From Farce to Art: Sources and Evolution of the Shakespearian Twin Trope

From Farce to Art: Sources and Evolution of the Shakespearian Twin Trope Patrick Cleland Winner of the 2015 Undergraduate Writers’ Conference, Research Category

Judge’s Comments: Cleland sets out to examine the comedic use of a common trope: twins separated at birth who somehow find one another later in life. But, what starts out as a simple way to make the audience laugh eventually develops into a way of examining the bigger questions in life: what is fate, what does morality encompass, are we really capable of exercising free will…

This development comes about through a sort of literary repetition. One author has his characters exchange a few words; a second author repeats that same conversation while deepening the meaning that drives the scene. As this repetition continues, (and Cleland’s explanations continue), we come to realize that this pattern allows authors to concentrate on developing complexity and examining more than it initially seems they are. But, Cleland’s article also brings high-brow authors like Shakespeare down to size as he points out that even the greats built on the work of those who came before them. There is no “literary vacuum” in which great authors work, and amazing story-telling comes from borrowing from, expanding on, and ultimately building a literary canon through a sort of creative collaboration. Overall, Cleland’s argument is careful and meticulous. He walks the reader through wellarticulated examples, all the while drawing intricate parallels to support the claims he makes.

2 Though his work remains extraordinarily singular in its influence and longevity, William Shakespeare did not exist in a literary vacuum. His plays often drew from common tropes established before him by writers such as Plutarch, Cinthio, Ovid, Chaucer and Plautus. This pastiche-like process of borrowing from and expanding upon existing storylines is perhaps most obvious in Shakespeare’s treatment of twin identity in his early comedy, The Comedy of Errors, and one of his last, Twelfth Night.

In each, Shakespeare borrows heavily from Menaechmi, Plautus’ fabula palliata, which is also centered on twins separated at birth. The abundance of shared plot points attests to the communal and collaborative nature of authorship at that time. Still, the comedic and narrative function of the twins varies significantly from one to the next; each adaptation is an attempt at further expansion of these roles. Across the various iterations found from Menaechmi to The Comedy of Errors to Twelfth Night, twins go from absurd caricatures drawn for cheap laughs to realistic and complicated portraits of humanity. Together, the three texts illuminate the extent to which Shakespeare challenges the literary doxa that governs twindom—in addition to himself as a writer —by using it as a tool to explore deeper themes of gender, identity, and fate.

Of more interest to this endeavor than similarities between the texts are the differences, for it is from the additions, omissions and revisions to the original that one gets a sense of the dynamics of a writer and his surroundings. Having said that, in order to pinpoint and analyze these disparities, one must first rule out all that is in common. In lieu of a long and painful summary of each individual take on the twin trope, a brief, general synopsis that could apply to any of the three plays must suffice.

It is as follows:

3 Cleland Before the action of the play starts, we are told that the twins were separated from their father by some tragic circumstance (Menaechmus is lost in a crowd; Dromio, Antipholus, Sebastian and Viola are shipwrecked). Believing his counterpart to be alive, a male twin goes searching for the other and happens to land in the same town, unbeknownst to the other. The twin arrives in town with his companion (Messenio with Menaechmus; Dromio with Antipholus; Antonio with Sebastian). Upon arrival, the pairs quickly separate, either sending their attendant with a bag of gold to pay for lodging (Antipholus and Menaechma), or receiving a bag of gold with instructions to use it for lodging (Sebastian from Antonio). The money is later returned to the wrong twin. As the searching twins wander through town, they are mistaken by various townspeople for the other twin. Under these false impressions, they are seduced (Antipholus by Adriana; Dromio by Nell; Sebastian by Olivia). Because they fail to realize that they have found the twin for whom they are searching (Menaechmus of Epidamnus; Antipholus of Ephesus; Dromio of Ephesus; Violia/Cesario), the searching twins are confused by the strange women who claim to know them. However, they decide to play along and indulge without question. Characters who placed an item in one twin’s temporary care demand of the other twin the item’s return or reimbursement (Erotium’s cloak and mantle; Angelo’s chain; Antonio’s purse). Rising tensions result in accusations of insanity and physical violence (Messenio’s struggle with the porters; the Ephesians being bound by Pinch’s men and the Syracusans swordwielding entrance; Sebastian’s scuffle with Sir Toby and Sir Andrew). Just before any serious harm is done, the twins are finally gathered in the same place and the confusion is resolved.

