INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The Shakespeare Study Programs appeared originally in Poet Lore. They have met with marked favor, and have been reprinted as the back numbers went out of print. The steady demand for these programs prompts the present issue in book-form. Several new programs have been added, and those reprinted have been revised.

The references in this volume are to the "First Folio Edition" of Shakespeare, edited by Charlotte Porter.

"Criticism is the endeavour to find, to know, to love, to recommend not only the best, but all the good that has been known and thought and written in the world. … It shows how to grasp and how to enjoy;… it helps the ear to listen when the horns of England blow."

—GEORGE SAINTSBURY, "History of Criticism."

THE COMEDIE OF ERRORS

In the Summer of 1594 a translation of a Latin Farce by the Roman Dramatist, Plautus, was made ready for publication in London. It may even have been published then, for, although the title page date is 1595, then, as often now, the issue was made in advance of date. Circulation in MS., moreover, now unusual, was then common.

This translation was registered, at any rate, for publication, June 16, 1594, as "A Booke entitled Menæchmi, being a pleasant and fine conceited comedy taken out of the most wittie poet Plautus, chosen purposely from out the rest as being the least harmful and most delightful."

Six months later, Shakespeare had made an English Farce out of this Latin one. He invented several new characters, arranged many new situations, and put a good deal more life-likeness in the relations of the characters, while yet it may be seen that, his new play, "The Comedie of Errors," was directly drawn from the old one by Plautus.

The first record we have of Shakespeare as an actor before Queen Elizabeth relates to the performance in Christmas week of this same year of "twoe severall comedies." This record in the Accounts of the Treasurer who paid out the money for the Plays acted before the Queen, runs as follows:

"To William Kempe, William Shakespeare, and Richard Burbage, servaunts to the Lord Chamberleyn upon the Councelles warrant dated at Whitehall xv. die. Marcij 1594 [1595], for twoe severall comedies or enterludes, shewed by them before her Majestie in Christmas tyme laste paste, viz., upon St. Stephen daye, [Dec. 26,] and Innocente's day, [Dec. 28,] xiii^{li} vi^{s} viij^{d} and by way of her Majesties rewarde vi^{li} xiij^{s} iv^{d} in all xx^{li}."

It is fair to infer that the "Comedie of Errors" was one of these two comedies, for on the evening of the 28th of December, 1594, there arose a sudden necessity to hire an entertainment to take the place at Gray's Inn, one of the great Law Schools of London, of a Play by the students which had gone to pieces. In lieu of this amateur play, for which a great stage had been built in their Hall, it is recorded that the great throng assembled were forced, first, to "content themselves with ordinary dancing and revelling, and when that was over, with a Comedy of Errors like to Plautus his Menoechmus, which was played by the players." That these "players" were public players is shown in the Gray's Inn account of these Christmas festivities by another reference to this "company of base and common fellows" who were "foisted" in "to make up our disorders with a play of Errors and Confusions."

Since this substitution of the "players" Play for the Play by the young gentlemen students was unexpected, we can be sure it was not made for this occasion. It seems obvious that whatever comedy was specially designed by Shakespeare and his fellow actors for their Christmas performances before the Queen at Greenwich, would be apt to be chosen for a sudden repetition at Gray's Inn the same evening. And of course for such an institution of scholarly gentlemen as Gray's Inn, a farce based on Plautus would be likely to be thought appropriate.

So Mrs. Charlotte Stopes argues, who brought into association these facts and dates. She brings out also, another curious incident or two concerning what we may take to be the earliest performances of "The Comedie of Errors." One is that the mother of the Earl of Southampton,—the young nobleman who was Shakespeare's patron and to whom the Poet dedicated "Venus and Adonis" and "Lucrece,"—was then acting officially for her late husband. Thus it fell to her care to make up his accounts as Treasurer of the Chamber, and she it was who wrote this particular notice of the acting of Shakespeare before Queen Elizabeth. Others acting as Treasurer did not find it worth their while to include the Actors' names in their accounts. This notice of hers is the first and last to mention names in this way. Her son, being a Gray's Inn man, would have been in a position to suggest the substitution of Shakespeare's Play and as a friend of Shakespeare's would desire to do so.

