The mistaken identities of the twins Antipholus of Ephesus and Antipholus of Syracuse, and their slaves Dromio of Ephesus and Dromio of Syracuse, facilitate the comedy on which Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors pivots. A common feature of Shakespeare's later plays is a comic subplot following characters of lower birth; the action in this context often reflects or refracts the action in the main plot. However, because The Comedy of Errors follows Aristotle's classic unities (of time, action, and space), the lower-born Dromios and the noble Antipholus brothers coexist in the same plot, sharing the same situation difficult to be separated from their respective brothers. . As Foakes pointed out in his introduction to The Comedy of Errors, Shakespeare's primary source for the play was Plautus's Menaechmi, but he "multiplied the twins" in his own play, as the Menaechmi featured only one only decoration. By choosing to include two pairs of twins seeking the exact same goal together, Shakespeare makes the social position of the Dromios, who are interchangeably called "servants", "slaves", and "slaves", ambiguous. The Dromio are separated from the Antipholus brothers only by their commodity status, and similarly, Shakespeare does not include the Dromio particularly as characters in their own right, as he would only be unnecessarily reproducing the experience of the Antipholus brothers. . The Dromios exist rather functionally as comic relief; any frustrations or potential tragic elements in the play are deflected onto them, usually through blows. The relationship between the lowborn Dromios and the noble Antipholus therefore deliberately subverts social boundaries and challenges the submissive slave-master convention both for comic effect in itself, but also so that they may be reprimanded, thereby relieving tensions in the room. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The first "mistake" resulting from mistaken identity occurs in Act 1, scene 2, where Antipholus of Sycarusa sends away Dromios of Sycarusa to bring him money. to the centaur, and it is Dromios of Ephesus who returns, clearly having no prior knowledge of money. Before this scene, Shakespeare establishes the slave/master relationship as affectionate: “a faithful villain […] Lighten my humor with his merry jokes,” creating an interesting dynamic when Antipholus believes him to be lying and hiding money. For example, as scene 2 progresses, the audience sees Antipholus's patience quickly fade, as he regresses from addressing Dromio as "sir", to "mister knave", and then “slave”, the latter just before beating him. Given the emphasis on titles in Shakespeare's time, this reveals a volatile dynamic between the two men, where for the most part Antipholus is happy to "joke" with Dromios and call him "sir", but when it is in his interest, he is capable of asserting his social superiority over him and degrading him to the rank of a simple “slave”. Additionally, for an early modern audience who existed within a rigid social hierarchy, Dromio's linguistic degradation to "slave" just before being beaten allows for comedy, as the audience is prevented from seeing him as too human, but rather as being too human. a humble slave. Dromio's beating is also "justified" so to speak by his crossing of social boundaries in this same scene. When Antipholus asks him for the "thousand marks", Dromio plays on theword "marks" when referring to the scars and wounds caused by his beatings, stating "I have some marks from you on my head", then threatening: "If I were to worship you. again, perhaps you will not bear them patiently. This latter threat is particularly subversive as it jokingly threatens to "pay back" for a beating to Antipholus, a clear transgression of the slave/master boundary, and similar "impertinence" from Dromios throughout the land. again attempts to present the beatings as meritorious and comical. Furthermore, Dromio's light play on words alluding to his beatings removes any sincerity from the act and presents it as a commonplace. As a result, the audience's attention is drawn to the comedy of mistaken identity in the scene; the beating of Dromio becomes a kind of comic inevitability of the frustrations of the scene. Act 3, scene 1, explores another interesting dynamic between high-born Antipholus and low-born Dromio, where Dromio of Syracuse refuses access to Antipholus of Ephesus, being under Dromio's control. Adriana's order to "let no one in", although Antipholus of Ephesus was the rightful tenant of the house. The comedy of the scene relies on the staging, where Antipholus of Epesus and Dromios of Syracuse are visible to the audience, but neither is visible to the other, revealing the irony of the scene and making visible the subversion of social position. . Antipholus asserts his social superiority on the line: “What are you that prevents me from entering the house that I owe? » and Dromio replies “the doorman this time, sir”. Antipholus's use of "what" rather than who, as well as Dromio's address to "sir" are particularly revealing here. These terms of address indicate that the men remain conscious of their social position, so it is not necessarily Dromio's language that is subversive, but the visual act of not letting in Antipholus, who the audience knows is is the rightful owner of the house. Unlike previous scenes, Dromios of Syracuse cannot pay for this particular mistake, due to the door that stands between him and Antipholus, although Antipholus threatens: “You will cry for this, servant, if I break down the door. " This violence is deflected by Balthazar, who, although as a goldsmith does not share as noble a status as Antipholus, can exercise more command over him than Dromio of Ephesus could, because he insists on the fact that “be governed by me, depart in patience”. In this case, unlike scene 2 of act 1, because there is a mediating character, the tension between the characters of noble birth and those of low birth is relived. One of the elements of The Comedy of Errors that has the most tragic potential. is the marriage of Adriana and Antipholus, which is already proving somewhat unstable and, due to mistaken identity, almost collapses over the course of the play. It's the Dromios and their relationship with Adriana who provide the comic relief to deflect this. For example, in Act 2, Scene 1, Adriana laments that her husband has not yet returned, complaining "why should [men's] liberty be greater than ours." When Dromio returns, she orders him to bring back her husband, threatening violence when he defies her: "Go back, slave, or I will break your skull." Once again, the title “slave” degrades Dromio to the level of subhuman and makes the beatings, within the social hierarchy, appear more justified. In response, Dromio says, “You reject me now, and he will reject me here. If I last in this department, you will have to wrap me in leather. The image here of Dromio yo-yoing between the..