THE COMEDY OF ERRORS. LITERARY HISTORY. INTRODUCTION. No edition of this play has come down to us previous to that of the First Folio, 1623. There can be no doubt that this is one of Shakespeare's earliest works. It was founded directly or indirectly on the Menæchmi of Plautus, of which an English translation by “W. W.” (William Warner) was published in 1595; but, like many works of that period, it had been, for some time previously, privately circulated in manuscript. There is little in common, except the bare outline of the plot, between Shakespeare's play and the Menæchmi of Plautus; while the fact that, in the Folio of 1623, the two Antipholi are called in act i. Antipholis Erotes, and, in act ii. Antipholis Sereptus respectively, points to a connection with some other original source than W. W.'s translation; for, in the latter, the two brothers are called Menechmus the Citizen, and Menechmus the Travailer respectively. In Plautus they are termed Menæchmus and Menæchmus Sosicles. The two titles, given to the brothers in F. 1, only occur in the first two acts, and are soon exchanged for those which are preserved in all modern editions, Antipholus of Syracuse (Erotes, Errotis), and Antipholus of Ephesus (Sereptus). It has been supposed that the two titles mentioned above are corruptions of Erraticus and Surreptus; but one cannot fail to notice that the name of "the Courtezan," in Plautus, is Erotion; and whoever was the author of the earlier adaptations of Plautus' comedy, may have taken the name Erotes or Errotis from this character. That there was an earlier dramatic version of the Menæchmi is probable from the fact, discovered by Malone, that an old play, called 1 In act ii. called Errotis. 2 Called in the translation by W. W. Erotium. 66 The Historie of Error, was acted at Hampton Court on New Year's day, 1566-7, by "the children of Powles" (i.e. Paul's). It is possible that this is the same play described in the Accounts of the Revels of Queen Elizabeth's Court (from which the above entry is taken), as A Historie of Ferrar, shewed before her Matie at Wyndesor, on Twelf daie at night, enacted by the Lord Chamberleyne's servaunts." The Comedy of Errors is mentioned by Meres in Palladis Tamia (1598); and is alluded to by John Manningham in his diary, under the date 2nd February, 1601, when he compares Twelfth Night to the "commedy of errores or Menechmi, in Plautus;" also by Dekker in his Satiro-Mastix, though this latter passage, as well as that in the same author's, "A Knight's Coniuring done in earnest: discouered in iest" (1607), may refer only to the proverbial expression "a comedy of errors." We find in Robert Anton's Philosopher's Satyrs (1616) the following lines: What comedies of errors swell the stage With your most publike vices, when the age where the expression can scarcely be supposed to refer to this play. The only points of resemblance-other than those in the main plot-between Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors and W. W.'s translation of the Menæchmi are, first, the description given by Antipholus of Syracuse, at the end of the first act, of the inhabitants of Ephesus, which resembles that given by Messenio of the inhabitants of Epidamnum (act ii. sc. 1, p. 11);3 and, secondly, the use of the word stale, by the wife of Menechmus the Citizen (act v. p. 30) and Adriana (act ii. 1. 101) respectively, and The edition of W. W.'s Menechmi referred to is that in Hazlitt's Shakespeare's Library, part ii. vol. i. also of the word stuff for baggage which is used both by Messenio (act v. p. 37), and by Antipholus of Syracuse (act iv. sc. 4, l. 153). It would seem probable, then, that Shakespeare had, at any rate, seen W. W.'s translation; and that, in the composition of his play, he used that and some other English version of the Menæchmi. Of internal evidence as to the date when written, The Comedy of Errors does not afford much. The allusion to Spain sending "whole armadoes of carracks" would seem to show that it was written while the memory of the Spanish Armada was fresh in men's minds. In act iii. 2. 