Prev | Next | Contents

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?

Prev | Next | Contents