Dr. Verena Theile, Assistant Professor
Department of English |
| Study Questions for Comedy of Errors |
| 1. As discussed in the Norton introduction to this play, Shakespeare drew on a number of ancient sources for The Comedy of Errors; most obviously, he used Plautus’ Menachmi, a Roman play about the mistaken identities of a set of twins. Shakespeare was clearly aware of the rules of playwriting (rules that date back to ancient Greece), such as the “unities” of time, place, and action. Discuss how Shakespeare adapts both dramatic conventions and his sources to meet his needs. For your response, “Google” unities and Menachmi and use specific examples from the text of The Comedy of Errors to support your argument. 2. Discuss the role of setting in the play. Greenblatt mentions some stage conventions, carried over from Greek tragedy and comedy, such as house façades and the classic movement between public and domestic spaces. Can you identify other stage props and roles that the setting might play to help advance and perhaps contribute to the development of the plot? 3. In lecture, we touched upon a few structural plot elements that might help the reader identify Shakespearean plays as comedies. There are others that we did not name, but which are likewise essential to the genre. What, for example, is it that makes a comedy funny? What is comic about The Comedy of Errors? 4. In this context, you might also want to consider how the threat of tragedy—Egeon’s execution—affects the comedy of the play. We might remember his long expository speech at the beginning of the play at this point. What is the connection between tragedy and comedy in The Comedy of Errors? And what might be the significance of the choice of the word “errors”—as opposed to something more fitting, like “confusions” or “misrecognitions” in the play’s title? 5. How are Adriana and Luciana different from one another? How do they respond to men, problems they encounter, to each other? They are sisters, but—unlike all of the other siblings in the play—they are not twins, and they are most certainly not identical. Their views on marriage might be a good starting point here. Marriage, in fact, is a recurrent theme in Shakespearean drama and early modern writing, more generally. (“Google,” for example, the Elizabethan Homily on Matrimonie—in particular, 2.18.1-304–306—and the section on marriage service in the 1559 Book of Common Prayer.) Notice how Luciana’s recital of a wife’s “natural” subjugation to her husband starkly contrasts with Adriana’s view of marriage as “servitude” (2.1.26). What might the playwright be saying about the nature of marriage in early modern England? 6. In 3.2, Luciana’s advice to Antipholus of Syracuse deeply affects him; she wants him to pretend to be a devoted and loving husband even when he is not and does not feel that way at all toward Adriana. In the first instance, pretense is insincere and, furthermore, it is precisely what he is already doing, since he is not Adriana’s husband. In the second instance, it must sound to him as if Luciana is suggesting he keep her sister happy even if he loves Luciana. His response to Luciana (3.2.29–52) is thick with what we call “Petrarchan” sentiment. As the speech proceeds, Antipholus changes his tone (3.2.61–69), however. Self-recognition seems to take place within the misrecognition of the scene. Look up what the term “Petrarchan” means, contextualize 7. The issue of marriage brings up another power relationship, i.e., that between masters and servants. Compare the status of a wife to the status of a servant, and discuss the Dromios and their relationships to their masters. Consult the Bible for contemporary, sixteenth-century perceptions of servitude and marriage. See, for example, Ephesians 5 (on wives) and Ephesians 6 (on servants); Colossians 3 (on wives) and Colossians 4 (on servants). Other opinions on marriage can be found in 1 Corinthians 7. How does the concept of liberty shift from the husband/wife relationship to master/servant relations? In 4.1, a golden chain serves as a suitable emblem for the chain of associations, trusts, and dependencies that holds a community together—friend to friend, merchant to customer, master to servant, husband to wife, and, perhaps, man to courtesan. Antipholus of Ephesus assumes that his goldsmith friend, Angelo, has saved him from rashly giving to the courtesan the chain intended for his wife (26). Thus, Antipholus is bound to his friend, but his friend, the goldsmith, needs payment or he will be arrested for defaulting on his bond to a merchant. One thing is tied to another in this scene, and each person is dependent upon another person’s faithful delivery of payment. What is the relevance of the metaphorical “chain” evoked here in the context of confused identities and financial dependencies? 8. Some critics claim that every character in The Comedy of Errors can be measured by him-/ herself, by others, by how much s/he is worth in terms of money, social status, and reputation. One might also argue that a person can be measured by how much s/he perceives s/he and others are worth. What are the standards applied to others and to the self? How do these standards differ from person to person, in application and in results/measurements? Is there such a thing as identity—other than in relation to others? And is misrecognition the same as identity loss or a loss of the self? Demonstrate your answer in at least two representative examples of characters within the play.In 5.1, an abbess appears on the stage. 9. What is the purpose of having her appear at this point in the play, revealing herself as a woman of the church, Egeus’ wife Emilia, and the twins’ mother? This appearance of a mediator, one who bears insight into events beyond the comprehension of the regular characters, is a commonplace in Elizabethan drama, but not necessarily in Shakespearean comedy. Explain the significance of the various roles Emilia embodies and her overall relevance to the play. 10. Interestingly enough, a servant/slave has the last word in this comedy of errors. In his final speech, Dromio of Ephesus praises fraternity and its equalizing powers. It is curious that this should be the conclusion to a play in which we have encountered everything but equality. Throughout, power structures function to demarcate clear boundaries between social classes and the institutions of marriage and servitude. Nothing comparable to the “hand-in-hand” relationship expressed in Dromio’s speech is tangible—other, perhaps, than Adriana’s angry rants about the evils of living in wedlock. Why, then, this final scene? What might be its structural, rhetorical, and contextual purpose? |
| Sources: cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/teaching.html; english.sxu.edu/boyer; /www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes; www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare; www.eng.fju.edu.tw/English_Literature/Shakespeare; www.shakespearetavern.com; english.mnsu.edu/faculty/kay_puttock.htm |
Last updated November 2007 |