The Three Ladies of London: Simplicity Interpretation

Introduction

The three Ladies of London is one of the enduring plays from the English Renaissance. The play is a comedy written by Robert Wilson. The play uses medieval allegory for the personification of characters who represent abstract qualities. The three women are Love, Conscience, and Lucre. In the play, Fraud, Dissimulation, Usury, and Simony help Lady Lucre to gain control over Love and Conscience. The group brings forth a regime of greed and deception that penetrates Chandler's, Weaver's, Tanner's, and Baker's Houses. Because of Lady Lucre, Lady Love is forced to marry Dissimulation. Usury also murders Hospitality, which forces Lady Conscience to protest but in vain. Lady Conscience life is reduced to that of misery, as she has to sell brooms to survive. Lucre takes that chance to make Lady Conscience the keeper for her brothel. There is also a judge called Nemo who tries to restore order in the society by bestowing harsh punishments upon the three women. Gerontus, a Levantine Jewish moneylender, is a supporting character. He is portrayed as an honest businessperson, moral person, who is good-natured and generous. The portrayal of the Jewish moneylender is opposed to their standard image of ruthless Jewish usurer. Ironically, it happens to be the Christian Italian Merchant, Mercadorus, who borrows money from the Jewish moneylender and refuses but refuses to pay. Mercadorus even threatens to convert to Islam to avoid paying the debt. Other characters in the play include Peter Pleaseman, Sincerity, Tom Beggar, Diligence, and the primary character in this discussion, Simplicity. This paper is set to discuss my interpretation of simplicity, in regards to his role, in his view of society, his view of self, and relationship with other characters.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

I perceived Simplicity to be a weakling in the play. There is no doubt about the good nature of simplicity and the fact that he is among the good characters in the story. However, time and time again Simplicity shows his inability to match the strength of other characters such as Usury. In the early sections of the book, the reader comes across Simplicity complaining about the injustice that was done to his father and him.

"O, that vile Usury! He lent my father a little money, and for breaking one day

He took the fee-simple of his house and mill quite away:

And yet he borrowed not half a quarter so much as it cost;

But I think if he had but a shilling, it had been lost.

So he killed my father with sorrow and undid me quite" (Wilson Scene 2, 101-5).

In that section, one can see the injustice that was committed against Simplicity and his father. However, the character only complains without having any intention to avenge his father or respond to Usury's action. He takes the betrayal lying down. His lack of response to Usury's actions points to a lack of belief or courage to face off against those who wrong him. As good a character that he is, he is not one whom the readers such as myself could rely on to the right the wrongs in the society. He is among the group of people that would endlessly complain about the evils of the world but would never rise to change the situation. A strong character would have at least vowed to avenge his or her father. Another instance of Simplicity's weakness occurs when Fraud manages to escape from him before he could burn him to death (Wilson 2270-320). However, one can argue that Simplicity's state of being blindfolded contributed to his inability to contain Fraud. Still, the incident contributed to my interpretation of Simplicity as a weak character. Another source of my understanding of Simplicity as a weakling is how he allows himself to be whipped in the stage. Scene 16 direction says, "Lead him once or twise about, whipping him, and so exit," (Wilson 16. 43.1). In that scene, the beadle or beadles were required to guide Simplicity across the stage as they exert punishment by a whip.

Also, my interpretation of the character simplicity is that he has a minimalistic view of society. From the play, it becomes apparent that Simplicity's desire is different from that of other characters. He has no desire for wealth or any power. Simplicity desires to feed rather than to hoard (Hanson 5). I understood Simplicity to be a character who does not get excited by the prospect of wealth. He has a minimalist view of the world. Just as his name suggests, Simplicity's life is one that borders on few demands. According to Wilson, Simplicity was a poor citizen who was selling ballads when he meets, Will, Wit, and Wealth (Wilson 343-50). That goes to show that the character didn't live a life riddled with wealth or privilege. Simplicity was an ordinary citizen looking to keep things at a minimum. That phrase gave me the idea that Simplicity had didn't have any aspirations to be rich. His overall role in the play further backs my interpretation. For most of the play, Simplicity is mainly uninvolved. He doesn't do much to influence the events in the play but instead let the activities of other characters affect his life. There is also another evidence of his uninvolved lifestyle and minimalist worldview when he learns that Love would not marry with him in any case (Mackenzie 53). Simplicity obliges to the situation and becomes satisfied with the low servant role. I got to understand that for Simplicity, marriage to Lady Love was not a matter of life and death situation. It was not necessary, and he felt that he could do well without it. That scenario is also evidence that simplicity world view is confined to fulfilling the lower roles in the society such as being a servant or a follower. Another interpretation of simplicity's worldview is he is inclined to see the good in people regardless of their behavior or reputation. Fraud is one of the evil characters in the play. He takes part in deceit and betrayal to the point of even upsetting Simplicity. Despite his actions, Simplicity still attempts to advise Fraud. Any regular character would have understood that Fraud is a gone case and that a person cannot turn him around. But Simplicity's world view makes me see positivity in even the most negative scenarios hence causing him to approach Fraud with advice. As one would expect, his world view lands him in trouble as he narrowly escapes a sound thrashing as a consequence (Mackenzie 52). It is hard to determine. Simplicity's actions had he known what would happen to him if he made such a move. But either way, he was the only one who attempted at that moment, and that showed me that his world view is inclined towards positivity.

