Shakespeare's Plautian Muse

The Comedy of Errors, one of Shakespeare's earliest works, was undeniably influenced heavily by the education to which he was exposed at the King's New School in Stratford-upon-Avon. This influence is especially notable in his earlier plays, and his extensive exposure to the classics is particularly evident in the works of what is considered the first of his four periods, from 1590-95. In this period, Shakespeare wrote some of his most noteworthy comedies and history plays, influenced heavily by Roman and Italian models. The Comedy of Errors is a prime example of the Roman influence upon his early artistic vision.

It is said that every writer must write what he knows. In the last decade of the 16^th century, Shakespeare was coming into his own as a playwright and poet. He would soon be heralded as the leading playwright of among his contemporaries, and eventually, the most venerated writer of the English language. However, he had to start somewhere, so he wrote what he knew. Having been run through Elizabethan England's standardized, grammar-school-based education system, Shakespeare would have been well-versed in the classics: based on his interest in theater, Shakespeare was no doubt drawn to Roman tragedy and comedy, and this interest manifests itself in the form of obvious Roman influence in much of his work.

The playwright Titus Maccius Plautus would have been a central figure among these Roman influences. His works were emblematic of his era; by studying and adapting Greek classics, but Romanizing them in order to appeal to his audience, Plautus was able to secure his place as the foremost Roman playwright of his time, and achieve sufficient notoriety to be studied for centuries later in Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare, like Plautus, studied and deftly adapted plays and their themes to his contemporary audience. His Comedy of Errors is indicative of both his mastery of the comedic form, and of his interest in the classics. It is widely recognized that Shakespeare drew directly on Plautus' The Menaechmi (or The Menaechmus Twins) in conceiving The Comedy of Errors. In the majority of cases, Shakespeare has identified the major themes of Plautus' work, and expanded them, either by expounding upon them further with dramatic dialogue/monologue (as he is famous for), or by emphasizing them in the unfolding action. The notion that Shakespeare expanded on Plautus' themes is borne out by the disparity in their lengths: though Shakespeare's shortest work, at approximately 1,770 lines, The Comedy of Errors affords considerably more textual space to its themes than The Menaechmi, which weighs in at just over 1,000 lines.

Despite their disproportionate lengths, Plautus' original work and Shakespeare's adaptation are strikingly similar in many regards. Both comedies pay a great deal of attention to family: its ideal form, what can go wrong with it and the impact of that dissonance on the individual. Both plays center upon a pair of twins, separated at a young age. In each case, one of these twins sets out on a tireless quest to find the other.

The circumstances and chronology of their separations vary, however. In Errors, the twins are younger, merely infants, having been born while on the fateful journey that led to their separation. Also, the nature of the separation is considerably more dramatic and hyperbolic in Shakespeare's adaptation: the violence of the tempest, the travelers at the mercy of the tossing waves, and the miraculous cleaving of the ship into two somehow-seaworthy halves (each carrying an Antipholus, a Dromio, and one parent) all constitute a departure from Plautus' somewhat more realistic approach and highlight Shakespeare's appreciation for the romantic. Also, Shakespeare's storm imagery, and the fact that he chose a meteorological aberration, an act of God to separate the family establishes the theme of fatalism that underrides the remainder of the play. Plautus' abduction of the seven-year-old Menaechmus, while an unfortunate development, lacks the high drama and potency of Shakespeare's Hollywood-esque introduction. Plautus' abduction does, however, serve as a likely inspiration for the ultimate separation of Aemilia and Antipholus and Dromio of Ephesus by "rude fishermen of Corinth" (V.i ll. 352). Also, the trio initially landed at Epidamium; the similarity of "Epidamium" with "Epidamnus" cannot be ignored, and is a likely another manifestation of Shakespeare's classical influences.

The involvement of Aemelia, the mother of the Syracusian and Ephesian Antipholi, her separations from her sons and the Dromios, as well as her subsequent decision to become an abbess constitute a marked difference between Menaechmi and Errors. Aemilia is a key player in making sense of the series of errors and mistaken identities that precede her appearance. In fact, the rising action of the play culminates at the abbey, when Aemilia emerges from within, along with the Syracusian Antipholus and Dromio.

