FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28  
29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   >>   >|  
the arrest of the "Marchant" Egean to do with the rest of the Story? How soon does any connection appear? The reference in scene ii, to the occurrence taking place in scene i, suggests a somewhat odd chance coincidence in the arrival from Syracuse on the same day of both of these strangers. By this casual reference the seemingly unrelated scenes are so innocently linked together that it rather blinds than opens the eyes of the audience to the deeper links of connection. It also acts at once as a warning to Antipholus, and explains why he also is not arrested under the same law from which Egean suffered. The merchant who gives Antipholus this warning does not appear to be at all an intimate friend. Yet he seems to have met the stranger upon his arrival. Is this accounted for? What office does the scene show that he bears toward him? How recent an institution is the Bank and Letter of Credit for travellers? Was the lack of such facilities long filled in the way here exemplified? Do these two men keep the appointment they made to meet at five o'clock? Why is it made? Does it serve any need of the Play? The reference to Ephesus as a town given over to sorcery and witchcraft assists in giving the impression that the time of the Play falls within the Christian era, when the ancient customs of the Pagan inhabitants gave the City a bad repute of this particular kind. Was it derived from Plautus? Note whether sorcery and witchcraft are included in his account of the discreditableness of Ephesus. What conclusions may be gathered as to Shakespeare's account of it from a comparison with the corresponding passage in Plautus (This extract is given in Note on I, ii, 102-107 in the "First Folio" Edition of Shakespeare's Play). Show how this statement is useful in throwing light upon the character of Antipholus as well as on events. The first complication in scene ii arises from mistaking Dromio of Ephesus for Dromio of Syracuse; but notice that this error is accounted for by the second source of the errors of the play--belief in witchcraft. QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION Is the audience as much in the dark over the first mystification as Antipholus is? Should it be? Is the play the better or worse for not being clear? If both Dromios are made to look exactly alike how can the audience know? ACT II ANTIPHOLUS THE STRANGER DINES AT HOME Notice how the last scene of the preceding Act is cleared up by the first scene of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28  
29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Antipholus

 

Ephesus

 
audience
 

witchcraft

 

reference

 

Shakespeare

 

accounted

 
account
 

Dromio

 

warning


Plautus

 

Syracuse

 

arrival

 
connection
 
sorcery
 

extract

 

Christian

 
ancient
 

Edition

 

passage


discreditableness
 

conclusions

 
included
 

derived

 

gathered

 

repute

 

inhabitants

 

comparison

 

customs

 
Dromios

ANTIPHOLUS

 

preceding

 

cleared

 
Notice
 

STRANGER

 
arises
 
complication
 

mistaking

 

notice

 
events

throwing

 
character
 
mystification
 

Should

 

DISCUSSION

 

source

 

errors

 
belief
 
QUERIES
 

statement