One of Shakespeare's earliest plays (its first recorded performance was in December 1594), The Comedy of Errors has often been considered a pure farce, not representative of the the playwright's later efforts. Although Errors may contain farcical elements, it is a complex and complex work that draws on and reinterprets Shakespeare's comedy, combining aspects of these Latin plays with biblical sources. primarily the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians While Menaechmi is the most frequently cited authoritative source for the Errors, Plautus's Amphitruo also influenced him, as Shakespeare's treatment of identity and of its fragility is derived from this latter work Of course, there are many other structural and thematic resonances between the three texts: each of the pieces, to varying degrees, addresses questions of identity, violence and slavery, while displaying an acute awareness of aspects of performativity, notably the figure of the playwright and the role of the audience. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay The structural similarities between the Comedy of Errors and Plautus's Menaechmi and Amphitruo are quite clear. In addition to adopting the traditional five-act structure, Shakespeare creates act divisions consistent with Evanthian and Donatian definitions of comic structure (prologue, epitasis, protasis, catastrophe), and draws on the classical stock of characters: senex, servus, parasitus, matrona and meretrix. Of course, this does not mean that Shakespeare is a slavish imitator of all of Plautine's concepts. While the two Roman source plays for Errors begin with a formal prologue, separate from the first act, Errors immediately launches into the first act. This does not, however, constitute an abandonment of the essential function of the prologue. Egeon's lamentable tale provides the audience with the appropriate context for the play, which begins in medias res, thereby satisfying the narrative requirements that constitute the first element of Evanthian and Donatian comic structure. That said, Shakespeare's prologue differs remarkably from its Plautine counterparts. It is much more integrated into the play as a whole and is framed by the revelation of Egeon's imprisonment in Ephesus and the duke's decree that: ...if a born Syracusan comes into the bay of Ephesus, he dies, his property is confiscated to the Duke's disposal, unless a thousand marks are taken to waive the penalty and ransom him. The gravity of Egeon's predicament and the tragic potential of the play are made even more poignant by the constant grief of the Senex. In direct contrast, Menaechmi's prologue is witty, urbane and very informal. Not only does the speaker slyly mock the audience ("Please listen with all your attention; / I will say it with as few words as possible"), but he addresses a rather sharp jab at other authors Roman comics, who proudly boast of their authenticity and “their fidelity to Greek models, a practice which obviously had a certain snobbery”. Ironically, this move serves as a basis for the playwright to assert his authenticity and dramatic authority: I reveal the real locations when I speak to you. This story is Greek, but to be exact, it is not Athenian, it is Sicilian, in fact. (10-12). The speaker's position in the prologue by Plautus is vitally important when considering the very close dynamic that exists between the playwright, the actors, his agents, and the audience. The numerous asides in the piece, even if they do not always address directly thepublic, certainly contribute to the feeling of complicity and involvement of the public. This feeling is heightened later in the play (perhaps out of a need to hold the audience's attention, which may be waning) with remarks addressed specifically to the audience, such as Cylindrus's comment regarding Menaechmus' behavior, embarrassed, towards the public. He acts like this a lot with me, he jokes. He can be very funny if his wife is gone. (317-318), Peniculus indignant. The wine was drunk, the parasite left to cool. No Hercules, I am not myself, if I am not avenged, If I do not curse him with style. Look at me now, and Menaechmus II's call for public silence: ...everyone, please, if this old man comes back, please don't tell him which street I have borrowed to escape. (879-880). The numerous songs addressed to the spectators (like that of the doting father-in-law in verses 753-774) can only reinforce this link. In this way, the prologue of Amphitruo displays this same concern for audience involvement and influence. Disguised as the servant Sosia, Mercury informs the assembly of his intention “to explain the plot which underlies / This tragedy”. It is this reference to tragedy which marks the initiation of a close relationship between author/actor and spectator. Seeing the audience frown at the mention of the tragedy, Mercury adopts a conciliatory tone, reminding the audience "you know I am God / And soon I will be able to change it" (AMP: 260), and proposing to "do / These same verses be a comedy” (AMP: 260). Flattering (more likely ruling) the audience, Mercury illuminates a happy medium. " Oh yes ; I know your mind: and I will make it a tragicomedy: because it is not right to make a play where kings and gods speak all comedy. But since there is a slave, I am going to make you a tragicomedy. (AMP: 261) Perpetuating the illusion of audience control over the drama unfolding before them, Jupiter's order is that "there will be detectives who will see if an actor has caused men to applaud themselves or prevent another from receiving his applause, so that they scratch his robe and hide it in pieces with a whip. » (AMP: 261) Not only does this give the spectator a feeling of power over the playwright and the actor (he can refuse to support the action by withholding applause), but it underlines the importance of theater in Roman society , further underlined by Mercury's comment that just last year, Jupiter “came to serve himself” (AMP: 232) of the actors who invoked him on stage. The