4 Having established where the three plots overlap, we are left with only the discrepancies caused by Shakespeare’ alterations and inversions. In The Comedy of Errors, Shakespeare’s twins display many of the same absurdly oblivious qualities that maintain dramatic irony in Menaechmi. However, their confusion is somewhat justified, given the logistical complications stemming from the inclusion of two sets of twins. In addition to this multiplication of dual identities, Shakespeare’s first adaptation of the twin trope expands its sense of realism and morality.

In discussing how the extra set of twins accomplishes this, it is worthwhile to mention Amphitryon, another work written by Plautus. From this text, Shakespeare is said to have gleaned one of his most significant additions to the Menaechmi story: a parallel set of slave twins. Instead of genetic twins, though, Amphitryon features Jupiter and Mercury, who take on the appearance of humans, creating doppelgängers and leading to mistaken identities. Amphitryon and his slave Sosia are the victims of this confusing mess, and thus foil characters to Antipholus and his slave Dromio. The confusion begins when Mercury is charged with keeping Sosia out of his master’s bedroom, where his father Jupiter has taken the form of Amphitryon and begun making love to his wife. Mercury does this by taking on Sosia’s form and claiming to be the real Sosia, thus creating two parallel sets of slave and master doubles, just like Antipholus and Dromio.

With this in mind, the absurd, slapstick nature of Dromio’s confrontations in The Comedy of Errors can be seen as a reflection of Sosia’s confrontations. When Sosia attempts to enter his master’s castle, Mercury stops him, demanding he state his intentions, calling him a liar and beating him:

5 Cleland SOS. O have mercy!

MERC. Do you dare say that you are Sosia, eh?

I am Sosia. [beats him again] SOS. Murder! Murder!

(Bullough 42) The Comedy of Errors mirrors this amusing scene with its own example of a slave’s confusion as to the reason for his beating. After Antipholus of Syracuse charges Dromio of Syracuse with the delivery of a bag of gold, the other Dromio appears and is bewildered by Antipholus’ angry, accusatory inquiries as to its whereabouts: ANT. OF SYRACUSE. What, wilt though flout me thus unto my face, Being forbid? There, take you that, sir knave!

[He beats Dromio] DROMIO OF EPHESUS. What mean you sir? For God’s sake, hold your hands!

(I.ii.91-94) In both situations, the slave double is the undeserving victim of physical violence and thus, the source of comedy. The audience is invited to laugh at his misfortune rather than empathize with his suffering. It is clear to see that in his early treatment of twin identities, Shakespeare drew from past traditions in which having a double is a source of vulnerability. The audience knows that it is not witchcraft or sorcery that tests their sanity, but the presence of their doubles. Humor is reached through incongruity, namely between the twins’ sense perception and rational logic.

6 So, why do we laugh at the slaves’ suffering instead of being saddened? Perhaps this can be partially attributed to their persistently blithe, almost mocking tone. They defy the typical slave/master relationship by questioning and making light of their masters’ threats. As Antipholus of Syracuse interrogates Dromio of Ephesus about his missing bag of a thousand marks, Dromio wittily replies: I have some marks of yours upon my pate, Some of my mistress' marks upon my shoulders, But not a thousand marks between you both.

If I should pay your worship those again, Perchance you will not bear them patiently.

(I.ii.82-86) In Amphitryo, after Mercury beats Sosia, Sosia shows indications of the same comedic defiance. Mercury repeatedly asks him to identify himself, and he repeatedly replies that his name is Sosia. Claiming to be the real Sosia, Mercury tells him that he has missed his mark. To this, Sosia jokes, “Would your fists had done the same!” (I.i.42).

It is this unrelenting insistence on taking trouble lightly that indicates to the audience that it is okay to laugh rather than cry at their being punished for something over which they had no control. Though they are slaves, Dromio and Sosia are permitted to make their sarcastic remarks and threaten their masters without excessive chastisement. Through these witty quips, Shakespeare reminds his audience that the play is not intended to make any profound political, social or philosophical statements. The twins’ suffering is minimal and often self-induced, so it can hardly be

7 Cleland seen as a commentary on slavery’s injustices. The happy ending, in which everyone is reunited and finds a mate, only further affirms the light-hearted nature of the play.

