed. The play is a slapdash story of cuckolding, pimping, whoring, bastardising, eloping, scheming, prostituting and brothel keeping. Even by today's standards some of the innuendos are raw. Several times I read a line and asked myself "oh no, surely he can't mean that?". My edition is the The New Mermaids edition edited by Alan Brissenden, who seems to be offended if not shocked by the liberties which Middleton takes and occasionally is too innocent or too prudish to draw the extreme but obvious interpretation. For example, when Yellowhammer's daughter, intended for Sir Walter Whorehound (sic.) elopes with Touchwood, Yellowhammer marvels that she has managed to escape to her lover:
Yellowhammer: There was a little hole looked into the gutter/But who would have dreamt of that?
Sir Walter: A wiser man would.
Tim: He says true, father, a wise man for love will seek every hole: my tutor knows it."
All the editor can find to say in the footnotes here is "Ironic, as the tutor has probably cuckolded Yellowhammer."
Many readers would think of a more "hard core" interpretation of that exchange.
Thomas Middleton's theatre is apparently a scourge of vice. Why apparently? After all, vice is appropriately condemned in asides and warnings and language. True, yet there is no suggestion in this play that crime or vice does not pay. (It is vice which preoccupies Middleton here, not crime, itself slightly suggestive, since a condemnation of vice is usually undertaken by linking vice with crime) None of the characters is punished for vice, unless it be Sir Walter Whorehound, and his fate is instructive. He is the only character to repent of his immoral behaviour. He is a bachelor who regularly enjoys the favours and hospitality of Mrs. Allwit, whereby he pays for the upkeep of the Allwit family in return for open house (as Middleton himself might have termed it) at the Allwits and farming out for being permitted to leave his seven bastards with the Allwit family. Allwit is a contended cuckold, being kept in wine and comfort by Sir Walter in return for pimping his wife to Sir Walter on a permanent basis. Sir Walter's repentance occurs alongside his downfall. Is Middelton condemning vice or laughing at those who condemn it? I find it hard to answer this question. The Changeling, his best known and probably most accomplished play, clearly portrays vice in a very dark way indeed and links it to crime. Such is the traditional religious Christian perspective, but always with Middleton the reader will be, I think, tempted to say the writer is very indulgent in the depiction of what is supposed to be condemned, suspiciously indulgent. The entire Middleton corpus so far as I know it, is very tabloid, by which I mean it condemns vice but spends an inordinate amount of energy and talent in depicting what it condemns. Vice is entertainment and a source of income, not onyl to the characters in the story, but to the story teller. If we reduce the impact of vice in the plays there is nothing left. Vice is not the vehicle of a dramatic intention, as in Shakespeare, it is the drama. Middleton's plays are the very stuff of vice. The obsession and the puns may be venereous for some people, and if so, are they intentionally so? That is for the reader to judge. A Chaste Maid in Cheapside is hugely entertaining and I suspect hugely cynical. Uxor non est meretrix. The play ends with a double wedding feast. Whether the chaste couples (ahem) live happily ever after, is for us to decide.
That was my second review which I wrote having forgotten that I had reviewed the play already.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This was my first review
This is a very energetic no holes barred (to use the kind of double entendre which the writer is so keen on) scurrilous romp. It most probably works much more effectively on the stage than read, like all good comedies. I have the New Mermaids Edition edited by Alan Brissenden and the annotation is totally inadequate for a modern readership. Some of the words and jokes are explained but not nearly enough. Middleton's play abounds in local references archaic words and probably insider jokes and did not understand a good deal of it. The plot seemed to me to be pretty muddled too; I shall have to read it a second time to get everyone sorted out. There is little psychological realism, the drama is close to morality play (the best example of which is "The Revenger's Tragedy", attributed to Cyril Toruneur, about whom almost nothing is known but in whose play Middleton may well have had a hand in), much more so than Shakespeare's plays in fact. Although puritans are made fun of in the play, the moral thrust of the play (there I go again) is a puritanical denunciation of the greed and cupidity of the world. There does seem to me to be a paradox or contradiction, between Middleton's denunciation of vice and his obvious enjoyment revealing and portraying it -shades of the English gutter press here. I can imagine Thomas Middleton working as a journalist for "The Sun", perhaps providing copy for headlines:
HOUNDED OUT
Whorehound gets his come-uppance
TERRIFIC
Taffy Tania ties the knot with Tiny Tim
That sort of thing