Familiar Patterns and New Insights in A Chaste Maid in Cheapside

A Chaste Maid in Cheapside follows many of the patterns that we have come to recognize as characteristic of renaissance comedy. Another city comedy, the play shows us more of the hustle-bustle of London. The play boasts a shopkeeping father, in this case a goldsmith, who wants his daughter to marry a well-to-do gentlemen. She of course, is in love with the “less worthy” Touchwood. Characters like “Whorehound” and “Touchwood” have names that are as literally descriptive as those that we have seen in the Alchemist and the play comments on religion with the appearance of puritans, and presents corrupt mass promoters that again match the Alchemist’ Puritan “collectors”. All ends of the play seem to tie up neatly as the characters launch into celebration at the end of the play.
The play, however, provides new insight on the institution of marriage that has been only slightly touched upon in the previous comedies that we have read. Chaste Maid uses three marriages and two betrothals to show us the dynamic and sometimes corrupt nature of marriage. Perhaps the most fascinating of the relationships is the twisted triangle between Allwit, his wife, and Whorehound. Sir Walter Whorehound has taken Mrs. Allwit as his mistress, and to his delight, this leaves the lazy Allwit, a “cuckold” with no responsibility. He says of Whorehound that, “He’s maintained my house this ten years; not only keeps my wife but’ a keeps me and all my family. I am at his table; he gets me all my children; puts me to nothing”( 1.2.16 ) In speaking to Yellowhammer, Allwit relates his marriage to a sort of business deal a way to make a “ living as other trades thrive, butchers by selling flesh, poulters by venting conies” (4.1.236). In this instance, marriage is manipulated to turn a profit. This corruption seems bizarrely acceptable. When Yellowhammer is told that his daughter’s betrothed is having an affair with a married woman, he admits to that he has “kept a whore (himself), and had a bastard” (4.1.268), so as if this practice is “normal”, and almost dear to him, he will allow the marriage to proceed.
We then have two opposing couples, one that is unable to reproduce and one that is “too” fertile and must separate. The Touchwoods must remove themselves from the passion that has brought them so many children. Their plight has brought Touchwood Sr. to understand that, the “feast of marriage is not lust, but love and care of the estate”. The Kix’s seem to think passion must be more necessary than love. The two who cannot get pregnant, bicker and quarl about their situation. Their fighting leads them to compare marriage to death in saying that, “marriage and hanging go by destiny”(3.3.59). Ironically, infidelity brings about an answer to the couples’ problems, as Touchwood impregnates Lady Kix. In light of these relationships, the Welsh (who is betrothed to Tim) is not very believable in her assertion that “Sir if your logic cannot prove me honest, there’s a thing called marriage, and that makes me honest” (5.4.115). For the play has depicted the institution of marriage as anything but honest. These dynamic relationships may help us to further understand the theater’s portrayal of social and familial roles at the time.

Aside from the play’s commentary on relationships, the play provides us with a bunch of juicy new “tid-bits” for discussion. We can think about some of these questions for Tuesdays class:

• This is the first time we have seen “gossips.” What role do these peculiar characters take on in the play? Do they provide actual insight into the corruption that they try to sniff out?
• We hear a lot about the hoity-toity nature of Tim as a “Cambridge man”. He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and tries to impress people by babbling in Latin. At one point he says obnoxiously, “Come I from Cambridge, and offer me six plums?” Is the play mocking higher education or just those who consider themselves above the less educated?
• This play ends, as do Shoemaker and Knight of the Burning Pestle, in celebration. Yellowhammer exclaims, “So fortune seldom deals two marriages with one hand, and both lucky. The best is, one feast will serve them both” 5.4.125. What can we say about the way in which these complicated plays are summed up by jovial gatherings? Is this a necessary aspect of a comedy, or is it a cop-out, a way of maintaining a “comedic stance”, sending audiences dancing out of the theater after being exposed to some serious issues.