The Comedy of Errors may not be overly concerned with a moral message, but this does not mean that the twins found therein are immoral figures. In fact, the Antipholus and Dromius twins often appear to be thoughtful, freethinking, and ethical.

This is especially evident in comparison to the Plautus twins from which Shakespeare’s was amalgamated. Though they are often pitifully oblivious, Shakespeare’s twin characters for the most part shed the misogyny and malevolence that pervades Menaechmi and Amphitryon. For example, in Menaechmi ,when Peniculus the Parasite tells Mulier of her husband’s infidelity, she is more concerned over his having given away her cloak than the fact that she has been betrayed. Her confrontation with Menaechmus is surprisingly unemotional: MEN. Heare me one word wife, I protest unto you by all the gods, I gave it her not, Indeed I lent it her to use a while.

MUL. Faith, sir, I never give nor lend you apparel out of doors, mee thinks ye might let me dispose of mine own garments, as you do of yours. I pray then fetch it mee home againe.

MEN. You shall have it againe without faile.

MUL. Tis best for you that I have: otherwise thinke not to roost within these doors again.

(Bullough 27) Though she knows that her husband has been unfaithful, Muriel seems unconcerned.

She requires no admittance of guilt nor apology. Her only condition for forgiveness is

8 that Menaechmus retrieve the cloak. Through this interaction, the protagonist is shown to be morally dubious, as he continually lies and cheats without remorse. His wife is also shown to be shallow and materialistic because she cares more about her cloak than her husband’s love.

This bitter and cynical relationship is a stark contrast to that of Adriana and Antipholus of Ephesus. When Antipholus’ bizarre behavior leads Adriana to believe that he is having an extramarital affair, she gives an appropriately dramatic reaction: My blood is mingled with the crime of lust: For if we too be one and thou play false, I do digest the poison of thy flesh, Being strumpeted by thy contagion.

Keep then far league and truce with thy true bed; I live unstain'd, thou undishonoured.

(II.ii.141-146) The pain conveyed in this outpouring is different than the earlier beatings and confusion, which served to amuse. This pain is genuine; the audience is not to laugh at it. Unlike the smart-mouthed slaves and scheming husbands, Adriana has done nothing to deserve punishment or betrayal. Thus, her character is a source of sympathy rather than amusement. The audience does not look down on her, but instead relates to her situation.

In contrast, the lack of any morally redeemable characters in the Plautus works precludes any empathetic feelings. Even the happy ending of Menaechmus is cheapened by the cynical humor that thinly veils the character’s real problems. Instead

9 Cleland of a wedding typical of comedic endings, the play ends in a cruel joke made at Rumiel’s expense. As they are preparing to sell his possessions, Messanio asks Menaechmus, “Will ye sell your wife too sir?” to which Menaechmus replies, “Yea, but I think no bodie will bid money for her” (Bullough 39). The disparity in tone between Adriana’s heartfelt pleas and Menaechmus’ condescending teasing speaks to the fact that Shakespeare was attempting to expand upon the emotional range of comedies in his adaptations.

It is not just humans who are without moral guidance in the source narratives.

The entire plot of Amphitryon is driven by the fact that Jupiter has been disguising himself as Amphitryon in order to have sex with his wife while the real Amphitryon is at war. In a universe where the even the gods are lie and cheat, morality is irrelevant; part of the appeal of the play is watching the characters wallow in their depravity and well-deserved miseries. In his versions, Shakespeare sidesteps this by taking the gods out of the equation. His characters are not simply pawns being manipulated for cheap amusement; they have their own desires and the agency to act on them. Because of this, their failures and successes are more meaningful. Still, there is a plethora of coincidental circumstances that allow for the happy resolutions: the fact that Sebastian happens to wash ashore in Illyria, where his sister is living, the fact that the Antipholus and Dromio twins happen to be wearing the same clothes, or the fact that their final resolution scene happens to take place in the same the abbey where their long-lost mother is an abbess. While the rules of free will, predestination and divine intervention in The Comedy of Errors and Twelfth Night are never explicitly laid out,

10 these frequent chance occurrences indicate that everything is at the mercy of larger forces not easily defined.