The abbey (and by association, Aemilia herself) comprises a sanctuary, a kind of neutral space seemingly exempt from the laws of the land that have proven so detrimental to the Antipholi. Aemilia's protective role is suggestive of Shakespeare's vision of the importance of the mother figure. She takes on an iconic power, as she affords Antipholus a boundary between himself and the world, thereby preserving his identity during a time when it has come under doubt and abuse.

The idea of the mother bestowing one with one's identity seems to be an important one in Errors. As the mother of the twins, Aemilia literally gave them their identities in the first place. Additionally, she is also important in preserving their identities as well. By interceding on the Syracusian Antipholus' behalf and refusing to allow Adriana to follow him into the abbey, she sets in motion the events that lead all the play's key figures find themselves in the same place at the same time, and ultimately, its happy conclusion. She also ministers to her son's needs, promising to soothe him in his madness:

Be patient; for I will not let him stir

Till I have us'd the approved means I have,

With wholesome syrups, drugs, and holy prayers,

To make of him a formal man again (V.1 ll. 102-105).

None of the characters are yet aware that Aemilia is Antipholus' mother, so the maternal care with which she treats him is more fitting than she knows. Her promise to "make of him a formal man again" is especially telling when one considers that, as his mother, she has already made him a "formal man" once before, by literally forming him in her womb and delivering him into the world. Her maternal power again manifests itself as the ability to reconstitute her son, restoring form and definition (in the symbolic womb of the abbey) to the blurring boundaries of his identity. In this way, Shakespeare portrays women, particularly mothers, as playing a vitally important role in the lives of men.

The decision to include Aemelia as a speaking part in the play, and a character that plays a pivotal role in its resolution constitutes a progressive step on Shakespeare's part, and a departure from Plautus' original vision for the comedy. It is interesting to note, however, that one of the only two named female characters in Menaechmi is the mother of the twins, Teuximarcha, though she is only mentioned as another means of confirming the fraternal relationship of the Menaechmus twins. Even so, the mere fact that Plautus awards her with textual reference and a name, especially in a play that's a product of a society even more strictly patriarchal than Elizabethan England, and in which even Menaechmus' wife is nameless and treated with open hostility, speaks to a somewhat progressive step on Plautus' part.

Overall, however, Plautus includes female characters as a way to further the comic confusion and generally make life more difficult for the twins. Women receive no respect, unless they have something to offer (as in the case of Erotium, the courtesan, who offers food and sex). They are regarded as being worth the sum of their monetary resources, or less. For instance, at the close of the play, when Messenio announces to the audience the auction of Menaechmus' estate, he proclaims, "His wife, too, will be sold as well, if any purchaser shall come. I think that by the entire sale Menaechmus will hardly get fifty hundred thousand sesterces." Though Romans were not actually in the practice of selling their wives, the joke is indicative of the play's overall, anti-feministic tone. Additionally, when the wife of Menaechmus calls upon her father to come to her aid, he is reluctant to help her, choosing instead to side with (who he believes to be) Menaechmus: He asks her, "How often have I told you to be compliant to your husband? Don't be watching what he does, where he goes, or what matter he's about." Here, Menaechmus' father in law supports him, even in light of his adultery.

It is only when it becomes clear that Menaechmus has been stealing possessions, something of monetary, rather than emotional value from his wife that her father comes to her aid, and even then he doesn't take her word for it, choosing instead to ask his son in law to relate his side of the story. It is only then, when Menaechmus Sosicles seems to betray symptoms of madness (through his disavowal of his marriage) that his father in law questions him.

Madness, or more generally, the decision to disregard what the senses tell one to be true and rational, plays an important role in the plot developments in The Menaechmi, just as in The Comedy of Errors. Faced with accusations of madness, Menaechmus Sosicles finally adopts its guise, in an effort to frighten away his brother's wife and father in law, and is successful in temporarily staving them off. Also, in a scene precursing its Shakespearean counterpart (in which Antipholus of Syracuse dines with Adriana), Menaechmus Sosicles' decision to disregard reason and dine with Erotium earns him a meal, the doting affection of a beautiful woman, and riches at no cost to himself: "Surely all the Gods are favoring, amplifying, and prospering me," he says of his good fortune.