126, "armed and reverted, making war against her heir," it has been supposed that reference is made to the civil war in France, between Henry III. and Henry of Navarre. The latter became king in August, 1589, upon the assassination of Henry III. by Jacques Clément; but the war with the League was not concluded till 1593. The reference to Henry of Navarre as "the heir" could not therefore be to a date later than August, 1589. Perhaps we cannot venture to fix the exact date of the play, but we may safely conclude that it was completed between 1589 and 1592. It does not bear the same traces of having been revised as Love's Labour's Lost; although the first portion of the second scene in act iii. (see note 76) may be thought to bear the traces of additional care and finish. The name of the play was probably taken by Shakespeare from the proverbial expression "a comedy of errors." We know he was fond of taking his titles from proverbs, and the last two lines of the argument in W. W.'s translation of the Menæchmi, Father, wife, neighbours, each mistaking either, Much pleasant error, ere they meete togither, may have guided him to this source for a popular title. STAGE HISTORY. The first record of the performance of this play is to be found in the Gesta Grayorum of 1594 (published in quarto, 1688). "After such sport, a Comedy of Errors (like to Plautus his Menechmus) was played by the players; so that night was begun and continued to the end, in nothing but confusion and errors; whereupon it was ever afterwards called the Night of Errors." The name given of the play, and the fact that it was represented, not by amateurs, but by the "players," leave little doubt that it was Shakespeare's comedy which was referred to in this entry. Neither Henslowe's nor Pepys' Diary contains any notice of this play. The first mention in Genest is on November 11, 1741, at Drury Lane—no record of the cast on that occasion remains, but Macklin is said to have acted Dromio of Syracuse when it was acted four times successively, and again on December 10th. This is the only occasion on which the play was presented at Drury Lane until June 1st, 1824, when Reynolds's operatic version was given. But the play called See if you Like it, or It 's All a Mistake, described as a "comedy in two acts, taken from Plautus and Shakespeare," was represented at Covent Garden on October 9th, 1734. This, most probably, was a version of The Comedy of Errors. Shakespeare's play was represented for Hull's benefit on April 24th, 1762, at Covent Garden; Shuter and Miss Stephens being in the cast. It was announced in the bills as "The Twins, or Comedy of Errors, with a new Prologue by Smith." On January 22d, 1779, The Comedy of Errors "with alterations" made by Hull, was again represented at Covent Garden, and acted seven times; "Gentleman" Lewis playing Antipholus of Syracuse. It seems next to have been performed on June 2nd, 1798, for the benefit of Rees, who played Dromio of Ephesus, "in imitation of the voice and manner of Munden," the representative of Dromio of Syracuse. It was revived again, in 1808, when Charles Kemble played Antipholus of Ephesus; and Munden reappeared in his former character, which appears to have been a favourite with him, as the play was again performed, probably at his suggestion, on April 17th, 1811. On December 11th, 1819, an abominably mangled and deformed version, with the most ridiculously inappropriate songs introduced, was represented at Covent Garden; the cast including Farren, Liston, Miss Stephens, and Miss M. Tree: it absolutely ran twenty-seven nights. For this "literary murder," as Genest calls it, Reynolds was responsible. Miss Stephens seems to have been somewhat enamoured of the part of Adriana; for she revived this version, for her benefit, on June 1st, 1824, at Drury Lane. Since that time the play has often been represented, and would, probably, have been represented oftener, but for the difficulty of finding two actors sufficiently resembling one another, or able to make themselves up like one another, for the parts of the two Dromios and the two Antipholi respectively; but, in most of the later revivals of this play, all the serious interest has been sacrificed, and the two Dromios forced into unseemly prominence. It is a pleasure, however, to refer to the last revival in 1883 at the Strand Theatre, under the management of Mr. J. S. Clarke, when due attention was paid to many of the details of the piece, hitherto neglected on the stage; and the costumes, especially, were carefully executed from designs by the Hon. Lewis Wingfield. This revival met with a most gratifying success. CRITICAL REMARKS. The early work of most authors belongs to one of three classes, the imitative, the satirical, or the egotistical. The Comedy of Errors belongs to the imitative; but it is decidedly superior to that particular play from which it is adapted, and, indeed, to most of that class of comedy to which it belongs. It bears to Shakespeare's other works very much the same relation as Les Fourberies de Scapin bears to Molière's other plays. Some of the comedies of Terence and Plautus may compare, for variety of incident and ingenuity of situation, with The Comedy of Errors; but the Menæchmi, from