Typically, these deep, philosophical questions of fate and identity are off-limits for comedy. When Shakespeare breaks this unwritten rule by complicating the typically light-hearted twin narrative, his comedies move away pure farce and towards the pedagogical aspirations of romance and tragedy. Perhaps part of the reason for this shift in the perception of twindom from comedic spectacle to fruitful literary tool is the scientific demystification of identical twins. Before the field of genetic studies developed, a wide range of supernatural beliefs surrounded the birth of twins. 12th century author Marie de France penned a twin narrative of her own entitled “La Fresne�, which is not a far cry from Plautus or Shakespeare. In it, a woman gives birth to twins, who is then informed by her neighbor that twins come as a result of sleeping with two men. The neighbor then has twins herself and decides to get rid of one out of shame. Eventually, in a familiar fashion, the grown-up twins are reunited through a series of coincidences that ends in marriages. By the time Shakespeare was writing Twelfth Night, these superstitions surrounding twins were less common; they had started to lose their air of mystery and phenomenon. As a result, he was able to recognize the disparity between twins in reality and twins as represented in literature.

As with Menaechmi, there is only one set of twins in Twelfth Night. Yet, the play is an even greater deviation from the original trope than The Comedy of Errors, which had twice as many. The vastness of this disconnect can be attributed largely to the introduction of mixed-gender twins. With this slight alteration, Shakespeare takes his treatment of identity and identical characters even further. In addition to a source of

11 Cleland laughs, they become fertile soil for the pathos required by social commentary and introspection.

Some speculate that Shakespeare’s penchant for humanizing the twin trope comes from his fathering a set of his own twins, Hamnet and Judith. Though psychological readings are often speculative at best, let us assume for a moment that he did, indeed, have his own children in mind when penning A Comedy of Errors and Twelfth Night. It is worthwhile to note that between these two plays, Shakespeare’s male son Hamnet died of unknown causes at the age of 11. This personal grief may at least partially account for the less comical and more realistic portrayals found in Twlefth Night as compared to The Comedy of Errors.

In his article “Making the Twins Realistic in The Comedy of Errors and Twelfth Night”, John Mercer claims that the reunion between Viola and Sebastian is comparable to that of the Antipholus twins in its lack of realistic emotion and satisfying reunion. He cites Viola’s instructions to Sebastian, “Do not embrace me…” as evidence of an underwhelming conclusion (V.i.251). Taken out of context, Viola’s statement does appear to be at odds with her well-noted affection for her brother. The difference between their reunion and those in The Comedy of Errors and Menaechmus, though, is that Viola genuinely thought Sebastian was dead. Unlike Antipholus and Menaechmus of Syracuse, Viola was never on a quest to find her twin. She had accepted his death and resolved to live a life of asceticism. In light of this extreme reaction, her reluctance to get her hopes up is understandable. It is not fueled by ignorance or a disconnect from reality, but an emotional tendency to avoid disappointment. Furthermore, there are no foils to Aegeon or Aemelia in Twelfth Night

12 to oversee the reunion and authenticate identities. Despite this, Viola and Sebastian catch on at a more realistic pace than their dense counterparts.

At first, Sebastian also exhibits an illogical refusal to accept that his sister stands before him. Again, though, this refusal is more understandable than their Shakespearian counterparts’; he had no reason to suspect that his long-lost sister would now be dressed as a man. Viola’s gender reversal, which has no precedent in either of the earlier texts, is the only thing standing between him and a joyful reunion: “Were you a woman, as the rest goes even/I should my tears let fall upon your cheek/And say ‘Thrice welcome drowned Viola.’” (V.i.232). Viola then responds that she accepts his conditions; he need not embrace her until she proves that she is a woman, which she plans to do by consulting the captain who first rescued her from shipwreck.

Put back into context, it is clear that Viola’s insistence that Sebastian not embrace her is not an unfeeling denial of affection, but a simple answer to her brother’s doubts.