The other incident of biographical interest is that the Gray's Inn students were much mortified by the uproar which caused the failure of the program of their chief of Revels called "The Prince of Purpoole," and made it necessary for them to call in common players. The result of their desire "to recover their lost honor with some graver conceipt" was to give Jan. 3d, a learned Dialogue called "Divers Plots and Devices." Bacon aided largely in this stately affair. In its course six Councillors one after the other deliver speeches on enrollment of Knights and Chivalry, the glory of War, the study of Philosophy, etc. The scorn felt for Shakespeare's "Comedie" and the contrast with this rival specimen of academic dramatics is significant.

Out of the comparatively simple plot of Plautus, Shakespeare developed an amusing complexity of situations. These appear upon studying the progress of the story, Act by Act, as follows:

ACT I

THE ARRIVAL OF CERTAIN STRANGERS IN EPHESUS

What has the arrest of the "Marchant" Egean to do with the rest of the Story? How soon does any connection appear?

The reference in scene ii, to the occurrence taking place in scene i, suggests a somewhat odd chance coincidence in the arrival from Syracuse on the same day of both of these strangers. By this casual reference the seemingly unrelated scenes are so innocently linked together that it rather blinds than opens the eyes of the audience to the deeper links of connection. It also acts at once as a warning to Antipholus, and explains why he also is not arrested under the same law from which Egean suffered.

The merchant who gives Antipholus this warning does not appear to be at all an intimate friend. Yet he seems to have met the stranger upon his arrival. Is this accounted for? What office does the scene show that he bears toward him? How recent an institution is the Bank and Letter of Credit for travellers? Was the lack of such facilities long filled in the way here exemplified?

Do these two men keep the appointment they made to meet at five o'clock? Why is it made? Does it serve any need of the Play?

The reference to Ephesus as a town given over to sorcery and witchcraft assists in giving the impression that the time of the Play falls within the Christian era, when the ancient customs of the Pagan inhabitants gave the City a bad repute of this particular kind. Was it derived from Plautus? Note whether sorcery and witchcraft are included in his account of the discreditableness of Ephesus. What conclusions may be gathered as to Shakespeare's account of it from a comparison with the corresponding passage in Plautus (This extract is given in Note on I, ii, 102-107 in the "First Folio" Edition of Shakespeare's Play). Show how this statement is useful in throwing light upon the character of Antipholus as well as on events.

The first complication in scene ii arises from mistaking Dromio of Ephesus for Dromio of Syracuse; but notice that this error is accounted for by the second source of the errors of the play—belief in witchcraft.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Is the audience as much in the dark over the first mystification as Antipholus is? Should it be? Is the play the better or worse for not being clear? If both Dromios are made to look exactly alike how can the audience know?

ACT II

ANTIPHOLUS THE STRANGER DINES AT HOME

Notice how the last scene of the preceding Act is cleared up by the first scene of the present Act.

Are the errors of Act II the results of those of Act I? The errors of Act I affect but a very few characters, but in Act II how many? A new source of complication is brought forward in this Act, also. Show what it is, and how it both adds to the interest of the Play as a story and to the confusion begun by the mistaken identity and the witchcraft elements of the Plot.

The fooling dialogue of Scene ii gives the action pause. Is it therefore useless, or a dramatic mistake? The ease with which the right master and man fall into this talk after the earlier cross-purposes with the wrong man, seems to betray the fact that they do belong together. They are so readily familiar that the cross-purposes making up the plot seem to be no longer troublesome either to themselves or the audience. The interval of reassurance makes the return of strangeness more unaccountable. Antipholus is also now reassured about his gold, and the earlier cross-purpose seems only a jest.

Why does the mention of Dromio's name (II, ii, 156) cause both master and man to exclaim? Why should it not have led them to guess the truth?

