Prev | Next | Contents

ANTIPHOLUS THE STRANGER DINES AT HOME

Notice how the last scene of the preceding Act is cleared up by the first scene of the present Act.

Are the errors of Act II the results of those of Act I? The errors of Act I affect but a very few characters, but in Act II how many? A new source of complication is brought forward in this Act, also. Show what it is, and how it both adds to the interest of the Play as a story and to the confusion begun by the mistaken identity and the witchcraft elements of the Plot.

The fooling dialogue of Scene ii gives the action pause. Is it therefore useless, or a dramatic mistake? The ease with which the right master and man fall into this talk after the earlier cross-purposes with the wrong man, seems to betray the fact that they do belong together. They are so readily familiar that the cross-purposes making up the plot seem to be no longer troublesome either to themselves or the audience. The interval of reassurance makes the return of strangeness more unaccountable. Antipholus is also now reassured about his gold, and the earlier cross-purpose seems only a jest.

Why does the mention of Dromio's name (II, ii, 156) cause both master and man to exclaim? Why should it not have led them to guess the truth?

Would this scene with Adriana and Luciana have been equally mystifying and skilful if the right master and man had not been together?

Prev | Next | Contents