Shakespeare appears to have bestowed no
great pains on it, and there are but a few passages which bear the
decided stamp of his genius. He seems to have relied on his author,
and on the interest arising out of the intricacy of the plot. The
curiosity excited is certainly very considerable, though not of the
most pleasing kind. We are teased as with a riddle, which
notwithstanding we try to solve. In reading the play, from the
sameness of the names of the two Antipholises and the two Dromios,
as well from their being constantly taken for each other by those
who see them, it is difficult, without a painful effort of
attention, to keep the characters distinct in the mind. And again,
on the stage, either the complete similarity of their persons and
dress must produce the same perplexity whenever they first enter, or
the identity of appearance which the story supposes will be
destroyed. We still, however, having a clue to the difficulty, can
tell which is which, merely from the practical contradictions which
arise, as soon as the different parties begin to speak; and we are
indemnified for the perplexity and blunders into which we are thrown
by seeing others thrown into greater and almost inextricable ones.--
This play (among other considerations) leads us not to feel much
regret that Shakespeare was not what is called a classical scholar.
Pages:
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336