Would this scene with Adriana and Luciana have been equally mystifying and skilful if the right master and man had not been together?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

In the debate between the sisters upon patience in marriage is Adriana or Luciana the more justifiable? Has their argument anything to do with the plot? Is character interest or plot interest of the first importance, and how are they apportioned in this play?

Is Adriana's argument that she is bound to share morally herself in the infidelity of her husband sophistical? Or has it a core of sound ethical value?

ACT III

ANTIPHOLUS THE NATIVE INVITES FRIENDS TO DINE WITH HIM

How far are the errors of Act III new? From which element of the plot, mistaken identity, or the domestic difficulties of the native-born Antipholus do they arise?

What effects are gained by bringing together in this Act the right pairs of master and man?

The closed door between the two groups, one within the house, the other without, is the only barrier to such an exhibition of the double resemblances as would clear up all difficulties immediately. Is the humor of the situation the better for this slightness of the barrier, or is it rendered altogether too unlikely by it? Notice also the narrow escapes from meeting and being seen together which masters and men are constantly making and the skill of the stage movements so that, for example, while one pair of twins is in the house, the other pair is absolutely unable to come there, and make clear the main cause of the errors.

What relation to the subordinate cause of the errors, i.e., the domestic difficulties of Antipholus the Native—has the new source of difficulty and bepuzzlement—the gold chain? Bring out the relation of the dialogue (III, i, 23-35), between Antipholus and the friends he invites, to the welcome they find and discuss later. The irony of his confidence in welcome, at least, which is precisely what is lacking, is peculiarly true to such disappointments in life. For the fun and naturalness gained by it, therefore, the carefully planned arrangement of the dialogue to lead up to it, does not seem to be artificial. What would have happened to the plot if the plan proposed to force the door with a crow-bar had been carried out? Since the dramatist was so daring as to cause it to be suggested, it was incumbent upon him at once to devise something to prevent it from being done. The way in which he has accomplished this through Balthazar, puts both Antipholus and his guest in an estimable light. Show its effect upon the present

scene and upon both the character-interest and the scenes to come in which the Courtisan figures. What expense does Antipholus refer to (III, i, 169)?

Is Luciana's advice so good that it accounts for the attraction she has for Antipholus the Stranger? Or do you think she is attractive in spite of it?

Is the dialogue in this Act between the right master and man as good as that in Act II? Has it other excuse for being besides punning and fooling? Examine its value as compared with the other in introducing a new and amusing error, and educing puns that are suggested by this, and therefore not independent of the plot.

This Act closes with two new incidents of use in the sequel: What are they?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Why has Shakespeare chosen to make Antipholus the Stranger abhor Adriana, and be attracted to her sister instead? What is the result for the plot? Is it a mistake that the promised match between Luciana and the Stranger is not consummated at the close of the play? Is the reference then made to it the best imaginable? How, if so, is it reconcilable with the more rapid matches at the close of other plays, e.g. Oliver and Celia in "As You Like It?"

ACT IV

COMPLICATIONS GROW

The errors of the early Acts begin simply and proceed by begetting other errors and beginning, also, with but one of the twin masters and one of the twin men-servants proceed by involving every one in each of the two Antipholus groups. In this Act others outside the main groups are continually being interwoven in the net of complications. In which Act did these larger social complications arise, and how are they carried on in the present Act. Show how by means of these larger circles of complication, e.g., the arrests, the visits of the Courtisan to Adriana in the attempt to get back her ring, the conjurring scenes, etc., the confusion becomes extreme. And then show, also, how by the very means of these larger circles of complication the clearing up process is brought forward. To whom is the suggestion due that Antipholus the Native has gone mad? What fitness is there in that, especially in its being broached by a minor character? Trace the relation of the Goldsmith, his delays and his debts to the Plot. How does it come about effectively that in this Act the wrong master and

man are together, the opposite of what has prevailed, earlier? Show how in the eagerness of Adriana to send the gold and the grief over what she jealously suspects to be the cause of it, a tragic situation is reached. In which scene is the most complex confusion reached.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Is the confusion of identity, the domestic discord or the bewitchment and supposed lunacy the most powerful factor in the plot of error. Which is the most comical and which the most tragic moment in this Act?