final indication of the very privileged position of the audience in Amphitruo is the decision of Mercury and Jupiter to bear marks which will signal their true identities and distinguish them from those whose form they have taken… so that you can distinguish between us, I I will wear a plume on my hat: while with the same intention My father wears a pompom under his: Amphytrion will not have one: but these marks No one will see them, but only you alone. (AMP: 263) Of course, this position of knowledge is also granted to the Shakespearean audience, but to a much lesser extent, especially considering Mercury's later remarks ensuring that the viewer is aware of Jupiter's guarantee that the rift in the Amphytrion/Alcmena marriage will be resolved. is not irreparable. In The Comedy of Errors, the only assurances we have that the play will end well are the word "Comedy" in the title, and the romantic convention of shipwreck that Shakespeare inserts into Egeon's story, and which we will find later in his other comedy of mistaken identity, Twelfth Night. Even if the public's participatory relationship with the Comedy of Errors is clearly lesssignificant than that existing in Plautine's plays, this does not translate into a lack of power on the part of the playwright. Indeed, in a play characterized by such complexity and intricacy of plot, so much potential for confusion for the viewer, the playwright must be an authoritative presence. It is this assumption that underlies Jonathan Crewe's "God or the Good Doctor: The Rational Playwright in the Comedy of Errors" (although we do not necessarily agree with Crewe's view that "character arbitrariness of the conventions inherited from the play and the farcical character of the comedy "a mistaken identity to a certain extent is redeemed"). The theoretical crux that Crewe works on in his article is whether the playwright "manifests himself either as a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity, whose good will anticipates the entire course of the play, or as a 'good doctor,' working through comic conventions to purge melancholy, transmit self-knowledge and exorcise psychic demons. Upon careful examination of the play, it becomes clear that the playwright is both god and doctor and has a dual identity. His divinity, however, is not the true divinity. In an almost palimpsestic work, which is inspired by the thought of Plautine, Pauline and the Renaissance, the playwright becomes the good doctor, "not so much a figure of control as a figure of intermediary between a given dramatic heritage and its contemporary audience. While Crewe draws the conclusion that the playwright oscillates between the role of God and that of Good Physician, it is perhaps more accurate to infer that the playwright is a minor deity, whose character is both curative/meditative and divine (which has profound consequences). for an audience benefiting from the illusion of influence): ...the ability of the playwright to manipulate and control appearances in professional theater, an ability of which even privileged spectators end up becoming victims, is conferred upon him as a quasi- divinity [….] The masterful control of the play (especially when it seems that everything is out of control), as well as the twist at the end, establish the playwright as a figure of divine omnipotence. One of Crewe's arguments for the absence of the playwright's supreme divinity is that he "stops before any original act of creation." While it is undeniably true that the structural and technical similarities between The Comedy of Errors and Plautus' Menaechmi and Amphitruo extend to Shakespeare's adoption of key classical figures (the senex Egeon, the matrona Adriana, the meretrix who remains without noun), it is also true that It is clear that Shakespeare does not limit his dramatis personae to this rather meager allowance. Just as in Amphitruo, the servant Sosia is dubbed by Mercury—as Sosia, Shakespeare adds another Dromio. The play also includes the presence of an officer, a jailer, a messenger, the Duke of Ephesus himself, a merchant (Balthasar) and a goldsmith (Angelo). This greater proliferation of characters is a deliberate attempt on Shakespeare's part, not only to flesh out the conventional trope of "mistaken identity", but also to amplify the feelings of perplexity and confusion by which the two Antipholi are so obviously assaulted. Shakespeare "nearly triples the incidents of error from seventeen [in Plautus's Menaechmi to fifty." As might be expected from a play whose main concern is the fate of two pairs of twins, the notion of doubling and doubling is very important in The Comedy. of errors. Having adopted the trope of the two masters and two servants from Amphitruo, Shakespeare also continues to double the number offemale characters found in Menaechmi. Luciana, single, acts as a foil to Adriana, whose entire identity depends on her status as a wife, and the addition of Aemilia/the Abbess makes Egeon's grief more acute, therefore making the reunion ultimate much more symmetrical (and introducing the Oedipal dimension into it). fights with Adriana about Antipholus). But the notion of double is also an extremely significant linguistic element in the play. The irony of the characters' unconscious doublespeak (the result of identity confusion) is brilliantly represented by Shakespeare's selective use of couplets, the two most significant examples of this technique. (before the final rediscovery) occur in acts two and three. Adriana and Luciana's discussion of the subjection of women in marriage constitutes the first of these examples. The whole scene, Dromio's interruption, is conducted in couplets, emphasizing their sibling relationship, two halves of a biological couple, as well as their "double" (contradictory unature), Luciana is single but preaches the submission of the wife, while Adriana is married and does not appreciate her husband's freedom. The notion of matching and duality is also evident in Antipholus of Syracuse's declaration of love to