which Shakespeare undoubtedly took part of his play, is a very much inferior work to the comedy before us. With the exception of the long speeches of Ægeon, which afford a necessary explanation of events that occurred previously to those in the comedy itself, it is difficult to see how even the ingenuity of a modern French dramatic author could have extracted more telling situations out of the plot. In fact, as far as construc tion goes, The Comedy of Errors is one of Shakespeare's best plays. With regard to Egeon's long speeches, there is nothing in them contrary to the canons of dramatic construction existing in Shakespeare's time. It is to be presumed that actors, in his day, spoke blank verse better than they do now; and that the public were not so impatient of long speeches as they are now. How much Shakespeare owed to the old play, if there was one, founded on the same subject, we do not know; no copy of The Historie of Error, alluded to above, has yet been discovered; but, as far as the old translation of the Menæchmi goes, he seems to have owed very little of the merit of his play to that source. We shall probably not be far wrong in crediting Shakespeare with most of the many alterations for the better, and of the valuable additions, which separate The Comedy of Errors by such a wide distance from W. W.'s old translation: the transference of the chief female interest from the Courtezan to the wife, and the sympathetic character given to the latter, as well as the creation of her charming sister, Luciana, are all evidences of Shakespeare's genius, which excelled that of the very noblest of his contemporaries, in nothing more strikingly than in the creation of lovable female characters. Although Luciana is but a slight sketch, she is infinitely superior, in moral beauty, to any of the female characters in Love's Labour's Lost. The remarkable ingenuity with which the intrigue is carried on, and the easy way in which the various excellent situations spring from it, show what careful attention Shakespeare had already bestowed upon the art of dramatic construction, and how much he had profited by his experience gained as an actor. It is not improbable that we obtain in this play some glimpse of Shakespeare's domestic life. The practical sermon preached by Luciana to Antipholus of Syracuse-under the belief that he was her sister's husband,-and the vivid description by the Abbess of a nagging jealous wife (act v. sc. 1, lines 68-86) may both have been based on Shakespeare's actual experience; in the first case of his own faults, in the second, of those of his wife. It is very likely that, after he made Anne Hath away his wife, he was not quite as attentive and faithful to her as he might have been; and, on the other hand, that she, by her jealousy and constant fault-finding, drove him to seek his fortune in London without the incubus of her company.1 1 When this was written I had not read Mr. Furnivall's admirable Introduction to the Leopold Shakspere: for his remarks on this point, which are to the same effect as my own, see p. xiii of that Introduction. The subject of Shakespeare's relations with his wife will be treated of more at length hereafter. 78 Anyone who may take the trouble to read carefully the more serious portions of this play will meet with his reward. He will find that the farcical nature of the plot has not debarred Shakespeare from displaying in this work some of his highest qualities. Many may think the promise is greater than the performance; but none can honestly deny the evidence of that genius, which at a later period of his career gave to the world such comedies as The Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night, and As You Like It. Enter DUKE, EGEON, Gaoler, Officers, and other Attendants. Ege. Proceed, Solinus, to procure my fall, And by the doom of death end woes and all. Duke. Merchant of Syracusa, plead no more; I am not partial to infringe our laws: [The enmity and discord, which of late Sprung from the rancorous outrage of your duke To merchants, our well-dealing countrymen,Who, wanting gilders1 to redeem their lives, Have seal'd his rigorous statutes with their bloods, Nay, more, if any born at Ephesus 20 Ege. Yet this my comfort: when your words are done, My woes end likewise with the evening sun. Duke. Well, Syracusian, say in brief the cause Why thou departed'st from thy native home, 30 And for what cause thou cam'st to Ephesus. Ege. A heavier task could not have been impos'd Than I to speak my griefs unspeakable: Yet, that the world may witness that my end Was wrought by nature, not by vile offence, I'll utter what my sorrow gives me leave. |