Another interpretation of Simplicity is that he has a poor view of self. Simplicity doesn't seem to reflect a sense of confidence that is present in other characters. Part of the reason may be due to being downplayed continuously by the other characters. There is the scene where he was whipped while being led across the stage or his inability to read (Thomson). Simplicity seems unsure of himself, a trait that impedes his ability to be resolved and take a stance on various issues. Simplicity's insecurities mainly reflect when he tries to cover his illiteracy. His inability to lead may be one of the factors that are contributing to his low self-esteem. As a person who is immaterialistic and prefers undemanding life, his decision to try and conceal his inability to read seem contradictory of his character. The character Simplicity seemed contented with his life until when the issue of his illiteracy came up. This action by him changed a lot of the perspectives that I had formulated about him. His low self-esteem can also be reflected in how he lets other people treat him. The other characters such as Usury and Fraud have face walked on Simplicity without him coming up with a response. My perception of Simplicity is that he doesn't have enough self-belief to take on other characters who always wrong him - his inability to act records as another failure in his life which further erodes his self-confidence.

My last interpretation of the character Simplicity is that he has a dysfunctional relationship with most of the characters in the play. One of the factors that have led me to develop such an interpretation of Simplicity is that he has frequently been on the receiving end of the other characters distasteful actions. A character with good interaction or relationships would not have them do acts such as killing his father. Another example of Simplicity dysfunctional relationship with the other characters is his conversation with Fraud, "what a swad is this? I had been better to have sent him to the back door" (Wilson 66-7). Fraud said those words after his encounter with Simplicity. Fraud has described Simplicity as a rustic clown. That shows that Fraud is not pleased by Simplicity after their first encounter. It also sets the stage for more conflicts between the two characters. Another evidence of Simplicity's dysfunctional relationship with the other characters lies in Simplicity's response to Hospitality (Hanson 5). Simplicity's response to Hospitality was one that lacks gratitude even after Hospitality had helped him. Simplicity ought to have given a better response to Hospitality. His ungrateful response indicates a bad relationship between him and Hospitality. As a character who needs more friends, he did not do much to help his case in the play. It was somehow difficult to comprehend how a character such as Simplicity could be at odds with people such as Hospitality. However, after evaluating his lack of desire for material stuff and low confidence level, it is highly likely that his isolation may stem from a lack of social skills. Throughout the play, Simplicity doesn't say much. One of the most extensive lines was his conversation with Fraud of which Fraud was not impressed by it. His interactions and relationships with Fraud and Hospitality led me to believe that Simplicity has a difficult time interacting with other characters in the story. My interpretation is that Simplicity is lacking when it comes to social skills.

Conclusion

The play The Three Ladies of London is one of the works from the English Renaissance that speaks volumes about society at the time. The author has made use of allegory and personification to represent several issues that were affecting London at the time. One to the characters that drew my interest was Simplicity. Simplicity seems to be a character that is having both internal and external conflicts. However, after reading the play by Robert Wilson, I was able to come up my interpretation of the character Simplicity based on his character, view of the world and self, and interaction of other characters. Based on how he reacts to mistreatment, I perceived Simplicity to be a weakling. On the other hand, he is disinterested on materialism, which makes him minimalist. However, he has low self-esteem, and that negatively affects his interaction with other characters hence causing him to have a dysfunctional relationship with some of them.

Works Cited

Hanson, Elizabeth. "Three Ladies of London." Academia, www.academia.edu/33262445/Three_Ladies_of_London. Accessed 11 April 2019.

Mackenzie, William Roy. The English Moralities from the Point of View of Allegory. Haskell House Publishers, 1914.

Thomson, Leslie. "As it hath been publiquely played': The Stage Directions and Original Staging of The Three Ladies of London." Three Ladies of London, threeladiesoflondon.mcmaster.ca/contexts/LeslieThomson.htm. Accessed 11 April 2019.

Wilson, Robert. The Three Ladies of London....