Indeed, it is only by ignoring reason and the institutions of society (such as the law), and thereby succumbing to madness that the characters in either play ultimately find vindication. By feigning madness (as in Menaechmus Sosicles' threatening and violent behavior), or by truly being driven to it (as in the Antipholus' and Dromios' armed rampages around Ephesus) they operate outside of the realm of society's laws and thereby escape from its abuse.

While the two plays bear many similarities to each other, there are many vitally important differences. One such is Shakespeare's decision to up the ante, so to speak, to include two sets of identical twins: Antipholus of Syracuse and Antipholus of Ephesus are paired with their lifelong servants, the Dromios of Syracuse and Ephesus, respectively. This decision accomplishes a dual purpose: the increase of ensuing confusion and hilarity twofold, certainly, but also a heightened attention to the role of servants in the play.

The relationship of Menaechmus Sosicles and his servant Messenio is undoubtedly the archetype upon which Shakespeare based those of the Antipholi and Dromios. Sosicles and Messenio have clearly experienced much together in their six year journey, and they are quite close, as evidenced by Messenio's ready obedience of his master and his eagerness to rush to his defense. However, their relationship seems to more closely resemble that of master and slave than that of the Antipholi and Dromios. For instance, Antipholus of Syracuse is much more vocal in expressing his affection for his servant than Menaechmus Sosicles. Near the outset of Errors, when the two first landed on Ephesus, Antipholus of Syracuse expresses the closeness of his relationship with his servant, calling him "a trusty villain, sir, that very oft, / when I am dull with care and melancholy, / lightens my humor with his merry jests" (I.ii. ll. 19-21). Thus, despite the similarity between the relationships of Menaechmus Sosicles and Messenio, and the Antipholuses and Dromios, the latter set of twins enjoy a more personal relationship, having spent the entirety of their lives together. For all the audience knows, Messenio and Menaechmus Sosicles met only six years prior to the play, at the outset of their journey. Also, Menaechmus of Epidamnus, while he has servants, makes specific reference to none in particular. Thus, it is evident that the duo of Menaechmus Sosicles and Messenio is one which Shakespeare extensively evolved to his own purposes, effectively improving the dynamic between master and servant.

Perhaps one explanation for the different dynamics between master and servant in the two works is attributable to the fact that Messenio is not a servant in the sense that the Dromios are (made bondsmen from birth, but not slaves as they existed in the Plautus' time). Messenio is, rather, a slave, and therefore a tier lower in society than either of the Dromios. Messenio also differs from the servants in Errors in that he is portrayed as intelligent, often more so than his master.

While the Dromios are not characterized as especially dimwitted, they are usually at just as complete a loss to explain the unfolding confusion as their masters. Messenio, on the other hand, follows the Plautian archetype of the "clever slave" character, an adaptation of the traditional Greek slave character. The clever slave not only provides comic relief, but also plays an essential role in driving the plot. The Dromios offer their fair share of comic relief, but are typically used as mediums for the erroneous transfer of information or plot items such as the necklace or money purse (and thereby adding to the confusion, rather than detracting from it), instead of key players in reaching a resolution.

Messenio, unlike the Dromios, is instrumental in the ultimate resolution of the play's identity crisis. In the final scene, in which the twins finally meet at random (note again, the prevalence of coincidence in Plautus, as opposed to Shakespeare's more fatalistic approach), Messenio takes charge, walking the Menaechmi twins through the (relatively simple) logic required to confirm their fraternity. Thus, despite Messenio's seeming similarity to Dromio of Syracuse, he is a different character altogether.

Despite the many differences between Plautus' The Menaechmi, and Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors, the influence of the Roman playwright on the English is palpable. Without Plautus' comedy, Shakespeare's would not exist, at least not in its present form. It was Shakespeare's skill in adapting the classical influences to which he was exposed into his contemporary scene that enabled him to be so wildly successful, and for that, he owes a debt of gratitude to his Roman predecessor.