Luciana: the abab rhyme scheme of the early extended speeches is transformed into the aabb couplet form (III.ii.53-70) . While increasing the dramatic tension of this scene, the couplets also highlight the double perception of Antipholus who deceives his wife by approaching his sister and his physical double of Antipholus of Ephesus. This technique also serves a solidly practical purpose, as Wolfgang Riehle notes: “the frequent use of couplets in the early parts of the piece indirectly foreshadows the final reunion of the twin couples. As Shakespeare strives to portray, this final reunion is only achieved through numerous errors, "mistakes of identity, resolved by recognition." Loss of identity is an essential element of The Comedy of Errors and is defined primarily in terms of property and possession. This very marketable vision of the self (subtly implicit in the figure of the courtesan) is personified in Antipholus of Ephesus, whose identity (like the other men of Ephesus) "is equivalent to a reputation, which is based on the ability to pay cash at a specific time. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fiscal component of Ephesian masculine identity, we must look more closely at the importance of reputation. When Antipholus finds himself excluded from his own house, he is dissuaded from his first impulse ("Well, I'll break in" III.i.80) by Balthasar, who asserts that this impatient line of action would harm his position in the house. the community: "If with a strong hand you propose to break in Now, during the moving day, A vulgar comment will be made about it And that supposed by the common rout Against your still unirritated estimation Who can with an intrusion vile enter into And dwell on your grave when you are dead. »(III.i.98-104)The validity of this reasoning is confirmed by the acquiescence of Antipholus. His concern for his reputation is also mentioned when he speaks of the “girl with the excellent speech#8221; (III.i.109). Antipholus makes sure to point out that his impending trip to the Porpentine is the direct result of his wife's neglect, and that his suspicions of previous infidelity were unfounded: ...I will depart in silence And despite the mirth, I want be cheerful, I know a girl of excellent speech... There we will have dinner. This woman that I mean, my wife (but, I protest, without merit) has often reproached me. (III.i.107-113) It is also in this scene that wehears once more of the carcanet Antipholus who commissioned Angelo the goldsmith, an object that represents the way in which time “becomes an organizing principle of the plot.” It is also the symbol of the problematization of Shakespeare's identity: the gold chain must be paid before five o'clock, otherwise the law will inevitably come into action... as this monetized time becomes more active in the structuring of the he intrigue, it also contributes to the surreptitious subversion of the solidity of identity. Not only is it no longer a question of who you are and whether you can pay (which will reestablish who you are), but correlatively whether you can pay on time. This makes identity (reputation) dependent on external factors over which even those who are nominally powerful have no control. Perhaps one of the most troubling things about the disintegration of Antipholus of Ephesus' identity is that it is (as noted above) unaffected by any action. or inaction on his part. The extreme self-destructive rage he displays in IV.iv.95-109 ("With these nails I will tear out these eyes") is an attempt to overcome this helplessness. Antipholus seeks to gain some degree of control over his troubled self. Likewise, when Adriana is convinced of Antipholus' adultery, her first reflex is self-annihilation: "Since my beauty cannot please his eye, I will cry what remains, and I will die crying! (II.i.112-113). Thus, the disintegration of identity is linked to violence. While the violence related to Antipholus and Adriana's identity crises is generally self-directed, they actively exert brutal physical force on the Dromio twins (whose identity disorder is characterized by questions of transformation and change). . usurpation). The very first time we meet Dromio of Ephesus, he is threatened with beatings ("answer me or I will break your merry sconce" I.ii.77-79) and then receives beatings for his refusal/inability to say so. Antipholus of Syracuse where his gold is found. However, this is one of the less confronting incidents. Dromio E's metaphorization of the skin as a parchment on which strokes are written in ink (III.i.13) is a disturbing reminder of his status as a slave, sold by his parents at his birth. This metaphor also bears a striking resemblance to the marking of slaves spoken of by Maurice Hunt, quoting Vasco de Quiroga, in his “Slavery, English Servitude, and The Comedy of Errors”: “into their flesh are imprinted the initials of the names of those who are successively their owners… so that the faces of these men created in the image of God have been, by our sins, transformed into paper. " While a discussion of slavery can only be pushed to its limits in a comedy, Shakespeare ensured that, "in the repeated calls of the Dromios to the Antipholus twins to hold hands 'for 'love of God', [the] play reproduces the tension […] between the injustice of slavery and Christian precept”. A lesser known fact is England's own implementation of enslavement of its citizens. The Edwardian Vagrancy Act of 1547 and the Vagrancy Act of 1572 respectively "made branding and slavery the punishment for robust begging [and enabled] justices of the peace [to] banish incorrigible rascals from England or to condemn them to endless servitude in the galleys.” Although Hunt distinguishes between slavery and servitude, this distinction is actually nominal, given the appalling working conditions of English servants during the Elizabethan period. Shakespeare's determination to represent this is even clearer when one compares his treatment of the Dromio twins to that of the Plautin slaves in Menaechmi and, 1969.