ACT V

SOLUTIONS MAKE ALL THE STRANGERS FEEL AT HOME

The climax of bewilderment being reached in the evidence that the same man is both out of the Priory and in it, solutions follow. Trace the steps by which this is accomplished.

Why is the attack upon Antipholus the Stranger assigned to the Merchant who is the Goldsmith's creditor instead of to the Goldsmith? Is it by chance or is there some reason for it? Why did not Antipholus explain that he had the chain through no option of his own? By means of the Merchant drawing his sword and detaining him, the scene with Adriana at the close of the preceding Act when his flight prevented her from having him bound as a mad man is carried on again, and refuge in the Priory forced upon him.

Why does the Abbess blame Adriana first because she did not find fault with her husband and then because she did? Is her sudden harsh turn against her explicable not as personal inconsistency or womanly prejudice, but as due to a gleam of insight? What clew to the case does Adriana's meekness afford? Or else of the relationship of the Abbess to the twins? Why does she so peremptorily keep the man from his wife? Is not this conduct devised to mystify the audience rather than the characters?

Notice that the Abbess is more of a surprise in her relation to the plot than the condemned Egean is. The Abbess episode balances at the close of the Play the Egean episode at the opening of the story. Trace the links of connection with the main action of each and their relation to each other, showing how they bind into an absolute unity a peculiarly symmetrical plot. Why do the two Dromios end the Play instead of the main characters?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Is this Play the better or worse farce for the serious domestic situation and the pathos of the long separation of the shipwrecked family?

VI

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

In what sense can there be said to be a development of character in "The Comedie of Errors?" If no progress can be traced in the standpoint of any one character of the Play, save possibly in that of Adriana, is there yet not to be seen a gradual bringing forward of the traits inwardly differentiating the two pairs of twins, and stamping the personality of Adriana and Luciana and even in a slighter degree of the Goldsmith, the Creditor Merchant, Egean, and the Abbess?

Show what you deem this to be in each character, and by what means the result in each is effected.

Is Antipholus the Stranger of a gentler and more pious spirit than Antipholus the Native? What signs of this impression can you cite? Was Antipholus the Native popular in Ephesus? What calling had he followed? Why do we learn more of Antipholus the Stranger at once than of his brother? In what respects does this suit the plot and the circumstances?

Which Dromio do you think the wittier? Is one more a house servant and less of a personal attendant and professional fool than the other? Why, do you think, is Antipholus the Stranger made to beat his man so often? Is his quick temper, or a sort of horse-play fun at the bottom of it? Or is the ancient custom as to body servants exemplified?

Which Antipholus has been the more independently reared and is this signified in their characters? It has been supposed that Antipholus the Native married at the Duke's bidding for money and not for love. What reason does the Play give for this supposition? Is Adriana's jealousy a reason, or is he fonder of her than she realizes? Which of the Sisters do you like best, and why?

Why would Antipholus the Native be better mated with one than the other? In what respects of character would Luciana be apt to attract Antipholus the Stranger more than Adriana would? Are there signs to show that Adriana and her husband are the more stalwart pair? Show how admirably the riper characters of the father and mother set off the qualities and relationships of the younger group.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

The resemblances of the twins externally are counter-balanced by diversities that are internal, so that the possibilities of confusion may be said to be only skin deep. Does this add to the improbableness of the plot sufficiently to make it a questionable quality of the plot that the characters are so much differentiated, or does it serve rather to enrich the Play and make it far more interesting? Are there signs of character in Adriana and her husband going to show that they are destined to be happier in their relation to each other than ever before?

VII

SHAKESPEARE'S DEPARTURES FROM PLAUTUS

The omissions and changes Shakespeare made from Plautus's plot are almost as important in lending his Play a new effect as the additions and entirely original inventions.