In both works, reunion, realization and resolution come painfully slowly in order to maximize their impacts. For the Antipholus and Dromius twins, this delay can be attributed to foolish blindness. Despite their father presenting them with the neat, concise and indisputable facts of their relation, they have trouble comprehending.

Because of this, the audience feels superior and can laugh at their obliviousness.

Though the audience takes a similar pleasure in Viola and Sebastian’s ignorance of the other’s existence, the latter twins are much more than unfeeling pawns. Their initial refusal to accept the happy ending comes from an irrational, yet distinctly human emotional fragility, which is missing from the purely farcical treatment in The Comedy of Errors.

13 Cleland Out of all four sets of twins throughout Menaechmus, The Comedy of Errors and Twelfth Night, the relationship between Viola and Sebastian is the most nuanced, contradictory, and enigmatic—in other words, the most true to real sibling relationships. Unlike the previous all-male twin iterations, who rarely expressed anything that could be called fraternal love, Viola and Sebastian constantly praise the memory of their (presumed dead) other half. Sebastian recalls of Viola to Antonio, “A lady, sir, though it was said she much resembled/me, was yet of many accounted beautiful” (II.i.21-22). Due to their opposite sexes, the pair plays into the classical idea of a complete whole, usually manifested in sexual union. Though the sexual connotations are not overtly stated, it is certainly a more intimate relationship than that of the other pair. It is established that they are as indistinguishable as two halves of an apple, and because of this their glorifying recollections border on narcissism. The unique connection between the two is perhaps best exemplified when Viola proclaims: He named Sebastian. I my brother know Yet living in my glass. Even such and so In favour was my brother, and he went Still in this fashion, colour, ornament For him I imitate.

(III.iv.343-348) Here, the twin relationship between Viola and Sebastian goes beyond its strictly narrative role. Through the metaphor of a reflecting glass, the twin device enters the psychological and philosophical realms of identity. Not only are the audience and

14 other characters confused or tricked by her gender, but Viola is so tied her brother that she seems unsure herself.

Viola and Sebastian’s identity confusion is different in that Viola is somewhat in control. She consciously contributes to the mix-up by deliberately disguising herself as Cesario. In the other twin narratives, no one in the play is aware of the truth until the very end. By purposely withholding the truth from the other characters, Viola empowers herself. She also puts fictional characters and actual audiences out of their comfort zones by making Duke Orsino and Olivia fall in love with a man (Cesario), who is actually a woman (Viola). By inverting these gender norms, Shakespeare breaks new ground for comedy in the arena of communal identity.

Before Shakespeare, the story of twins separated at birth who confusedly meet down the road was merely a clever way of creating laughs at the characters’ expenses.

His Comedy of Errors and Twelfth Night then cracked the subject of twin relationships wide open for political, psychological, metaphysical and, of course, dramatic approaches. Through his repeated treatment of this fascinating natural anomaly, Shakespeare catalyzed paradigm progression both internally as an artist and externally in the literary world.

15 Cleland

Works Cited Bullough, Geoffrey. "The Comedy of Errors." Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Print. de France, Marie. “Le Fresne” The Lais of Marie de France.London: Penguin Books, 2003. 60-67. Print.

Mercer, John M. “Making the Twins Realistic in Comedy of Errors and Twelfth Night.”

Explorations in Renaissance Culture 19 (1993). 97-113. Web. Plautus, Titus Maccius, and Bonnell Thornton. Amphitryon. Cambridge [England: Chadwyck-Healey, 1994. Print.

16 Plautus, Titus Maccius, and Max Niedermann. Aulularia ; Manaechmi ; Mostellaria.

Frauenfeldae: In Aedibus Huber, 1946. Print.

Shakespeare, William. "The Comedy of Errors." The Norton Anthology. 2nd ed. Eds. Greenblatt, Stephen, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katherine Eisaman Maus. New York: W.W Norton, 2008. 717-766. Print.

Shakespeare, William. "Twelfth Night." The Norton Anthology. 2nd ed. Eds. Greenblatt, Stephen, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katherine Eisaman Maus. New York: W.W Norton, 2008. 1785-1846. Print.

Wheeler, Richard P.: "Death in the Family: The Loss of a Son and the Rise of Shakespearean Comedy," Shakespeare Quarterly, 51(2000) 127-153. Web.